i found out that a missing line in ns-mobilenode.tcl caused that strange 
behaviour.
since i correctly added
    set sndT [cmu-trace Send "RTR" $self]
the traffic seems to be fine, except that the wireless packets don't 
appear in NAM anymore.

-tim

Tim Elschner schrieb:
> hi,
>
> i'm trying to user mutliple interfaces with the adhoc routing agent 
> "noah" - which stands for "NO AdHoc routing". i use only one mobile 
> node, and some basestations with foreign agents, an home agent and a 
> corresponding node.
> as noah doesn't need a routing table, i use a map for storing the 
> interface. i use the "prev_hop" field in the common-header to associate 
> the interface.
> in the "forwardPacket" function - which is for unicast transmissions - i 
> use the information stored in the map to send the packets through the 
> correct interface. this works fine with interface 1, but fails vor 
> interface 0. all packets are dropped. if i just flip the channels 
> between interface 0 and 1, still interface 1 is working and interface 0 
> fails.
>
> did i miss something?
> hints anyone? :)
>
> cheers,
> tim
>
>
> Ramon Aguero schrieb:
>   
>> Hello Tim,
>>
>> thanks for pinpointing the error! Somehow I made a mistake when 
>> copying and pasting the code to the file.
>>
>> The correct procedure would be the following one (note that the 
>> arptable_ is now within the 'for' cycle). In this sense, I don't think 
>> you need to change all arptable_ into arptable. Hope this helps.
>>
>> Node/MobileNode instproc reset {} {
>> $self instvar arptable_ nifs_ netif_ mac_ ifq_ ll_ imep_
>> for {set i 0} {$i < $nifs_} {incr i} {
>> $netif_($i) reset
>> $mac_($i) reset
>> $ll_($i) reset
>> $ifq_($i) reset
>> if { [info exists opt(imep)] && $opt(imep) == "ON" } {
>> $imep_($i) reset
>> }
>> if { $arptable_($i) != "" } {
>> $arptable_($i) reset
>> }
>> }
>> }
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Ramón
>>
>> PS - I've already modified the document -- with the correct procedure 
>> -- in the web page:
>> http://personales.unican.es/aguerocr
>>
>>
>> At 16:39 18/01/2007, Tim Elschner wrote:
>>     
>>> great job as far as i can see.
>>> anyway i ran into problems with ns-mobilenode.tcl:
>>> in "Node/MobileNode instproc reset" i couldn't find any differences 
>>> to the original.
>>> i got an error, that arptable_ is an array. so i changed every 
>>> arptable_ into arptable. now ns2 complains about the missing variable 
>>> arptable :(
>>>
>>> any hints out there?
>>>
>>> cheers,
>>> tim
>>>
>>> Ramon Aguero schrieb:
>>>       
>>>> Dear all,
>>>>
>>>> We have seen a lot of requests about the possibility to extend the 
>>>> NS-2 framework to support multiple interfaces. Although there is 
>>>> some information available, according to the messages that have been 
>>>> sent to this list, it seems that a more thorough description may be 
>>>> required.
>>>>
>>>> In this sense, after performing an analysis about existing 
>>>> activities in this topic, we have created a document that tries to 
>>>> summarize which are the required changes to be performed within the 
>>>> different pieces of the simulator (tcl, c++) as well as how routing 
>>>> protocols can be adapted to make use of the new feature. The howto 
>>>> is entitled "Adding Multiple Interface Support in NS-2" and it has 
>>>> been written by my colleague Jesús Pérez and myself.
>>>>
>>>> I’ve uploaded the document, which can be retrieved from the 
>>>> following url:
>>>> <http://personales.unican.es/aguerocr>http://personales.unican.es/aguerocr 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We will be happy to receive any feedback, comments, so as to improve 
>>>> the howto, since we would like to have it like a living document, 
>>>> adding new features as they are available.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Ramón
>>>>
>>>> ========================================
>>>> Ramón Agüero Calvo
>>>> Dept. of Communications Engineering
>>>> Network Planning & Mobile Communications
>>>> Laboratory
>>>> University of Cantabria
>>>> Avda Castros s/n
>>>> 39005 - Santander
>>>> SPAIN
>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>> Tel: +34 942 201 392 (Ext 14)
>>>> Fax: +34 942 201 488
>>>> ========================================
>>>>
>>>>         
>
>   

Reply via email to