CRAWDAD metadata: dartmouth/outdoor (v. 2006-11-06)

This dataset contains outdoor runs of MANET (Mobile Ad-hoc network) routing algorithms to compare the performance of four different routing algorithms.
[xml metadata]

Note: This metadata was prepared by the CRAWDAD team and verified by the data set (or tool) authors. We have made every effort to ensure its accuracy, but urge all users to consider the metadata and data carefully and be sure that their use in research is consistent with the nature and limitations of the data. We welcome any corrections. This metadata was prepared based on the following reference(s):


    CRAWDAD metadata structure[what is CRAWDAD metadata]


    [Dataset] dartmouth/outdoor (v. 2006-11-06)

    top

    version v. 2006-11-06
    changes
    the initial version
    bibtex
    @MISC{dartmouth-outdoor-2006-11-06,
      author = {Robert S. Gray and David Kotz and Calvin Newport and Nikita Dubrovsky and Aaron Fiske and Jason Liu and Christopher Masone and Susan McGrath and Yougu Yuan},
      title = {{CRAWDAD} data set dartmouth/outdoor (v. 2006-11-06)}, 
      howpublished = {Downloaded from http://crawdad.cs.dartmouth.edu/dartmouth/outdoor},
      month = nov,  
      year = 2006
    }
    					
    metadata last modified2006-11-28
    summary
    This dataset contains outdoor runs of MANET (Mobile Ad-hoc network) routing algorithms
    to compare the performance of four different routing algorithms.
    release date2006-11-06
    measurement start 2003-10-17
    measurement end 2003-10-17
    authorsRobert S. Gray
    David Kotz
    Calvin Newport
    Nikita Dubrovsky
    Aaron Fiske
    Jason Liu
    Christopher Masone
    Susan McGrath
    Yougu Yuan
    web site http://www.crawdad.org/dartmouth/outdoor
    wiki go to the wiki page for this data set
    keywordMANET, 802.11, 802.11b
    measurement purposesNetwork Performance Analysis
    Routing Protocol
    network type802.11 ad-hoc
    environment
    Most comparisons of wireless ad hoc routing algorithms involve
    simulated or indoor trial runs, or outdoor runs with only a small
    number of nodes, potentially leading to an incorrect picture of algorithm
    performance. For outdoor comparison of four different routing algorithms, 
    APRL, AODV, ODMRP, and STARA, we run on top of thirty-three 802.11-enabled 
    laptops moving randomly through an athletic field. This comparison provides
    insight into the behavior of ad hoc routing algorithms at larger
    real-world scales than have been considered so far. 
    
    The outdoor routing experiment took place on a rectangular athletic
    field measuring approximately 225 (north-south) by 365 (eastwest)
    meters. This field can be roughly divided into four flat, equalsized
    sections, three of which are at the same altitude, and one of
    which (at the southeast corner) is approximately four to six meters
    lower. There was a short, steep slope between the upper and
    lower sections. We chose this particular athletic field because it
    was physically distant from campus and the campus wireless network, 
    reducing potential interference.
    network
    We configured the 802.11 cards to use wireless channel 9 for maximum 
    separation from the standard channels of 1, 6 and 11, further reducing 
    potential interference. We used 41 laptops, 40 as application laptops, 
    and one as a control laptop.
    
    The routing experiments ran on top of a set of 41 Gateway Solo
    9300 laptops, each with a 10GB disk, 128MB of main memory,
    and a 500MHz Intel Pentium III CPU with 256KB of cache. We
    used one laptop to control each experiment, leaving 40 laptops to
    actually run the ad hoc routing algorithms. Each laptop ran Linux
    kernel version 2.2.19 with PCMCIA card manager version 3.2.4
    and had a Lucent (Orinoco) Wavelan Turbo Gold 802.11b wireless
    card. Although these cards can transmit at different bit rates, can
    auto-adjust this bit rate depending on the observed signal-to-noise
    ratio, and can auto-adjust the channel to arrive at a consistent channel
    for all the nodes in the ad hoc network, we used an ad hoc mode
    in which the transmission rate was fixed at 2 Mb/s, and in which the
    channel could be chosen manually but was fixed thereafter. Specifically,
    we used Lucent (Orinoco) firmware version 4.32 and the proprietary 
    ad hoc "demo" mode originally developed by Lucent.
    
