Re: [ns] satellite+wired simulation

[Tarik Alj <aljtarik@inrs-telecom.uquebec.ca>]

>
>On Thu, 21 Dec 2000, Tarik Alj wrote:
>
>> I might not have anything to do with satellite or wireless stuff
>> in NS, but I do agree with that sentence. My point of vue is that
>> if we are going to play with low level stuff, I mean below L3
>> (e.g. LL, MAC, Phy, Channel), we ought to provide for "real"
>> interfaces and links. LL + MAC should just be seen as an interface
>> and phy + channel as link; and nodes should suport heterogenous
>> interfaces. The current model allows nodes to be either wired or
>> wireless, does not allow a node to have different interfaces and
>> is just plain UGLY (yuk-yuk)  in my opinion.
>> 
>> I would like to know your opinion on that. Lloyd?
>
>Oh, absolutely; there seems to be a lot of object flexibility not
>being taken advantage of, mainly because (as far as I can see)
>different bits of code are frozen at different types of class API.
>Configuring nodes when you create them with a list of limited
>options really isn't really that flexible, as opposed to installing
>interfaces etc.
>
>Tarik, I look forward to seeing your rewrite of the code. (can you
>make all other addressing types derived forms of hierarchical
>addressing and rewrite the multicast code to work with wireless
>routing while you're at it?)

So I look like a mammoth to you... thanks for making me feel graceful :)

>
>seriously though, it _is_ a mess; rewriting would require throwing
>out/porting a lot of functionality (throwing away stuff might be the
>only way you'd get a better simulator - ns v3?), and is, alas, a
>mammoth thankless task. Who'd do it?

anybody, with enough innocence, sense of humor, kindness and a brain, willing to 
work hard (and probably for close to free) looking for a master's thesis 
project, come on, raise your hand. 

cheers,

-Tarik