[Manet-dt] Re: PacketBB

Hello Ian,

ext Ian Chakeres wrote:
> Charlie, I encouraged you (and others) to review PacketBB and to 
> suggest improvements. If you feel PacketBB is too heavyweight please 
> make specific suggestions to the authors and this list.
I will try to do this by next week.  In order to do so, I will have
to exhibit another packet format for comparison.  This will, of
course, involve certain assumptions that can then provide a lot
of room for discussion and championing alternative assumptions.
But perhaps at least it will provide a baseline for comparison.
>
> I personally disagree about the expensive cost of PacketBB and the 
> cost of using a TLV structure. Can you please provide some specific 
> examples where the cost is large? Or where we might save lots of 
> bits/bytes for NHDP, DYMO, or OLSRv2? In my analysis PacketBB almost 
> always results in fewer bits/bytes than a non-compacting format.
My goal would be to save some substantial packet size in the average
case.  If I can't show how to do it, then I'll happily go along with
the existing PacketBB structure, since it has been threshed out for
long enough otherwise.

Regards,
Charlie P.

>
> Ian Chakeres
>
> On Mar 26, 2007, at 8:13 PM, Charles E. Perkins wrote:
>
>>
>> Hello folks,
>>
>> Once again, I urge that we place as much consideration as
>> possible on reducing message size to the maximum extent.
>> I have myself been reluctant to spend a lot of time on reviewing
>> the document because I worry that my comments will not be
>> taken as constructive.  Ian has expressed his concern that I
>> am too late to make any suggestions for substantial change.
>>
>> I believe that the TLV structure is very expensive in terms
>> of byte overhead.  I also think that parseability is far less
>> important than message size, although both are important.
>> I would rate the relative importance as 90% vs. 10% for
>> the parseability/size tradeoff.
>>
>> Similar considerations may apply to NHDP.
>>
>> It is pretty clear that the trend has been to be more
>> "IETF"-like in the message design, at the expense of
>> message size.  In my opinion, this is inappropriate if we
>> want our work to be applicable for sensors or 6lowpan
>> or other low-power devices.  When one byte of airtime
>> consumes as much energy as millions of processor cycles,
>> it makes sense to favor additional processing to reduce
>> message size.  IETF protocols typically favor human
>> readability of the protocol document at the expense
>> of message size, and for many applications this is wholly
>> inappropriate.
>>
>> I would be very interested to hear opinions from other
>> members of the working group about this.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Charlie P.

_______________________________________________
Manet-dt mailing list
Manet-dt@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet-dt