Proceedings of the 14th ACM Conference on Embedded Network Sensor Systems CD-ROM 2016
DOI: 10.1145/2994551.2996706
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

All-to-all Communication in Multi-hop Wireless Networks with Mixer

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
2
2

Relationship

1
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 3 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Consequently, their independent coordination rounds could grant fatal conflicting reservations, contrasting STARC's safety guarantees. A careful network initialization process is, therefore, required [37].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Consequently, their independent coordination rounds could grant fatal conflicting reservations, contrasting STARC's safety guarantees. A careful network initialization process is, therefore, required [37].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It has already been shown [19] that LWB greatly outperforms routing-based many-to-many solutions [51], rendering a comparison against such schemes obsolete. Similarly, results from our work-in-progress reports show that an earlier version of Mixer outperforms Chaos for messages larger than a few bytes [46,47]. Other RLNC-based many-to-all approaches like [11,12,22] provide only theoretical or simulation results and are not applicable to practical wireless mesh networks because the assumed communication models do not fit.…”
Section: Performancementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Some recent proposals based on synchronous transmissions overcome this problem by decoupling the protocol logic from the time-varying network topology. For example, Chaos works well for all-to-all exchange of small payloads (e.g., one byte per node) as required for network-wide consensus [3] and data aggregation [37], but performs inefficiently for payloads larger than a few bytes [47]. A series of network-wide Glossy floods [21] is then a better option; however, the required bandwidth and overall latency increase rapidly with the number of messages to be exchanged.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%