	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Networking task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Telecommunications Low‑importance

	Telecommunication portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Telecommunications, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Telecommunications on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TelecommunicationsWikipedia:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTemplate:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTelecommunications articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Usefulness[edit]

Hi. I think this article would be a lot more useful if it indicated a little more about level of applicability per protocol. Specifically, I think it should be ranked with the STD-level protocols first, and then the RFC-level protocols, and then the commonly-used-but-not-formally-standardized ones and the research-interest-only should be last. Alternatively, or, in addition, links to articles or home pages of specific implementations, open source and proprietary, should be added. --Treekids 21:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misc Junk[edit]

Folks, please organize your comments a bit better. --Treekids 21:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone put in a prologue here to explain just what the heck you're talking about? -- Zoe

there is a nice list on

http://www.ece.concordia.ca/~l_guang/secroute.html

is the liste here complete?

this needs some cleanup and each section needs a little summary at least. - Omegatron 17:39, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

WRP is not a hierarchical routing protocol. See section 4.2 on http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/02nov/I-D/draft-ietf-manet-zone-zrp-04.txt

GSR is not a hierarchical routing protocol. Instead, it is link state with slow information dissimination.

- Sjoerder 14:38, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Links should go to the full name, e.g. My Simple Routing Protocol instead of MSRP, because acronyms are ambigious.

Sjoerder 11:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

routing versus MAC versus power control protocols[edit]

The title is a bit misleading; it leads one to expect that these are "ad-hoc protocls" when they are "ad-hoc networking ROUTING protocols". Medium access protocols for ad-hoc networks also fall under the title of this article, though it isn't explained here at all.

SWARM protocols[edit]

How do swarm protocols (explained in http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/curran03swarm.html) compare to the protocols mentioned here? Are they just variations of the proactive/reactive/hierarchical protocols described, or are they a separate class?

--89.57.135.12 08:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, Eoin Curran's protocol belongs in this category (if someone wants to do a writeup of it). Unfortunately the "swarm" buzzword these days is more commonly used in conjunction with things like Gnutella and BitTorrent, which certainly do NOT belong here (IMO). --Alvestrand 09:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Power aware[edit]

I think that this statement is a bit misleading. It ignores the fact that the intermediete node is using power to receive and process the the packet. Also in the general case, the intermediate node not optimally positioned (i.e. it is not on a line directly between the sender and reciever, making the actual path longer.) The real advantage of a mesh network is that it lets you connect to nodes that you can't reach dirctly.

Energy required to transmit a signal is proportional to the square of the distance. Transmitting a signal half the distance requires one fourth of the energy and if there is a node in the middle willing spend another fourth of its energy for the second half, data would be transmitted for half of the energy than through a direct transmission. This however introduces a delay.

Also, the ISAIAH link links to a biblical figure, not a networking article. I see this type of extranious link a lot, is this considered a problem?

I don't understand that statement (among the comments above) following "if there is a node in the middle", especially how "willing" fits into the sentence. Perhaps you mean to say that introducing a node in the middle of a long transmission line would reduce the total transmission line power losses by one half. Is that right? Is it an accurate calculation? Unfree (talk) 23:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LMR protocol[edit]

Actually there's no corresponding article for this one, though list shows it. Here some information on it, and a lot of informaion on other protocols too. http://wiki.uni.lu/secan-lab/Lightweight+Mobile+Routing.html If someone could present it here it would be great. Sorry, I'm not logged in.why Buba.

Power aware protocol[edit]

I suppose if we want to talk about the energy cost of message transmission we could be a bit more precise then what is currently proposed. I added the obvious attenuation factor. We could also say something about the cost of receiveing packets. We could use a sligthly more general model. Maybe the RF attenuation model proposed in the "Wireless Sensor Networks" book from Zhao and Guibas? (We would also have a reference... :-)) Regards, --Powo 22:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

R.O.B.I.N[edit]

Shouldn't B.A.T.M.A.N be mentioned somewhere here? --Dittaeva (talk) 14:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing[edit]

I find the paragraphs under "power-aware" confusing at present. Unfree (talk) 23:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Table[edit]

Wouldn't it better to reformat the contents of article in the form of tables. I suppose, it'd be better for understanding and eliminating of useless info. Pavel Modilaynen (talk) 21:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC) 'lauda le lo sale tum log bhosdi ke —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.177.173.122 (talk) 02:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like it the way it is. Freeform is better at this stage of the game, and tables take too much scrolling, typically.Kbk (talk) 00:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OpenMesh, Cybiko and WiPeer[edit]

Is it should be some where here? And how about WiFi-based section? --Nashev (talk) 18:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is Endaira? What is ariadne?[edit]

I added the * for the following line, but it may be that this protocol does not exist or is not described properly. What is "ariadne"? Ariadne (sofware) does not seem likely to me.

* Endaira: It is on demand source routing protocol and it is designed to address the hidden channel attack in ariadne.--DThomsen8 (talk) 23:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]