Talk:Network simulator

how analysis different analog circuit using monte carlo metho on multisim

I think Network_simulator has to be separate from Network_simulation, since

-Network Simulator is a software here

-and network Simulation is a broad topic...

no?

Ac3bf1 (talk) 12:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Linkfarm
There are four external links that have been around for a while. I am bringing them back up. The first one is NS-2, an open source simulator. The second, NetSim is used for educational purposes. The thrid and fourth - Qualnet & Opnet and well known and have been in use since the late 80's.

Since the next logical step for an user interested in network simulation, is to get hands on with a simulator, I have reverted to an earlier edit which contains the same.

Alla tedesca (talk) 04:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've removed the links again per WP:EL and WP:NOTLINK. --Ronz (talk) 16:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

With ref to WP:EL "Adding external links to an article can be a service to the reader, but they should be kept to a minimum of those that are meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article", I feel having those links are important. I really don't understand what are the issues you seem to have with the other three links ? Alla tedesca (talk) 03:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest a WP:DR option involving other parties. To me this is a very straightforward case of the addition of inappropriate links.  I see no rationale why the links you want should be kept, nor any rationale for your removal of others. --Ronz (talk) 18:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * As a matter of preference I prefer no external links in articles. There is usually one link that is acceptable per article; obviously this idea can be bent one way or the other, but using this article as an example I would say that it is preferable to have no links to any network simulators because having one link and not another invites disputes. If there is something that is useful and beneficial to the reader there is probably a Wikipedia article on the subject. Much of my work involves replacing external links with internal links. But again, this is my preference. I prefer this article in the state it's in now. With no external links. E_dog95'   Hi ' 05:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree! I hate promotional external links, by I think the article should include intrawiki links to all computer network simulation software that have their own wiki articles. If these are notable enough for a wiki article, they deserve mentioning on this article i.m.o. If you don't think they are notable enough, please suggest deletion of their articles. Mange01 (talk) 22:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Internal Links
Hello Mange,

Kindly remove promotional links to Cisco products. While they might have internal articles, they are not related to network simulation

- bob —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.45.159.254 (talk) 12:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by "internal articles"?
 * I'm not affiliated with Cisco or any of the other simulator softwares that I added to the article, but I don't understand why only two simulators are accepted by you. I hate external links, so it is good that you guys have removed them, but why not accept intrawiki links? Since these network simulators are notable enough for Wikipedia articles, they are notable enough for mentioning in this article. I therefore suggest that at least the following links are put back into the article:


 * GloMoSim
 * OMNeT++ and Simulation software based on Omnet++
 * Cisco Packet Tracer
 * Wireless sensor network simulators


 * If you don't think they are notable enough for mentioning here, please suggest that the articles should be deleted.
 * Cisco Packet Tracer is widespread and notable, since it is used on CCNA and CCNP courses. It is a router emulator, and to my understanding also a simulator of small networks, allowing the student to experiment with various routing protocols. Am I wrong?
 * Since the notability of the Cisco NetworkSims and Simmcast articles are questioned, I agree with you that they should not be mentioned here right now. Mange01 (talk) 19:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)