2. cnp3-ebook
3. principles/sharing
4. English
5. Zen

62 ../../principles/sharing.rst:386
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — Static allocation methods 25/10000 · 25
63 ../../principles/sharing.rst:388
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — A first solution to share the available resources among all the devices attached to one Local Area Network is to define, `a priori`, the distribution of the transmission resources among the different devices. If `N` devices need to share the transmission capacities of a LAN operating at `b` Mbps, each device could be allocated a bandwidth of :math:`\frac{b}{N}` Mbps. 369/10000 · 369
64 ../../principles/sharing.rst:392
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — Limited resources need to be shared in other environments than Local Area Networks. Since the first radio transmissions by `Marconi <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guglielmo_Marconi>`_ more than one century ago, many applications that exchange information through radio signals have been developed. Each radio signal is an electromagnetic wave whose power is centered around a given frequency. The radio spectrum corresponds to frequencies ranging between roughly 3 KHz and 300 GHz. Frequency allocation plans negotiated among governments reserve most frequency ranges for specific applications such as broadcast radio, broadcast television, mobile communications, aeronautical radio navigation, amateur radio, satellite, etc. Each frequency range is then subdivided into channels and each channel can be reserved for a given application, e.g. a radio broadcaster in a given region. 880/10000 · 880
65 ../../principles/sharing.rst:397
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — `Frequency Division Multiplexing` (FDM) is a static allocation scheme in which a frequency is allocated to each device attached to the shared medium. As each device uses a different transmission frequency, collisions cannot occur. In optical networks, a variant of FDM called `Wavelength Division Multiplexing` (WDM) can be used. An optical fiber can transport light at different wavelengths without interference. With WDM, a different wavelength is allocated to each of the devices that share the same optical fiber. 517/10000 · 517
66 ../../principles/sharing.rst:402
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — `Time Division Multiplexing` (TDM) is a static bandwidth allocation method that was initially defined for the telephone network. In the fixed telephone network, a voice conversation is usually transmitted as a 64 Kbps signal. Thus, a telephone conservation generates 8 KBytes per second or one byte every 125 microseconds. Telephone conversations often need to be multiplexed together on a single line. For example, in Europe, thirty 64 Kbps voice signals are multiplexed over a single 2 Mbps (E1) line. This is done by using `Time Division Multiplexing` (TDM). TDM divides the transmission opportunities into slots. In the telephone network, a slot corresponds to 125 microseconds. A position inside each slot is reserved for each voice signal. The figure below illustrates TDM on a link that is used to carry four voice conversations. The vertical lines represent the slot boundaries and the letters the different voice conversations. One byte from each voice conversation is sent during each 125 microseconds slot. The byte corresponding to a given conversation is always sent at the same position in each slot. 1115/10000 · 1115
67 ../../principles/sharing.rst:440
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — TDM as shown above can be completely static, i.e. the same conversations always share the link, or dynamic. In the latter case, the two endpoints of the link must exchange messages specifying which conversation uses which byte inside each slot. Thanks to these control messages, it is possible to dynamically add and remove voice conversations from a given link. 362/10000 · 362
68 ../../principles/sharing.rst:442
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — TDM and FDM are widely used in telephone networks to support fixed bandwidth conversations. Using them in Local Area Networks that support computers would probably be inefficient. Computers usually do not send information at a fixed rate. Instead, they often have an on-off behavior. During the on period, the computer tries to send at the highest possible rate, e.g. to transfer a file. During the off period, which is often much longer than the on period, the computer does not transmit any packet. Using a static allocation scheme for computers attached to a LAN would lead to huge inefficiencies, as they would only be able to transmit at :math:`\frac{1}{N}` of the total bandwidth during their on period, despite the fact that the other computers are in their off period and thus do not need to transmit any information. The dynamic MAC algorithms discussed in the remainder of this chapter aim to solve this problem. 922/10000 · 922
69 ../../principles/sharing.rst:446
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — ALOHA 5/10000 · 5
70 ../../principles/sharing.rst:450
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — In the 1960s, computers were mainly mainframes with a few dozen terminals attached to them. These terminals were usually in the same building as the mainframe and were directly connected to it. In some cases, the terminals were installed in remote locations and connected through a :term:`modem` attached to a :term:`dial-up line`. The university of Hawaii chose a different organization. Instead of using telephone lines to connect the distant terminals, they developed the first `packet radio` technology [Abramson1970]_. Until then, computer networks were built on top of either the telephone network or physical cables. ALOHANet showed that it is possible to use radio signals to interconnect computers. 708/10000 · 708
71 ../../principles/sharing.rst:454
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — The first version of ALOHANet, described in [Abramson1970]_, operated as follows. First, the terminals and the mainframe exchanged fixed-length frames composed of 704 bits. Each frame contained 80 8-bit characters, some control bits and parity information to detect transmission errors. Two channels in the 400 MHz range were reserved for the operation of ALOHANet. The first channel was used by the mainframe to send frames to all terminals. The second channel was shared among all terminals to send frames to the mainframe. As all terminals share the same transmission channel, there is a risk of collision. To deal with this problem as well as transmission errors, the mainframe verified the parity bits of the received frame and sent an acknowledgment on its channel for each correctly received frame. The terminals on the other hand had to retransmit the unacknowledged frames. As for TCP, retransmitting these frames immediately upon expiration of a fixed timeout is not a good approach as several terminals may retransmit their frames at the same time leading to a network collapse. A better approach, but still far from perfect, is for each terminal to wait a random amount of time after the expiration of its retransmission timeout. This avoids synchronization among multiple retransmitting terminals. 1310/10000 · 1310
