[net2-wg] mirage progress

[Rodrigo Fonseca]

Hi,

the title should not mean progress is a mirage...
Anyway, I ran a test on mirage on a 47 node topology. The tree forms
great, is similar to what is formed by mint, and keeps being correctly
updated. It seems to be fairly stable as well.

There is some problem with forwarding, though.
So far I can only describe the symptoms.

Setup: 47 node micaz testbed, CC2420 power setting to 5.
Tree is formed with depth of 7, I verified the tree and it makes sense.

Transmission: node at hop 6 transmits a packet every 1024ms. Only 1
node is transmitting.

Result:
0 61184 00 FF FF 0F 22 EE 00 00 8E EE 00 8E 00 01 00 00 00 05 00 00 0C
0 68440 00 FF FF 0F 22 EE 00 00 8E EE 00 8E 00 02 00 73 00 62 00 00 07
0 68764 00 FF FF 0F 22 EE 00 00 8E EE 00 8E 00 02 00 73 00 62 BE EF 07
0 68919 00 FF FF 0F 22 EE 00 00 8E EE 00 8E 00 02 00 73 00 62 BE EF 07
0 69614 00 FF FF 0F 22 EE 00 00 8E EE 00 8E 00 03 00 74 00 48 BE EF 06
0 70609 00 FF FF 0F 22 EE 00 00 8E EE 00 8E 00 04 00 74 00 48 BE EF 06
0 71599 00 FF FF 0F 22 EE 00 00 8E EE 00 8E 00 05 00 74 00 48 BE EF 06
0 72873 00 FF FF 0F 22 EE 00 00 8E EE 00 8E 00 06 00 74 00 48 BE EF 06
0 73249 00 FF FF 0F 22 EE 00 00 8E EE 00 8E 00 06 00 74 00 48 BE EF 06
0 73249 00 FF FF 0F 22 EE 00 00 8E EE 00 8E 00 06 00 74 00 48 BE EF 06
0 73517 00 FF FF 0F 22 EE 00 00 8E EE 00 8E 00 06 00 74 00 48 BE EF 06
0 155984 00 FF FF 0F 22 EE 00 00 8E EE 00 8E 00 59 00 73 00 38 BE EF 06

This is what 0 gets. Nothing after that.
format: <node> <t (ms)> <hex dump of packet>
These packets are from node 142 (8E), collection id EE. Field 16 is
the node sequence number, incremented every time a send is successful
to the CollectionTree at the origin.

Observations:
1. The first packet is crazy: there is nothing right, except the
sequence number.
2. The second packet has no sensor value, the tree metrics are right.
3. The strange thing is that the third packet has the same sequence
number (02), but the BEEF value is different!
4. We get 3 copies of packet 2, 4 copies of packet 6, and then skip to
packet 59!

Due to lack of instrumentation, the only problem reported by a node
directly on the path was by node 124, NET_C_FE_MSG_POOL_EMPTY.

I am investigating more.

Rodrigo