Assignment 4: Network Simulation Using ns-3 Solution

$30.00 $26.40

Description

Table 1: Allocation of applications to groups

Application Number

Group Numbers

1

1, 7, 13, 19, 25, 31, 37, 43

2

2, 8, 14, 20, 26, 32, 38, 44

3

3, 9, 15, 21, 27, 33, 39, 45

4

4, 10, 16, 22, 28, 34, 40, 46

5

5, 11, 17, 23, 29, 35, 41, 47

6

6, 12 ,18 ,24 ,30 ,36 ,42 ,48

1

Application #1:

Analyse and compare TCP Hybla, TCP Westwood+, and TCP YeAH-TCP performance. Select a Dumbbell topology with two routers R1 and R2 connected by a (10 Mbps, 50 ms) wired link. Each of the routers is connected to 3 hosts, i.e. H1, H2, H3 (i.e. senders) are connected to R1, and H4, H5, H6 (i.e. receivers) are connected to R2. The hosts are attached with (100 Mbps, 20 ms) links. Both the routers use drop-tail queues with queue size set according to bandwidth-delay product. Senders (i.e. H1, H2 and H3) are attached with TCP Hybla, TCP Westwood+, and TCP YeAH-TCP agents, respectively. Choose a packet size of 1.5 KB and perform the following tasks. Make appropriate assumptions wherever necessary.

lu2020wh9ssi tmp 99e1dc664091cab1

  1. Start only one flow and analyse the throughput over sufficiently long duration. Mention how you select the duration. Plot the evolution of congestion window w.r.t. time. Perform this experiment with all the flows attached to all the three sending agents.

  1. In the next experiment, start 2 other flows sharing the bottleneck link while the first one is in progress and measure the throughput (in Kbps) of each flow. Plot the throughput and evolution of the TCP congestion window for each of the flow at a steady-state. Report the maximum throughput observed for each of the flows.

  1. Measure the congestion loss and the goodput over the duration of the experiment for each of the flows.

2

Application #2:

Compare the performance of TCP over wired and wireless networks. Consider a topology as described below. The network consists of two TCP sources Node0 and Node2, corresponding to two TCP destinations Node1 and Node3 respectively. Node2 and Node3 come in wired domain with two routers R1 and R2 (connected by a {10 Mbps, 50 ms} wired link) between them. Both the routers use drop-tail queues with queue size set according to bandwidth-delay product. Node0 comes in domain of Base Station 1 (BS1) and Node1 comes in domain of Base Station 2 (BS2). BS1 and BS2 are connected by a (10 Mbps, 100 ms) wired link. The hosts, i.e. Node0, Node1, Node2, Node3 are attached with (100 Mbps, 20ms) links to routers or base stations (as shown in the figure below). The sources (Node0 and Node2)) use three TCP agents (i.e. TCP Westwood, TCP Veno and TCP Vegas) to generate three different TCP flows. Study and plot the fairness index (Jain’s fairness index) and throughput change when the TCP packet size is varied; all the other parameter values are kept constant. You should use the following TCP packet size values (in Bytes): 40, 44, 48, 52, 60, 250, 300, 552, 576, 628, 1420 and 1500 for your experiments. The throughput (in Kbps) and fairness index must be calculated at steady-state. Make appropriate assumptions wherever necessary.

lu2020wh9ssi tmp cc23fd6f99c54621

3

Application #3:

Create a topology of two nodes N0 and N1 connected by a link of bandwidth 1 Mbps and link delay 10 ms. Use a drop-tail queue at the link. Set the queue size according to bandwidth-delay product. Create a TCP agent (type of the agent specified below) and FTP traffic at N0 destined for N1. Create 5 CBR traffic agents of rate 250 Kbps each at N0 destined for N1. Make appropriate assumptions wherever necessary. The timing of the flows are as follows:

FTP starts at 0 sec and continues till the end of simulation. CBR1 starts at 200 ms and continues till end.

CBR2 starts at 400 ms and continues till end. CBR3 starts at 600 ms and stops at 1200 ms. CBR4 starts at 800 ms and stops at 1400 ms.

