Subject: [Ans-research] (no subject)

From: Xiaoyan Hong <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 12:05:15 -0800 (PST)

Hi, All,

Very glad to join this working group!

In terms of the "black box criteria" to be defined by the
group for routing scalability, I want to share the measures
that we have used in our research with LANMAR and FSR.

(1) Number of active nodes. This is the classic measure. As the # of
nodes becomes large, some routing schemes suffer increasing o/h due to
the computing, storage and communication of  the routing info.
(2) Traffic pattern. The nature of traffic pattern (say, number of
active source/destination pairs; source destination near each other vs
far away from each other) will have major impact on the O/H of some
routing protocols. Localized traffic patterns, for example, may not
require as much routing O/H as fully distributed patterns.
(3) Mobility. The norm is that the higher the mobility (relative to a
certain transmission range) the more routing effort is needed to
maintain a path.

These measures have been used widely. We think they are also suitable for
routing scalability.  Any comment is appreciated.

thanks,

Xiaoyan

_______________________________________________
Ans-research mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ans-research

---

From: Joe Macker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:34:45 -0500

>Very glad to join this working group!

Xiaoyan:

First off, I think you are describing "the black box".
Is that what was meant by the black box criteria.? 
(I was thinking more normalized performance metrics and evaluation criteria for use on black boxes)
..perhaps its both...

I added some comments below on your scenario items.

>the computing, storage and communication of  the routing info.

Just a thought.

A combination of number of nodes and average density, gives one a notion of the diameter of the network.  We needed such a distinguishing model in a recent study of several scalability mechanisms. Some o/h reduction mechanisms (scalability related) are targeted at handling neighborhood density conditions, while other perhaps tackle network diameter issues better. In the case where a network approach automatically adjusts network density (e.g., power control) and hence diameter, perhaps number of nodes is enough to specify here.

It may be even more complicated (non-homogenous graph densities)...this can have a signficant effect on any findings?  

>require as much routing O/H as fully distributed patterns.

Also, the type of traffic, highly bursty vs. more uniform ,etc...can affect on-demand techniques, cacheing techniques, overhead vs. data delivered, etc.

>certain transmission range) the more routing effort is needed to

True, there are specifics here that need further discussion, like the mobile (or dynamics) model.

---

From: Sukanta Kumar Hazra <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 06:07:22 +0800

The computational complexity (cpu cycles required) on the nodes should be criteria as
well. A complex algorithm used for the purposes of scalability may
overwhelm some of the less capable devices. This might also have a
relationship with the power consumption of the nodes.

- Sukanta
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Macker <[email-masked]>"
Date: Tue, 01 Apr, 2003 05:34 SGT
Subject: Re: [Ans-research] (no subject)

--

---

From: Xiaoyan Hong <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 18:31:37 -0800 (PST)

Joe,

Thank you, and I agree with you on those points. Please see below.

> Is that what was meant by the black box criteria.?

Yes. Thank you for clarifing this.

> A combination of number of nodes and average density, gives one a
> notion of the diameter of the network.  We needed such a distinguishing
> model in a recent study of several scalability mechanisms. Some o/h
> reduction mechanisms (scalability related) are targeted at handling
> neighborhood density conditions, while other perhaps tackle network
> diameter issues better. In the case where a network approach
> automatically adjusts network density (e.g., power control) and hence
> diameter, perhaps number of nodes is enough to specify here.
>
Yes. I agree. Though increasing in density and network diameter both
involve number of nodes, the number of nodes itself is not enough to
distinguish different o/h reduction mechanisms. A combination with
average density makes things clear.

> It may be even more complicated (non-homogenous graph densities)...
> this can have a signficant effect on any findings?
>
Depending on what mechanism is in using, I think. If a mechanism works
only good in terms of network diameter, the non-homogenous graph
densities will affect the performance. But may not on ANY findings.

> mobile (or dynamics) model.
I'd prefer models that reflect topology changes. But if we can model
some real scenarios... Are there any real world
mobility and connection data for MANET?

Regards,

Xiaoyan