mudhorn/meshtastic
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/meshtastic/meshtastic.git synced 2024-09-19 23:57:31 -07:00
Code Issues Actions 1 Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

LoRa and move blockquote to :::info

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
Ben Meadors 2024-08-17 09:15:44 -05:00
parent 0a1e2ce00b
commit e8dd263567
1 changed files with 4 additions and 3 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

7
blog/2024/August/why-meshtastic-uses-managed-flood-router.mdx
View file

@ -17,7 +17,7 @@ Designing a low-bandwidth wireless mesh network to run on low-power microprocess
Since Flood Routing is not very efficient, we realize that this approach is not perfect. The firmware has a number of measures in place to limit traffic in order not to overwhelm your mesh, but there will be a limit to what the mesh can withstand. In attempts to enhance the efficiency, we have evaluated “smarter” routing protocols at times in the past. However, we have yet to find anything that would consistently outperform the current approach in the use-cases and scenarios Meshtastic is currently being utilized. We’ll go over several reasons for why we believe Managed Flood Routing remains a superior approach for Meshtastic.
## Avoids Route Discovery
First and foremost, Managed Flood Routing eliminates the need for route discovery or centralized control. In traditional routing algorithms, devices rely on predefined or dynamic routes to forward messages to their destinations. With Managed Flood Routing, you can start messaging immediately after booting your device. Furthermore, route discovery and maintenance leads to overhead, which easily becomes very significant with a low-bandwidth technique like LoRA. In order to maintain routes, either additional control packets are needed, or metadata has to be added to normal traffic, increasing utilization of precious airtime. In static scenarios, this is not a signifcant issue, but when the topology changes often -as we discuss in the next section- the overhead quickly outweighs the benefit of a smarter routing protocol.
First and foremost, Managed Flood Routing eliminates the need for route discovery or centralized control. In traditional routing algorithms, devices rely on predefined or dynamic routes to forward messages to their destinations. With Managed Flood Routing, you can start messaging immediately after booting your device. Furthermore, route discovery and maintenance leads to overhead, which easily becomes very significant with a low-bandwidth technique like LoRa. In order to maintain routes, either additional control packets are needed, or metadata has to be added to normal traffic, increasing utilization of precious airtime. In static scenarios, this is not a signifcant issue, but when the topology changes often -as we discuss in the next section- the overhead quickly outweighs the benefit of a smarter routing protocol.
## Seamlessly Adapts to Network Topology Changes
Another significant advantage of Managed Flood Routing is its ability to adapt to network topology changes. In mesh networks, devices can join or leave the network at any time, and in the case of Meshtastic, nodes are often mobile causing the network topology to change frequently. Even environmental changes such as the weather or the time of day may influence routes. Traditional routing algorithms struggle to keep up with these changes, often leading to message loss or delays. Managed Flood Routing, however, excels in such scenarios. As each device will participate in the routing when called upon, the network quickly adapts to the changes, ensuring that messages find their way to the destination even in the face of frequent topology changes.
@ -31,7 +31,8 @@ Furthermore, Managed Flood Routing is certainly scalable, because nodes that are
## Functions on Resource Constrained Devices
Finally, Managed Flood Routing minimizes footprint on very resource-constrained low power IoT devices. Traditional routing algorithms often require devices to maintain routing tables or perform complex calculations, consuming additional RAM, flash, and valuable computational resources. Managed Flood Routing, with its simplicity and distributed nature, significantly reduces the resource overhead. Devices only need to forward messages they receive, without the need for complex computations, resulting in more device resource availability for other features and improved device autonomy.
> Many decisions are based on empirical data from [Meshtasticator](https://github.com/GUVWAF/Meshtasticator) simulations
> ![Route Plot](/img/blog/route_plot.png)
:::Many decisions are based on empirical data from [Meshtasticator](https://github.com/GUVWAF/Meshtasticator) simulations
![Route Plot](/img/blog/route_plot.png)
:::
To conclude, while the current Managed Flood Routing is not perfect and success is not guaranteed, it has been proven to be effective even in large meshes of more than 100 nodes with proper traffic control. Any “smarter” protocol will lead to overhead in several ways which, in our view, can quickly diminish its benefits.