[6tsch] simulation for random schedule allocation

Xavier Vilajosana Guillen <xvilajosana@eecs.berkeley.edu> Tue, 25 June 2013 18:46 UTC

Return-Path: <xvilajosana@berkeley.edu>
X-Original-To: 6tsch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6tsch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1ABA721F9C7D for <6tsch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 11:46:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id T2epeYLfZAfc for <6tsch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 11:46:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ie0-x232.google.com (mail-ie0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D95CC11E8132 for <6tsch@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 11:46:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ie0-f178.google.com with SMTP id u16so29579155iet.9 for <6tsch@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 11:46:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :x-gm-message-state; bh=G85ggqceUfzFfT3LdoJyn9K44ox8dGJiA9bQFb8HbuE=; b=HYag5G7tjgtIJIMKrUzL8lpa2jI6RVga0znmj2g/1k2ayXvhSRhVyB2XLYByWH8nsT Inn391SUWdTNm8sejrOXV3CaZ0JlAUqJ0/4BNpvUQLa7Jqpi5zMeNuLL+PLYW/++jdcG n7sbeNRrx5hBfAyEbX4m40H59orMpAPd+Dvj6MvQbSzrJp/r+9mRA0vYBgz5nQ0qrIKT PrJQhnBzsWdmpdICevEOxKM3SbFflxgtsf27YpoDtFhWj+F3wpj8zpdnRISkpai5c8KU 8+odQOexYwkAxp57DJd1jKh6gE/CZBq2txGRPrUntYT1N2A4gj/JbaWIZhP6gPqXGuHq UgyA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.114.229 with SMTP id jj5mr217166igb.36.1372185987322; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 11:46:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.65.14.231 with HTTP; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 11:46:27 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 11:46:27 -0700
Message-ID: <CALEMV4b27w3=hCkovP1JpQwQnN_jcu98hGPtjT349LhFBPb0XQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Xavier Vilajosana Guillen <xvilajosana@eecs.berkeley.edu>
To: "6tsch@ietf.org" <6tsch@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="089e011617a85729b904dffef22a"
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlhhUFOVB7KbYCUI/mdkA85Mbtng7CDvQE4GonRdN73yR7S1SZPNGHksxXMN4w96e6Czgba
Subject: [6tsch] simulation for random schedule allocation
X-BeenThere: 6tsch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: xvilajosana@eecs.berkeley.edu
List-Id: "Discuss link layer model for Deterministic IPv6 over the TSCH mode of IEEE 802.15.4e, and impacts on RPL and 6LoWPAN such as resource allocation" <6tsch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/6tsch>, <mailto:6tsch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/6tsch>
List-Post: <mailto:6tsch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:6tsch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tsch>, <mailto:6tsch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 18:47:14 -0000

Hi all,

I prepared a little simulation to see how random schedule allocation
behaves. (I have the code in Java in case someone is interested)

here there are some details (everything can be tuned in case someone wants
to point me to a special case)

Network: 50 nodes

Topology: Random, where each node has a random number of neighbors between
2 and 10.

Each node requests a link to each of its neighbors. This is done from 1 to
10 times (i.e 10 tests, the first requesting 1 link to each neighbour, the
second 2, etc.. up to 10 links to each of the neighbors, can be configured)

The slotframe is 101 slots and 16 channels.

The simulation prints statistics for the test (and the collisions if we are
interested.)
I used pseudo random generator from the java language assuming it provides
uniform or almost uniform distribution.

The allocation counter counts both the number of links allocated as tx and
the number of links allocated as rx due to a neighbour allocating a link to
the actual node. The percentage is the % of collisions w.r.t the allocated
links.

Worst case is around 11% when allocating 10 links to each neighbour in that
50 node network.

I can play more on it but I wanted to share that initial results.

please see attached file for the results.

regards,

Xavi