2. cnp3-ebook
3. English
4. Zen

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
152 ../../protocols/ipv6.rst:509
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — The Type 0 routing header (:rfc:`2460`) 39/10000 · 39
152 ../../protocols/wifi.rst:24
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — 4.3 Mbps 8/10000 · 8
152 ../../protocols/tcp.rst:486
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — The first extension that was proposed is the fast retransmit heuristic. This extension can be implemented on TCP senders and thus does not require any change to the protocol. It only assumes that the TCP receiver is able to buffer out-of-sequence segments. 256/10000 · 256
152 ../../principles/reliability.rst:555
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — Unfortunately, retransmission timers alone are not sufficient to recover from losses. Let us consider, as an example, the situation depicted below where an acknowledgment is lost. In this case, the sender retransmits the data frame that has not been acknowledged. However, as illustrated in the figure below, the receiver considers the retransmission as a new frame whose payload must be delivered to its user. 410/10000 · 410
153 ../../glossary.rst:204
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — Several types of remote procedure calls have been defined. The RPC mechanism defined in :rfc:`5531` is used by applications such as NFS 135/10000 · 135
153 ../../principles/dv.rst:299
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — 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. 566/10000 · 566
153 ../../principles/reliability.rst:586
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — 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). 606/10000 · 606
153 ../../principles/transport.rst:879
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — The second method to release a transport connection is to release independently the two directions of data transfer. Once a user of the transport service has sent all its SDUs, it performs a `DISCONNECT.req` for its direction of data transfer. The transport entity sends a control segment to request the release of the connection *after* the delivery of all previous SDUs to the remote user. This is usually done by placing in the `DR` the next sequence number and by delivering the `DISCONNECT.ind` only after all previous `DATA.ind`. The remote entity confirms the reception of the `DR` segment and the release of the corresponding direction of data transfer by returning an acknowledgment. This is illustrated in the figure below. 733/10000 · 733
153 ../../principles/sharing.rst:941
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — To visualize the different rate allocations, it is useful to consider the graph shown below. In this graph, we plot on the `x-axis` (resp. `y-axis`) the rate allocated to host `B` (resp. `A`). A point in the graph :math:`(r_B,r_A)` corresponds to a possible allocation of the transmission rates. Since there is a `2 Mbps` bottleneck link in this network, the graph can be divided into two regions. The lower left part of the graph contains all allocations :math:`(r_B,r_A)` such that the bottleneck link is not congested (:math:`r_A+r_B<2`). The right border of this region is the `efficiency line`, i.e. the set of allocations that completely utilize the bottleneck link (:math:`r_A+r_B=2`). Finally, the `fairness line` is the set of fair allocations. 753/10000 · 753