[Battlemesh] Battlemesh Digest, Vol 68, Issue 16
tomh at tomh.org
Wed Nov 18 23:40:35 CET 2015
> On 17.11.15 20:12, fboehm wrote:
> > The simulation would also need to include different antenna types
> > that are used at each node (omni, sector, directional). Without
> > having ever simulated a wireless network it sounds like a complex
> > setup to me. The results could be simply bogus because the simulation
> > model isn't comprehensive.
> IIRC, ns-3 supports directional antenna models:
> Input is node positions, antenna orientations and gain characteristics.
> Output is additional loss/gain factors which are added to the pairwise
> path losses.
Yes, ns-3 does support directional antennas , but they require the
use of a spectrum channel type that is not presently supported for
Wi-Fi (although support is planned for this channel type by our next
> You don't seem to need a frequency selective model setup.
> So, the "only" thing you have to take care of is to check if the
> receiver (and thus interference) model and the overall path loss model
> fit to your scenario well enough. Our measurements indicate that the
> ns-3 interference model seems to be good enough for most needs (at least
> when we are talking about AWGN and Atheros chipsets). Which leaves an
> unmatched path loss model to be the main source of prediction error.
> > Maybe an acceptable alternative approach is to statically calculate
> > a table that stores the level and variance of interference each node
> > generates to every other node. The data in this table would be the
> > input to a network emulator that emulates throughput, latency,
> > jitter, loss.
> Calculation of these numbers needs again a well matched path loss model.
> But if you can *measure* pairwise path attenuations in your mesh that
> could be then turned into a static path loss matrix that can be plugged
> into ns-3 as is.
Yes, this is our MatrixPropagationLossModel .
More information about the Battlemesh