search

Lotterleben / AODVv2-Draft

0 stars 0 forks source link

Extend experiment description #11

Closed Lotterleben closed 8 years ago

Lotterleben commented 8 years ago

While at least Jiazi has commented he thinks our new experiment description, imo there are some additional things that could/should be added:

What do you think?

Lotterleben commented 8 years ago

From Ulrichs review:

  • Experiment description: It seems to me that the text for the intent of the experiment could have been the same 13 years ago, when AODV (v1) was published. I had hoped that by now we would already have some insights into the "behavior of the protocol in real-world deployments", the "knowledge base of [...] reactive protocols [...]", and "if sufficient demand exists [...] to prompt an effort to bring the protocol to Standards Track".
charliep51 commented 8 years ago

Hello folks,

The demand does exist. AODV is no longer a new toy as it was 15 years ago, and that has reduced some of the impetus for making new implementations. Most protocol experts will see that there's not much "new" to be expected from AODVv2 compared to AODV.

On the other hand, AODV continues to be used as the design inspiration for new reactive protocol designs. AODVv2 will provide slightly better inspiration since it handles unidirectional links better and has a few minor optimizations compared to AODV, but perhaps worse performance due to RFC 5444.

Anyway I doubt that we could ever convince the RFC 5444 crew that anything about AODVv2 is good, so there's not much point in trying.

Regards, Charlie P.

On 5/17/2016 2:55 PM, Lotte Steenbrink wrote:

From Ulrichs review:

  * Experiment description: It seems to me that the text for the
    intent of the experiment could have been the same 13 years
    ago, when AODV (v1) was published. I had hoped that by now we
    would already have some insights into the "behavior of the
    protocol in real-world deployments", the "knowledge base of
    [...] reactive protocols [...]", and "if sufficient demand
    exists [...] to prompt an effort to bring the protocol to
    Standards Track".

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/Lotterleben/AODVv2-Draft/issues/11#issuecomment-219866235

Lotterleben commented 8 years ago

Well I'd like to try, and in any case, having research to back up our claims is always a good thing. So if you have any sources, please share. :)

Lotterleben commented 8 years ago

If we're going back on standards track we don't need this anymore :)