Exit Zen
149
../../glossary.rst:135
English
RIR
0/100 · 3
149
../../principles/sharing.rst:709
English
Self clocking
0/130 · 13
149
../../principles/transport.rst:793
English
To deal with this problem, transport protocols combine two solutions. First, they use 32 bits or more to encode the sequence number in the segment header. This increases the overhead, but also increases the delay between the transmission of two different segments having the same sequence number. Second, transport protocols require the network layer to enforce a `Maximum Segment Lifetime (MSL)`. The network layer must ensure that no packet remains in the network for more than MSL seconds. In the Internet the MSL is assumed [#fmsl]_ to be 2 minutes :rfc:`793`. Note that this limits the maximum bandwidth of a transport protocol. If it uses `n` bits to encode its sequence numbers, then it cannot send more than :math:`2^n` segments every MSL seconds.
0/7550 · 755
150
../../glossary.rst:137
English
Regional Internet Registry. An organization that manages IP addresses and AS numbers on behalf of :term:`IANA`.
0/1110 · 111
150
../../principles/transport.rst:797
English
Connection release
0/180 · 18
151
../../glossary.rst:244
English
root nameserver
0/150 · 15
151
../../principles/dv.rst:113
English
Consider now that the link between `D` and `E` fails. The network is now partitioned into two disjoint parts: (`A` , `D`) and (`B`, `E`, `C`). The routes towards `B`, `C` and `E` expire first on router `D`. At this time, router `D` updates its routing table.
0/2590 · 259
151
../../principles/sharing.rst:714
English
However, transport protocols are not only used in this environment. In the global Internet, a large number of hosts send segments to a large number of receivers. For example, let us consider the network depicted below which is similar to the one discussed in [Jacobson1988]_ and :rfc:`896`. In this network, we assume that the buffers of the router are infinite to ensure that no packet is lost.
0/3950 · 395
151
../../principles/transport.rst:801
English
When we discussed the connection-oriented service, we mentioned that there are two types of connection releases : `abrupt release` and `graceful release`.
0/1540 · 154
152
../../glossary.rst:246
English
A name server that is responsible for the root of the domain names hierarchy. There are currently a dozen root nameservers and each DNS resolver See http://www.root-servers.org/ for more information about the operation of these root servers.
0/2410 · 241
152
../../principles/dv.rst:115
English
If `D` sends :math:`[D=0, A=1, B=\infty, C=\infty, E=\infty]`, `A` learns that `B`, `C` and `E` are unreachable and updates its routing table.
0/1420 · 142
153
../../glossary.rst:126
English
round-trip-time
0/150 · 15
153
../../principles/dv.rst:117
English
Unfortunately, if the distance vector sent to `A` is lost or if `A` sends its own distance vector ( :math:`[A=0,D=1,B=3,C=3,E=2]` ) at the same time as `D` sends its distance vector, `D` updates its routing table to use the shorter routes advertised by `A` towards `B`, `C` and `E`. After some time `D` sends a new distance vector : :math:`[D=0,A=1,E=3,C=4,B=4]`. `A` updates its routing table and after some time sends its own distance vector :math:`[A=0,D=1,B=5,C=5,E=4]`, etc. This problem is known as the `count to infinity problem` in the networking literature.
0/5660 · 566
153
../../principles/reliability.rst:552
English
To solve this problem, datalink protocols associate a `sequence number` to each data frame. This `sequence number` is one of the fields found in the header of data frames. We use the notation `D(x,...)` to indicate a data frame whose sequence number field is set to value `x`. The acknowledgments also contain a sequence number indicating the data frames that it is acknowledging. We use `OKx` to indicate an acknowledgment frame that confirms the reception of `D(x,...)`. The sequence number is encoded as a bit string of fixed length. The simplest reliable protocol is the Alternating Bit Protocol (ABP).
0/6060 · 606
153
../../principles/sharing.rst:725
English
If many senders are attached to the left part of the network above, they all send a window full of segments. These segments are stored in the buffers of the router before being transmitted towards their destination. If there are many senders on the left part of the network, the occupancy of the buffers quickly grows. A consequence of the buffer occupancy is that the round-trip-time, measured by the transport protocol, between the sender and the receiver increases. Consider a network where 10,000 bits segments are sent. When the buffer is empty, such a segment requires 1 millisecond to be transmitted on the `10 Mbps` link and 5 milliseconds to be the transmitted on the `2 Mbps` link. Thus, the measured round-trip-time measured is roughly 6 milliseconds if we ignore the propagation delay on the links. If the buffer contains 100 segments, the round-trip-time becomes :math:`1+100 \times 5+ 5` milliseconds as new segments are only transmitted on the `2 Mbps` link once all previous segments have been transmitted. Unfortunately, if the reliable transport protocol uses a retransmission timer and performs `go-back-n` to recover from transmission errors it will retransmit a full window of segments. This increases the occupancy of the buffer and the delay through the buffer... Furthermore, the buffer may store and send on the low bandwidth links several retransmissions of the same segment. This problem is called `congestion collapse`. It occurred several times during the late 1980s on the Internet [Jacobson1988]_.
0/15280 · 1528
153
../../principles/transport.rst:810
English
Abrupt connection release
0/250 · 25
154
../../glossary.rst:128
English
The round-trip-time (RTT) is the delay between the transmission of a segment and the reception of the corresponding acknowledgment in a transport protocol.
0/1550 · 155
154
../../principles/dv.rst:119
English
Routers `A` and `D` exchange distance vectors with increasing costs until these costs reach :math:`\infty`. This problem may occur in other scenarios than the one depicted in the above figure. In fact, distance vector routing may suffer from count to infinity problems as soon as there is a cycle in the network. Unfortunately, cycles are widely used in networks since they provide the required redundancy to deal with link and router failures. To mitigate the impact of counting to infinity, some distance vector protocols consider that :math:`16=\infty`. Unfortunately, this limits the metrics that network operators can use and the diameter of the networks using distance vectors.
0/6830 · 683
154
../../principles/sharing.rst:727
English
The `congestion collapse` is a problem that all heterogeneous networks face. Different mechanisms have been proposed in the scientific literature to avoid or control network congestion. Some of them have been implemented and deployed in real networks. To understand this problem in more detail, let us first consider a simple network with two hosts attached to a high bandwidth link that are sending segments to destination `C` attached to a low bandwidth link as depicted below.
0/4790 · 479
154
../../principles/transport.rst:812
English
As the entity that sends the `DR` segment cannot know whether the other entity has already sent all its data on the connection, SDUs can be lost during such an `abrupt connection release`.
0/1880 · 188