On Nov 1, 2010, at 2:03 PM, Omprakash Gnawali wrote: > On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 2:52 AM, wasif masood <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Yes, I think it would be troublesome if one neighbor completely vanishes >> from the vicinity of a node because in that case node will always be >> transmitting 3 byte additional overhead in terms of the reverse link >> neighbour quality. > > Good point! If you want to fix that, you should expire the > entry after a certain number of maximum Trickle intervals. I don't > know how big of a problem this is so I am not convinced yet if we > should make this change.
In a network with sufficient density, the dead neighbor should be replace by a not-dead one. So the question is whether the (tiny) energy savings are worth the increase in code size to handle this edge case. My guess is no. Phil _______________________________________________ Tinyos-help mailing list [email protected] https://www.millennium.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinyos-help
