Re: [Ans-research] (no subject)

[Sukanta Kumar Hazra <[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail]>"
Date: Tue, 01 Apr, 2003 05:34 SGT
Subject: Re: [Ans-research] (no subject)

> At 12:05 PM 3/31/2003 -0800, Xiaoyan Hong wrote:
> >Hi, All,
> >
> >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.
> 
> 
> >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.
> 
> 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?  
> 
> >(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.
> 
> Also, the type of traffic, highly bursty vs. more uniform ,etc...can affect on-demand techniques, cacheing techniques, overhead vs. data delivered, etc.
> 
> >(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.
> 
> True, there are specifics here that need further discussion, like the mobile (or dynamics) model.
> 
> 
> >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
> >[e-mail]
> >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ans-research
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ans-research mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ans-research

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