TULIP results
Faisal generated TULIP results for SLAC as target (134.79.18.188) and TULIP geo-located it to be in Wyoming. Screenshot here. This is obviously way off.
CBG results
Dr. Les quickly explained to me what TULIP was doing and wanted to do a quick analysis of the same location (i.e. SLAC) using CBG with tri-lateration. So I found a target located at SLAC (134.79.18.134) in CBG list. We ran CBG with tri-lateration for this target. The results were way off. The error distance was of the order of ~3200 km.
However Dr. Les pointed out that we should be using three landmarks that have the minimum RTT values from the target. Thus we shuffled our values accordingly and re-ran the test with two different set of landmarks. This helped to verify our results. Table below shows the results:
Landmark 1 |
Landmark 2 |
Landmark 3 |
Error (km) |
Distance to nearest landmark (km) |
Area of Region (km) |
Est. Lat/Long |
Actual Lat/Long36.9899 -122.06 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
36.9899 -122.06 (Santa Cruz) |
38.4829 -121.64 (Davis) |
37.3558 -121.954 (Santa Clara) |
25.254 |
2.5132 |
1498.5 |
37.474 -121.93 |
37.418 -122.2 |
37.4285 -122.178 (Stanford) |
37.3762 -122.183 (Palo Alto) |
37.3558 -121.954 (Santa Clara) |
2.5156 |
2.5132 |
1048.8 |
37.429 -122.18 |
37.418 -122.2 |
Other results are also encouraging, so far I've analyzed around 20 targets, comparing multi-lateration and tri-lateration results. CBG with tri-lateration seems to be performing well.
Points to consider
These results prove that tri-lateration works. So the question is why is TULIP failing so miserably?