Help! DYMO Network simulation

78 views
Skip to first unread message

Louis Boile

unread,
Jul 22, 2014, 11:22:28 AM7/22/14
to omn...@googlegroups.com
Hi everybody,

I need help for my simulations with DYMO protocol.

I am trying to simulate a mobile ad-hoc network using the DYMO routing protocol. I'm using Omnet++ 4.4.1 and Inet 2.4.0.

I am simulating a simple scenario with 6 nodes and I am using BonnMotionMobility in order to specify their mobility - with the attached UAV.text file.
Host[0] is fixed and wants to communicate with a moving Host[1] during all the time of the simulation. Host[2], [3], [4] and [5] are here to maintain the communication link between them. I attached a gif file showing the mobility of the nodes.

I was using first the network using DYMONetwork.ned given in inet/examples/manetrouting/
dymo. I attached the omnet.ini file (omnetpp_DYMONetwork.ini) I am using. The radio parameters are set up for a 20km range with a Free Space Propagation Model.

At the beginning of the simulation, there is no intermediate host to maintain communication between hosts[0] and [1] and no ping replies are received. Then between t=400s up to 1800s DYMO routing specifies a connection using host[2] as intermediate node.
The simulation is working up to t=1800s. At this time nodes don't receive any ping replies. I don't think any RERR message is sent whereas one intermediate host is no longer sufficient to maintain communication between hosts [1] and [0]. Do you know what is happening there? I think there is a problem with the RERR messages and in the statistics I don't see any of the messages sent by DYMO but I am not sure. I attached screenshots of the round-trip-time vectors of hosts [0] and [1] (rtt_host[*]_DYMONetwork.png).

I have seen another network Net80211_aodv.ned in inet/examples/manetrouting/net80211_aodv. I am using the same settings as before with DYMO routing protocol The omnetpp.ini file attached :omnetppNet80211_aodv.ini. I am having the following results with ping app:

    Net80211_aodv.host[0].pingApp[0]
--------------------------------------------------------
ping host[1](ipv4) (145.236.0.2):
sent: 5000   received: 30   loss rate (%): 99.4
round-trip min/avg/max (ms): 139.302/1335.75/3040.03
stddev (ms): 738.077   variance:0.544757
--------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------
    Net80211_aodv.host[1].pingApp[0]
--------------------------------------------------------
ping host[0](ipv4) (145.236.0.1):
sent: 5000   received: 32   loss rate (%): 99.36
round-trip min/avg/max (ms): 1005.16/1342.54/3012.19
stddev (ms): 587.378   variance:0.345012
--------------------------------------------------------

I attached the round-trip-time of host[0] and [1] (rtt_host[*]_net80211_aodv.png). This time DYMO seems to update the routes but the rout-trip-time is very high - 1300 ms in average and almost all the ping messages are lost.

Does anyone knows what is incorrect in the simulations? Or does anyone knows why there are two ned models for DYMO?

Thank you very much
mob.gif
omnetpp_DYMONetwork.ini
omnetppNet80211_aodv.ini
rtt_host[0]_DYMONetwork.png
rtt_host[0]_Net80211_aodv.png
rtt_host[1]_DYMONetwork.png
rtt_host[1]_net80211_aodv.png
UAV.txt

Louis Boile

unread,
Jul 23, 2014, 5:07:36 AM7/23/14
to omn...@googlegroups.com
Actually, I have a problem with the pingApp. Pings are sent again and again after a short timeout (a few ms) and the network is completely flooded with ping messages. Can somebody run the simulation with the files I have attached and tell me if he obtains the same results? I don't know how to fix this issue. 

Thank you!

Louis Boile

unread,
Jul 24, 2014, 7:14:22 AM7/24/14
to omn...@googlegroups.com
 
  Hi everybody,

  I changed the dimensions of the scenario, I had before a scenario with limits of 100km*100km and I have now 1000m*1000m. The problem I had of same pings sent again and again after a small time out is no longer appearing now.

  Does anyone knows why?

  Thank you for your help.

Le mardi 22 juillet 2014 16:22:28 UTC+1, Louis Boile a écrit :
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages