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.vera...@mail.com> wrote: > 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 > > >
