Table 1 Comparison between cache techniques.
Lim et al. [46] | Dykes and Robbins [42] | Ren and Dunhan [45] | Fan et al. [41] | Proposal 1 | Proposal 2 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Auto-configuration of the network | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
Auto-configuration of the nodes | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
Use of central servers or proxies | 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
Distributed network caching | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
Internet access provided by any node (one or several selected by the nodes of the network) | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
Internet access provided by one node (fixed and not dynamic server) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Cached data by the network's nodes | 3 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
Scalability | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
Cached data by the network's AP/proxies | 0 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
Flexibility | 2 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
Intranet broadcasting necessary (searching data/updating metadata) | 3 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 1 |
- Notation: (
) Not contemplated, (
) Not necessary, (
) Supposed (not explained but contemplated), (
) Contemplated (taking into account and explained).
) Not contemplated, (
) Not necessary, (
) Supposed (not explained but contemplated), (
) Contemplated (taking into account and explained).