Subject: [manet] Mobility modelss

From: mohamed abas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 00:44:43 -0800 (PST)

Good morning

I am working in PHD degree (Ad Hoc Multicasting) , and I want to know how to Generate Mobility Models and use it in NS-2

Thank you for your support
 
from: Ahmed Ibrahim

---

From: jacquet <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 11:44:40 +0100

Be careful with the random waypoint model. When wrongly tuned, it has  
been shown to have no stable configuration and average node speeds  
decrease and even freeze when the simulation last for too long time.  
In order to avoid this you must set the minimum speed parameter well  
above zero. Unfortunately most simulations results published so far  
does not satisfy this recommandation and are utterly wrong.

Random Waypoint Considered Harmful

J Yoon, M Liu, B Noble

INFOCOM 2003

Best regards,
Philippe
Le 3 févr. 10 à 09:44, mohamed abas a écrit :

>
> Good morning
>
> I am working in PHD degree (Ad Hoc Multicasting) , and I want to  
> know how to Generate Mobility Models and use it in NS-2
>
> _______________________________________________
> manet mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet

---

From: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 15:43:41 -0000

There is a second problem with random waypoint that is not solved by
setting a high minimum speed. Take a random waypoint model, with
waypoints distributed independently and uniformly across an area (e.g.
a rectangular area). Now run it and collect whatever statistics you are
interested in - even for some ideal process. Now reduce the speed towards
zero and plot the trend. Then scatter the nodes statically across the area
and do the same. The liniting case of the first is not the second - because
while the waypoints are uniformly distributed, the node positions aren't,
they have a bias towards the centre.

-- 
Christopher Dearlove
Technology Leader, Communications Group
Networks, Security and Information Systems Department
BAE Systems Advanced Technology Centre
West Hanningfield Road, Great Baddow, Chelmsford, CM2 8HN, UK
Tel: +44 1245 242194  Fax: +44 1245 242124

BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87,
Farnborough Aerospace Centre, Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK
Registered in England & Wales No: 1996687

________________________________

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of jacquet
Sent: 03 February 2010 10:45
To: mohamed abas
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [manet] Mobility modelss

                    *** WARNING ***

  This message has originated outside your organisation,
  either from an external partner or the Global Internet. 
      Keep this in mind if you answer this message.

Be careful with the random waypoint model. When wrongly tuned, it has been shown to have no stable configuration and average node speeds decrease and even freeze when the simulation last for too long time. In order to avoid this you must set the minimum speed parameter well above zero. Unfortunately most simulations results published so far does not satisfy this recommandation and are utterly wrong.  

Random Waypoint Considered Harmful <http://www.ieee-infocom.org/2003/papers/32_03.PDF> 

<http://www.ieee-infocom.org/2003/papers/32_03.PDF> J Yoon, M Liu, B Noble 

INFOCOM 2003

Best regards,
Philippe

	Good morning

	from: Ahmed Ibrahim

********************************************************************
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.
********************************************************************

---

From: "Charles E. Perkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 13:26:31 -0800

Hello folks,

Christian Bettstetter et al. did a nice paper on this subject
for MobiHoc while back.  I found the following citation,
which I expect is an enlargement of the original conference
publication:
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/search/wrapper.jsp?arnumber=1233531

I remember seeing some nice plots where the distribution
of node position looks like an overstuffed pillow nicely
rounded towards the middle.

Regards,
Charlie P.

On 2/3/2010 7:43 AM, Dearlove, Christopher (UK) wrote:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] *On 
> Behalf Of *jacquet
> *Sent:* 03 February 2010 10:45
> *To:* mohamed abas
> *Cc:* [email-masked]
> *Subject:* Re: [manet] Mobility modelss
>
>                      *** WARNING ***
>
> been shown to have no stable 
> configuration and average node speeds decrease and even freeze when 
> the simulation last for too long time. In order to avoid this you must 
> set the minimum speed parameter well above zero. Unfortunately most 
> simulations results published so far does not satisfy this 
> recommandation and are utterly wrong.
>
>
>       <http://www.ieee-infocom.org/2003/papers/32_03.PDF>
>
>
>       J Yoon, M Liu, B Noble
>
> INFOCOM 2003
>
>
> Best regards,
> Philippe
>> I am working in PHD degree (Ad Hoc Multicasting) , and I want to know 
>> how to Generate Mobility Models and use it in NS-2
>> [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>

---

From: jacquet <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2010 09:55:24 +0100

Hello, Charlie,

But the most worrying is the freezing effect. It has tremendous impact  
on simulation results, the most, I guess, on reactive protocols (no  
move, no link break).

