Subject: RE: [Ans-research] Direction of ANS RG

From: Sumeeth Nagaraj <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 10:02:37 -0600

Hi All,

Well, I agree with your point that there should be some common platform to 
compare the protocols inorder to use the term relative scalability. And its a 
non trivial issue. With scalability, Interlayer Interaction and to a certain 
level considering the MAC layer issues looks pretty promising to me.

The results in the Gupta and Kumar paper considers each packet to travel an 
"Avg distance" which may not be the case in practical situation. Another 
aspect that needs to be stressed here is the underlying MAC and the Physical 
layer model that put those constraints and hence the throughput being 
O(Sqrt(N)) for the entire network.

Best Regards,
Sumeeth

>Not to even mention the issue of what we define as "scalable."
>Gupta and Kumar in their paper discussed scalability of the end-to-end
>throughput of wireless ad hoc networks and concluded that it behaves as
>O(1/sqrt(N)), where N is the number of nodes in the network. Is this
>scalable? Probably not. So what could we define as scalable? Maybe the
>right thing is to talk about relative scalability, rather than in absolute
>terms; i.e.,  to compare the scalability of one protocol vs. another. With
>this approach, we could say, for example, that protocol#1 is more scalable
>than protocol#2, when scalability is defined as the increase in the
>end-to-end delay with the increase in the node density.

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