IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Roll] ghc-02 vs grrc-00 examples

Mukul Goyal <mukul@uwm.edu> Sun, 04 September 2011 02:42 UTC

Return-Path: <prvs=221503ad7=mukul@uwm.edu>
X-Original-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: roll@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 208AF21F886D for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 3 Sep 2011 19:42:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.191
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.191 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.470, BAYES_00=-2.599, FRT_ROLEX=3.878, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 7OO8Bq0z-RLo for <roll@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 3 Sep 2011 19:42:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ip1mta.uwm.edu (ip1mta.uwm.edu [129.89.7.18]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5675D21F8841 for <roll@ietf.org>; Sat, 3 Sep 2011 19:42:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (HELO mta01.pantherlink.uwm.edu) ([127.0.0.1]) by ip1mta.uwm.edu with ESMTP; 03 Sep 2011 21:44:09 -0500
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mta01.pantherlink.uwm.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C2334E8986; Sat, 3 Sep 2011 21:44:09 -0500 (CDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mta01.pantherlink.uwm.edu
Received: from mta01.pantherlink.uwm.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mta01.pantherlink.uwm.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nhQFJyXE23qS; Sat, 3 Sep 2011 21:44:08 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from mail05.pantherlink.uwm.edu (mail05.pantherlink.uwm.edu [129.89.7.165]) by mta01.pantherlink.uwm.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5655AE6A70; Sat, 3 Sep 2011 21:44:08 -0500 (CDT)
Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2011 21:44:08 -0500
From: Mukul Goyal <mukul@uwm.edu>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca>
Message-ID: <2078013874.185217.1315104248233.JavaMail.root@mail05.pantherlink.uwm.edu>
In-Reply-To: <9081.1315101425@marajade.sandelman.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: [129.89.7.91]
X-Mailer: Zimbra 6.0.13_GA_2918 (ZimbraWebClient - IE8 (Win)/6.0.13_GA_2918)
X-Authenticated-User: mukul@uwm.edu
Cc: roll@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Roll] ghc-02 vs grrc-00 examples
X-BeenThere: roll@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks <roll.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/roll>, <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll>
List-Post: <mailto:roll@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll>, <mailto:roll-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2011 02:42:30 -0000

Hi Michael

Since GHC performance depends on actual packet contents, you would need to use a variety of examples - some showing the best performance GHC is capable of and others where the performance is not so good. Then we have to come up with examples which we could consider as the common case and see how GHC performs for them. I am looking forward to your results eagerly.

Regards
Mukul

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Richardson" <mcr@sandelman.ca>
To: roll@ietf.org
Sent: Saturday, September 3, 2011 8:57:05 PM
Subject: [Roll] ghc-02 vs grrc-00 examples


In case you haven't read both 
            draft-goyal-roll-rpl-compression-00
and         draft-bormann-6lowpan-ghc-02

here are the numbers listedn for ROLL examples:

GRRC:
   DIO: started at 87 bytes; compressed to 48 bytes, compression factor 1.81
   DIO: started at 89 bytes; compressed to 50 bytes, compression factor 1.78

GHC:
   DIO: started at 92 bytes; compressed to 53 bytes, compression factor 1.74
   DAO: started at 50 bytes; compressed to 27 bytes, compression factor 1.85
   ND:  started at 48 bytes; compressed to 26 bytes, compression factor 1.85

The compression rates are almost identical, and this is without using
GHC's "contexts", which as far as I can tell is not well enough
documented to understand.

What I do not know if how the two sample packets compare: are they even
close to expressing the same thing.

In particular the GRRC document does not list the *actual* packet
contents, since GRRC is not sensitive to the actual field contents.
As such I will be taking Bormann's packets, plus some from Contiki. 
(Hmm. I only brought one econotag to the cottage)

<TCPDUMP-MAINTAINER>
IF YOU HAVE PCAP TRACES OF ROLL PACKETS PLEASE SEND THEM, AS MY SAMPLES
ARE TOO SIMPLE!!!
</TCPDUMP-MAINTAINER>

-- 
]       He who is tired of Weird Al is tired of life!           |  firewalls  [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON    |net architect[
] mcr@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[
   Kyoto Plus: watch the video <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzx1ycLXQSE>
	               then sign the petition. 





_______________________________________________
Roll mailing list
Roll@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email