Subject: re: Simulations & Comparisons

From: Dave Maltz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 98 12:57:17 EDT

>Regarding scenarios...if I recall correctly, the scenario from the 
>CMU paper models nodes wandering around a 1500m x 300m rectangle, 
>possibly students on the CMU campus.

Our Mobicom '98 paper used a 1500m x 300m site, though we have also
spent a bunch of time working with a 670m x 670m site (which has the
same area as the 1500x300 site).  We chose the size by balancing the
following factors: the number of nodes (we chose 50 pretty early on),
the average node density (we wanted to make partitions relatively
rare), and the average path length (we wanted to challenge the routing
protocol with longer path lengths). 

The rectangular site was generally more challenging to the protocols
we studied than the square site, so it made for a more interesting
presentation.  It is not intended to model any particular physical
network, but rather exercise the network over a variety of interesting
topological changes.

Cheers, 
 -dam

---

From: "M. Scott Corson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 21:16:28 -0400 (EDT)

> protocol with longer path lengths). 

The radios had a nominal transmission range of 250m in a 1500m x 300m box.
You presented statistics on shortest path lengths and topology changes.
Did you happen to calculate the average nodal degree over all simulations?
And the percentage of time the network was partitioned?  I'm trying to
complete the picture in my mind of the environment in which the nodes
were operating.

-Scott

*******************************************************************************

M. Scott Corson                                 Institute for Systems Research
[email-masked]                              A.V. Williams Bldg. (115)
Phone: 301-405-6630 (Rm. 2205 AVW)              University of Maryland     
Fax:   301-314-8586                             College Park, MD  20742

*******************************************************************************