    Although the demo mode has been deprecated in favor of the IEEEdefined
    IBSS, we used the demo mode to ensure consistency with
    a series of ad hoc routing experiments of which this outdoor experiment
    was a culminating event. 6 The fixed rate also made it
    much easier to analyze the routing results, since we did not need
    to account for automatic changes in each card's transmission rate.
    On the other hand, we would expect to see variation in the routing
    results if we had used IBSS instead, both due to its multi-rate capabilities
    and its general improvements over the demo mode. The
    routing results remain representative, however, since demo mode
    provides sufficient functionality to serve as a reasonable data-link
    layer. Finally, each laptop had a Garmin eTrex GPS unit attached
    via the serial port. These GPS units did not have differential GPS
    capabilities, but were accurate to within thirty feet during the experiment.
    collection
    We log the events of routing algorithms in each laptop. A GPS service runs 
    on each laptop, reading and recording the current laptop position from 
    the attached GPS unit.
    hole
    During the experiment, seven laptops generated no network traffic 
    due to hardware and configuration issues, and an eighth laptop generated 
    the position beacons only for the first half of the experiment. 
    The seven complete failures left thirty-three laptops actually participating 
    in the ad hoc routing.
    tracesets included dartmouth/outdoor/routing (v. 2006-11-06)

    [Traceset] dartmouth/outdoor/routing (v. 2006-11-06)

    top

    version v. 2006-11-06
    changes
    the initial version
    bibtex
    @MISC{dartmouth-outdoor-routing-2006-11-06,
      author = {Robert S. Gray and David Kotz and Calvin Newport and Nikita Dubrovsky and Aaron Fiske and Jason Liu and Christopher Masone and Susan McGrath and Yougu Yuan},
      title = {{CRAWDAD} trace set dartmouth/outdoor/routing (v. 2006-11-06)}, 
      howpublished = {Downloaded from http://crawdad.cs.dartmouth.edu/dartmouth/outdoor/routing},
      month = nov,  
      year = 2006
    }
    					
    metadata last modified2006-11-28
    summary
    This traceset contains outdoor runs of MANET (Mobile Ad-hoc network) routing algorithms
    to compare the performance of four different routing algorithms.
    release date2006-11-06
    measurement start 2003-10-17
    measurement end 2003-10-17
    measurement purposesNetwork Performance Analysis
    Routing Protocol
    methodology
    The outdoor routing experiment took place on a rectangular athletic
    field measuring approximately 225 (north-south) by 365 (eastwest)
    meters. This field can be roughly divided into four flat, equalsized
    sections, three of which are at the same altitude, and one of
    which (at the southeast corner) is approximately four to six meters
    lower. There was a short, steep slope between the upper and
    lower sections. We chose this particular athletic field because it
    was physically distant from campus and the campus wireless network, 
    network, reducing potential interference. In addition, we configured
    the 802.11 cards to use wireless channel 9 for maximum separation
    from the standard channels of 1, 6 and 11, further reducing potential
    interference. We used 41 laptops, 40 as application laptops, and
    one as a control laptop.
    
    The GPS service on each laptop recorded the current position
    (latitude, longitude and altitude) once per second, and synchronized
    the laptop clock with the GPS clock to provide sub-second, albeit
    not millisecond, time synchronization. Every three seconds, the
    GPS service broadcast a beacon containing its own position and
    any other positions about which it knew. Three seconds is shorter
    than strictly necessary for displaying accurate positions to soldiers
    or first responders, but was necessary to build a reasonably accurate
    connectivity trace. Each beacon contained at most 41 position
    records of 21 bytes each, and had a maximum payload of 861 bytes.
    The traffic generator on each laptop generated packet streams
    with a mean packet size of 1200 bytes (including UDP, IP and Ethernet
    headers), a mean of approximately 5.5 packets per stream,
    a mean delay between streams of 15 seconds, and a mean delay
    between packets of approximately 3 seconds. These parameters
    produced approximately 423 bytes of data traffic (including UDP,
    IP and Ethernet headers) per laptop per second, a relatively modest
    traffic volume, but corresponding to the traffic volume observed
    during trial runs of one of our prototype military applications.
    Each of the routing algorithms, APRL, AODV, ODMRP and
    STARA, ran for fifteen minutes with a two-minute period between
    successive routing algorithms to handle setup and cleanup chores.
    Fifteen minutes per algorithm leads to an overall experiment time
    of approximately an hour and a half (given the time needed for
    initial boot and experiment startup), corresponding to the maximum
    reliable lifetime of our laptop batteries. The traffic generator
    ran for thirteen minutes of each fifteen-minute period, starting one
    minute after the routing algorithm to allow the pro-active routing
    algorithms to reach a stable state.
    parent datadartmouth/outdoor (v. 2006-11-06)
    traces included dartmouth/outdoor/routing/20031017 (v. 2006-11-06)

    [Trace] dartmouth/outdoor/routing/20031017 (v. 2006-11-06)

    top

    version v. 2006-11-06
    changes
    the initial version
    bibtex
    @MISC{dartmouth-outdoor-routing-20031017-2006-11-06,
      author = {Robert S. Gray and David Kotz and Calvin Newport and Nikita Dubrovsky and Aaron Fiske and Jason Liu and Christopher Masone and Susan McGrath and Yougu Yuan},
      title = {{CRAWDAD} trace dartmouth/outdoor/routing/20031017 (v. 2006-11-06)}, 
      howpublished = {Downloaded from http://crawdad.cs.dartmouth.edu/dartmouth/outdoor/routing/20031017},
      month = nov,  
      year = 2006
    }
    					
    metadata last modified2006-11-28
    summary
    This trace contains outdoor runs of MANET (Mobile Ad-hoc network) routing algorithms
    to compare the performance of four different routing algorithms.
    derivedfalse
    release date2006-11-06
    measurement start 2003-10-17
    measurement end 2003-10-17
    configuration
    - Software configuration
    
    To allow as accurate a comparison as possible, we needed the implementations
    of the four algorithms to be as similar as possible. If one algorithm operated 
    in kernel space and another operated in user space, for example, 
    it would not be possible to attribute any difference in packet latencies solely 
    to the way in which an algorithm finds and uses its routes. For this reason, 
    although we used existing source code as a guide in all four cases, we implemented 
    each algorithm from scratch so that we could minimize any implementation
    differences. There are four key features that the implementations have in common.
    
    Key Feature 1.
    All four algorithms are implemented as user-level applications through the use of 
    a tunnel device. The tunnel device, which we ported from FreeBSD, provides a network 
    interface on one end and a file interface, specifically a /dev entry, on the other 
    end. Each node is assigned two IP addresses, one associated with the physical network 
    device, and one associated with the tunnel or virtual network device. 
    Applications use the virtual IP address, routing algorithms use the physical IP address, 
    and the standard Linux routing tables route all virtual IP addresses to the virtual 
    network interface. Any application-level packets, therefore, are directed through 
    the tunnel, and the routing algorithms read those packets from the file end of the tunnel. 
    
    The tunnel allowed us to avoid any implementation work at the kernel or 
    driver level, and also to switch from one routing algorithm to another 
    (during experiments) simply by stopping one user-level process and 
    starting another. The drawback of our approach is the additional overhead 
    associated with moving packets between kernel and user space. 
    Our laptops, however, had more than enough capacity for our experiments, 
    and thus we chose implementation simplicity over maximum performance.
    
    Key Feature 2. 
    All four algorithms use UDP for traffic destined
    for a specific neighbor and multicast IP for traffic that should reach
    every neighbor. Multicast IP, as opposed to broadcast IP, allows us
    to run multiple routing algorithms at the same time without adding
    filtering code to every algorithm, a useful feature in some of our
    earlier experiments. Each algorithm simply subscribes to its own
    multicast address.
    
