Charles Forsyth wrote:
On 20 October 2015 at 17:14, Adriano Verardo <adriano.vera...@mail.com
<mailto:adriano.vera...@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