Best,
Philippe
Le 3 févr. 10 à 22:26, Charles E. Perkins a écrit :

>> Be careful with the random waypoint model. When wrongly tuned, it  
>> has been shown to have no stable configuration and average node  
>> speeds decrease and even freeze when the simulation last for too  
>> long time. In order to avoid this you must set the minimum speed  
>> parameter well above zero. Unfortunately most simulations results  
>> published so far does not satisfy this recommandation and are  
>> utterly wrong.
>>

---

From: Chi-Anh La <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2010 12:46:59 +0100

Hello,

There is an INFOCOM05 paper by Le Boudec et al. that tends to overcome 
this problem. This work ensures a stationary regime for mobility models, 
e.g. the mobile location is uniformly distributed and there is no speed 
decay:

http://www.comsoc.org/confs/ieee-infocom/2005/61_04.pdf

Authors also provide a tool to generate mobility trace for ns-2 which is 
free to download from: http://ica1www.epfl.ch/RandomTrip

Regards,

Chi-Anh La

jacquet wrote:
>>> the simulation last for too long time. In order to avoid this you 
>>> must set the minimum speed parameter well above zero. Unfortunately 
>>> most simulations results published so far does not satisfy this

---

From: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2010 11:30:29 -0000

I've used a model that, on superficial inspection of the
paper, is the same as one of those presented in that paper
well before its publication date. I'm not claiming anything
novel however, if others (some of whom having been working
in this field longer than I have - I only go back ten years)
hadn't already independently invented it (random walk with
reflections) many times I'd be extremely surprised. I think
the non-uniformity of the random waypoint is a pretty obvious
flaw - the nore serious (in most regards) timing issues that
Philippe points out are maybe less obvious - and need to be
considered in other cases too (in particular constraining
what is and isn't done in that random walk, and whether to
pause).

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Chi-Anh La
Sent: 04 February 2010 11:47
To: jacquet; [email-masked]; mohamed abas; Dearlove, Christopher (UK)
Subject: Re: [manet] Mobility modelss

                    *** WARNING ***

Hello,

Regards,

Chi-Anh La

---

From: Nils Aschenbruck <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2010 15:20:12 +0100

Hi all,

there are also other tools for motion generation available:

http://toilers.mines.edu/twiki/bin/view/Public/MobileModels
http://bonnmotion.net.cs.uni-bonn.de
http://nile.cise.ufl.edu/important/software.htm
http://ce.sharif.edu/~sm_mousavi/mobisim.html

Best
Nils

Chi-Anh La wrote on 02/04/2010 12:46 PM:
>>>>   either from an external partner or the Global Internet.       Keep
>>>> this in mind if you answer this message.
>>>>

---

From: "Stephan Bohacek" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2010 10:25:50 -0500

The UDelModels (http://udelmodels.eecis.udel.edu) is an alternative to
artificial mobility modeling; it models civilian mobility and urban
propagation. Since computing propagation is computationally complex, some
propagation trace files are provided online.

Best,

Stephan

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Nils Aschenbruck
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 9:20 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: jacquet; mohamed abas; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [manet] Mobility modelss

Hi all,

Best
Nils

---

From: Rex Buddenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 09:13:33 -0800

> >>>>> know how to Generate Mobility Models and use it in NS-2

Rereading the original post, it looks as if Ahmed may have tunneled
himself into a position of 'NS-2 is the answer, what is the
question?'.  