    Key Feature 3. 
    All four algorithms use an event loop that invokes
    algorithm-specific handlers in response to (1) incoming UDP
    or multicast IP network traffic or (2) the expiration of route or other
    timeouts. As with user-level routing, the event-loop approach leads
    to additional overhead, but allows more straightforward implementations.
    
    Key Feature 4. 
    All four algorithms are implemented in C++ and
    share a core set of classes. These classes include the event loop, as
    well as unicast and multicast, routing, and logging support.
    
    With these four key features, algorithm-specific code is confined
    to the packet handler classes that process incoming control and data
    packets, the timer handler classes that process timed actions (such
    as route expiration), the logging classes that log algorithm events,
    and utility classes that serialize and unserialize control packets.
    Minimizing the algorithm-specific code simplified implementation
    and debugging, and should make the routing results as independent
    of a particular implementation choice as possible.
    
    - Traffic generation 
    
    The routing algorithms themselves are not enough for an experiment,
    of course. A traffic generator runs on each laptop, and
    sends a sequence of packet streams to randomly selected destination
    laptops. Each stream contains a random number of packets of
    a random size. Two Gaussian distributions determine the packet
    numbers and sizes, two exponential distributions determine the delay
    between streams and packets, and a uniform distribution determines
    the destination laptops. A GPS service also runs on each
    laptop, reading and recording the current laptop position from the
    attached GPS unit, and broadcasting beacons that contain the laptop's
    position (as well as sequence-numbered positions that it has
    received from other laptops). We thus are flooding the GPS beacons
    through the network, an appropriate choice in our application
    domain where soldiers and first responders need to see a continuous
    view of each other's positions. In addition, broadcasting the
    beacons allows us to build a connectivity graph, independent of any
    particular routing algorithm, as to which laptops actually can hear
    which other laptops. Finally, we use a set of Tcl scripts to setup
    and run the experiments.
    
    - Parameter configuration
    
    The best parameters for the four routing algorithms could not be
    determined precisely beforehand, since there are no experiments of
    this size for which data is available. Instead, we used values that
    gave effective results in published simulation studies or that were
    set as default values in the sample source code obtained from the
    developers. We did adjust some values to achieve some degree of
    consistency between the algorithms, however.
    Summarizing the major parameters, APRL recorded up to seven
    routes per destination, one primary and six alternates, broadcast
    its beacons every 6 seconds, and expired any route that had not
    been refreshed by a beacon within the last 12 seconds. STARA
    broadcast a neighborhood probe every 2 seconds, sent a DDP if a
    path had gone unexplored for 6 seconds, removed a neighbor from
    a node's neighborhood set if two successive neighborhood probes
    passed without an acknowledgment, and weighed delay estimates
    by 0.9 on each update to exponentially forget old delay information
    as new information became available. AODV broadcast each
    RREQ twice, expired a route if it had not been used in 12 seconds,
    sent a HELLO every 6 seconds, and removed a neighbor
    from a node's neighborhood set if it did not receive two successive
    HELLOs. ODMRP refreshed an in-use route every 6 seconds,
    and expired a route (forwarding group) if it had not been used for
    12 seconds.
    
    As can be seen, these parameters reduce to 6 seconds between
    beacons, HELLO messages or route refreshes for APRL, AODV
    and ODMRP, and 12 seconds for a route to time out for APRL,
    AODV and ODMRP, either by direct timeout or by failure to receive
    two successive HELLOs. Using equivalent values for STARA,
    however, led to unacceptably slow convergence of the delay es
    timates, particularly given the fifteen-minute window available to
    us for each algorithm. Reducing the parameters improved convergence,
    but at the expense of even more control overhead, an effect
    that we consider below.
    
    - User mobility
    
    The laptops moved continuously during the experiment. At the
    start of the experiment, the participants were divided into equalsized
    groups of ten, each participant given a laptop, and each group
    instructed to randomly disburse in one of the four sections of the
    field (three upper and one lower). The participants then walked
    continuously, always picking a section different than the one in
    which they were currently located, picking a random position within
    that section, walking to that position in a straight line, and then repeating.
    This approach was chosen since it was simple, but still provided
    continuous movement to which the routing algorithms could
    react, as well as a similar spatial distribution across each algorithm.
    format
    The tarball contains both trace (under "Trace" directory) and the software 
    that was used to collect the trace (under "Software" directory.) 
    
    1. Trace
    
    The trace consists of 41 directories corresponding to 41 nodes 
    (node 1-40, and a master control node). 
    
    Each node directory (e.g., 1) has four sub-directories: 
    - AODV: traces of AODV experiment
    - APRL: traces of APRL experiment
    - ODMRP: traces of ODMRP experiment
    - STARA : traces of STARA experiment
    - gps_tcpdump: traces of GPS readings and tcpdump 
    
    ---------------
    In gps_tcpdump directory (e.g., under a directory of node 1), 
    you can find the following files:
    
    full/beacon.log: beacon logs in binary format
    full/position.log: position logs in binary format
    full/position.log.parsed: each line in a format of [time] [x-coord] [y-coord] [z-coord]
    full/position.log.stripped: with bogus positions removed from position.log.parsed, 
    							each line in the same format as position.log.parsed 
    full/signal.log: signal logs in binary format 
    monitor.stderr: stderr file used by monitor app
    monitor.stdout: stdout file used by monitor app
    tcmpdump.stderr : stderr file used by tcpdump app
    tcpdump.stdout: stdout file used by tcpdump app
    tcpdump.dat.gz : tcpdump file 
    
    ---------------
    In each of PROTO (= AODV, APRL, ODMRP, and STARA) directories (e.g., under a directory of node 1), 
    you can find the following files:
    
    - 10.0.0.1.PROTO.data.out: transmission logs in binary format
    - 10.0.0.1.PROTO.data.parsed : user-level (through the use of tunnel device) transmission logs in text format
    - 10.0.0.1.PROTO.out: routing-level transmission logs (including control packets) in text format 
    - 10.0.0.1.trafgen.out: generated traffic logs in binary format
    - 10.0.0.1.trafgen.parsed: generated traffic logs in text format
    - trafgen.stderr: stderr file used by trafgen app 
    - trafgen.stdout: stdout file used by trafgen app
    - PROTO.stderr: stderr file used by PROTO app 
    - PROTO.stdout: stdout file used by PROTO app 
    
    Among these, 10.0.0.1.PROTO.data.parsed and 10.0.0.1.trafgen.parsed have the following format:
    
    There are four types of line entries:
    
    TIN  [size]  [seconds portion of timestamp]  [usecs portion of time stamp]  [src]  [dest]  [seq #]
    SIN  [size]  [seconds portion of timestamp]  [usecs portion of time stamp]  [src]  [dest]  [previous_hop_ip]  [seq #]
    TOUT  [size]  [seconds portion of timestamp]  [usecs portion of time stamp]  [src]  [dest]  [seq #]
    SOUT  [size>  [seconds portion of timestamp]  [usecs portion of time stamp]  [src]  [dest]  [previous_hop_ip]  [seq #]
    
    The TIN (In from Tunnel) entries describe a packet that was generated by this node's
    traffic generation process and that is being passed down to the
    routing layer to be sent out on its way.
    
    The TOUT (Out over Tunnel) entries describe a packed generated by a traffic generation
    process arriving safely at its destination
    
    The SIN (In from Socket) and SOUT (Out over Socket) entires describe 
    the transmission and receipt of a traffic generation packet, respectively, 
    at a hop-by-hop level. That is, if a packet is generated by the traffic 
    gen program at node 1 bound for node 3, and to get there it bounces 
    from 1 to 2 then 2 to 3, then you will see a TIN for this packet at 1, 
    a TOUT at 3, and a SOUT at 1, SIN at 2, SOUT at 2, and SIN at 3.
    
