[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ns] BandWidth of Wireless Network in ns2
Maybe I didn't understand your question clearly. But if
you pump the packets at different rate at the senders, why
do you expect the receivers will receive the same amount
of packets?
Kun-chan Lan
On Mon, 5 Mar 2001, Robert Yin wrote:
>
> Hi,
> I use the LossMonitor just like Marc Greis' tutorial to calculate
> the bandwidth for 5 CBR flows. And I use the wireless.tcl in the
> tcl/ex directory. In these 2 simulations, the tcl file for each flow is
> as following:
>
> << First Simulation >>
> set udp_(0) [new Agent/UDP]
> $ns_ attach-agent $node_(0) $udp_(0)
> set sink0 [new Agent/LossMonitor]
> $ns_ attach-agent $node_(1) $sink0
> set cbr_(0) [new Application/Traffic/CBR]
> $udp_(0) set fid_ 0
> $cbr_(0) set packetSize_ 300
> $cbr_(0) set rate_ 220000.0
> $cbr_(0) attach-agent $udp_(0)
> $ns_ connect $udp_(0) $sink0
> $ns_ at 0.0 "$cbr_(0) start"
>
> << Second Simulation >>
> set udp_(0) [new Agent/UDP]
> $ns_ attach-agent $node_(0) $udp_(0)
> set sink0 [new Agent/LossMonitor]
> $ns_ attach-agent $node_(1) $sink0
> set cbr_(0) [new Application/Traffic/CBR]
> $udp_(0) set fid_ 0
> $cbr_(0) set packetSize_ 300
> $cbr_(0) set interval_ 0.008
> $cbr_(0) attach-agent $udp_(0)
> $ns_ connect $udp_(0) $sink0
> $ns_ at 0.0 "$cbr_(0) start"
>
> The transmission rate of these 2 simulations is different. The total
> bandwidth of first one is about 1.1 MByte, and second one is
> about 1.3 MByte. Why the total bandwidth of these 2 wireless
> simulations are different ?
>
> Thx.
>
> Robert
>
> > can yu give out more details how you can calculate the
> > bandwidth in your simulation?
> >
> >
> > Kun-chan Lan
> >
> >
> > On Sun, 4 Mar 2001, Robert Yin wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I use 5 CBR traffic sources in wireless networks.
> > > All nodes do not move. When I use different CBR transmission
> > > rate in 2 simulations, the total bandwidth of these 2 simulations
> > > is not equal.
> > > Could anyone tell me why ?
> > >
> > > Thx.
> > >
> > > Robert
>
>