2. cnp3-ebook
3. English
4. Zen

150 ../../protocols/tcp.rst:480
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — Due to this delayed acknowledgment strategy, during a bulk transfer, a TCP implementation usually acknowledges every second TCP segment received. 145/10000 · 145
150 ../../principles/dv.rst:214
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — At this point, all routers have a routing table allowing them to reach all other routers, except router `A`, which cannot yet reach router `B`. `A` recovers the route towards `B` once router `D` sends its updated distance vector :math:`[A=1,B=2,C=2,D=0,E=1]`. This last step is illustrated in figure below, which shows the routing tables on all routers. 353/10000 · 353
150 ../../principles/reliability.rst:510
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — Most of the protocols in the TCP/IP protocol suite rely on the simple Internet checksum in order to verify that a received packet has not been affected by transmission errors. Despite its popularity and ease of implementation, the Internet checksum is not the only available checksum mechanism. Cyclical Redundancy Checks (CRC_) are very powerful error detection schemes that are used notably on disks, by many datalink layer protocols and file formats such as ``zip`` or ``png``. They can easily be implemented efficiently in hardware and have better error-detection capabilities than the Internet checksum [SGP98]_ . However, CRCs are sometimes considered to be too CPU-intensive for software implementations and other checksum mechanisms are preferred. The TCP/IP community chose the Internet checksum, the OSI community chose the Fletcher checksum [Sklower89]_. Nowadays there are efficient techniques to quickly compute CRCs in software [Feldmeier95]_. 957/10000 · 957
150 ../../principles/transport.rst:866
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — The first solution to release a transport connection is to define a new control segment (e.g. the `DR` segment for Disconnection Request) and consider the connection to be released once this segment has been sent or received. This is illustrated in the figure below. 266/10000 · 266
151 ../../glossary.rst:173
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — A relay operating in the network layer. 39/10000 · 39
151 ../../principles/dv.rst:295
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — 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. 259/10000 · 259
151 ../../principles/transport.rst:873
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — Abrupt connection release 25/10000 · 25
151 ../../principles/sharing.rst:937
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — the rate allocated to source :math:`j` cannot be increased without decreasing the rate allocated to a source :math:`i` whose allocation is smaller than the rate allocated to source :math:`j` [Leboudec2008]_ . 208/10000 · 208
151 ../../protocols/email.rst:260
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — 14 2/10000 · 2
151 ../../protocols/ipv6.rst:503
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — The last type of `IPv6 header extension` is the `Routing` header. The ``type 0`` routing header defined in :rfc:`2460` is an example of an IPv6 option that must be processed by some routers. This option is encoded as shown below. 229/10000 · 229
151 ../../protocols/wifi.rst:24
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — 802.11b 7/10000 · 7
151 ../../protocols/tcp.rst:482
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — The default go-back-n retransmission strategy used by TCP has the advantage of being simple to implement, in particular on the receiver side, but when there are losses, a go-back-n strategy provides a lower performance than a selective repeat strategy. The TCP developers have designed several extensions to TCP to allow it to use a selective repeat strategy while maintaining backward compatibility with older TCP implementations. These TCP extensions assume that the receiver is able to buffer the segments that it receives out-of-sequence. 542/10000 · 542
151 ../../bibliography.rst:365
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — Ware, R., Mukerjee, M., Seshan, S. and Sherry, J. `Modeling BBR's Interactions with Loss-Based Congestion Control <https://doi.org/10.1145/3355369.3355604>`_. In Proceedings of the Internet Measurement Conference (IMC '19). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 137-143. 256/10000 · 256
151 ../../principles/reliability.rst:524
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — Since the receiver sends an acknowledgment after having received each data frame, the simplest solution to deal with losses is to use a retransmission timer. When the sender sends a frame, it starts a retransmission timer. The value of this retransmission timer should be larger than the `round-trip-time`, i.e. the delay between the transmission of a data frame and the reception of the corresponding acknowledgment. When the retransmission timer expires, the sender assumes that the data frame has been lost and retransmits it. This is illustrated in the figure below. 570/10000 · 570
152 ../../glossary.rst:202
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — RPC 3/10000 · 3
152 ../../bibliography.rst:367
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — ITU-T, recommendation X.200, `Open Systems Interconnection - Model and Notation <http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-X.200-199407-I/en>`_, 1994 136/10000 · 136
152 ../../principles/dv.rst:297
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — 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. 142/10000 · 142
152 ../../principles/transport.rst:875
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — 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`. 188/10000 · 188
152 ../../principles/sharing.rst:939
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — Depending on the network, a `max-min fair allocation` may not always exist. In practice, `max-min fairness` is an ideal objective that cannot necessarily be achieved. When there is a single bottleneck link as in the example above, `max-min fairness` implies that each source should be allocated the same transmission rate. 322/10000 · 322
152 ../../protocols/email.rst:260
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — O 1/10000 · 1