Re: [Lwip] fragment forwarding implementation and performance report

Rahul Jadhav <rahul.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 08 October 2018 11:26 UTC

Return-Path: <rahul.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: lwip@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lwip@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2DC8130DC4; Mon, 8 Oct 2018 04:26:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Rj13OyOndFLP; Mon, 8 Oct 2018 04:25:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vs1-xe31.google.com (mail-vs1-xe31.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e31]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BE87612F1A5; Mon, 8 Oct 2018 04:25:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vs1-xe31.google.com with SMTP id c10so11175547vsk.2; Mon, 08 Oct 2018 04:25:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=lXkhQ+bggL6WINuIoZa+uwkv8AxaXjsTlr+W3R8lFOw=; b=ZlRMqPfsB5US6bOfmHQeyTKppznDZ8rIT0VRSGIbDfa4CrjzviIrC6rZ9j9kijTntx UyJye+tU63deAfI0UGn5SAIlqyBok6XyZ122kdaEbKDhjyyRicTLQmRpM6PCHxlYgSPE Lb3ASZtW0i6CpjIBtgd+xaCGjfehHuezpgGPIlmprvalIAF4Y83qBuNde1rV9BPDPNEU x83m9cXmu/EPbQumARenJiKbYsGZmyae34kyzLp+sLaPAdo8HhGDWQuwCGhoOzl8AOHp uI3Z80IVx5YjsCZtLWAC9CXaqmQ6nGUugJqsahkglhiXCL01hP80e30s8NmsfZXJha/c 4XvA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=lXkhQ+bggL6WINuIoZa+uwkv8AxaXjsTlr+W3R8lFOw=; b=YJXuKjzCkw0su9vM8eNC5Q1UEVsd36aFtxVs4IJb/vOoCRNpp/Bkh1Lf5T7pcStULw 9U+ujPJMG07bozIy+kR8WavS6RhV0xmyqA1oVZJkhfeEV8oLzbJiYBFBuWZXSIjGWLKP CqeIlTeOwAXZKizVqRqWtAO6EsYtMeoJ7dqMigNwE0BvUI0OQnQMsXljlNqcgusbSqv3 YBgs2NpSeQATEDEzqrBn7QiHmwPtbvIUHgp9CStZd6L6mVBaFtrAIkUOQw8gPNhB+HQC EcxNv+Z5hn0qIODJYIpbkm8FI2luyqIMzkRWMc75J4c+yClPTbLS6UW+lKlZfdYr6yiz LTUg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABuFfoiR3Ey1cxiEBRREkpyzIvE/m0U0fn2di2icJ3fo+3IOpeIr23BQ 5ikn0+0q55Wjpc2Hjkdoi3KpZbapmUdCNg/U8G3UACCh
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACcGV61129LfFMCFNPEKz9qjGQ8GO0/EUYX4pQRE/jVl4mZ/qwk1c3braIaMhRjXpyOkbU3L7T6lq1qF2t7RIg4ro1Y=
X-Received: by 2002:a67:7187:: with SMTP id m129-v6mr4228929vsc.208.1538997957614; Mon, 08 Oct 2018 04:25:57 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAO0Djp0UM+iKdH+ibkyo7RSZ5a1TSDPCi6U5Sk6_-+pSvKduLg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAO0Djp0UM+iKdH+ibkyo7RSZ5a1TSDPCi6U5Sk6_-+pSvKduLg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Rahul Jadhav <rahul.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2018 16:55:46 +0530
Message-ID: <CAO0Djp34ihkSn5Wda_2+HLFjUzx2TK0iqkz+EZ49TJ=g8zNMHg@mail.gmail.com>
To: lo <6lo@ietf.org>, lwip@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000092e1390577b5e21d"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lwip/Jmy5PNLiDNeJq6kxYhOeY78daj4>
Subject: Re: [Lwip] fragment forwarding implementation and performance report
X-BeenThere: lwip@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Lightweight IP stack. Official mailing list for IETF LWIG Working Group." <lwip.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lwip>, <mailto:lwip-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lwip/>
List-Post: <mailto:lwip@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lwip-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lwip>, <mailto:lwip-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2018 11:26:01 -0000

Sorry.
The earlier mail had old report. The latest one is here:
https://github.com/nyrahul/ietf-data/blob/master/6lo-fragfwd-perf-report.rst


On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 at 16:47, Rahul Jadhav <rahul.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:

> <sending to 6lo, lwig WGs because both have relevant drafts>
>
>
>
> Hello All,
>
>
> We tried experimenting with the virtual reassembly buffer and fragment
> forwarding drafts.
>
> One fundamental characteristic that has major implications on fragment
> forwarding performance is its behavior with realistic 802.15.4 RF
> (especially when a train of fragments are simultaneously received and
> transmitted). This is something which was not evaluated in any other
> experiment.
>
>
>
> You ll find the details of the implementation, test setup details and
> performance result here:
>
> https://github.com/nyrahul/ietf-data/blob/rst/6lo-fragfwd-perf-report.rst
>
>
>
> Results are quite interesting: Simultaneous send/recv of fragments with
> fragment forwarding has major implications on PDR/Latency.
>
>
>
> Feedback most welcome.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Rahul
>