Re: [Ospf-manet] MPR-OSPF GTNetS simulations report
Richard Ogier <rich.ogier@earthlink.net> Mon, 05 February 2007 16:08 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HE6OX-0003vt-4F; Mon, 05 Feb 2007 11:08:41 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HE6OW-0003vo-Eb for ospf-manet@ietf.org; Mon, 05 Feb 2007 11:08:40 -0500
Received: from pop-knobcone.atl.sa.earthlink.net ([207.69.195.64]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HE6OV-00010u-6k for ospf-manet@ietf.org; Mon, 05 Feb 2007 11:08:40 -0500
Received: from dialup-4.246.93.156.dial1.sanjose1.level3.net ([4.246.93.156]) by pop-knobcone.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 1HE6OP-0003ti-00; Mon, 05 Feb 2007 11:08:35 -0500
Message-ID: <45C75684.5060107@earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2007 08:08:36 -0800
From: Richard Ogier <rich.ogier@earthlink.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Aniket Desai <adesai@opnet.com>
Subject: Re: [Ospf-manet] MPR-OSPF GTNetS simulations report
References: <E1HBJri-0004Gw-Et@megatron.ietf.org> <6.2.3.4.2.20070131171954.0284c1a8@mailserver.opnet.com>
In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20070131171954.0284c1a8@mailserver.opnet.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 538aad3a3c4f01d8b6a6477ca4248793
Cc: ospf-manet@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ospf-manet@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions of OSPFv3 extensions supporting MANET <ospf-manet.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf-manet>, <mailto:ospf-manet-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/ospf-manet>
List-Post: <mailto:ospf-manet@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ospf-manet-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf-manet>, <mailto:ospf-manet-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ospf-manet-bounces@ietf.org
> Hello, > > From the previous emails, it seemed that Dr. Ogier suggested the use > of simulations as a "tie breaker" to even administer a proposal to > experimental status. Simulations may not be the most accurate > representation of the reality to the last bit, but they provide > sufficient framework to cheaply evaluate and compare different > proposals against each other. I believe it should be possible to > design a series of parametric runs (changing node density, changing > mobility, changing network size, changing radio range etc etc.) to > extensively compare all the proposals against each other. All the > criticism about considering only a single/limited set of scenarios > gets nullified when one has conducted a parametric run, and I don't > see any way other than the simulations to do this. > > Thanks, > > Aniket Aniket, I agree that simulations should be a part of the evaluation process. Most people agreed at the last IETF meeting that simulations are important, so we already have consensus on this point. For example, if implementations show that all solutions perform about the same for 50 nodes in a number of scenarios, but simulations show that one scales much better to 100 or more nodes, then that is important evidence that should be considered, and could be used to "break a tie". Simulations are not perfect, but will have some inaccuracy. For example, if a simulation model is found to predict overhead with 25% accuracy (compared to a real implementation), and simulation results show that protocol A has 75% less overhead than protocol B, that is a significant result. It is interesting that Emmanuel is presenting results for at most 50 nodes, whereas it has already been shown that MDR is scalable to more than 100 nodes. 50-node networks are not very challenging, now that we can support 100 nodes. We need to simulate larger networks in order to stress the protocols and determine which protocols are really scalable. I ran some simulations with up to 100 nodes, using Emmanuel's latest code release. I will present these results in my next message. Richard _______________________________________________ Ospf-manet mailing list Ospf-manet@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf-manet
- Re: [Ospf-manet] MPR-OSPF GTNetS simulations repo… Emmanuel Baccelli
- [Ospf-manet] MPR-OSPF GTNetS simulations report Emmanuel Baccelli
- Re: [Ospf-manet] MPR-OSPF GTNetS simulations repo… Richard Ogier
- Re: [Ospf-manet] MPR-OSPF GTNetS simulations repo… Richard Ogier
- Re: [Ospf-manet] MPR-OSPF GTNetS simulations repo… Emmanuel Baccelli
- Re: [Ospf-manet] MPR-OSPF GTNetS simulations repo… Richard Ogier
- Re: [Ospf-manet] MPR-OSPF GTNetS simulations repo… Richard Ogier
- Re: [Ospf-manet] MPR-OSPF GTNetS simulations repo… Emmanuel Baccelli
- Re: [Ospf-manet] MPR-OSPF GTNetS simulations repo… Richard Ogier
- Re: [Ospf-manet] MPR-OSPF GTNetS simulations repo… Emmanuel Baccelli
- Re: [Ospf-manet] MPR-OSPF GTNetS simulations repo… Aniket Desai
- Re: [Ospf-manet] MPR-OSPF GTNetS simulations repo… Philippe Jacquet
- Re: [Ospf-manet] MPR-OSPF GTNetS simulations repo… Richard Ogier
- Re: [Ospf-manet] MPR-OSPF GTNetS simulations repo… Richard Ogier
- Re: [Ospf-manet] MPR-OSPF GTNetS simulations repo… Richard Ogier
- [Ospf-manet] Regarding OSPF MDR Philippe Jacquet
- [Ospf-manet] Re: Regarding OSPF MDR Richard Ogier
- [Ospf-manet] Re: Regarding OSPF MDR Richard Ogier
- [Ospf-manet] Re: Regarding OSPF MDR Philippe Jacquet
- [Ospf-manet] Re: Regarding OSPF MDR Richard Ogier
- [Ospf-manet] Regarding MPR-OSPF Richard Ogier