{"title":"移动网络:命名vs隧道化","authors":"Devan Rehunathan, S. Bhatti","doi":"10.1109/INFCOMW.2009.5072163","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Using data of passenger numbers and train schedules from the London Underground metropolitan railway system, we compare a Tunnelling-based to a Naming-based approach for supporting mobile networks. We show that, in terms of packet overhead, a naming based approach may have similar performance overhead to a tunnelling approach, and so may offer a viable alternative, whilst also offering other benefits.","PeriodicalId":252414,"journal":{"name":"IEEE INFOCOM Workshops 2009","volume":"20 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-04-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Mobile Networks: Naming vs. Tunnelling\",\"authors\":\"Devan Rehunathan, S. Bhatti\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/INFCOMW.2009.5072163\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Using data of passenger numbers and train schedules from the London Underground metropolitan railway system, we compare a Tunnelling-based to a Naming-based approach for supporting mobile networks. We show that, in terms of packet overhead, a naming based approach may have similar performance overhead to a tunnelling approach, and so may offer a viable alternative, whilst also offering other benefits.\",\"PeriodicalId\":252414,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"IEEE INFOCOM Workshops 2009\",\"volume\":\"20 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2009-04-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"IEEE INFOCOM Workshops 2009\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/INFCOMW.2009.5072163\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"IEEE INFOCOM Workshops 2009","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/INFCOMW.2009.5072163","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Using data of passenger numbers and train schedules from the London Underground metropolitan railway system, we compare a Tunnelling-based to a Naming-based approach for supporting mobile networks. We show that, in terms of packet overhead, a naming based approach may have similar performance overhead to a tunnelling approach, and so may offer a viable alternative, whilst also offering other benefits.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
