Multicast - Science method

The general concept of using TDMA in WiFi like systems is prevalent. This is known as PTMP - Point to Multipoint system. It does use a master controller generally terms Base Station Controller. The BS initiates the conversation and other units respond.

In the case of MANET since each node is also capable of being a relay and a router, it is important to rearrange. If one unit is declared BS and allowed to assign channels then TDMA becomes straight forward. The reason is TDMA requires time sync, which is provided by the BS. In the enclosed (chapter 12) observe Fig 12.6.1 where the BS for each area initiates and controls on a given channel. In MANET channels for police from a Precinct (for example) or fire personnel from the area (for example) can all have pre-designated channels assigned. Then TDMA becomes straight forward. In all cellular systems (including GSM) this method has been followed. In PTMP (made by quite a few vendors) similar method is followed.

Hope this helps

Slightly delayed answer:

If you want to solve a geometric Steiner tree problem,

I would recommend GeoSteiner: http://geosteiner.com/

If you want to solve a Steiner tree problem in graphs,

I would recommend SCIP-Jack: http://scipjack.zib.de/

use centikos simulator

There is no specific answer to your question. to choose the best routing algorithm in an Ad hoc network you must specify the type of application, the size of the network, and the mobility model.

The most known routing protocols are

1- AODV and DSR as reactive protocols.

2- OLSR and DSDV as proactive Protocols.

3- ZRP and TORA as Hebrid Protocols.

I recommend to read and cite the related paper

Dear @

Same for you!

I have a question that may help us to answer your question.

Why do you want to know the channel sate information for an eaves dropper?

Only in the case that you want to nullify its recieved signal or make it less than his receiver sensitivity, you have to know its channel sate information.

Then the problem will be similar to that of the space multiplexing MIMO.

What I mean it depends on how do you want to prevent the eaves

dropping.

Best wishes

In simple way of description, it is a Network coding algorithm where the co-operative data is allowed to be broadcasted only once, so the receiver has the option to use the data or discard it

Hello Vishaka Basnayake , thanks. On researchgate we tend to click "recommend" on the answer of use, it helps people see what helps and what helps less.

Keep me posted on your investigation... You have an interesting question indeed

From the transmission point of view, the mobile phone electromagnetic radiation covers an appreciable area around it and can reach any receiver exiting in this covered area. In fact the wireless communication systems have broad cast nature as their radiation covers the area around them. Only the midi um access control protocols restricts their receivers in the sense that that only the untended receiver or relievers can receive their transmitted signals. The mobile phone is working under the control of the base station in the sense that it gets its frequency, time slot or code , power level from the base station.

However , if it is wanted it could be made to work in the broadcast mode but it must possess the suitable protocols.

Best wishes

Dear Khlifi Yassine,

to set up connections with QoS support via WDM-based optical networks, the RSVP-TE (RFC 2747) is used as a GMPLS signaling protocol. My figure illustrates this. Here are two main Security Problems (SP):

· SP1: Security guarantee of RSVP-TE Signaling Protocol, that is the guarantee of security during the construction of an end-to-end connection with QoS support in the form of an LSP.

· SP2: Guarantee the security of communication via the established end-to-end connection with QoS support, that is the communication via LSP.

SP2 is a classic security issue - namely: the problem of security during communication between two computers. The following security protocols can be used to solve this problem:

· IPsec for the security guarantee of point-to-point communication between two IP instances, in fact between two IP addresses.

· TLS (Transport Layer Security) for the security of the connection-oriented Point-to-point communication between two TCP sockets.

· DTLS (Datagram TLS) for the security of the connectionless

Point-to-point communication between two UDP sockets.

SP1 is not a classic security problem, but the problem of the security guarantee of signaling according to RSVP-TE, i.e. the problem of securing RSVP-TE signaling when setting up LSPs. Some suggestions for solving the SP1 are already found mainly in several IETF documents, in particular in the documents of the working group KARP (Keying and Authentication for Routing Protocols). It should be noted that RSVP-TE (as well as RSVP) is located on layer 4 and RSVP has IP Protocol No = 46. For this reason, the Securing RSVP-TE Signaling Protocol solutions are based on IPsec, and IKEv2 (RFC 5996) is used as the Key Management Protocol. Some ideas for solving SP1 can be found in:

