On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 11:35:24AM +1030, Matthew Britton wrote: Hi Matthew Nice paper. A few comments and questions.... I would probably remove the directional antenna text from the paper. There is no real research results presented about the use of them, they are just a tool to allow your semicircle test to be made. The work presented here is about hysteresis, and the directional antenna test in the paper does not really add any value. Looking at the Batrytis algorithm, it is not clear to me what value of TQ you put into the redistributed OGMs. Do you use TQ or TQc as the basis, then add the hop penalty etc? In order to avoid routing loops, the downstream node makes assumptions about what the upstream node routing tables contains based on the OGMs it received. I'm wondering if these assumptions have been invalidated by the hysteresis? Did you analysis this to see if you had additional routing loops when using Batrytis? For me this is an important point and if you did look at this, it should be mentioned in the paper. I don't know the BATMAN code too well, but in BATMAN-adv, the TQ value put into the redistributed OGM is of the best link to the originator. Does BATMAN have this feature? Did you use the best TQc or the best TQ? The outdoor test setup is a nice idea. I've always setup a chain of devices to test handovers. You semi circle is much more compact. Does the sports field you used also have a 70m circle marked out which you can follow? It looks like there could be a 35m circle. What directional antennas did you use? Are they COTS i can buy somewhere? What i don't like about these outdoor results is that it appears you did not reproduce the tests exactly. You went in opposite directions. It would be nice to repeat this experiment a few times, and always use the same direction. Overall i like the idea, but i need convincing that it does not introduce routing loops. Andrew