[SensorNetArch] Assumption: Packet Redundancy

[Philip Levis]

On Sep 22, 2004, at 12:35 PM, Cheng Tien Ee wrote:

> Should there be the assumption that there would be redundant 
> information carried within packets, so that the need for reliability 
> isn't that great?

No.

> Does this also mean that, if the information isn't so copious, then 
> some amount of reliability would be desired?

Depends.

> For instance, if a sink mote with more resources acts as an 
> aggregation / processing point for 100s of motes, does this mean that 
> whatever it spews out should be more reliably transmitted to the base 
> station, since losing one packet would be the equivalent of losing 
> 100s of packets from other motes?

Different application domains and deployments have different 
reliability requirements. In this case, yes, spending extra effort to 
improve the last hop's reliability would be a good idea.

Phil

-------

"We shall not cease from exploration
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time."

- T. S. Eliot,  'Little Gidding'