Rietveld Code Review Tool
Help | Bug tracker | Discussion group | Source code | Sign in
(1617)

Issue 318880043: CBR (constant bit-rate) application and advanced funtionality for OnOffApplication

Can't Edit
Can't Publish+Mail
Start Review
Created:
5 years, 5 months ago by lauri.sormunen
Modified:
5 years, 2 months ago
CC:
ns-3-reviews_googlegroups.com
Visibility:
Public.

Description

Added a new CBR (constant bit-rate) application and advanced functionality for OnOffApplication. - CBR application generates constant-sized packets at a constant interval. The functionality is pretty much the same as in old version of OnOffApplication, but data rate is configured by using attributes "PacketSize" and "Interval" rather than data rate. - OnOff application has a few new attributes: "AdvancedMode", "AdvancedPacketSize" and "AdvancedPacketInterval". "AdvancedMode" attribute is a flag enabling the use of random variable streams as sources for generated packet sizes and packet intervals rather than constant packet size integer and constant data rate. Advanced mode also disables the effect of "DataRate" attribute. Default functionality of OnOffApplication is left untouched, so it can be configured just as before. TrafficTimeTag is also included into stats module to enable extraction of delay statistics in a simple manner. Perhaps adding the TrafficTimeTag caused a slight issue with default src/stats/examples/wscript, or it may have been there before: the time-probe-example caused a dependency problem during compilation, since it did not have 'network' module listed as a dependency. There is also an issue with src/traffic-control/examples/red-vs-ared tests run by test.py: due to initialization of new random variable streams "AdvancedPacketSize" and "AdvancedPacketInterval", the default values given by random variables "OnTime" and "OffTime" are altered and the tests fail. This has been verified by commenting out the new attributes in OnOffApplication, effectively removing the initialization of new random variable streams, and the tests passing as usual.

Patch Set 1 #

Unified diffs Side-by-side diffs Delta from patch set Stats (+1123 lines, -11 lines) Patch
A src/applications/examples/advanced-on-off-example.cc View 1 chunk +96 lines, -0 lines 0 comments Download
A src/applications/examples/cbr-example.cc View 1 chunk +90 lines, -0 lines 0 comments Download
A src/applications/examples/wscript View 1 chunk +11 lines, -0 lines 0 comments Download
A src/applications/helper/cbr-helper.h View 1 chunk +118 lines, -0 lines 0 comments Download
A src/applications/helper/cbr-helper.cc View 1 chunk +88 lines, -0 lines 0 comments Download
A src/applications/model/cbr-application.h View 1 chunk +119 lines, -0 lines 0 comments Download
A src/applications/model/cbr-application.cc View 1 chunk +224 lines, -0 lines 0 comments Download
M src/applications/model/onoff-application.h View 3 chunks +9 lines, -1 line 0 comments Download
M src/applications/model/onoff-application.cc View 5 chunks +70 lines, -9 lines 0 comments Download
A src/applications/test/cbr-test.cc View 1 chunk +131 lines, -0 lines 0 comments Download
M src/applications/wscript View 5 chunks +8 lines, -0 lines 0 comments Download
M src/stats/examples/wscript View 1 chunk +1 line, -1 line 0 comments Download
A src/stats/model/traffic-time-tag.h View 1 chunk +62 lines, -0 lines 0 comments Download
A src/stats/model/traffic-time-tag.cc View 1 chunk +94 lines, -0 lines 0 comments Download
M src/stats/wscript View 2 chunks +2 lines, -0 lines 0 comments Download

Messages

Total messages: 3
Tom Henderson
There are three proposals in this patch set: 1) extend OnOffApplication to include an advanced ...
5 years, 4 months ago (2017-01-16 00:42:39 UTC) #1
lauri.sormunen
On 2017/01/16 00:42:39, Tom Henderson wrote: > There are three proposals in this patch set: ...
5 years, 4 months ago (2017-01-16 14:09:28 UTC) #2
Tommaso Pecorella
5 years, 2 months ago (2017-03-01 23:36:52 UTC) #3
On 2017/01/16 14:09:28, lauri.sormunen wrote:
> On 2017/01/16 00:42:39, Tom Henderson wrote:
> > There are three proposals in this patch set:
> > 
> > 1) extend OnOffApplication to include an advanced mode
> > 2) add a CBR application/helper (simplified generator restricted to CBR)
> > 3) add a Tag for sender timestamping of packets
> > 
> > Regarding AdvanceMode, I support the idea but would like to suggest
splitting
> > the single Mode to two optional features (RandomSize and RandomInterval)
which
> > may be separately enabled.  I left a patch in tracker issue 2571 for this
> patch.
> > 
> > Regarding a CBR application/helper, I wonder if we just could use here a new
> > helper and not an application, since the application mainly duplicates
> > OnOffApplication functionality?  Could a new CbrHelper simply configure the
> > OnOffApplication (and replace OnOffHelper::SetConstantRate())?  Or is
> > OnOffHelper::SetConstantRate() sufficient?  Also, 'Rate' seems a more
natural
> > configuration parameter to support than 'Interval' since people often talk
> about
> > a CBR source of some data rate, not a CBR source with a particular packet
> > interval.
> > 
> > Regarding TrafficTimeTag, we already have SeqTs tag and have a proposal to
> have
> > a Seq+two Ts tag (bug 2111), so do we need a third Ts-only tag type?
> 
> 1) Splitting the advanced mode functionality is fine. 
> 
> 2) The CBR helper is enough, even OnOffHelper could suffice, as long as CBR
> functionality 
> is easily configurable. 
> 
> 3) Other tags are fine, as long as they include the possibility to save 
> time stamp values and extract them later. Current SeqTsHeader is not
preferred,
> since 
> it adds additional overhead, but a Tag with the same functionality suffices. 
> The usage of the Tag should be restricted to application layer only, to make
> sure 
> that no lower-layer object removes it.

My 2 cents:

TrafficTimeTag: I have no strong opinions, but I'm kinda against adding stuff
that is not used. I'd not add this right now, and I'd delay it to a well defined
example and use-case.
As a side note, I understand that TrafficTimeTag could be shorter than SeqTs,
but remember that SeqTs is an header, not a tag - wth all the consequences.

Application: I agree with Tom, a "simple" change in the helper (or a new helper)
should be enough.
Probably with the right choice of attributes we could even not need a new helper
at all (but I like the idea to have a CBR helper, it's more intuitive than an
OnOff "tweaked").
However, I'd be more radical with the changes:
- Deprecate the old attributes, only have new ones (fixed size is a
ConstantRandom).
- In the application check if a deprecated attribute has a changed value, and
gracefully print a warning and convert it to the new format.

In this way we'll not need to add flags to use the new features.
Sign in to reply to this message.

Powered by Google App Engine
RSS Feeds Recent Issues | This issue
This is Rietveld f62528b