Re: [Lwip] [E] [6lo] fragment forwarding implementation and performance report

["Chakrabarti, Samita" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Rahul,

Thanks very much for sharing the fragment forwarding implementation results.
The following drafts are implemented as per the link you provided:
Fragment Forwarding drafts

   1. Virtual reassembly buffers in 6LoWPAN
   <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lwig-6lowpan-virtual-reassembly/>
   2. LLN Minimal Fragment Forwarding
   <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-watteyne-6lo-minimal-fragment/>


>From the results, I noticed an observation that send rate 80s, and 40s are
doing better than the 160s  send rate with 50s forwarding fragment spacing.
Send rate Xs means sending fragmented packets at X sec interval - right?
I thought, the performance would improve with higher X value,  but that is
not true - perhaps due to increased payload size.
A graph or tabular result with same payload size with increased send
interval rate might be useful to figure out the optimal pacing time for
that payload - just a thought.

In general, very interesting results!

Also, it shows that by controlling the pacing of forwarding the fragments
the performance can be improved to a great degree in a medium to small size
mesh. ( in this example, 50 nodes).

What happens when you increase the mesh size ( aka number of nodes)?

Cheers,
-Samita

On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 7:17 AM Rahul Jadhav <[e-mail]> 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
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_nyrahul_ietf-2Ddata_blob_rst_6lo-2Dfragfwd-2Dperf-2Dreport.rst&d=DwMFaQ&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=pWMzx7FsqijEJPyfMBfn-HJss-wVVTf0K5y-cxCTXL8&m=PeFHI-ltr748QRhWwqigY8iNFPw9EcyFDwOeSrv6KQc&s=Rtytc7AFwMLDcwFQOSojZZZ3hiXl-j78GKTwYRi8Nw0&e=>
>
>
>
> Results are quite interesting: Simultaneous send/recv of fragments with
> fragment forwarding has major implications on PDR/Latency.
>
>
>
> Feedback most welcome.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Rahul
> _______________________________________________
> 6lo mailing list
> [e-mail]
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_6lo&d=DwICAg&c=udBTRvFvXC5Dhqg7UHpJlPps3mZ3LRxpb6__0PomBTQ&r=pWMzx7FsqijEJPyfMBfn-HJss-wVVTf0K5y-cxCTXL8&m=PeFHI-ltr748QRhWwqigY8iNFPw9EcyFDwOeSrv6KQc&s=ebzWBVEJyovVUcFHM2mByigGnDBv0aoTSm21fmwa5vU&e=
>