Re: [ns] Ad Hoc simulation, CMU version or 2.1b7a, which one better?

[Robin Poss <robin_poss@yahoo.com>]

I would say ns 2.1b7a, because more people have used
it and will use it: Many CMU bugs have been corrected,
and if you find some more more people will be able to
answer your questions.
You might consider 2.1b6a also: It has been around
longer than ns 2.1b7a, so many bugs have been found in
it already, and people are familiar with it. Some of
the bugs found in 2.1b6a have been corrected in
2.1b7a, and it is said that  2.1b7a enhanced a lot the
wireless capacities of 2.1b6a, but 2.1b7a has not
passed the test of time yet...


To answer your first question, the CMU took an old
version of ns, trnasformed it and added some code to
suit their research needs. That's the CMU original.

Then part of this CMU original was integrated into the
mainstream ns, with test suites, examples and
documentation. this is ns 2.1b6/7a. It's more
supported, it's more up to date, it's the one most
people use as a base for their research, and it's the
one you will find information about if you query the
ns-users archive.

--- Dong Sun <d.sun@usa.net> wrote:
> Does anybody know the difference of  Ad Hoc
> extension between CMU
> original and ns 2.1b7a? If I want to simulate ad
> hoc, which version is
> better?



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online!
http://photos.yahoo.com/