    2. Software 
    
    ---------------
    FILES and DIRECTORIES
    
    The software consists of the following four directories:
    - AODV: AODV protocol implementation
    - APRL: APRL protocol implementation
    - ODMRP: ODMRP protocol implementation
    - STARA : STARA protocol implementation
    - analysis: scripts used for trace analysis
    
    ---------------
    OVERVIEW of routing protocols
    
    A short overview of the four routing algorithms (AODV, APRL, ODMRP, and STARA)
    is available in Section 2 of [gray-outdoor]:
    http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~dfk/papers/gray:compare.pdf 
    
    ---------------
    BUILD - how to `make` each protocol
    
    To build each protocol (say AODV), first `cd AODV` and edit the makefile's definition
    for the "depend" target. Change the path to the standard header include directory used
    by your compiler (e.g., "/usr/include/g++-2/" for g++ on actcomm) to whatever it is 
    on the machine you're compiling on. Then just run "make depend" and "make" inside
    the AODV/ directory. If everything goes well, an executable named AODV and will
    appear in the directory.
    
    ---------------
    USAGE - how to run each protocol
    
    To run a protocol (say AODV) simply run the command "./AODV <conf_file> (assuming that 
    AODV and <conf_file> are in the current working directory). You can rename the <conf_file> 
    to anything you wish, as long as you pass the correct name of the file as the argument to AODV.
    
    If a protocol was compiled with debugging, detailed messages will be printed to the
    standard output; you can send them to a file instead by using the "> redirect
    operator. All error messages are output to standard error.
    
    The following parameters and values are specified in <conf_file>
    
    - AODV
    
    (The required parameters are:)
    
    LOCAL_IP = Local IP address. 
    MAX_DATA_PACKET_QUEUE_SIZE = Maximum size for the data packet queue.
    MAX_AODV_PACKET_SIZE = Maximum size for AODV 
    MAX_DATA_PACKET_SIZE = Maximum size for data packets.
    NET_DIAMATER = maximum expected diameter of the MANET. Used in discovery.
    NODE_TRAVERSAL_TIME = expected time for a packet to transit a -node- 
    TTL_THRESHOLD = Number of TTL values for RREQ packets.
    RREQ_RETRIES_WITH_TTL_AT_NET_DIAMETER = Number of RE-broadcasts for RREQ packets.
    ACTIVE_ROUTE_TIMEOUT = Lifetimes for routes and cache entries.
    HELLO_INTERVAL = Broadcast interval for Hello messages.
    ALLOWED_HELLO_LOSS = lifetime for Hello messages.
    
    (The optional parameters are:)
    
    NET_TRAVERSAL_TIME = expected time for a packet to transit from one side of 
    the network to another (i.e., across the maximum expected hops). Typically not 
    specific in the config value. Calculated from NET_DIAMETER and NODE_TRAVERSAL_TIME
    TTL_START, TTL_INCREMENT = start and delta ttl values.
    LISTEN_TO_INPUT_FILE = ListenToTable input file
    POSITION_INPUT_FILE = PositionTable input file
    
    - APRL
    
    (The required parameters are:)
    
    localIP = the local IP
    
    (The optional parameters are:)
    
    logfile = name of a file for logging info
    err_logfile  = name of a file for logging errors
    block_size = the maximum segment size of the network
    route_cap = the maximum number of routes to any destination that are stored in the routing table
    report_interval = the interval, in msec, at which we beacon the routing table
    caching = (0 or 1) whether we're caching reverse hop data for PSVNs
    buffering = (0 or 1) whether we are buffering packets
    delay = the interval, in msec, after which reverse hop data times out
    data_logfile = the log file in which to log info about data traffic
    data_log_bufsize = the size of the buffer used in our buffered binary logging scheme
    ListenTo_config_file = name of a file to set up the ListenToTable with
    Position_config_file = name of file to set up the PositionTable with
    
    - ODMRP
    
    LOCAL_IP = IP address of the local node
    MAX_DATA_PACKET_SIZE = maximum size of a data packet in bytes (including IP hhead)
    
    MAX_DATA_PACKET_QUEUE_SIZE = maximum number of data packets that we will queue. 
    We drop data packets if the queue is full
    
    NET_DIAMATER = maximum expected diameter of the MANET. Used in discovery.
    NODE_TRAVERSAL_TIME = expected time for a packet to transit a -node- 
    (in device to out device). Used in discovery.
    
