[ndnSIM] [EXT]Re: Adding new field in Interest Packet.

[DJEMAA Adel]

Dear Junxiao, thank you for the valuable clarification,
Hopefully, this helps ndnSIM community.
Yours, Djemaa

Le mer. 5 mai 2021 à 03:19, Prajjwal Singh <csb17053 at tezu.ac.in> a écrit :

> Thanks to Junxiao and DJEMAA ,
> Junxiao's suggestion is possibly the best, I tried and tested it and it
> works very well.
>
> I also tried the method provided in the aforesaid link
> <https://www.programmersought.com/article/14675398024/>, and it works!
> I had committed a few mistakes that led me into other results.
> (Like:
> Messing up wire en/decode methods.
> And although I did tweak the consumer.cpp's sendPacket() method
> (for initializing the field (whose value was added through SetAttribute
> feature of helpers))
> but I noticed later that ndn-consumer-zipf-mandelbrot.cpp overrides this
> function and that was
> creating all the confusion.)
>
> For future reference if anyone struggles with this problem following are
> the best ways:
>
>    - Easiest is to (like Junxiao said)  put the field in Name or
>    application parameter.
>    - The tag method also works perfectly but it is too much efforts
>    (Check this link <https://lo.calho.st/posts/ndnsim-custom-fields/>)
>    - The proper method provided here
>    <https://www.programmersought.com/article/14675398024/> also works
>    perfectly (and is less hassle than tag method)
>
> Thanking all of you again
> Prajjwal Singh
>
> On Wed, 5 May 2021, 06:28 Junxiao Shi, <shijunxiao at email.arizona.edu>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi DJEMAA
>>
>>
>> If the packet length doesn't matter in your configuration, I advise you
>>> to add a Tag instead of a new Field to your packet, since according to
>>> ndnSIM design, the tag resides only in the memory.
>>> Also, a Tag can be easily managed directly in the NFD machinery
>>> (forwarder class), contrary to a new field in either Interest or Data
>>> packets which are generally static objects.
>>>
>>
>> ndnSIM doesn't support ns3::Tag (the kind described in ns-3 model library
>> https://www.nsnam.org/docs/release/3.33/models/html/packets.html#adding-and-removing-tags
>> ).
>> Subclasses of ndn::Tag are completely different from ns3::Tag. This
>> includes the HopCountTag. They must be encoded into the packet buffer to
>> have any effect.
>>
>>
>>>> The main problem is that if i have the following topology
>>>> A--B--C--D
>>>> (Where A is the Consumer and D is the Producer, and B and C are routers)
>>>> Then by the solution given in the above link the custom field set in
>>>> A's generated Interest packet is reset to default value by B when it
>>>> forwards the interest to C.
>>>> How can I make it carry the value intended by A?
>>>>
>>>
>> A *forwarded* Interest is actually a different packet from the original:
>> Name, CanBePrefix, MustBeFresh, ApplicationParameters are copied over,
>> InterestLifetime, Nonce, HopLimit are modified, and other fields may be
>> discarded.
>>
>> As I said previously, it's best to include the information as part of the
>> Name or ApplicationParameters, which is supported universally.
>>
>> While NDN protocol allows having unrecognized non-critical fields in the
>> Interest packet, the protocol is vague on whether and what to preserve
>> during forwarding.
>> So far, as long as Name, CanBePrefix, MustBeFresh, ApplicationParameters,
>> and any fields that appear after ApplicationParameters are preserved, the
>> forwarder implementation would be interoperable.
>>
>> Yours, Junxiao
>>
>

-- 
Mr DJAMA Adel
Phd student
Ecole Militaire Polytechnique
Algiers 16046, ALGERIA
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.lists.cs.ucla.edu/pipermail/ndnsim/attachments/20210505/27f12cb8/attachment.html>