Re: [manet] DYMO and other routing protocols

[Philippe Jacquet <philippe.jacquet at inria.fr>]

I would say that from a very broad perspective, on-demand protocols 
discriminate routes with respect to time and proactive protocols 
discriminate routes with respect to space. Personnally I have preference 
to proactive approach because it is richer and gives better internet 
legacy. Objectively the two approaches have their advantages and 
drawbacks and the two should be considered.

This said, I don't think that on-demand and proactive approaches are 
represented at the same level in MANET. OLSRv2 has "space" adaptability: 
i.e algorithms which automatically adapt to space and topology variety, 
including for instance the MPR mechanism. In DYMO I don't see an 
equivalent "time" adaptibility that goes beyond the default values in 
timers. I think this may explain why the protocol performs great in some 
scenario and very poorly in other.

Some adaptability feature in DYMO would be welcome, not necessarily 
proactive, but at least some memory based feature could help.

Philippe

David Murray a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> I am wondering how DYMO fits in with the other routing protocols. I have 
> read a number of papers that discuss how on-demand routing protocols 
> like DSR/AODV work better in highly mobile environments where movement 
> is fast, CPU and memory are low and batteries are limited. Equally, in 
> situations where movement is very low, and there are no power 
> limitations, protocols like OLSR/TBRPF/STAR perform better.
>
> So, I have a mental picture of OLSR/TBRPF being predominantly used in 
> stationary 802.11 mesh devices and AODV/DYMO being used to connect users 
> mobile devices ush as phones and PDAs. Is this correct or are things not 
> quite as simple as this? (I know RFC 2501 discusses MANET applications 
> and characteristics but the discussion is quite general)
>
> If this is correct, it seems to me that DYMO and AODV are used in very 
> similar situations (the ad hoc interconnect between users devices). I am 
> aware that DYMO is a simplified version of AODV both in code and network 
> operation. It seems like the major difference is the path accumulation 
> feature in DYMO which allows nodes to append their information to a RREP 
> to give other nodes better knowledge of the topology. It also seems that 
> the hello feature has been removed in DYMO. So, is DYMO likely to be a 
> replacement for AODV or do they have different uses/applications?
>
> Thanks for your time
>
> Dave
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
> manet at ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet


_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
manet at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet