Most IP datagram reassembly algorithms have a timer to avoid having a lost fragment tie up reassembly buffers forever. Suppose that a datagram is fragmented into four fragments. The first three fragments arrive, but the last one is delayed. Eventually, the timer goes off and the three fragments in the receiver's memory are discarded. A little later, the last fragment stumbles in. What should be done with it?

Most IP datagram reassembly algorithms have a timer to avoid having a lost fragment tie up reassembly buffers forever. Suppose that a datagram is fragmented into four fragments. The first three fragments arrive, but the last one is delayed. Eventually, the timer goes off and the three fragments in the receiver's memory are discarded. A little later, the last fragment stumbles in. What should be done with it?

A+ Guide To It Technical Support

10th Edition

ISBN:9780357108291

Author:ANDREWS, Jean.

Publisher:ANDREWS, Jean.

Chapter8: Network Infrastructure And Troubleshooting

Section: Chapter Questions

Problem 8TC

See similar textbooks

Similar questions

R6Fragmentation of an IP datagram takes place if its size is larger than the MTU of the subnet over which the datagram will be routed. Most IP datagram reassembly algorithms have a timer to avoid having a lost fragment tie up reassembly buffers forever. Suppose a datagram is fragmented into four fragments. The first three fragments arrive, but the last one is delayed. Eventually the timer goes off and the three fragments in the receiver's memory are discarded. A little later, the last fragment stumbles in. What should be done with it?
Take for example a scenario in which one computer on the Internet sends a packet to another computer via the network layer. The information included in the packet's logical destination address has been tampered with. Where is the item supposed to be delivered? How will the situation be relayed to the computer that is the cause of the problem?
b) Consider a scenario where fragmentation may take place in packet transfer. Discuss how such fragmentation may be reassembled at the destination. Now consider in such scenario, a datagram is fragmented into five fragments. The first four fragments arrive, but the last one is delayed. Eventually, the timer goes off and the four fragments in the receiver’s memory are discarded. A little later, the last fragment arrives. What should be done with it?
One of the problems with timeout-triggered retransmissions is that the time-out period can be relatively long. When a segment is lost, this long timeout period forces the sender to delay resending the lost packet, thereby increasing the end-to-end delay. Is there any remedy for this?
It is important to keep in mind that the reordering and reassembly of packets takes place during the transport step of the TCP/IP protocol suite. The Internet or the data layer are two examples of lower levels of abstraction that a firewall is able to function at. If a traffic stream is either out of order or has been deleted, a firewall that uses stateful inspection will be unable to determine anything about the stream's contents.
It is theoretically feasible for two hosts to communicate with one another by sending packets back and forth over the same connection. Please enumerate all of the components that are responsible for the overall amount of time required to process a single packet, starting to end. Is it to be anticipated that one of the delays will continue for a certain amount of time, while the duration of the other delay will be more unpredictable?
Consider the scenario in which a packet is sent from a source host to a destination host along a path that has been predetermined. Create a list of the delay components and include it in the end-to-end delay. Which of the delays is set in stone, and which ones are subject to change?
One of the problems with timeout-triggered retransmissions is that the timeout period can be relative long. When a segment is lost, this long timeout period forces the sender to delay resending the lost packet, thereby increasing the end-to-end delay. Is there any remedy for this?
Consider the scenario in which a sequence of packets are sent from one site to another along a predetermined route, starting at the sending host and finishing at the receiving host. Provide a rundown of the many components that contribute to the overall end-to-end latency of a single packet. Which delays are always present, and which ones are subject to change?
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?
Let's imagine, for the sake of illustration, that a packet is now being sent from one site to another along a predetermined route. The following is a list of the components that make up the delay: Which of these delays is an ongoing problem, and which of them is sporadic in nature?
Consider a scenario in which Host A wants to simultaneously send packets to Hosts B and C. A is connected to B and C via a broadcast channel—a packet sent by A is carried by the channel to both B and C. Suppose that the broadcast channel connecting A, B, and C can independently lose and corrupt packets (and so, for example, a packet sent from A might be correctly received by B, but not by C). Design a stop-and-wait-like error-control protocol for reliably transferring packets from A to B and C, such that A will not get new data from the upper layer until it knows that both B and C have correctly received the current packet. Give FSM descriptions of A and C.