Subject: Re: [manet] Ad-hoc networking arrives?

From: Abdussalam Baryun <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 19:37:52 +0000

>Compared to what?  Multihop?  But multihop requires the deployment of
>intermediate nodes. If I'm here and you're there and we're going to
>want to communicate using this scheme and we want it to be multihop to
>improve its energy efficiency, then we would also have to somehow
>arrange for the deployment of intermediate nodes (which is not likely
>to happen).  There doesn't seem to be much point in having multihop in
>this context.
> If you look at system performance gain vs the increased
>system complexity costs for for both (1) multihop and (2) increased
>gain from directional antennas, it seems that in most likely scenarios
>you get a better payoff by putting the effort into antenna gain.  And
>the antenna gain also lets you do things you otherwise would not be
>able to do when there are no intermediate nodes.
>Yes, you can do both.  But if you were getting started and cannot do
>everything in version 1.0 and want to decide which to do first,
>directional gain from better antennas wins over multihop, and it is
>not even close.
Multihop is good in MANET, not very good in fixed nodes deployment, because
I think that the discussed network has a neighbor discovery phase which will
consumes source node energy until it identifies destination position, then
there can be a point to point communication phase. In the presentation sent
by Emmanual, it seems like a MANET to me, so I thought using multihop and
routing discovering at layer_3 can be more efficient because of
node mobility.

Abdussalam,
ICRC, UK

---

From: Omprakash Gnawali <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2011 08:28:42 -0800

> routing discovering at layer_3 can be more efficient because of

Unless what you mean by "fixed nodes deployment" is a deployment where
the link characteristics are static. There are many examples of
network deployments where the nodes are physically fixed yet multihop
is the right solution.

- om_p