Subject:
|
Re: legOS Network Protocol
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos
|
Date:
|
Fri, 23 Apr 1999 17:12:25 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1256 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos, Lou Sortman writes:
> 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?
[ stuff about lego/native collisions ]
> 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.
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 data transmission? The reasoning behind this is a follows: if
non-data transmissions can look like frames initially, why not make use of this
and assign a particular "start of frame" tag to signify the rest of it is in
fact not a frame but some arbritrary signal not to be interpreted as data? This
way, by convention, everything that transmits/recieves through the IR can be a
first-class citizen in terms of representation.
I'm not entirely sure if this makes sense (it is a Friday afternoon here after
all ;-) ), but the basic idea is that we try to stand on each others feet as
little as possible whether we be irpd or LNP, but *when we do stamp* we make
sure everyone knows what's doing the stamping as opposed to just saying it's
"non-LNP" traffic.
Anyway, that's my confused missive to end the week ;-)
Mike
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: legOS Network Protocol
|
| (...) 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 (...) (25 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
|
|
|
|
