Performance Analysis of P2P Networks with Light Communication Links: The Static Managed Case

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The gaps in the literature review can be explicitly written and can be mapped with the contribution of the work.

pls number all equations and write on their significance.

more justifications for the obtained results can be included.

Some comparison with existing work could be included to understand the significance and novelty of the presented work. 

 

Author Response

Dear reviewers and editor,

I hope this message finds you well, in the attached file below you will find the next points:

• A short cover letter detailing our changes 
• The manuscript's revisions are highlighted (green for "Reviewer 1" and blue for "Reviewer 2")
• The manuscript revised without highlights

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In the paper, a mathematical model of dynamics of LiFi and WiFi-based P2P networks in static environments was developed. Using this model, the performance of P2P networks using WiFi 7 versus LiFi 2.0 links was compared. Two methods were used in this comparison: analysis based on classic mathematical tools of continuous-time Markov chains, and simulation, based on a discrete-event simulator developed by the authors.

This is an excellent paper - frankly one of best I have read in several months. Very interesting topic, clearly written and presented. The analysis is very well done using two different approaches.  Ths introduction about contemporary WiFi and LiFi standard is marvellous.

The results are interesing - they show that P2P networks with LiFi can significantly reduce mean download times, which can be an interesting solution in many applications e.g. IoT environments, video streaming, real-time applications, social distancing environments or in event venues such as museums, movie theaters, sporting and cultural events.

I have only two minor comments.

1. Many times in the text the authors say that they model a system with nodes of "limited mobility capabilities". As far as I understood, there are no mobility capabilities in the model at all. If so, I recommend use the simple and more true phrase "system with no mobility capabilities". This does not make the paper any less valuable.

2. I was a little disappointed seeing that the authors used they own discrete-event simulator in the study.  I makes much more difficult to share the simulator with other teams. I would gladly play with it, if it was developed in one of the commonly used simulation frameworks, like ns-2, omnet++ and other.  Moreover, using a reasy to use framework has many other benefits.  I strongly advise to use them in future studies.

Anyway, a very good paper, congratulations.

A strong accept.

Author Response

Dear reviewers and editor,

I hope this message finds you well, in the attached file below you will find the next points:

• A short cover letter detailing our changes 
• The manuscript's revisions are highlighted (green for "Reviewer 1" and blue for "Reviewer 2")
• The manuscript revised without highlights

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf