Re: [omnetpp] INET: ad-hoc beaconing

["Wang Wei" <WWang at xxx>]

The standard uses 1023 as the default CWMax value for DS PHY. I think it
doesn't matter to tune its value as u like, regardless of retryLimit
which is also tunable.

Btw, it seems that the RETRY mechanism in INET is a bit different from
the standard. In INET (20060912a), retryCounter is incremented AFTER it
is compared with retryLimit, while in standard the SRC/LRC value is
incremented BEFORE the comparison. As a result, a retryLimit of "n" in
INET would at most give "n+1" times of transmissions. Please correct me
if I'm wrong.

WW.

-----Original Message-----
From: omnetpp-l-bounces at xxx
[mailto:omnetpp-l-bounces at xxx] On Behalf Of Francesco Sgolacchia
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 6:25 PM
To: OMNeT++ Discussion List
Subject: Re: [omnetpp] INET: ad-hoc beaconing


Il giorno 12/gen/07, alle ore 19:08, Andreas Koepke ha scritto:

> Nearly, the PHY is different and that can not be modelled with a  
> simple
> change of constants.
>
Yes, I know the two PHYs are different,
but could you give me a little more detailed answer, please?
What else should be changed, in the model?
Should be there also a different propagation model?


>> PS:
>> Why does (in Ieee80211Consts.h)
>> CW_MAX = 255 and not 1023 ?
>
> Because 255 is the max that is actually reached (4 retries)

Could this value be too small in very crowded networks?
Actually, it seems "retryLimit = 7" ,
in Ieee802.11Consts.h and Ieee802.11Mac.c

Thank you,
Francesco


_______________________________________________
OMNeT++ Mailing List
options: http://lists.omnetpp.org/mailman/listinfo/omnetpp-l
archive: http://www.omnetpp.org/listarchive/index.php
_______________________________________________
OMNeT++ Mailing List
options: http://lists.omnetpp.org/mailman/listinfo/omnetpp-l
archive: http://www.omnetpp.org/listarchive/index.php