· RFC 5920: Security Framework for MPLS and GMPLS Networks

· RFC 6518: KARP Design Guidelines

· RFC 6862: KARP Overview, Threats, and Requirements

· RFC 6952: Analysis of BGP, LDP, PCEP, and MSDP Issues According to the KARP Design Guide

· draft-mahesh-karp-rsvp-te-analysis-01.txt

· Negotiation for Keying Pairwise Routing Protocols in IKEv2

draft-mahesh-karp-rkmp-05; See: 6.3.1. Transforms Substructures for RSVP-TE Authentication; the proposed mechanism secures RSVP-TE associations using the IKEv2

· Jing Zhi, Chung-Horng Lung, Xia Xu (Carleton University, Ottawa) and Srinivasan, Yi Lei (EION Inc): Securing RSVP and RSVP-TE Signaling Protocols and Their Performance Study

Good luck and best regards

Anatol Badach

I believe that if you join a Facebook Live video after the live event has started, you will enter in the middle or the "current" location.

However, people watching the stream will not be perfectly synced. Different instances of the stream may be a few seconds before or after each other.

I would still call this multicasting.

You can find MBMS service in NS3 LTE lena module.

You can try

1. EXata Cyber

2. NS-3

3. Omnet ++

You should first find out if your sensor PHY or MAC layers even differentiate between unicast, multicast, and broadcast.

I am using ubuntu 16.04 (64 bit) and unable to compile for sky or cooja on contiki 2.6. This I get while compiling on cooja simulator for sky.

msp430-gcc -DCONTIKI=1 -DCONTIKI_TARGET_SKY=1 -DWITH_CCN=1 -Os -fno-strict-aliasing -ffunction-sections -Wall -mmcu=msp430f1611 -g -DPROJECT_CONF_H=\"ccn-conf.h\" -I. -I../../platform/sky/. -I../../platform/sky/dev -I../../platform/sky/apps -I../../platform/sky/net -I../../cpu/msp430/f1xxx -I../../cpu/msp430/. -I../../cpu/msp430/dev -I../../core/dev -I../../core/lib -I../../core/net -I../../core/net/ccn -I../../core/net/mac -I../../core/net/rime -I../../core/net/rpl -I../../core/sys -I../../core/cfs -I../../core/ctk -I../../core/lib/ctk -I../../core/loader -I../../core/. -I../../platform/sky/ -MMD -c ../../core/net/ccn/ccn.c -o obj_sky/ccn.o

In file included from ../../core/net/ccn/ccn.c:33:0:

/usr/lib/gcc/msp430/4.6.3/../../../../msp430/include/signal.h:43:2: attention : #warning msp430-libc <signal.h> deprecated, using <legacymsp430.h> [-Wcpp]

../../core/net/ccn/ccn.c:39:24: erreur fatale: sys/unistd.h : Aucun fichier ou dossier de ce type

compilation terminée.

../../Makefile.include:200 : la recette pour la cible « obj_sky/ccn.o » a échouée

make: *** [obj_sky/ccn.o] Erreur 1

Please help!

Dear Ravi, what do you mean with two paths attempt to share the same length?

if two light sources have the same wavelength and propagate at the same time in the fiber., then how can the receiver differentiate between them? One can distinguish them if they have different time slots in case of time division multiplexing , or different codes in case of  code division multiplexing. In all cases corrlelators are used for synchronization, where a local generated copy is correlated with received signal.

Best wishes

No, when the packets are in the buffer, you should be able to treat them differently based on different criteria, e.g., priority. It depends on the implementation.

In multicast, you will always only send maximum one packet to each neighbour, but in multiple unicast, you will send one packet per downstream recipient.

There are many good surveys on group key management that critically review existing techniques:

http://www.cse.psu.edu/~sxz16/papers/survey.pdf, etc.

and a couple of RFCs: RFC 4046, RFC 2627 that describes the key management issues. Many deployment scenarios (D2D, Mobile, etc.) inherit the same problems.  

You need to choose the suitable scheme that best fulfills the requirements of D2D environment.

Hope it helps.

thank u Mr.Mahmoud A.M.Albreem

We are very pleased using AnyLogic for this. See

(Published in Energy conversion and management 75 : 643-650 (2013))

Hi Andrew. I can you recommend you a very detailed description of what you are looking for in http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/ios/12_2s/feature/guide/fs_mvpn.html. Hope that it will help you completely.