Most of the posts have, in the spirit of MANET, provided layer 3
answers.  But perhaps a review of 'mobility' is useful to remind
ourselves that there's more to the problem.  Just what does mobility
mean to _you_?

At layer 1, mobility means platform mobility and is measured in metrics
like doppler.  

At layer 2, mobility usually means handoffs.  As in passing a cellphone
connection from one pylon to another as the cellphone physically moves.
Similarly, the location database on the backside needs to know where an
on-hook cellphone is in order to direct an incoming call (same issues
for a campus WiFi setup with multiple WiFi splotches.  The key here is
homogeneity -- the mobility characteristics do not affect router tables.

At layer 3, mobility connotes MANET ... as most of the responders
tacitly assumed.  Routing table volatility.  But one can argue that OSPF
and DHCP both deal with mobility too.  

At layer 4/5, 'mobility' may not be the correct term of engagement, but
Ahmed used 'multicast' in his query and it is certainly valid.  The
brute force observation here is that wired internet is provisioned at Gs
while as soon as you hit a radio, the r-WANs (MANET or otherwise) are
provisioned at low Ms ... on a good day.  Multicast is the only real
offset to the physics-imposed bandwidth limitations.  This observation
makes it a bit difficult to divorce multicast issues from mobility ones
in reality (although we do need to do that for protocol development
reasons).

And at layers 6/7 we have few applications that actually use the
multicast.  This bullet for completeness -- we don't have a complete
solution without.

The reminder is that MANET is properly disciplined to a layer 3
solution.  That's good.  But it's somewhat less than a complete
discussion of mobility.

---

From: "Dearlove, Christopher (UK)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 10:03:18 -0000

> tacitly assumed.

A reasonable - I might even say the only reasonable
- assumption on a MANET mailing list.

But actually even this discussion is strictly not on
topic for what is not a generic MANET mailing list,
but rather one to discuss the work of the MANET WG
and the routing protocols it is standardising. But
clearly people (including me) have stretched a point,
as we've all been here on this issue. But while we've
probably all looked at other mobility issues as well,
discussing even cellular handover, let alone Doppler
shift, is really far too much off topic, important
though those topics are.

---

From: Reema Mathew - Michael <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 07:08:46 +0000 (GMT)

Hi All,

Can anyone suggest a command or method to enable/disable RTS/CTS in 802.11g
in a WLAN Adapter in LINUX 

U am trying to set up a 5 node ad-hoc network and I have  TP-LINK PCI Adapter TL-WN651G working in LINUX using madwifi driver.

Any help ....

Thanks in Advance.
Reema

---

From: Henning Rogge <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 08:23:25 +0100

On Thu February 25 2010 08:08:46 Reema Mathew - Michael wrote:
> U am trying to set up a 5 node ad-hoc network and I have  TP-LINK PCI
>  Adapter TL-WN651G working in LINUX using madwifi driver.
if you use madwifi, the help site of the madwifi project might help.

http://madwifi-project.org/wiki/UserDocs/UsersGuide
Look for "RTS".

Henning Rogge
-- 
Diplom-Informatiker Henning Rogge , Fraunhofer-Institut für
Kommunikation, Informationsverarbeitung und Ergonomie FKIE
Kommunikationssysteme (KOM)
Neuenahrer Straße 20, 53343 Wachtberg, Germany
Telefon +49 228 9435-263,   Fax +49 228 9435 685
mailto:[email-masked] http://www.fkie.fraunhofer.de
GPG: E1C6 0914 490B 3909 D944 F80D 4487 C67C 55EC CFE0

---

From: Bastian Blywis <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 09:18:40 +0100

Hi,

have a look at the manual of iwconfic:
iwconfig interface rts {N|auto|fixed|off}

Best regards,

Bastian Blywis

-- 

---
Bastian Blywis, Dipl.-Inf.
Freie Universität Berlin
FB Informatik
AG-Tech, Raum 157
Takustr. 9, 14195 Berlin
Tel.: 030 - 838 75 248
E-Mail: [email-masked]
http://www.des-testbed.net