[Lwip] fragment forwarding implementation and performance report
Rahul Jadhav <rahul.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 08 October 2018 11:17 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 9666612F1A5; Mon, 8 Oct 2018 04:17:14 -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 qNRetczpfPey; Mon, 8 Oct 2018 04:17:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ua1-x929.google.com (mail-ua1-x929.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::929]) (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 D5509128A6E; Mon, 8 Oct 2018 04:17:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ua1-x929.google.com with SMTP id c1so996279uaq.9; Mon, 08 Oct 2018 04:17:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=DAxqvBxJK9QGLat63hkUpWrgDBN79A7sX5xUqrznyAY=; b=V/4OzwDVQtHCI9UVrvV3hzwpIUN6mwp+z5rkjeqDMv+m/s4NjPXuGXkeyu6MY3i03R C8ZCtLb8oIj7JHMc3Gk+0uQXzJDc2dPnEaeZhNOU+TZSxj6b9MX+QFfQsFiB19xAC6K7 MuZ3SVlKbUl7HqjUtS3lvSc15DysmOOTMpMwdWi7hz2F5FdPMSdeZRN7iCwTNmAEbeqA MpdmcG6J8Sb7WeulM9mjXKyB1uAG6511IgnHT8X9/nUPntErK5nNqn1ZHXnBbq2xI4WB QcGmT6oS31CZrMlA0/Q+y49aBWkzzhs1WSTfHpuznbm7y+7IPd9FGcVpIRmtGJQgCGMk FyHA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=DAxqvBxJK9QGLat63hkUpWrgDBN79A7sX5xUqrznyAY=; b=clKSsUM19XdpeHKgeexgfAcq7sug2rhxbXW8aFnmeNEhE2ynadm3spEfhOczJk2G+F 7/700HJ5syf2MCmmhnrPQhBiLnYVl5nOralypC2bKeCjsaBNpHmaCnGmQmx9Ua7Jkm7d VsBHUUcnsjRlXPMF63tCib4Op31j0rpDyTxVW84fvuDgJ7Rtvg/1Xos+mLz072ewmByu 01DHvR//FNAZ3Uc80hMSWn1m/CIhk1CNRsq0wBZAi2Mk8raXekUR9PrSweaaHa/OIozV eIaahURgLb58JBZqpjLBbj8UjQdwuJYQWdCbSwR27SnkBN14U6N3ENzGo0jlbeB0Q0Vz wKcg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABuFfohK+AJeEXyJzsHULQW4/DvFoq/M9kqitECtPq0vcE86uN9CoZ/F ybgBeCvGa0B/S1KEL4WBJH+VNRpLrFuNm59TcP8i7KXV
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACcGV63AhzAC6TOQJVRIndCVQsfPvJMae6zw7zGBdCF7XkVmcAH/EQRtYpYl9mQ/wFygWVFVnpelMDzcrZmGvfeXdOg=
X-Received: by 2002:ab0:644f:: with SMTP id j15-v6mr8514539uap.70.1538997431729; Mon, 08 Oct 2018 04:17:11 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Rahul Jadhav <rahul.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2018 16:47:00 +0530
Message-ID: <CAO0Djp0UM+iKdH+ibkyo7RSZ5a1TSDPCi6U5Sk6_-+pSvKduLg@mail.gmail.com>
To: lo <6lo@ietf.org>, lwip@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000003a83640577b5c399"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lwip/sYN6z_5u2SQZTjpSkmoGafNGBp0>
Subject: [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 11:17:15 -0000
<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
- [Lwip] fragment forwarding implementation and per… Rahul Jadhav
- Re: [Lwip] fragment forwarding implementation and… Rahul Jadhav
- Re: [Lwip] [E] [6lo] fragment forwarding implemen… Chakrabarti, Samita
- Re: [Lwip] [E] [6lo] fragment forwarding implemen… Rahul Jadhav
- Re: [Lwip] [6lo] [E] fragment forwarding implemen… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [Lwip] [6lo] [E] fragment forwarding implemen… Chakrabarti, Samita
- Re: [Lwip] [E] [6lo] fragment forwarding implemen… Chakrabarti, Samita