From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: From: Henning Rogge Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2009 16:22:21 +0100 References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart2323443.150Y1Gac8z"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200911091622.26778.hrogge@googlemail.com> Subject: Re: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] [Babel-users] A peer-reviewed assessment of OLSR, BATMAN and Babel Reply-To: The list for a Better Approach To Mobile Ad-hoc Networking List-Id: The list for a Better Approach To Mobile Ad-hoc Networking List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Chun-Ping Wang Cc: "olsr-users@lists.olsr.org" , "b.a.t.m.a.n@lists.open-mesh.net" , Brett Hegelstein , "justin.lipman@gmail.com" , Juliusz Chroboczek , "babel-users@lists.alioth.debian.org" , Brett Hagelstein , Mehran Abolhasan --nextPart2323443.150Y1Gac8z Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Am Montag 09 November 2009 14:00:24 schrieb Chun-Ping Wang: > Hi all, >=20 > Many thanks for all your feedbacks. It will definately help us to improve > our work. However, I think there is quite a bit of confusions at very > beginning. So I would like to make some clarifications for this paper. >=20 > As it has been mentioned earlier, this paper was to study all the protoco= ls > in their default setting. In term of "default setting" for OLSR, we used > original config file shipped in olsr v0.5.5. As far as I know, this > config file is based on the LQ mode of OLSR (i.e. olsrd.conf.default.lq > ). So, correct me if I am wrong, we have been using OLSR with ETX to > begin with. We only modified the HELLO and TC interval to improve static > node performance. The results shown in our paper is actually the > performance of OLSR with ETX. Hmm... olsrd.conf.default.lq should be with ETX... > You may also aware the protocols that we used are already out-dated. This > is because this work was done back in 2008. We are more than happy to > undergo another study with more recent protocols. The implementation was outdated, not the protocol... but the protocol does= =20 only mention hopcount, so most people just use "RFC compatible" OLSR. I would be interested what config file you used for the test. If you plan t= o=20 redo the test we (the olsr.org team) would be very interested in getting=20 feedback what kind of problems you have so that we can improve our software. Henning Rogge --nextPart2323443.150Y1Gac8z Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.13 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAkr4M7IACgkQcenvcwAcHWfwBQCeOporpgU8Dk7nepIKs1spFcEo 50kAnjIGHbL+Ad4w7bbcU2nJ/lAPGQ1q =9ulT -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart2323443.150Y1Gac8z--