2. cnp3-ebook
3. English
4. Zen

142 ../../protocols/wifi.rst:22 • ../../protocols/wifi.rst:24 • ../../protocols/wifi.rst:25
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — 2.4 GHz 7/10000 · 7
142 ../../protocols/tcp.rst:426
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — :math:`rttvar=(1-\beta) \times rttvar + \beta \times |srtt - rtt|` 66/10000 · 66
142 ../../bibliography.rst:352
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — Thomborson, C., `The V.42bis Standard for Data-Compressing Modems <http://www.computer.org/portal/web/csdl/doi/10.1109/40.166712>`_, IEEE Micro, September/October 1992 (vol. 12 no. 5), pp. 41-53 194/10000 · 194
143 ../../glossary.rst:137
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — Routing Information Protocol. An intradomain routing protocol based on distance vectors that is sometimes used in enterprise networks. RIP is defined in :rfc:`2453`. 165/10000 · 165
143 ../../principles/dv.rst:203
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — To deal with link and router failures, routers use the timestamp stored in their routing table. As all routers send their distance vector every `N` seconds, the timestamp of each route should be regularly refreshed. Thus no route should have a timestamp older than `N` seconds, unless the route is not reachable anymore. In practice, to cope with the possible loss of a distance vector due to transmission errors, routers check the timestamp of the routes stored in their routing table every `N` seconds and remove the routes that are older than :math:`3 \times N` seconds. 573/10000 · 573
143 ../../principles/reliability.rst:492
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — Other more powerful error correction codes have been proposed and are used in some applications. The `Hamming Code <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamming_code>`_ is a clever combination of parity bits that provides error detection and correction capabilities. 259/10000 · 259
143 ../../principles/transport.rst:838
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — Risk of deadlock with dynamic windows 37/10000 · 37
143 ../../principles/sharing.rst:903
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — 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]_. 1528/10000 · 1528
143 ../../protocols/email.rst:256
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — 63 2/10000 · 2
143 ../../protocols/ipv6.rst:453
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — IPv6 fragmentation example 26/10000 · 26
143 ../../protocols/wifi.rst:22
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — 0.9 Mbps 8/10000 · 8
143 ../../protocols/tcp.rst:428
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — :math:`srtt=(1-\alpha) \times srtt + \alpha \times rtt` 55/10000 · 55
143 ../../bibliography.rst:353
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — The Unicode Consortium. `The Unicode Standard <http://unicode.org/versions/Unicode5.0.0/>`_, Version 5.0.0, defined by: The Unicode Standard, Version 5.0 (Boston, MA, Addison-Wesley, 2007 187/10000 · 187
144 ../../glossary.rst:132
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — RIR 3/10000 · 3
144 ../../principles/dv.rst:205
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — When a router notices that a route towards a destination has expired, it must first associate an :math:`\infty` cost to this route and send its distance vector to its neighbors to inform them. The route can then be removed from the routing table after some time (e.g. :math:`3 \times N` seconds), to ensure that the neighboring routers have received the bad news, even if some distance vectors do not reach them due to transmission errors. 439/10000 · 439
144 ../../principles/reliability.rst:495
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — Reliable protocols use error detection schemes, but none of the widely used reliable protocols rely on error correction schemes. To detect errors, a frame is usually divided into two parts : 190/10000 · 190
144 ../../principles/transport.rst:843
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — To solve this problem, transport protocols rely on a special timer : the `persistence timer`. This timer is started by the sender whenever it receives an acknowledgment advertising a receive window set to `0`. When the timer expires, the sender retransmits an old segment in order to force the receiver to send a new acknowledgment, and hence send the current receive window size. 380/10000 · 380
144 ../../principles/sharing.rst:905
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — 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. 479/10000 · 479
144 ../../protocols/email.rst:256
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — / 1/10000 · 1
144 ../../protocols/ipv6.rst:455
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — The following pseudo-code details the IPv6 fragmentation, assuming that the packet does not contain options. 108/10000 · 108