Thanks for your kind reply Phil and Michael...
What about if i make the nodes to communicate in a single range, and force them to come on hop., which means there shouldn't be hidden node problems..
I did the following to achive the above, for the 3 node network..
Node 2 was forced to receive only node 1 packets (i.e, the route packets)
Node 1 was forced to receive both node 2 and node 0 (Rx) packets.
Node 0(Rx) was forced to receive only node 1 packets..
I used this logic in the event of Receive message in MultihopLEPSM.nc file. so, this was routing the packets on hop but on a single range..
Under this case, i get the same results..
I thought of capturing why actually the packets are lost using a TOSBase. It seems that TOSBase also missed some packets. I have tabulated the results below, so that it will be clear..
ID | SentPackets | Packets received | Packet Drops | Packet Drops |
___|____________ | for forwarding | at Rx | at TOSBase |
1 | 1000 | 996 | 1000 | 994 |
2 | 1000 | 0 | 994 | 997 |
__________________________________________________________ |
I really wonder over here, why there is no packet loss for node 1. I experimented almost 10 - 12 times. It gave me almost the same results.. Few packets of node 2 were not received by node 1, while node 2 says he has sent to medium.. Also, TOSBase was able to receive more packets of node 2 than node1..
Is there such that the preamble getting corrupted which makes the packet totally lost at node1??
_______________________________________________ Tinyos-help mailing list Tinyos-help@Millennium.Berkeley.EDU https://mail.millennium.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tinyos-help
