Thanks once again for the reply. . . 

Had a read through cmu-trace.cc, and I'm not 100% convinced I can tell
where newtrace_ is being set.  

I may be wrong, but the fact that I /am/ getting node tracing for the
lower layers (MAC, AGT etc) when using nsclick (for info: when using
nsclick, the routing part is handed off to click, so I would not expect
to see any RTR or IFQ log entries) indicates that CMUTrace is being
executed.  The only other possibility is that the clicknode has
implemented tracing all on its own, which seems quite unlikely.  

Which component is responsible for setting the newtrace_ variable?  Is
it possible that clicknodes are somehow mangling it?

Cheers,

Dave

-----Original Message-----
From: ?e Olbert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: 26 February 2007 09:05
To: David Bath
Subject: RE: [ns] new wireless trace format

Hi!

I have no idea about click as such, just thought this was an interesting
problem.

cmu-trace.cc prints in new-format if the packet type is not tagged:

// use tagged format if appropriate
if (pt_->tagged()) {

<code>

return;
}
if (newtrace_) {

<code>

Since you say you set newtrace I guess it means that it never gets to
the
if (newtrace_) statement.

On a side note: There is no mention about click in the traceformats
available here..
http://nsnam.isi.edu/nsnam/index.php/NS-2_Trace_Formats#New_Wireless_Tra
ce_Formats

It looks like you have to implement it yourself =P

Regards

> Hey there,
>
> Thanks for reply.
>
> This is the same sort of conclusion I came to - but I'm not quite sure
> how to check that, and whether it falls into the Click or ns domain...
> I've cross-posted to the Click list, so they might have some
> suggestions.
>
> I don't understand well enough the tracing architecture - the
ClickNode
> types can clearly print something, as I can happily get old trace
format
> output.  Any pointers on what I can check in cmu-trace.cc (or anywhere
> else) to verify if there's code to handle newtrace format?
>
> Curiously, I don't seem to be able to get location data in old trace
> format, (but works fine if I don't use ClickNodes) so I wonder if
> perhaps this is a clue to where the problem is?
>
> Thanks for continuing help.
>
> Dave
>
>


Reply via email to