# Future Wireless Networking Experiments Escaping Simulations
## 8 Conclusions  
This paper compares a number of EU and US testbeds based on their (1) architecture, (2) resources available, (3) IoT capabilities, (4) data that can be collected, (5) limitations, (6) Software-Defined Networking (SDN) capabilities, (7) machine learning capabilities, and (8) practical experimental results. Benchmark and failure recovery experiments are performed and results are shown. Further, issues faced from each testbed are reported. Different testbeds have different resources available for wireless experiments, as shown by the results. In addition, because nodes in different testbeds have different resources available with respect to CPU, memory, and bandwidth available, we achieved different results from each testbed experimentation. Furthermore, as the selection of nodes is highly dependent on the availability of nodes at the time of experimentation, results vary depending on the type of node selected. In addition, testbed experiments provide a realistic environment for experimentation. Therefore, it makes sense to use these nodes as experimentation platforms.  
Our future work is to achieve the following overall objectives of our NGIAtlantic project [3]:  
1. To achieve automatic configuration of SDN/OpenFlow in the wireless ad hoc networks in this paper. This will be achieved by implementing an automatic configuration method on testbeds, as proposed in [6]. The efficiency of the method will be calculated by measuring the automatic discovery time.
2. To achieve the best data-plane latency for an e-healthcare application. This will be achieved by applying machine learning to find the best path from an IoT device to an IoT application which will meet the latency requirements.
3. Recovery from a failure when it occurs in the networks (ring, grid, and mesh) in this paper. This will be achieved by implementing a restoration or protection scheme and calculating the failure recovery time [41]. This will be calculated after the failure is introduced in the network. Most of the results in the literature are based on simulations. The results gathered using our emulations will be unique, as these will be measured in a setup emulated on real testbeds.
4. To test inter-testbed connectivity by performing experiments on EU and US testbeds. We will achieve inter-testbed connectivity by running different modules (IoT applications and sensor nodes) on different testbeds and using the public internet for connection. For example, we will run the controller on the COSMOS testbed and an IoT application on the virtual wall testbed. Further, wireless IoT scenarios will be created on the W-iLab.t, CityLab, and POWDER testbeds.  
Funding acquisition, S.S., B.R. and A.N.; Investigation, S.S., S.U., G.F. and A.N.; Methodology, S.S. S.U., G.F. and A.N.; Resources, S.S. and A.N.; Supervision, S.S. and A.N.; Validation, S.S., S.U. and G.F.; Writing--original draft, S.S., S.U., G.F. and A.N.; Writing--review & editing, S.S., B.R. and A.N.. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.  
This research was funded by the EU H2020 NGIAtlantic project under agreement No. OC3-292.  
**Data Availability Statement:** Not Applicable, the study does not report any data.  
**Acknowledgments:** This work was carried out with the support of the EU H2020 NGIAtlantic project under agreement No. OC3-292. The author would also like to thank Fed4 Fire, POWDER, and COSMOS teams for their support in answering any questions we had regarding experimentation.  
**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.