Re: [dtn-users] BP-RI implementation test

["Jim Miner (jminer)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi folks,

With regard to the older, non-compliant Java implementation, you might be
thinking of the Ohio University Java implementation, which was not RFC
compliant and done in about the 2005 timeframe.  JDTN is distinct from the
Ohio University implementation.  JDTN is compliant with RFC 5050 and is a
bit more recent than 2005, the last work done on it was 2011.  It
implements RFC 5326 (LTP), as well as the TCP and UDP drafts for
adaptation layers.  It is interoperable with DTN2, and with ION, and has
provisions for dealing with ION bundle header compression.  It can serve
as a gateway between ground based DTN2 hosts and space based ION hosts.
It has a default bundle routing facility based on static routes, but
alternate routing implementations can be plugged in.  We did develop an
android application, but in the fast-paced world of android development it
might be considered a bit aged.  One proviso: it does not address Bundle
Security extensions.  One other qualification: all of these statements
were true in 2011, but I have not really kept up with DTN since then.

http://sourceforge.net/projects/jdtn/

Regards, Jim Miner
Cisco Systems, Inc.


On 3/19/14 7:50 PM, "Burleigh, Scott C (312G)"
<[e-mail]> wrote:

>One other note: if you¹re still looking for a good Java implementation
>you might want to check out JDTN:
>http://sourceforge.net/projects/jdtn/?source=directory.  Keith Scott has
>worked with this code a bit and speaks highly of it.
> 
>Scott
> 
>From: dtn-users [mailto:[e-mail]]
>On Behalf Of Maël Auzias
>Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 6:50 AM
>To: Ivancic, William D. (GRC-RHN0)
>Cc: [e-mail]
>Subject: Re: [dtn-users] BP-RI implementation test
> 
>Hello Will,
>
>Thanks for the answer !
>
>I saw that it's not based on the RFC and a bit old (2005 -according to
>the website date-).
>
>I tried IBR-DTN (which is great!) but for some reasons I wanted to try a
>Java implementation.
>
>Note also that the wiki references Java DTN (the last on the webpage)
>which does not exist anymore and lead to DTN2.9.
>
> 
>
>I found out what was the problem. It might look like I'm answering myself
>about the problem, but it could be useful if anyone crawl the mailing
>list archive for
> the same problem, here is the solution:
>
>The README file does not notice that rmiregistery should be running.
>Well... It should be though.
>
>In a terminal:
>
>#export 
>CLASSPATH=$CLASSPATH:/absolute/path/to/BP-RI/PackageDeps/LTP-RI-1.2-runtim
>e.jar:/absolute/path/to/BP-RI/PackageDeps/commons-validator-1.4.0.jar:/abs
>olute/path/to/BP-RI/classes
>
>#cd /absolute/path/to/BP-RI/classes
>
>#rmiregistry
>
>Then it should work.
>
>I still have an issue though : I cannot write anything in the Eclipse and
>if ever I launch it from the console the program stop as soon as the
>program console is waiting.
>
>Once I get through I'll send another mail to explain the process of
>getting it working.
>
>
> 
>On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 2:32 PM, Ivancic, William D. (GRC-RHN0)
><[e-mail]> wrote:
>I think that is really old.  It is based on the Internet Draft ­04, not
>even RFC5050.
>
> 
>
>I suggest working with some newer code.  Look at the wiki.
>
> 
>
>http://www.dtnrg.org/wiki/Code
>
> 
>
>But even the wiki has a lot of dated material.
>
> 
>
>I will not endorse one implementation over another as I really haven't
>done much here lately.  I will say that I have a number of small business
>doing research for NASA that have gravitated
> to IBR-DTN.  You might want to try that one.  ION also has been well
>maintained to date. ION supports LTP.  I do not believe IBF-DTN does.
>ION also supports IPN naming, Contract Graph Routing and CBHE (Compressed
> Bundle Header Encoding).  If you are looking at space applications and
>deterministic routing, ION may be a better choice.  If you are looking a
>opportunistic routing, IBR-DTN may be better.
>
> 
>
>Will
>
> 
>
>
>
>
>
> 
>
>From:
>Maël Auzias <[e-mail]>
>Date: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 4:42 AM
>To: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
>Subject: [dtn-users] BP-RI implementation test
>
> 
>
>Hi everyone,
>
>I'm testing the
>BP-RI <http://masaka.cs.ohiou.edu/ocp/bundling.html> implementation. Once
>I got it compiled without any error I try to run it as described in the
>README.
>
>
>However an error occurs at the start, here is the output:
>
>root@pc-mna-78:~/BP-RI/classes# java edu.ohiou.ocp.dtn.BPServer#more
>configuration details below
>
>Off-World Communication Protocols Research Group BP-RI: 1.0
> Starting BP Server:v1.0...
>BPServer failed to bind to //localhost/BPServer! - Connection refused to
>host: localhost; nested exception is:
>
>    java.net.ConnectException: Connection refused
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Did someone already get through this one ?
>
>Also I cannot find anything related with dynamic neighbors discovery
>(neither in the source code, neither in the doc, neither in the
>conf-file), is there any mechanism which
> take care of it ?
>
>Configuration details
>root@pc-mna-78:~/BP-RI/classes# route -n
>Kernel IP routing table
>Destination     Gateway         Genmask         Flags Metric Ref    Use
>Iface
>0.0.0.0         0.0.0.0         0.0.0.0         U     0      0        0
>wlan0
>192.168.0.0     0.0.0.0         255.255.255.0   U     0      0        0
>wlan0
>
>root@pc-mna-78:~/BP-RI/classes# ifconfig
>lo        Link encap:Local Loopback
>          inet addr:127.0.0.1  Mask:255.0.0.0
>          inet6 addr: ::1/128 Scope:Host
>          UP LOOPBACK RUNNING  MTU:16436  Metric:1
>          RX packets:4808 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
>          TX packets:4808 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
>          collisions:0 txqueuelen:0
>          RX bytes:1011705 (987.9 KiB)  TX bytes:1011705 (987.9 KiB)
>
>wlan0     Link encap:Ethernet  HWaddr 0c:60:76:66:2d:64
>          inet addr:192.168.0.78  Bcast:192.168.0.255  Mask:255.255.255.0
>          inet6 addr: fe80::e60:76ff:fe66:2d64/64 Scope:Link
>          UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST  MTU:1500  Metric:1
>          RX packets:11742 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:6484792
>          TX packets:17905 errors:31 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
>          collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000
>          RX bytes:682229 (666.2 KiB)  TX bytes:10328677 (9.8 MiB)
>          Interrupt:17
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 
>
>