Static DDS discovery versus Multicast discovery for low‑traffic ROS 2 workloads

Choosing between static and multicast DDS discovery for low‑traffic ROS 2 systems

The goal is to determine whether the reduction in background network traffic and CPU usage from static DDS discovery justifies the loss of zero‑configuration convenience for workloads that publish infrequently (e.g., ≤1 Hz).

Constraints include the lack of a documented threshold for when the few kilobytes per second of multicast discovery traffic outweigh the operational simplicity, and the risk that a mismatched static participant list causes silent communication failures that are hard to spot when message rates are low.

What approximate discovery‑traffic bandwidth (in KB/s) makes static discovery preferable for a ROS 2 node publishing at 0.1 Hz? How does the maintenance effort of a static participant list compare to the measured CPU savings on typical embedded hardware? Which lightweight verification technique can detect a static‑list mismatch before it leads to missed messages in low‑traffic scenarios?