CBR5 starts at 1000 ms and stops at 1600 ms. Simulation runs for 1800 ms.

lu2020wh9ssi tmp d7e59ac217ac8fa

  1. Plot graph(s) of TCP congestion window w.r.t. time for following 5 TCP congestion control algorithm implementations, and describe the TCP congestion control algorithms’ behaviour.

Case 1: use TCP New Reno

Case 2: use TCP Hybla

Case 3: use TCP Westwood

Case 4: use TCP Scalable

Case 5: use TCP Vegas

  1. Draw a graph showing cumulative TCP packets dropped w.r.t. time comparing above 5 TCP congestion control algorithm implementations.

  1. Draw a graph showing cumulative bytes transferred w.r.t. time comparing above 5 TCP congestion control algorithm implementations.

4

Application #4:

Compare the effect of buffer size on TCP and UDP flows. Select a Dumbbell topology with two routers R1 and R2 connected by a (10 Mbps, 100 ms) link. Each of the routers is connected to 3 hosts, i.e. H1, H2, H3 are connected to R1, and H4, H5, H6 are connected to R2. All the hosts are attached to the routers with (100 Mbps, 10 ms) links. Both the routers (i.e. R1 and R2) use drop-tail queues with equal queue size set according to bandwidth-delay product. Choose a packet size of 1.5 KB. Start 3 TCP New Reno flows, and after a while start 3 CBR over UDP flows each with 20 Mbps. These flows are randomly distributed across H1, H2 and H3. Increase the rate of one UDP flow up to 100 Mbps and observe its impact on the throughput of the TCP flows and the other UDP flow. Vary the buffer size in the range of 10 packets to 800 packets and repeat the above experiments to find out the impact of buffer size on the fair share of bandwidth and plot the necessary graphs. Make appropriate assumptions wherever necessary.

lu2020wh9ssi tmp e947806b64ddcfe9

5

Application #5:

Using the network simulator ns-3, study the characteristics of IEEE 802.11. For the purpose of experiment, use the topology as follows. There are 3 nodes in the network located in a straight line at locations 200*i, with i=0, 1, 2. Node 0 and Node 2 both have TCP traffic to Node 1 (started randomly within 1 to 5 seconds of starting the simulation). Consider TCP Westwood+ or TCP Hybla for the TCP agents at Node 0 and Node 2, respectively. You have to run the simulations and measure the following from the trace output (the averages are taken over all the nodes). Do not use PCAP file for collecting the trace. Use Flow Monitor module in ns-3 for trace collection. No marks will be given if you consider PCAP trace with Wireshark.

  1. Average bandwidth spent in transmitting RTS, CTS, and ACK.

  1. Average bandwidth spent in transmitting TCP segments and TCP acks.

  1. Average bandwidth wasted due to collisions.

  1. TCP throughput (number of acknowledged bytes per unit time) at each node.

You have to run the simulations for 50 seconds each with different RTS thresholds (i.e. 0, 256, 512 and 1024 bytes) and TCP segment size of 1000 bytes. You can use scripts for trace file analysis and to plot the results. Make appropriate assumptions wherever necessary.

lu2020wh9ssi tmp 65be074af57601b3 lu2020wh9ssi tmp 6ba172bf7a63518d lu2020wh9ssi tmp 9f71c8332d7bedee

0 1 2

6

Application #6:

The objective is to compare the effect of CBR traffic over UDP agent and FTP traffic over TCP agent. Consider a TCP agent from TCP HighSpeed, TCP Vegas and TCP Scalable for the FTP traffic. Consider a Dumbbell topology with two routers R1 and R2 connected by a wired link (30 Mbps, 100 ms), and use drop-tail queues with queue size set according to bandwidth-delay product of the link. Each of the routers is connected to 2 hosts, i.e. H1, H2 are connected to R1, and H3, H4 are connected to R2. The hosts are attached to the routers with (80 Mbps, 20ms) links. The CBR traffic over UDP agent and FTP traffic over TCP agent are attached to H1 and H2 respectively. Choose appropriate packet size for your experiments and perform the following:

  1. Compare the delay (in sec) and throughput (in Kbps) of CBR and FTP traffic streams when only one of them is present in the network. Plot the graphs for the delay (in sec) and throughput (in Kbps) observed with different packet sizes.

