In an RPC-like protocol, where numerous requests can be active at the same time and responses can be given in any sequence, the following is possible: Pretend requests are sequentially numbered, and that ACK[N] confirms the receipt of reply[N]. Should the number of ACKs be cumulative? If not, what should happen in the event that an ACK is not received?

In an RPC-like protocol, where numerous requests can be active at the same time and responses can be given in any sequence, the following is possible: Pretend requests are sequentially numbered, and that ACK[N] confirms the receipt of reply[N]. Should the number of ACKs be cumulative? If not, what should happen in the event that an ACK is not received?

Systems Architecture

7th Edition

ISBN:9781305080195

Author:Stephen D. Burd

Publisher:Stephen D. Burd

Chapter9: Computer Networks

Section: Chapter Questions

Problem 10VE

See similar textbooks

Similar questions

In an RPC-like protocol in which multiple requests can be outstanding, and replies can be sent in any order: Assume that requests are numbered and that ACK[N] acknowledges reply[N]. Should ACKs be cumulative? If not, what should happen if an ACK is lost?
In an RPC-like protocol, many requests can be active at the same time, and responses can be sent in any order: Assume that requests are sequentially numbered and that ACK[N] acknowledges reply[N]. Should ACKs be added up? If not, what should happen if an ACK is not received?
In TCP Fast Retransmit, if we receive three duplicate ACKS after sending out a packet that is not incrementally ACK-ed but before the time-out associated with that packet, we immediately retransmit the packet without waiting for the timeout to occur. Why do we wait for three duplicates instead of just one?
In transport layer protocols, acknowledgements are one of the techniques available (such as the RDT 2.0 protocol that we covered before). Is it possible for an acknowledgement to be contaminated in some way? So, what is the process in place to deal with this situation?
I need The Answer Pure Aloha in Multiple Access Protocols should be described in three to four lines, without plagiarizing.
In the generic SR protocol, the sender transmits a message as soon as it is available (if it is in the window) without waiting for an acknowledgment. Suppose now that we want an SR protocol that sends messages two at a time. That is, the sender will send a pair of messages and will send the next pair of messages only when it knows that both messages in the first pair have been received correctly.Supposethat the channel may lose messages but will not corrupt or reorder messages. i) Outline an error-control protocol for the unidirectional rdt of messages. ii) Give an FSM description of the sender and receiver. iii) Describe the format of the packets sent between sender and receiver and vice versa. iv) If you use any procedure calls other than those in SR protocol (for example, udt_send(), start_timer(), rdt_rcv(), and so on),clearly state their actions. v) Give an example (a timeline trace of sender and receiver) showing how your protocol recovers from a lost packet
Pure Aloha in Multiple Access Protocols should be described in three to four words, and it should not be copied.
For the Zhou-Gollman non-repudiation protocol discussed in the lecture on “Non-Repudiationand Anonymity Protocols”, which one of the following statements is false:
Consider TCP client with ISN = 20120 communicating with a TCP server with ISN = 30130 -client has 4500 data bytes to send to the server -client MSS = 1500 bytes -server has 6000 data bytes to send back -server MSS = 3000 bytes -show all the client-server transactions to transfer all data in both directions (sequence numbers, ack numbers for all arrows).
Is that so, or not? Consider a TCP connection where the most recent SampleRTT was 1 second. It is recommended that the TimeoutInterval be set to more than one second.
Consider the following 4-message protocol: A → S: (B, {(A, K1)}KpbS) S → B: A B → S: (A, {(B, K2)}KpbS) S → A: (B, {K2}K1) Which of the following statements is true, at the end of the protocol, and with regards to the purpose of the protocol: a) Both A and B establish a session key K2, and B is sure of A’s identity b) Both A and B establish a session key K1, and B is sure of A’s identity c) Both A and B establish a session key K1, and A is sure of B’s identity d) Both A and B establish a session key K1, and both B and A are sure of each other’s identity e) Both A and B establish a session key K2, and A is sure of B’s identity f) Both A and B establish a session key K1 g) Both A and B establish a session key K2 h) Both A and B authenticate each other by knowing each other’s identities i) A ends up knowing B’s identity j) B ends up knowing A’s identity k) None of the above l) All of the above
. In protocol 6, when a data frame arrives, a check is made to see if the sequence number differs from the one expected and no nak is true. If both conditions hold, a NAK is sent. Otherwise, the auxiliary timer is started. Suppose that the else clause were omitted. Would this change affect the protocol's correctness?