> However, this bug fix does not aim to solve this PSEUDO BACKOFF problem.
Your conclusion seem to be drawn from a not correct understanding of the bug. If you read carefully the bug description, you will understand that in the original module there are two backoff procedures: one correct and another non correct (which implement the PSEUDO BACKOFF). The aim of the fix is to get rid of the PSEUDO BACKOFF. Bye Federico Maguolo On Thu, 2006-06-01 at 00:17, Bo Wang wrote: > Hi, all, > > The following "Bug Fix" > http://www.dei.unipd.it/wdyn/?IDsezione=2435 > > pointed out that > " The *send* procedure begins with the 'send' method of the class > 'Mac802_11' in 'mac-802_11.cc' file. First, *send* checks whether the medium > is idle and no previous backoff procedure is pending. If the response is > true, *send* calls the internal DeferTimer procedure, which should simulate > the random backoff stage described by the IEEE 802.11 standard. Notice that, > despite what dictated by the standard concerning the backoff stage the > internal DeferTimer procedure DOES NOT freeze the timer contdown if the > channel becomes busy, since the channel sensing procedure is not considered. > For this reason, in the following we will refer to this backoff procedure as > PSEUDO BACKOFF." > > However, this bug fix does not aim to solve this PSEUDO BACKOFF problem. > My question is that if the backoff procedure does not freeze the timer > countdown which is a big deviation from the standard, can we still use NS2 > to > do wireless simulation? It seems that a lot of research papers use NS2. > Is the timer countdown freezing properly implemented in real wireless > products? > > > I would like to hear your opinion on this issue. > > Thank you very much! > > Best, > Bo Wang
