Professional Documents
Culture Documents
01398E-Simulation Meeting Notes May25
01398E-Simulation Meeting Notes May25
doc,: IEEE802.11-00/139
IEEE P802.11
Wireless LANs
Meeting Notes ad-hoc QoS Simulation
Date:
Author:
Evan R. Green,
Intel Architecture Labs - Communications Architecture
+1 (503) 264-8456 FAX +1 (503) 264-3483
e-Mail: Evan.R.Green@Intel.com
Agenda
1) Introductions and what your simulation plans are in general
2) Set a date to get together. Can we meet face to face? Where?
a) Intel is willing to host a meeting in Hillsboro, Oregon or at a geographically central place.
3) Set the agenda for the meeting: (some ideas below)
a) Tools discussion, Opnet etc.
b) Can we share our files such as models and traffic generators?
c) Methods of sharing files
d) Who is doing what and what can we share
4) Other items I may have missed?
5) Summary and recap of next steps
Attending
Evan Green, Intel. Are planning to simulate using Opnet. Interested in NWN proposal. Also would
like to compare to HiperLAN2.
Dave Halasz, Cisco. Has site license for Opnet. Mike Lewis has Opnet for 2 months looking at
higher level management of PCF within AP. Will be simulating, interested in NWN, also interested
in H2 comparison.
John Kowalski, Sharp Labs. Expect to get Opnet soon. Interested in home network applications
with multiple AV streams. Interested in Japan MMAC implications.
Sunghyun Chio, Amjad Soomro, Philips Labs. Using Virginia tech model in Opnet. Have OpnetV7
now with 802.11. Goal to simulate their QoS proposal.
page 1
May 2000
doc,: IEEE802.11-00/139
Raju Gubbi, Sharewave, working on joint proposal with Lucent and AT&T. Using Opnet.
No
Intel
Sharewave
Cisco (several sites)
NoWires Needed
Philips
Simulation discussion
In the wake of the decision not to have a face to face meeting we began discussing some of the proposed
agenda items the first of which was tool selection.
It was widely agreed that using a common model and tool is desirable. The general consensus from the
discussion was to use Opnet since everyone either has it or will soon. Notable, however, are the points
made on the value of the Network Simulator tool from Berkeley having support for the higher layers of
IETF protocols.
After deciding to stick with Opnet the discussion turned to which model should be used. There are two
models available now. The first model is a contributed model from Virginia Tech which Philips has been
working with for some time now. The other model comes from Opnet. Since they have some experience
with both of these models, Philips volunteered to put together a comparison that we will review in our next
meeting.
Both Philips and AT&T confirmed that the 802.11 model from Opnet does not implement the PCF or the
required beacons. An effort will be required to add this component to the model.
Peter asked if there were any companies who could share actual measurements of PCF performance that
could be used to validate these models. NoWires Needed should be consulted since it was mentioned that
they have been using PCF.
page 2
May 2000
doc,: IEEE802.11-00/139
page 3