Re: [manet] LOADng Data Collection Cycle

[AHMED AWAMRY <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jiazi,

Please find my below reply,

 

 


________________________________
 From: Jiazi Yi <[e-mail]>
To: AHMED AWAMRY <[e-mail]> 
Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]> 
Sent: Friday, April 5, 2013 11:18 AM
Subject: Re: [manet] LOADng Data Collection Cycle
 
Hi, 

On Apr 4, 2013, at 2:01 PM, AHMED AWAMRY <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Jiazi,
> 
> Thank you for illustrating the difference between the IETF draft and the scientific publications. Also, regarding the publications sent. I have some questions about the results listed at the sent publications.
> 
> 1. What is the propagation delay set on evaluating the End-To-End delay? as i know that the propagation delay affects largely the end-to-end delay result. This is because , when you changed the propagation delay of the channel (wireless or wired) you will gain different results.

The propagation delay depends on the lower-layer protocol used. In our simulations for LOADng evaluation, it's 802.11b. 


So, you use nodes of 250m range, Mesh topology connected.We could
consider LOADng as Layer 3 protocol, is this right?  

> 
> 2. Regarding the overhead, I think  that there are two points of view related to the overhead:
>                     A. Network Overhead (like the one mentioned at the papers)
>                     B. Processing Overhead (like memory usage and required processing)
> Did you estimate the factor *2.B*? if yes, what is its value?

The "processing overhead" for an on-demand protocol like LOADng is trivial, with O(n) complexity. 


 I mean by processing overhead,the overhead
introduced by the protocol to be implemented, (How many events executed to
perform the protocol?) Also, the memory usage used to implement or simulate the
protocol (I think the LOADng interoperability-report mentioned
6000-lines Java code, is it for implementation or test?). This will be
very efficient to select the suitable IC (MCU or DSP) to implement the protocol.
best

Jiazi

Regards,
Ahmed A. Elawamry,
> 
>    
>    Thanks,
>  
> Ahmed A. Elawamry,
> 
> From: Jiazi Yi <[e-mail]>
> To: AHMED AWAMRY <[e-mail]> 
> Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]> 
> Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2013 12:14 PM
> Subject: Re: [manet] LOADng Data Collection Cycle
> 
> Hi Ahmed, 
> 
> There is one important thing that I have to mention: some of those publications introduce different options/extensions of LOADng, but most of them are not part of LOADng draft (yet). 
> 
> This is generally because of the fundamental difference between scientific publications and IETF Internet Draft (especially standard track draft):
> 
>   o The scientific publications is to investigate new approaches, and explore *possible* ideas that can be introduced to an Internet Draft. 
>   o The IETF Internet Draft is to document clear, simple, and well-understood technical approaches that can be implemented in the real world. 
> 
> Therefore, for LOADng, while we are keeping exploring new ideas and options, those options won't exist in the IETF draft until we are sure that they can serve the real world (based on more operational experiences and tests in different scenarios). 
> 
> best
> 
> Jiazi
> 
> On Apr 4, 2013, at 11:49 AM, Jiazi Yi <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> > Hi, 
> > 
> > I would be careful when talking about "session" in the network layer. I think you are more talking about data transmission between two nodes(routers)?
> > 
> > In fact, there have been several publications about the performance of LOADng and its extensions. More publications are in the pipeline. 
> > Please check:
> > 
> > LOADng: Towards AODV Version 2
> > IEEE VTC 2012 Fall, IEEE 76th Vehicular Technology Conference
> > Thomas Clausen, Jiazi Yi, Axel Colin de Verdiere
> > http://www-mobile.ecs.soton.ac.uk/home/conference/VTC12-Fall/DATA/PID1141082.PDF
> > 
> > Smart Route Request for On-demand Route Discovery in Constrained Environments
> > IEEE ICWITS 2012, IEEE International Conference on Wireless Information Technology and Systems
> > Jiazi Yi, Thomas Clausen, Antonin Bas
> > http://hipercom.thomasclausen.net/resteam/data/publications/154942d0d353eb00ae8ff62c37d68175.pdf
> > 
> > Efficient Data Acquisition in Sensor Networks:Introducing (the) LOADng Collection Tree Protocol
> > IEEE WiCom 2012, The 8th IEEE International Conference on Wireless
> > Communications, Networking and Mobile Computing.
> > Jiazi Yi, Thomas Clausen, Axel Colin de Verdiere
> > http://hipercom.thomasclausen.net/resteam/data/publications/1b5774b6394c71a44d49330f9d2e4ee5.pdf
> > 
> > Expanding Ring Search for Route Discovery in LOADng Routing Protocol
> > The 1st International Workshop on Smart Technologies for Energy, Information and Communication
> > Antonin Bas, Jiazi Yi, Thomas Clausen
> > http://hipercom.thomasclausen.net/resteam/data/publications/0c54e160b9e3aba9e7c383f64c1fda03.pdf
> > 
> > 
> > There is also a draft about interop test of LOADng:
> > 
> > Experience with the LOADng routing protocol for LLNs
> > T. Clausen, A. Camacho, J. Yi, A. Colin de Verdiere, Y. Igarashi, SATOH. H. Y. Morii
> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lavenu-lln-loadng-interoperability-report
> > 
> > best
> > 
> > Jiazi
> > 
> > On Apr 3, 2013, at 10:42 PM, AHMED AWAMRY <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > 
> >> Hi,
> >> 
> >> Thank you for your answer. I mean by topology discovery that finding routes to the required destination (constructing routing table). As you know, this phase is implemented on demand and in case of RERR. I want to mention that the data collection cycle is repeated a lot of times (for example if there will be a session between two nodes) so, it's good to mention the results and the test cases regarding the data collection cycle because it will be very effective measurement  for the routing protocol behavior.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Thanks,
> >> Ahmed A. Elawamry,
> >> 
> >> From: Jiazi Yi <[e-mail]>
> >> To: Ahmed A. Elawamry <[e-mail]> 
> >> Cc: [e-mail] 
> >> Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2013 10:56 PM
> >> Subject: Re: [manet] LOADng Data Collection Cycle
> >> 
> >> Hi, 
> >> 
> >> I'm not sure what's your definition of "topology discovery" and "data collection cycle". 
> >> The control plan of LOADng is about "find the desired routes on demand". The data plan/forwarding has no significant difference with other routing protocols - it's simply hop-by-hop IP forwarding. The only difference is that if there is no available route, LOADng needs to trigger a route discovery (normal routing protocol do "best effort"). 
> >> 
> >> best
> >> 
> >> Jiazi
> >> 
> >> On Mar 31, 2013, at 4:37 PM, Ahmed A. Elawamry <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >> 
> >>> Hello All,
> >>> 
> >>> I'm new to the MANET working group but i am following the mailing list
> >>> regarding the LOADng protocol. As mentioned at the LOADng drafts that it is
> >>> a reactive routing protocol extracted from the AODV; Thus, it has two cycles
> >>> (topology discovery and data collection cycle). Most of the discussions and
> >>> results are about the topology discovery cycle but i didn't found the
> >>> corresponding results at the data collection cycle as you know that the most
> >>> iterative operation is the data collection cycle not topology discovery. Are
> >>> there any justification about that?!
> >>> 
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Ahmed A. Elawamry
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> --
> >>> View this message in context: http://ietf.10.n7.nabble.com/LOADng-Data-Collection-Cycle-tp363492.html
> >>> Sent from the IETF - manet mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> manet mailing list
> >>> [e-mail]
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> > 
> 
> 
>