72 ../../principles/sharing.rst:456
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — The pseudo-code below shows the operation of an ALOHANet terminal. We use this python syntax for all Medium Access Control algorithms described in this chapter. The algorithm is applied to each new frame that needs to be transmitted. It attempts to transmit a frame at most `max` times (`while loop`). Each transmission attempt is performed as follows. First, the frame is sent. Each frame is protected by a timeout. Then, the terminal waits for either a valid acknowledgment frame or the expiration of its timeout. If the terminal receives an acknowledgment, the frame has been delivered correctly and the algorithm terminates. Otherwise, the terminal waits for a random time and attempts to retransmit the frame. 714/10000 · 714
73 ../../principles/sharing.rst:475
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — [Abramson1970]_ analyzed the performance of ALOHANet under particular assumptions and found that ALOHANet worked well when the channel was lightly loaded. In this case, the frames are rarely retransmitted and the `channel traffic`, i.e. the total number of (correct and retransmitted) frames transmitted per unit of time is close to the `channel utilization`, i.e. the number of correctly transmitted frames per unit of time. Unfortunately, the analysis also reveals that the `channel utilization` reaches its maximum at :math:`\frac{1}{2 \times e}=0.186` times the channel bandwidth. At higher utilization, ALOHANet becomes unstable and the network collapses due to collided retransmissions. 692/10000 · 692
74 ../../principles/sharing.rst:478
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — Amateur packet radio 20/10000 · 20
75 ../../principles/sharing.rst:480
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — Packet radio technologies have evolved in various directions since the first experiments performed at the University of Hawaii. The Amateur packet radio service developed by amateur radio operators is one of the descendants ALOHANet. Many amateur radio operators are very interested in new technologies and they often spend countless hours developing new antennas or transceivers. When the first personal computers appeared, several amateur radio operators designed radio modems and their own datalink layer protocols [KPD1985]_ [BNT1997]_. This network grew and it was possible to connect to servers in several European countries by only using packet radio relays. Some amateur radio operators also developed TCP/IP protocol stacks that were used over the packet radio service. Some parts of the `amateur packet radio network <http://www.ampr.org/>`_ are connected to the global Internet and use the `44.0.0.0/8` IPv4 prefix. 926/10000 · 926
76 ../../principles/sharing.rst:484
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — Many improvements to ALOHANet have been proposed since the publication of [Abramson1970]_, and this technique, or some of its variants, are still found in wireless networks today. The slotted technique proposed in [Roberts1975]_ is important because it shows that a simple modification can significantly improve channel utilization. Instead of allowing all terminals to transmit at any time, [Roberts1975]_ proposed to divide time into slots and allow terminals to transmit only at the beginning of each slot. Each slot corresponds to the time required to transmit one fixed size frame. In practice, these slots can be imposed by a single clock that is received by all terminals. In ALOHANet, it could have been located on the central mainframe. The analysis in [Roberts1975]_ reveals that this simple modification improves the channel utilization by a factor of two. 867/10000 · 867
77 ../../principles/sharing.rst:490
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — Carrier Sense Multiple Access 29/10000 · 29
78 ../../principles/sharing.rst:493
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — ALOHA and slotted ALOHA can easily be implemented, but unfortunately, they can only be used in networks that are very lightly loaded. Designing a network for a very low utilization is possible, but it clearly increases the cost of the network. To overcome the problems of ALOHA, many Medium Access Control mechanisms have been proposed which improve channel utilization. Carrier Sense Multiple Access (CSMA) is a significant improvement compared to ALOHA. CSMA requires all nodes to listen to the transmission channel to verify that it is free before transmitting a frame [KT1975]_. When a node senses the channel to be busy, it defers its transmission until the channel becomes free again. The pseudo-code below provides a more detailed description of the operation of CSMA. 775/10000 · 775
79 ../../principles/sharing.rst:514
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — The above pseudo-code is often called `persistent CSMA` [KT1975]_ as the terminal will continuously listen to the channel and transmit its frame as soon as the channel becomes free. Another important variant of CSMA is the `non-persistent CSMA` [KT1975]_. The main difference between persistent and non-persistent CSMA described in the pseudo-code below is that a non-persistent CSMA node does not continuously listen to the channel to determine when it becomes free. When a non-persistent CSMA terminal senses the transmission channel to be busy, it waits for a random time before sensing the channel again. This improves channel utilization compared to persistent CSMA. With persistent CSMA, when two terminals sense the channel to be busy, they will both transmit (and thus cause a collision) as soon as the channel becomes free. With non-persistent CSMA, this synchronization does not occur, as the terminals wait a random time after having sensed the transmission channel. However, the higher channel utilization achieved by non-persistent CSMA comes at the expense of a slightly higher waiting time in the terminals when the network is lightly loaded. 1157/10000 · 1157
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
81 ../../principles/sharing.rst:544
	English ↹ ↵ NBS … “ ” ‘ ’ ﹙-﹚ ‐ – — Carrier Sense Multiple Access with Collision Detection 54/10000 · 54