Hello Tua, see some responses in-line.
At 06:37 22/01/2007, #LUONG TRUNG TUAN# wrote: >Im a research student in field of MANET.I have been trying to add the >multiple interface support for Ns2 for a while but still not get any >results. And recently Im very glad to see your released document about >Adding Multiple Interface Support in NS-2. First of all, I would like to >thank you very much for your contribution for extending ns, which is a >great helps for student like me. Thanks for your interest. This is really the aim we had when creating the document. >Regarding your extension, I would like to ask few questions > >How would you specify which interface will be used for sending data >packet? As I see that you need a variable interface for routing entry, so >when we add or update an entry, this value will be modified, so by that >you mean this value will be manually specified when we create a new data flow? The idea is that this should be handled from the routing agent. This is to say, the application (e.g. cbr) should not be aware of how the routing agent sends the packet; it is even unaware of the number of interfaces a node is managing. >Have you tried for DSDV routing? I trying as follow your guidelines, but >not so sure how to specify the interface value for new entry and updating >existing routing entry No, as we say in the text we worked with our own implementation; and we took a look on AODV according to some request we get in the ns-users mailing list. See: http://mailman.isi.edu/pipermail/ns-users/2007-January/058433.html I've taken a quick look on the dsdv code, and this is what I've found: *** UNICAST TRANSMISSIONS - It seems that all unicast transmissions are handled by the forwardPacket method, with: >target_->recv(p, (Handler *)0); This is different from the way aodv sends packets, but my guess would be that you might need to change target_ in the code above for target_[Iface] --- see Listing 5.4. As I said in the email referenced above, the Iface index need to be gathered from the route table entry. ---- Not double-checked code if(nIfaces) { target_[Iface]->recv(p, (Handler *)0); } else { target_->recv(p, (Handler *)0); } *** BROADCAST TRANSMISSIONS - All broadcast packets are handled by the sendOutBCastPkt method, so instead of that one I guess you should use a modified version of Listing 5.3, e.g. see below: --- Not double-checked code Scheduler &s = Scheduler::instance(); if (nIfaces) { for (int i = 0 ; i < nIfaces ; i++) { Packet *p_copy = p->copy(); s.schedule(targetlist[i], p_copy, jitter(DSDV_BROADCAST_JITTER, be_random_)); } Packet::free(pkt); } else { s.schedule(target_,p,jitter(DSDV_BROADCAST_JITTER, be_random_)); } *** CHANGES ON ROUTE TABLE ENTRY - You need to add the index for the outgoing interface as a new member of the rtable_ent class, and each time you add the routing table entry you may also need to specify this --- see listing 5.5 and my answer on the mail linked above. Note that this will be afterwards used to refer to the appropriate interface when sending a unicast packet. >Can your extension work for multiple interfaces of different kinds such as >802_11, wimax, tdma, umts together? Currently not, or at least we haven't addressed this so far. The idea was to propose a flexible framework, so that extending it to support more technologies shouldn't be too complicated. If you are going to work on this, we will be happy to help/contribute to that. >Would be very much appreciate if you could kindly address my questions Hope that my answers are somehow helpful for you. >Than you very much and best regards, >Tuan Cheers, Ramón
