Exit Zen
66
../../principles/reliability.rst:240
English
`z` : `1111010` b
0/170 · 17
66
../../principles/sharing.rst:270
English
`Stochastic` or `optimistic` MAC algorithms. These algorithms assume that collisions are part of the normal operation of a Local Area Network. They aim to minimize the number of collisions, but they do not try to avoid all collisions. Stochastic algorithms are usually easier to implement than deterministic ones.
0/3130 · 313
66
../../principles/transport.rst:224
English
the `connectionless service`
0/280 · 28
67
../../glossary.rst:44
English
The Internet Engineering Task Force is a non-profit organization that develops the standards for the protocols used in the Internet. The IETF mainly covers the transport and network layers. Several application layer protocols are also standardized within the IETF. The work in the IETF is organized in working groups. Most of the work is performed by exchanging emails and there are three IETF meetings every year. Participation is open to anyone. See https://www.ietf.org
0/4720 · 472
67
../../exercises/network.rst:378
English
An important difference between OSPF and RIP is that OSPF routers flood link state packets that allow the other routers to recompute their own routing tables while RIP routers exchange distance vectors. Consider that link `B-C` fails and that router `B` is the first to detect the failure. At this point, `B` cannot reach anymore `C`, `D` and `E`. `C` cannot reach `B` and `A` anymore.
0/3850 · 385
67
../../principles/network.rst:302
English
Dealing with heterogeneous datalink layers
0/420 · 42
67
../../principles/reliability.rst:241
English
`@` : `1000000` b
0/170 · 17
67
../../principles/sharing.rst:273
English
We first discuss a simple deterministic MAC algorithm and then we describe several important optimistic algorithms, before coming back to a distributed and deterministic MAC algorithm.
0/1840 · 184
67
../../principles/transport.rst:225
English
the `connection oriented service`
0/330 · 33
68
../../glossary.rst:147
English
IGP
0/100 · 3
68
../../exercises/network.rst:380
English
Router `B` will flood its updated link state packet through the entire network and all routers will recompute their forwarding table. Upon reception of a link state packet, routers usually first flood the received link-state packet and then recompute their forwarding table. Assume that `B` is the first to recompute its forwarding table, followed by `D`, `A`, `C` and finally `E`.
0/3810 · 381
68
../../principles/network.rst:304
English
Sometimes, the network layer needs to deal with heterogeneous datalink layers. For example, two hosts connected to different datalink layers exchange packets via routers that are using other types of datalink layers. Thanks to the network layer, this exchange of packets is possible provided that each packet can be placed inside a datalink layer frame before being transmitted. If all datalink layers support the same frame size, this is simple. When a node receives a frame, it decapsulates the packet that it contains, checks the header and forwards it, encapsulated inside another frame, to the outgoing interface. Unfortunately, the encapsulation operation is not always possible. Each datalink layer is characterized by the maximum frame size that it supports. Datalink layers typically support frames containing up to a few hundreds or a few thousands of bytes. The maximum frame size that a given datalink layer supports depends on its underlying technology. Unfortunately, most datalink layers support a different maximum frame size. This implies that when a host sends a large packet inside a frame to its nexthop router, there is a risk that this packet will have to traverse a link that is not capable of forwarding the packet inside a single frame. In principle, there are three possibilities to solve this problem. To discuss them, we consider a simple scenario with two hosts connected to a router as shown in the figure below.
0/14420 · 1442
68
../../principles/reliability.rst:242
English
`space` : `0100000` b
0/210 · 21
68
../../principles/sharing.rst:277
English
Static allocation methods
0/250 · 25
68
../../principles/transport.rst:226
English
the `request-response service`
0/300 · 30
69
../../glossary.rst:149
English
Interior Gateway Protocol. Synonym of intradomain routing protocol
0/660 · 66
69
../../exercises/network.rst:382
English
After each update of a forwarding table, verify which pairs of routers are able to exchange packets. Provide your answer using a table similar to the one shown above.
0/1660 · 166
69
../../principles/network.rst:323
English
Consider in the network above that host `A` wants to send a 900 bytes packet (870 bytes of payload and 30 bytes of header) to host `B` via router `R1`. Host `A` encapsulates this packet inside a single frame. The frame is received by router `R1` which extracts the packet. Router `R1` has three possible options to process this packet.
0/3350 · 335
69
../../principles/reliability.rst:244
English
In addition, the :term:`ASCII` table also defines several non-printable or control characters. These characters were designed to allow an application to control a printer or a terminal. These control characters include `CR` and `LF`, that are used to terminate a line, and the `BEL` character which causes the terminal to emit a sound.
0/3350 · 335
69
../../principles/sharing.rst:279
English
A first solution to share the available resources among all the devices attached to one Local Area Network is to define, `a priori`, the distribution of the transmission resources among the different devices. If `N` devices need to share the transmission capacities of a LAN operating at `b` Mbps, each device could be allocated a bandwidth of :math:`\frac{b}{N}` Mbps.
0/3690 · 369