Announcement: INET-1.99.3 (development version) released
Andras Varga
We have released a new development version of INET. Use this if wish to
contribute to INET or you need some feature or bugfix that is not yet in the
latest stable version INET-20111118), and you don't mind sudden and
unannounced API changes in the code. For general use we still recommend
INET-20111118.
Download page: http://inet.omnetpp.org/index.php?n=Main.Download
What's New: in INET-1.99.3:
---------------------------
With this release, we have started a review of all basic protocol modules in
the INET Framework, fixing bugs, refactoring for clarity and
maintainability,
and implementing commonly needed missing features. A testing framework is
also
falling into place. We have added ChangeLog files in each source directory
to make it easier to follow things for end users and contributors alike, and
we'll also be requiring ChangeLog entries from contributors who submit code
patches. ChangeLogs also include a brief history of the corresponding
components from the start; if you have fixes or amendments, please contact
us.
This version of INET requires OMNeT++ 4.2 (version 4.2.1 suggested).
- Ethernet model improvements: EtherMAC refactored for better readability;
added reconnect support, better PAUSE support, support for 40 Gigabit and
100 Gigabit Ethernet; several bugfixes; regression and validation tests
- added predefined Ethernet link types: Eth10M, Eth100M, Eth1G, Eth10G,
Eth40G, Eth100G
- IPv4 model improvements: better fragmentation and multicast support; IPv4
module refactored for readability and maintainability; several bugfixes
- IPv4 routing table improvements: notification for routing entry changes
(routing entry objects no longer need to be immutable); lookup performance
optimization (routes are kept in decreasing prefix length order to speed
up
longest prefix match); cleanup and bugfixes
- IPv6 improvements: implemented Default Router Selection as specified in
RFC 4861 6.3.6 (round-robin); tunneling is now available without xMIPv6;
implemented datagram fragmentation/reassembly; IPv6 now works over PPP;
several other bug fixes
- UDP: better multicast support and DSCP support (apps can specify ToS
[IPv4] /
Traffic Class [IPv6] byte); bug fixes
- PPPInterface, EthernetInterface: use queueType="" instead of queueType=
"NoQueue" to turn off external queue module and use internal queue.
- Ieee80211, MANET routing: updated to latest INETMANET release:
radio: added support for noise generators and configurable error models;
802.11: Airtime Link Metric support; duplicate frame detection /
filtering;
support for prioritizing of multicast frames
- added WeightedFairQueue from INETMANET
- removed Ieee802.11 Mesh feature. It depended on too many upper layer
protocols and features.
- statistics (@statistic properties) cleaned up in all modules: standardized
on lower case statistics titles; record packet counts in a less confusing
way (NOT as rcvdPkBytes:count); cleaned up recorder lists
- miscellaneous: timer usage optimized in DYMO_FAU; revised PingApp, e.g.
printPing is now turned off by default; numerous bug fixes and
improvements
- added a test suite (tests/); it contains fingerprint tests (for regression
testing); smoke tests (crude regression tests); statistical tests (for
validation); unit tests (of classes/modules); and other tests. We make
most
use of fingerprint tests, so they are probably in the best state.
See ChangeLogs in individual source folders for more information.
Enjoy!
Andras
giojack888
I´m student and I am working on my thesis at the university and I
would like consider 2 scenarios nut I need help for develop them:
-How I can experiment more than 2 Handovers in the topology? Because I
have 3 APs in the topology and I pretend that the MN can move like
this: Home Network-->Foreign Network1-->Foreign Network2. I put the
settings of the 3 APs but when I run the simulation the next message
appear:
Model error: Duplicate Address Detected!
Manual Attention Required!
So can you help me for fix this problem, How I can resolve it?
-My second scenario is about communication between MN and CN (but CN
only support IPv6, it don’t support MIPv6), It is possible? I tried
but I got an error in the CN about the message Binding Update. My goal
is exhibit the difference using or not the Optimization Routing in the
communication between MN and CN.
I really appreciate any help or support