2. cnp3-ebook
3. English
4. Zen

79 ../../principles/security.rst:913
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — Key exchange 12/10000 · 12
79 ../../exercises/ipv6.rst:732
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — Some of the standard mininet commands assume the utilisation of IPv4 and do not have a direct IPv6 equivalent. Here are some useful commands. 141/10000 · 141
79 ../../exercises/routing-protocols.rst:1128
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — What are the BGP messages that will be exchanged when the link between ``AS1`` and ``AS5`` fails ? How does this affect the reachability of the different hosts ? 161/10000 · 161
79 ../../protocols/bgp.rst:311
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — The first BGP attribute that is used to rank BGP routes is the `local-preference` (local-pref) attribute. This attribute is an unsigned integer that is attached to each BGP route received over an eBGP session by the associated import filter. 241/10000 · 241
79 ../../protocols/email.rst:238
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — 54 2/10000 · 2
79 ../../protocols/ethernet.rst:350
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — In addition to the `identifier` discussed above, the network administrator can also configure a `cost` to be associated to each switch port. Usually, the `cost` of a port depends on its bandwidth and the [IEEE802.1d]_ standard recommends the values below. Of course, the network administrator may choose other values. We will use the notation `cost[p]` to indicate the cost associated to port `p` in this section. 413/10000 · 413
79 ../../protocols/http.rst:443
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — Footnotes 9/10000 · 9
79 ../../protocols/ipv6.rst:321
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — IPv6 packet format 18/10000 · 18
79 ../../protocols/ethernet.rst:303
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — When all switches boot, their `MAC address table` is empty. Assume that host `A` sends a frame towards host `C`. Upon reception of this frame, switch1 updates its `MAC address table` to remember that address `A` is reachable via its West port. As there is no entry for address `C` in switch1's `MAC address table`, the frame is forwarded to both switch2 and switch3. When switch2 receives the frame, its updates its `MAC address table` for address `A` and forwards the frame to host `C` as well as to switch3. switch3 has thus received two copies of the same frame. As switch3 does not know how to reach the destination address, it forwards the frame received from switch1 to switch2 and the frame received from switch2 to switch1... The single frame sent by host `A` will be continuously duplicated by the switches until their `MAC address table` contains an entry for address `C`. Quickly, all the available link bandwidth will be used to forward all the copies of this frame. As Ethernet does not contain any `TTL` or `HopLimit`, this loop will never stop. 1059/10000 · 1059
79 ../../protocols/tcp.rst:250
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — `acknowledgment number`. TCP uses cumulative positive acknowledgments. Each TCP segment contains the `sequence number` of the next byte that the sender of the acknowledgment expects to receive from the remote host. In theory, the `acknowledgment number` is only valid if the `ACK` flag of the TCP header is set. In practice, almost all [#fackflag]_ TCP segments have their `ACK` flag set. 388/10000 · 388
79 ../../protocols/tls.rst:406
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — reduce the latency of TLS 25/10000 · 25
79 ../../bibliography.rst:103
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — JSON-RPC Working group, `JSON-RPC 2.0 Specification <http://www.jsonrpc.org/specification>`_, available on http://www.jsonrpc.org, 2010 135/10000 · 135
80 ../../bibliography.rst:104
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — Kerrisk, M., `The Linux Programming Interface <http://nostarch.com/tlpi>`_, No Starch Press, 2010 97/10000 · 97
80 ../../glossary.rst:75
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — IPv4 4/10000 · 4
80 ../../principles/network.rst:435
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — verifying that packets can reach a given destination 52/10000 · 52
80 ../../principles/reliability.rst:270
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — `DLE STX` **1** **2** **3** **4** `DLE ETX` 43/10000 · 43
80 ../../principles/sharing.rst:539
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — [KT1975]_ analyzes in detail the performance of several CSMA variants. Under some assumptions about the transmission channel and the traffic, the analysis compares ALOHA, slotted ALOHA, persistent and non-persistent CSMA. Under these assumptions, ALOHA achieves a channel utilization of only 18.4% of the channel capacity. Slotted ALOHA is able to use 36.6% of this capacity. Persistent CSMA improves the utilization by reaching 52.9% of the capacity while non-persistent CSMA achieves 81.5% of the channel capacity. 516/10000 · 516
80 ../../principles/transport.rst:513
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — Reliability of the connection-oriented service 46/10000 · 46
80 ../../principles/security.rst:920
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — When users want to communicate securely through a network, they need to exchange information such as the keys that will be used by an encryption algorithm even in the presence of an eavesdropper. The most widely used algorithm that allows two users to safely exchange an integer in the presence of an eavesdropper is the one proposed by Diffie and Hellman [DH1976]_. It operates with (large) integers. Two of them are public, the modulus, p, which is prime and the base, g, which must be a primitive root of p. The communicating users select a random integer, :math:`a` for Alice and :math:`b` for Bob. The exchange starts as : 627/10000 · 627
80 ../../exercises/ipv6.rst:734
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — The ``nodes`` command lists the routers and hosts that have been created in the mininet topology. 97/10000 · 97