[9fans] About IL

[9fans] About IL

[Adriano Verardo]

Could IL be actually more effective than TCP/IP in a closed net ?
I think about a robotic application using very small cpus.
What about Styx -- ore something similar - over IL ?

adriano

Re: [9fans] About IL

[Charles Forsyth]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1262 bytes --]

On 20 October 2015 at 17:14, Adriano Verardo <adriano.verardo@mail.com>
wrote:

> Could IL be actually more effective than TCP/IP in a closed net ?
> I think about a robotic application using very small cpus.
> What about Styx -- ore something similar - over IL ?
>

Styx is (now) the same as 9P, and it was always similar: not a transport
protocol, but a service protocol that ran on any suitable transport,
and not just on IP networks. We used a special link-level transport
protocol over infra-red to use Styx to talk to a programmable Lego brick
from Inferno. It did run-length encoding, and possibly some other
compression scheme.

All you need is a transport protocol that reliably preserves content and
order. It doesn't need to keep record boundaries,
although transport protocols are sometimes simpler if you do, working with
messages instead of a raw byte stream.
It doesn't need to be an Internet Protocol (ie, there doesn't need to be an
IP layer). 9P itself will multiplex many clients
on the same connection to a server, so you don't need a higher-level
multiplexing protocol using ports etc.
In fact, using attach names, you can have several different server trees
served on the same connection to many different clients.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1899 bytes --]

Re: [9fans] About IL

[Adriano Verardo]

Charles Forsyth wrote:
>
> On 20 October 2015 at 17:14, Adriano Verardo <adriano.verardo@mail.com
> <mailto:adriano.verardo@mail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Could IL be actually more effective than TCP/IP in a closed net ?
>     I think about a robotic application using very small cpus.
>     What about Styx -- ore something similar - over IL ?
>
>
> Styx is (now) the same as 9P, and it was always similar: not a
> transport protocol, but a service protocol that ran on any suitable
> transport,
> and not just on IP networks.
Ok
> We used a special link-level transport protocol over infra-red to use
> Styx to talk to a programmable Lego brick from Inferno. It did
> run-length encoding, and possibly some other compression scheme.
Possible scenarios:
1) distributed intelligence to control complex mechanic devices. Say
arms but in general whatever else.
2) coordination of 2+ submarine robots. Thus a very very low bandwidth
(kHz).
3) coordination of flying drones.
>
> All you need is a transport protocol that reliably preserves content
> and order. It doesn't need to keep record boundaries,
> although transport protocols are sometimes simpler if you do, working
> with messages instead of a raw byte stream.
> It doesn't need to be an Internet Protocol (ie, there doesn't need to
> be an IP layer).
Yes, I have a little experience with 9P. In a industrial appl I did
years ago, Plan9 nodes export drivers etc as a "control/monitor" file
server.
The Plan9 subsystem is monitored (also) through a Windows/P9 interface.
Mission critical and a little complex but no bandwidth
constraints.
> 9P itself will multiplex many clients
> on the same connection to a server, so you don't need a higher-level
> multiplexing protocol using ports etc.
> In fact, using attach names, you can have several different server
> trees served on the same connection to many different clients.
So, is it correct to say that IL is a too complex solution although
lighter than TCP/IP ?

adriano

Re: [9fans] About IL

[Skip Tavakkolian]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2346 bytes --]

ARM and MIPS-based embedded components are cheap even for hobbyists. They
usually have at least a serial interface and increasingly WiFi.


On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 10:53 AM, Adriano Verardo <adriano.verardo@mail.com>
wrote:

> Charles Forsyth wrote:
>
>>
>> On 20 October 2015 at 17:14, Adriano Verardo <adriano.verardo@mail.com
>> <mailto:adriano.verardo@mail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     Could IL be actually more effective than TCP/IP in a closed net ?
>>     I think about a robotic application using very small cpus.
>>     What about Styx -- ore something similar - over IL ?
>>
>>
>> Styx is (now) the same as 9P, and it was always similar: not a transport
>> protocol, but a service protocol that ran on any suitable transport,
>> and not just on IP networks.
>>
> Ok
>
>> We used a special link-level transport protocol over infra-red to use
>> Styx to talk to a programmable Lego brick from Inferno. It did run-length
>> encoding, and possibly some other compression scheme.
>>
> Possible scenarios:
> 1) distributed intelligence to control complex mechanic devices. Say arms
> but in general whatever else.
> 2) coordination of 2+ submarine robots. Thus a very very low bandwidth
> (kHz).
> 3) coordination of flying drones.
>
>>
>> All you need is a transport protocol that reliably preserves content and
>> order. It doesn't need to keep record boundaries,
>> although transport protocols are sometimes simpler if you do, working
>> with messages instead of a raw byte stream.
>> It doesn't need to be an Internet Protocol (ie, there doesn't need to be
>> an IP layer).
>>
> Yes, I have a little experience with 9P. In a industrial appl I did years
> ago, Plan9 nodes export drivers etc as a "control/monitor" file server.
> The Plan9 subsystem is monitored (also) through a Windows/P9 interface.
> Mission critical and a little complex but no bandwidth
> constraints.
>
>> 9P itself will multiplex many clients
>> on the same connection to a server, so you don't need a higher-level
>> multiplexing protocol using ports etc.
>> In fact, using attach names, you can have several different server trees
>> served on the same connection to many different clients.
>>
> So, is it correct to say that IL is a too complex solution although
> lighter than TCP/IP ?
>
> adriano
>
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3413 bytes --]