  1. Start both the flows at the same time and also at different times. Also, compare the delay (in sec) and throughput (in Kbps) of CBR and FTP traffic streams. Plot the graphs for the delay (in sec) and throughput (in Kbps) observed with different packet sizes.

lu2020wh9ssi tmp 3a90e29421cb2218

Make appropriate assumptions wherever necessary.

7

Table 2: Group Members corresponding to each Group

lu2020wh9ssi tmp 217d02d2c9cb757b

Group ID

Roll

Name

Application ID

Assigned

1

150123034

ROHIT KUMAR

1

1

170123014

BARISH BHAGAT

1

1

170123026

KONDRU SURAJ

1

1

170123006

ANKIT TRIPATHI

1

2

170101055

ROHAN NIGAM

2

2

170123036

MOHIT DHAKA

2

2

170123037

MOHIT KUMAR MEENA

2

3

170101005

AMAN MISHRA

3

3

170101031

KEERTI HARPAVAT

3

3

170101049

Priyanshu Singh

3

4

170101081

UDBHAV CHUGH

4

4

170123013

BAGAL SATEJ BABANRAO

4

4

170123052

TANYA CHAUHAN

4

5

170123015

BOJJA SAI PREETHAM

5

5

170123024

KESHETTI SAI KUMAR

5

5

170123031

MALISETTI KIRAN KARTHEEK

5

6

170101036

MANI MANNAMPALLI

6

6

170101068

SUNNY KUMAR

6

6

170101087

SIDDHARTH AGARWAL

6

7

170101084

MAYANK BARANWAL

1

7

170123017

DEV PRIYA GOEL

1

7

170123059

SHRUTI DINESH AGARWAL

1

8

170101035

MANAN GUPTA

2

8

170123011

ASHISH AGARWAL

2

8

170123038

MRIGANKA BASU ROY CHOWDHURY

2

9

170101043

PARTHA PRATIM MALAKAR

3

9

170101048

PRANSHU SRIVAS

3

9

170101070

THAHIR MAHMOOD POOVADA

3

10

170101039

NAGULAPALLI KASI VENKATA SAI KIRAN

4

10

170101051

RAJANALA HARSHAVARDHAN REDDY

4

10

170123016

CHINDAM SUJANA MAITHILI

4

11

170101029

KAPIL JANGID

5

11

170101044

PARVINDAR SINGH

5

11

170101057

RUTVIK GHUGHAL

5

12

170101077

VEMURI SAHITHYA

6

12

170123039

NAKKA LAHARI

6

12

170123054

TUMARADA ADITYA

6

13

170101054

RISHI PATHAK

1

13

170101063

SHIVAM BANSAL

1

13

170101088

SHASHANK SHARMA

1

14

170101040

NAKKA SRIHARSHA

2

14

170123025

KOMMINENI NIKHIL

2

14

170123028

KRISHNA PRIYATAM D

2

15

170101001

AAYUSH PATNI

3

15

170101052

RASHI SINGH

3

15

170101066

SOUMIK PAUL

3

16

170101033

LUCKY

4

16

170101034

MAKHARIA AAYUSH

4

16

170123021

HEMANT YADAV

4

8

Group ID

Roll

Name

Application ID

Assigned

17

170123004

ADITYA RAJ

5

17

170123040

PARV SOOD

5

17

170123043

SAHILPREET SINGH THIND

5

18

160101011

AKHIL CHANDRA PANCHUMARTHI

6

18

170101017

CH ROHITH RAVI PRABHU TEJA

6

18

170101050

PULIKONDA ROOP SAI RAKESH GUPTA

6

19

170101006

AMAN RAJ

1

19

170123029

KUSHAGRA MAHAJAN

1

19

170123034

MIHIR YADAV

1

20

170101074

UMANG

2

20

170123051

TANVI OHRI

2

20

170123053

TEJASVEE PANWAR

2

21

170101078

VINEET MALIK

3

21

170101080

VIVEK KUMAR

3

21

170101085

Sparsh Sinha

3

22

170101019

CHIRAG GUPTA

4

22

170101076

VAKUL GUPTA

4

22

170101082