    NET_TRAVERSAL_TIME = expected time for a packet to transit from one side of 
    the network to another (i.e., across the maximum expected hops). Typically not 
    specific in the config value. Calculated from NET_DIAMETER and NODE_TRAVERSAL_TIME
    
    TTL_START, TTL_INCREMENT, TTL_THRESHOLD = start, delta, and max ttl values.  Used in discovery.
    
    JOIN_QUERY_RETRIES = number of times to retry a JOIN query. Typically not
    specified in the config file. Instead calculated from the three TTL 
    parameters (i.e., increasing TTL values from TTL_START to TTL_TRHESHOLD by
    TTL_INCREMENT step size; always at least 1 retry no matter the values)
    
    JOIN_QUERY_RETRIES_WITH_TTL_AT_NET_DIAMETER = after reaching TTL_THRESHOLD,
    ODMRP will try the JOIN query this many more times with the ttl set to the 
    net diametera
    
    FWD_GROUP_LIFE = timeout on a forwarding group, i.e., node will stop being
    a forwarder if the group information is not refreshed within this timeout.
    Timeout in milliseconds.
    
    REFRESH_INTERVAL = interval at which we refresh forwarding info. Involves
    network traffic. Should not be too small. Must be smaller than FWD_GROUP_LIFE
    (typically 2x to 3x smaller) for protocol to be stable. Timeout in milliseconds.
    
    REV_ROUTE_LIFE = timeout on a forearding group. Timeout in milliseconds.
    
    - STARA
    
    NUMBER_OF_HOSTS = The number of hosts in the ad hoc network
    LOCAL_IP = The IP address of the host computer
    
    MAX_ACK_HOPS = The number of hops that a flooded acknowledgement
    can travel before it dies. If set to 1, this will require bidirectional links 
    to form routes
    
    PROBE_REPEAT_DELAY = The amount of time, in msec, between the sending of
    NeighborhoodProbes to other nodes.
    
    DELAY_TOO_OLD = The amount pf time, in msec, before a route's delay
    estimate is considered to be too old. After this time,
    a DummyDataPacket will be sent to explore the route
    
    PACKETS_BEFORE_LINK_FAILS = The number of packets that can be sent to a node, without
    acknowledgement, before the link is determined to have failed
    
    IP_LIST_FILENAME = The name of the file (must be in same directory as this file)
    That contains a list of the IP addresses of all the hosts in the ad hoc network
    
    MULTICAST_GROUP = The multicast group
    MULTICAST_PORT = The port that is used for sending via multicast (for NeighborhoodProbes and ACKs)
    CONTROL_PORT = The port that is used for sending via unicast for all other control packets)
    DATA_PORT = The port that is used for sending via unicast (for all data packets)
    MTU = the maximum transfer unit for this network
    
    FORGETTING_FACTOR = the exponential forgetting factor for delay updates.
    This is a floating-point number between 0 and 1. The
    smaller it is, the more weight is given to older
    delay estimates when incorporating new measurements
    into the expected delay for a route
    
    TTL = Time-To-Live for DataPackets and DummyDataPackets in the
    network. This is to prevent looping -- any packet that
    has not reached its destination after this many hops
    will be dropped.
    
    MIN_DELAY = This value is used for normalizing the delays for probability
    calculation purposes. It should be small enough that the
    delays maintain differentiation, but large enough that they
    are not overly differentiated.
    
    ListenTo_config_file listen = The location of the listen-to-table configuration file, 
    if one is being used for simulation purposes.
    
    ---------------
    USAGE - analysis scripts
    
    The stats.tcl program produces summary statistics from a wireless run's
    raw event data. The stats.tcl uses the parsed (text) files, not the unparsed
    binary log files.
    
