Vijay,

Both NEMs are set to use the '2ray' propagation model. Only location
events are used by the emulator physical layer with this configuration.
Pathloss events will be ignored.

 nem 2   phy  propagationmodel = 2ray
 nem 3   phy  propagationmodel = 2ray

>From the phy EventReceptionTable it appears 6 location events are being
published. Location events have id 100.

 nem 2   phy EventReceptionTable
 | Event | Total Rx |
 | 100   | 6        |

 nem 3   phy EventReceptionTable
 | Event | Total Rx |
 | 100   | 6        |

>From NEM 2 phy BroadcastPacketDropTable0, it looks like all the packets
from 3 are being dropped because the transmit frequency is not in the
configured frequency of interest list (Not FOI).

 nem 2   phy BroadcastPacketDropTable0
 | NEM |...| Rx Sensitivity | Propagation Model |...| Not FOI |...
 | 1   |...| 42             | 0                 |...| 0       |...
 | 3   |...| 0              | 1                 |...| 42      |...

 nem 3   phy BroadcastPacketDropTable0
 | NEM |...| Rx Sensitivity | Propagation Model |...| Not FOI |...
 | 1   |...| 0              | 1                 |...| 41      |...
 | 2   |...| 0              | 1                 |...| 42      |...

Looking at your configuration, NEM 2 and NEM 3 are set to different
frequencies:

 nem 2   phy  frequency = 2347000000
 nem 2   phy  frequencyofinterest = 2347000000
 nem 3   phy  frequency = 4560000000
 nem 3   phy  frequencyofinterest = 4560000000

I don't see any config, stats or tables for NEM 1 but NEM 2 did receive
over-the-air frames from NEM 1 but dropped them because the receive
power was below the receiver sensitivity. See 'Rx Sensitivity' column of
above table.

It does not appear any over-the-air traffic was completed to NEM 2 or
NEM 3 (from stats):

 nem 2   transport  processedUpstreamPackets = 0
 nem 2   mac  processedUpstreamPackets = 0
 nem 2   phy  processedUpstreamPackets = 97
 nem 3   transport  processedUpstreamPackets = 0
 nem 3   mac  processedUpstreamPackets = 0
 nem 3   phy  processedUpstreamPackets = 97

All upstream traffic (inbound traffic) was dropped in the physical layer.

-- 
Steven Galgano
Adjacent Link LLC
www.adjacentlink.com


On 08/18/2016 01:53 AM, Vijayasarathy Rajagopalan wrote:
> Hi All,
> 
> I am trying to emulate a simple network of two nodes - a ground node,
> and another mobile node which, from an elevation, moves up from the
> ground node at around 45 degrees for a certain duration, makes a circle
> with a specific radius at that point, and comes back to the same point
> where it started. The idea is to set up opportunistic contact between
> the two nodes. For the purpose of simplicity, I have made a IEEE802.11bg
> wifi connectivity between the two nodes, with the default values given
> by CORE (txpower of 0 dbm and frequency of 2.347 GHz). I use EMANE
> events to trigger the above mobility. For the mobility model, I have
> used MNM tools to generate an EEL file which contains GPS location and
> pathloss events per second for a duration of 10000 seconds.
> 
>  
> 
> The problem is the following: While the location events are duly
> recognized by CORE, I suspect that the pathloss events are not being
> recognized properly. Going by a previous post on the EMANE users group,
> I have attached the output of the following emane shell commands: 1)
> emanesh localhost get stat '*' all (stats.txt) 2) emanesh localhost get
> table '*' all (tables.txt); 3) emanesh localhost get config '*' all
> (config.txt). From the table output, I see no indication of pathloss
> events received in the mobile node, against the ForwardPathLoss and the
> ReversePathLoss tables (while emaneeventservice executed with debug
> level info reports sending pathloss message).
> 
> Also, a visual indicator (I presume) for pathloss at some point in the
> motion should be packet loss. I have empirically determined that
> connectivity between nodes for the above values should stop roughly
> around 1500-2000 metres between them (assuming all default values for
> IEE802.11bg for EMANE in CORE network emulator). I observe that even
> beyond this point, there is no packetloss (as pathloss should have
> caused), and neither does visual adjacency in CORE disappear/turn grey.
> 
> Appreciate any assistance that I may get from the forum.
> 
> Thanks,
> Vijay
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> core-users mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://pf.itd.nrl.navy.mil/mailman/listinfo/core-users
> 
_______________________________________________
emane-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://pf.itd.nrl.navy.mil/mailman/listinfo/emane-users

Reply via email to