Hello all,

I'm testing the DSR protocol in ns-2.33. I noticed that the size of the
route request is wrong: each time a node adds itself to the path in the
route request and forwards it; the size of the request should increase by 4
bytes, but instead it is increased by the whole size of the DSR request
header!

So the size of the route-request packet increases like this : 32 -> 48 - >
68 -> 92  ( when the hop count increases from 1 -> 2 -> 3 -> 4 ) as can be
seen in the following lines of the trace file:

s -t 0.596604780 -Hs 1 -Hd -1 -Ni 1 -Nx 31.54 -Ny 47.86 -Nz 0.00 -Ne
-1.000000 -Nl RTR -Nw --- -Ma 0 -Md 0 -Ms 0 -Mt 0 -Is 1.255 -Id 16.255 -It
DSR -Il 32 -If 0 -Ii 2 -Iv 32 -P dsr -Ph 1 -Pq 1 -Ps 2 -Pp 0 -Pn 2 -Pl 0 -Pe
0->16 -Pw 0 -Pm 0 -Pc 0 -Pb 0->0
f -t 0.598515344 -Hs 11 -Hd -1 -Ni 11 -Nx 12.88 -Ny 81.10 -Nz 0.00 -Ne
-1.000000 -Nl RTR -Nw --- -Ma 0 -Md ffffffff -Ms 1 -Mt 800 -Is 1.255 -Id
16.255 -It DSR -Il 48 -If 0 -Ii 2 -Iv 32 -P dsr -Ph 2 -Pq 1 -Ps 2 -Pp 0 -Pn
2 -Pl 0 -Pe 0->16 -Pw 0 -Pm 0 -Pc 0 -Pb 0->0
f -t 0.608855544 -Hs 12 -Hd -1 -Ni 12 -Nx 44.77 -Ny 96.77 -Nz 0.00 -Ne
-1.000000 -Nl RTR -Nw --- -Ma 0 -Md ffffffff -Ms b -Mt 800 -Is 1.255 -Id
16.255 -It DSR -Il 68 -If 0 -Ii 2 -Iv 32 -P dsr -Ph 3 -Pq 1 -Ps 2 -Pp 0 -Pn
2 -Pl 0 -Pe 0->16 -Pw 0 -Pm 0 -Pc 0 -Pb 0->0
f -t 0.618942937 -Hs 13 -Hd -1 -Ni 13 -Nx 66.91 -Ny 69.78 -Nz 0.00 -Ne
-1.000000 -Nl RTR -Nw --- -Ma 0 -Md ffffffff -Ms c -Mt 800 -Is 1.255 -Id
16.255 -It DSR -Il 92 -If 0 -Ii 2 -Iv 32 -P dsr -Ph 4 -Pq 1 -Ps 2 -Pp 0 -Pn
2 -Pl 0 -Pe 0->16 -Pw 0 -Pm 0 -Pc 0 -Pb 0->0

If you notice the increments in the size ( 32 -> 32+16 -> (32+16)+20 - >
((32+16)+20)+24 ) , then these increments represent the actual size of the
DSR request ( without the IP-header length).

I looked at the DSR agent implementation and found that the size of the
packet is always changed by +-srh->size() instead of +-4 :
cmnh->size() += srh->size();
cmh->size() -= srh->size();    // cut off the SR header 4/7/99 -dam

I want to know if that is a bug ? or am I missing something ?

Thanks,
Waleed Tuffaha.

Reply via email to