LAVISH GULATI

4

23

170101026

HARDIK KATYAL

5

23

170101030

KARTIK GUPTA

5

23

170101075

UTKARSH JAIN

5

24

170123023

KEDAR NATH

6

24

170123056

PRATHIK.S.NAYAK

6

24

170123064

AGNIV BANDYOPADHYAY

6

25

170101060

SANCHIT

1

25

170123018

GARVIT MEHTA

1

25

170123020

harit gupta

1

26

170101002

ABHISHEK JAISWAL

2

26

170101038

MAYANK WADHWANI

2

26

170123007

ANKUR PRAMOD INGALE

2

27

170101067

SOURABH JANGID

3

27

170101071

THEEGALA RAKESH REDDY

3

27

170101073

TUSHAR RAJENDRA BHUTADA

3

28

170101009

ANUBHAV TYAGI

4

28

170101045

Piyush Gupta

4

28

170101053

RAVI SHANKAR

4

29

160101017

AUTONU KRO

5

29

170101023

FUGARE ASHISH DILEEP

5

29

170101027

KADAM KIRAN ZATINGRAO

5

30

170101011

ARANYA ARYAMAN

6

30

170101015

AVNEET SINGH CHANNA

6

30

170101041

NAVEEN KUMAR GUPTA

6

31

170101059

Sachin Giri

1

31

170101061

SAYAK DUTTA

1

31

170123010

ARYAN RAJ

1

32

170101013

ARYAN AGRAWAL

2

32

170101014

AVIRAL GUPTA

2

32

170101022

DEVANSH GUPTA

2

9

Group ID

Roll

Name

Application ID

Assigned

33

170101064

SHUBHAM KUMAR

3

33

170101065

SHYAM SUNDAR RAV

3

33

170101079

VINIT KUMAR

3

34

170101037

MAYANK CHANDRA

4

34

170101046

PRABHAT KUMAR

4

34

170123050

SUMEDH RAVI JOURAS

4

35

170123001

AAYUSH BANSAL

5

35

170123057

KARTIK SETHI

5

35

170123058

ARUN KUMAR

5

36

170101008

ANNANYA PRATAP SINGH CHAUHAN

6

36

170101012

ARPIT GUPTA

6

36

170101086

SHIVANG DALAL

6

37

170123027

KOTTA PREM SUJAN

1

37

170123035

MOGILLAPALLI NIKHIL

1

37

170123042

S SAI VAMSHI

1

38

170101007

ANIKET RAJPUT

2

38

170101020

DEEPAK GAMI

2

38

170101047

PRANAY GARG

2

39

170101056

ROUNAK PARIHAR

3

39

170101058

RYTHUM SINGLA

3

39

170101083

UTKARSH SANTOSH MISHRA

3

40

170123060

TRIKAY NALAMADA

4

40

170123061

MAHFOOZUR RAHMAN KHAN

4

40

170123062

DIVYANSH MANGAL

4

41

170123003

ABHINAV R

5

41

170123008

ARAV GARG

5

41

170123063

JOEL RAJA SINGH

5

42

170101021

DEVAISHI TIWARI

6

42

170123048

SIDDHANT SINHA

6

42

170123022

JAYANT PATIDAR

6

43

170123012

AYUSH DALIA

1

43

170123033

MAYANK SAHARAN

1

43

170123044

SAKSHI SHARMA

1

44

170123002

ABHINAV ANAND

2

44

170123041

RUPAM SAHU

2

44

170123045

SAURABH KUMAR

2

45

170123019

GARVIT SARJARE

3

45

170123032

MANNE HEMA PRIYA

3

45

170123046

SHALINI KUMARI

3

46

170101004

AJINKYA SHIVASHANKAR SHIVASHANKAR

4

46

170101025

HANSRAJ PATEL

4

46

170101003

ADITYA VARDHAN GARA

4

47

170101016

BANDAGONDA SHRI RAAM REDDY

5

47

170101018

CHALUMURU BHAVANI DATT

5

47

170101024

GEDDAM IKYA VENUS

5

47

160101074

Sumedh Manwar

5

48

170101028

KANCHUGANTLA RHYTHM

6

48

170101032

KETHAVATH NAVEEN

6

48

170101042

NAYANJYOTI DEURY

6

49

170123005

ANKIT KUMAR KANOJIYA

6

10