RedFixHop: Efficient Ultra-Low-Latency Network Flooding

Escobar, Antonio; Gonzalez, C.; Cruz, Francisco J.; Garcia-Jimenez, Javier; Klaue, Jirka; Corona, Angel

doi:10.1109/sahcn.2016.7733012

Cited by 6 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The Spine Constructive Interference-based Flooding (SCIF) protocol [136,137] extends Glossy with a topology-control mechanism that makes it scale to high-density or large-scale networks, where the authors report that the performance of synchronous transmissions degrades. RedFixHop [37] uses the same transmission technique as Glossy, but encodes the payload in the Medium Access Control (MAC) packet sequence number. Upon the reception of a packet, a node forwards it using hardware-generated acknowledgments.…”

Section: Communication Patternmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A number of protocols use the same flavor of end-to-end retransmissions, including Crystal [52,53], Choco [129], and WTSP [128]. These protocols and many others based on synchronous transmissions also benefit from local (i.e., one-hop) retransmissions; for example, in Glossy [41], RedFixHop [37], or Zippy [123] every node in the network opportunistically retransmits a packet up to a certain number of times. Local retransmissions may also be triggered by an explicit request as used in Codecast [94], Mixer [47,90], or Splash [27] to collect a few packets that some nodes still miss toward the end of a many-to-many or one-to-all communication phase.…”

Section: Reliability Mechanismsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Synchronous Transmissions in Low-Power Wireless

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Low-power wireless communication is a central building block of cyber-physical systems and the Internet of Things. Conventional low-power wireless protocols make avoiding packet collisions a cornerstone design choice. The concept of synchronous transmissions challenges this view. As collisions are not necessarily destructive, under specific circumstances, commodity low-power wireless radios are often able to receive useful information even in the presence of superimposed signals from different transmitters. We survey the growing number of protocols that exploit synchronous transmissions for higher robustness and efficiency as well as unprecedented functionality and versatility compared to conventional designs. The illustration of protocols based on synchronous transmissions is cast in a conceptional framework we establish, with the goal of highlighting differences and similarities among the proposed solutions. We conclude this article with a discussion on open questions and challenges in this research field.

show abstract

Section: Communication Patternmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Reliability Mechanismsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Synchronous Transmissions in Low-Power Wireless

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The Spine Constructive Interference-based Flooding (SCIF) protocol [123,124] extends Glossy with a topology-control mechanism that makes it scale to high-density or large-scale networks, where the authors report that the performance of synchronous transmissions degrades. RedFixHop [32] uses the same transmission technique as Glossy, but encodes the payload in the Medium Access Control (MAC) packet sequence number. Upon the reception of a packet, a node forwards it using hardware-generated acknowledgments.…”

Section: Communication Patternmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A number of protocols use the same flavor of end-to-end retransmissions, including Crystal [47,48], Choco [116], and WTSP [115]. These protocols and many others based on synchronous transmissions also benefit from local (i.e., one-hop) retransmissions; for example, in Glossy [36], RedFixHop [32], or Zippy [110] every node in the network opportunistically retransmits a packet up to a certain number of times. Local retransmissions may also be triggered by an explicit request as used in Codecast [84], Mixer [42,80], or Splash [22] to collect a few packets that some nodes still miss toward the end of a many-to-many or one-to-all communication phase.…”

Section: Retransmissions Despite Very Few Exceptions All Communicatio...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Looking at Table 1, we find that many of the communication protocols we survey maintain no network state. All of them adopt some form of synchronous transmission based one-to-all flooding, either individually to transmit a single packet [32,36,110] or in a series to transmit multiple packets [34, 111-113, 115, 116, 138, 139]. The only exception is Chaos [65], where nodes transmit different packets in a slotted fashion for all-to-all comunication.…”

Section: Network Statementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Synchronous Transmissions in Low-Power Wireless: A Survey of Communication Protocols and Network Services

Zimmerling,

Mottola,

Santini

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Low-power wireless communication is a central building block of Cyber-physical Systems and the Internet of Things. Conventional low-power wireless protocols make avoiding packet collisions a cornerstone design choice. The concept of synchronous transmissions challenges this view. As collisions are not necessarily destructive, under specific circumstances, commodity low-power wireless radios are often able to receive useful information even in the presence of superimposed signals from different transmitters. We survey the growing number of protocols that exploit synchronous transmissions for higher robustness and efficiency as well as unprecedented functionality and versatility compared to conventional designs. The illustration of protocols based on synchronous transmissions is cast in a conceptional framework we establish, with the goal of highlighting differences and similarities among the proposed solutions. We conclude the paper with a discussion on open research questions in this field.

show abstract