Subject:
|
Re: legOS Network Protocol
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos
|
Date:
|
Tue, 20 Apr 1999 14:54:18 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1339 times
|
| |
|
|
Mike Moran wrote:
> On a separate note, what are peoples thoughts on the low-level wireline
> protocol? I ask because I want to know how it would be effected by, in a given
> room, some robots talking via the legoOS native protocol, some using the lego
> VM protocol, and some just using the IR as a sensor for proximity detection? I
> would expect the IR-as-proximity-sensor traffic to be particularly bad since it
> may be on all the time, deliberately trying to flood the region with light.
> Maybe I'm bieng stupid, would this be a problem?
From what little I remember about the Lego protocol, here are some thoughts.
*) On reception, some Lego packets may contain data which look like the beginning
of a legOS native protocol frame. Most likely, the checksum would fail (once
enough bytes arrived), but there would most likely be legOS native protocol packet
loss.
*) On sending, legOS native protocol packets may contain byte sequences which look
like Lego protocol packets. You could prevent this by preventing the Lego framing
character from being sent, escaping it ala SLIP. There is nothing to be done for
reception, I'm afraid, as we can't exactly modify the Lego protocol.
And regarding IRPD stuff, as long as the data sent doesn't resemble the start of a
frame, there shouldn't be any problems, except:
*) If an IRPD burst is sent during a legOS native protocol packet, the latter,
will, of course, be corrupted. If the IRPD bursts are frequent, you will have
correspondingly bad "collision" rates.
*) Sending legOS native protocol packets probably won't have much more effect on
the IRPD unit(s) than another IRPD unit in the vicinity would. I.e.: false
readings.
These IRPD problems would be shared by Lego protocol units as well.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: legOS Network Protocol
|
| (...) given (...) lego (...) [ stuff about lego/native collisions ] (...) of a (...) on (...) I was wondering, since people are considering using tags in the LNP frame to signify local to local messages, could we not also use this to "label" non (...) (26 years ago, 23-Apr-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: legOS Network Protocol
|
| (...) The interface is specifically datagram only. Dunno about packet reassembly; I doubt it as the philosophy is minimalism. The main advantage I see in it is the ability to change the degree of checking it does on your behalf to ensure packets (...) (26 years ago, 20-Apr-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
13 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