    Before running stats.tcl, please make sure that the variable c_gnuplotExecutable
    in conf file (e.g., stats-20031017.conf) is set to a correct path of your
    gnuplot executable on your system.
    
    stats.tcl takes five arguments, e.g.,
       ./stats.tcl ./stats-20031017.conf AODV 30 ../../Trace ./analysis-20031017
    
    The first argument is the configuration file.
    
    The second argument is the routing protocol for which you want statistics.
    
    The third argument is the size - in seconds - of the data aggregation buckets,
    e.g., generated graphs will summarize the data at this granularity.
    
    The fourth argument is the directory that contains the parsed data files
    from the run. This directory refers to one of the outdoor datasets that you
    downloaded from crawdad.
    
    The fifth argument is the directory in which you want to put the output
    files, text and gnuplot graphs. stats.tcl creates this directory if it
    does not exist.
    
    The stats-20041013.conf file is an example configuration file. The
    modifiable fields in this configuration file are:
    
    c_gnuplotExecutable = the path of your GNUPLOT executable
    
    c_templateDirectory = the directory that contains the .template files (same directory that contains stats.tcl)
    
    c_dummySequence = a starting sequence number for DROP events (for which we did
    not record a sequence number in the raw data)
    
    c_algorithms = the valid routing protocols. Used only for additional error
    checking.
    
    c_excludedLaptops = laptops (i.e., node ids, which correspond to the
    subdirectory names in the dataset) to exclude from the summary statistics
    download urlDownload (1.29 GB tar.gz) from US UK
    parent datadartmouth/outdoor/routing (v. 2006-11-06)

    [Author] Robert S. Gray

    top

    emailrobert.s.gray@baesystems.com
    institutionBAE Systems
    positionResearcher
    related data/toolsdartmouth/outdoor (v. 2006-11-06)

    [Author] David Kotz

    top

    emaildfk@cs.dartmouth.edu
    institutionDartmouth College
    departmentComputer Science
    positionProfessor
    address6211 Sudikoff Laboratory, Hanover, NH 03755-3510 USA
    phone603-646-1439
    fax206-339-3145
    web site http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~dfk
    related data/toolsdartmouth/campus (v. 2009-09-09)
    dartmouth/wardriving (v. 2006-06-02)
    dartmouth/outdoor (v. 2006-11-06)

    [Author] Calvin Newport

    top

    emailcalvin.newport@gmail.com
    institutionMIT
    departmentThe Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
    positionGraduate student
    web site http://theory.csail.mit.edu/~cnewport
    related data/toolsdartmouth/outdoor (v. 2006-11-06)

    [Author] Nikita Dubrovsky

    top

    emailNikita.Dubrovsky@alum.dartmouth.edu
    related data/toolsdartmouth/outdoor (v. 2006-11-06)

    [Author] Aaron Fiske

    top

    emailAaron.Fiske@alum.dartmouth.edu
    related data/toolsdartmouth/outdoor (v. 2006-11-06)

    [Author] Jason Liu

    top

    emailxliu@cis.fiu.edu
    institutionFlorida International University
    departmentSchool of Computing and Information Sciences
    positionAssistant Professor
    web site http://www.cis.fiu.edu/~liux/
    related data/toolsdartmouth/outdoor (v. 2006-11-06)

    [Author] Christopher Masone

    top

    emailcmasone@cs.dartmouth.edu
    institutionDartmouth College
    departmentComputer Science
    positionPh.D student
    web site http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~cmasone/
    related data/toolsdartmouth/outdoor (v. 2006-11-06)

    [Author] Susan McGrath

    top

    emailSusan.P.McGrath@Dartmouth.EDU
    institutionDartmouth College
    departmentThayer School of Engineering
    positionAssociate Professor of Engineering and Lecturer
    address8000 Cummings Hall, Hanover, New Hampshire 03755-8000
    phone603-646-0743
    web site http://engineering.dartmouth.edu/thayer/faculty/susanmcgrath.html
    related data/toolsdartmouth/outdoor (v. 2006-11-06)

    [Author] Yougu Yuan

    top

    emailyuanyg@cs.dartmouth.edu
    related data/toolsdartmouth/outdoor (v. 2006-11-06)