Hi, Fedrico, Thank you very much for your reply.
Best, Bo Wang On 6/1/06, Maguolo Federico <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > 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 > >
