Circuit switching is defined as a mechanism applied in telecommunications (mainly in PSTN) whereby the user is allocated the full use of the communication channel for the duration of the call.
That is if two parties wish to communicate, the calling party has to first dial the numbers of the called party. Once those numbers are dialed, the originating exchange will find a path to the terminating exchange, which will in turn find the called party.
After the circuit or channel has been set up, then communication will take place, then once they are through the channel will be cleared. This mechanism is referred to as being connection-oriented.
Advantages of Circuit Switching:
• Once the circuit has been set up, communication is fast and without error.
• It is highly reliable
Disadvantages:
• Involves a lot of overhead, during channel set up.
• Waists a lot of bandwidth, especial in speech whereby a user is sometimes listening, and not talking.
• Channel set up may take longer.
To overcome the disadvantages of circuit switching, packet switching was introduced, and instead of dedicating a channel to only two parties for the duration of the call it routes packets individually as they are available. This mechanism is referred to as being connectionless.
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Bridging versus routing
Bridging and routing are both ways of performing data control, but work through different methods. Bridging takes place at OSI Model Layer 2 (data-link layer) while routing takes place at the OSI Model Layer 3 (network layer). This difference means that a bridge directs frames according to hardware assigned MAC addresses while a router makes its decisions according to arbitrarily assigned IP Addresses. As a result of this, bridges are not concerned with and are unable to distinguish networks while routers can.
When designing a network, one can choose to put multiple segments into one bridged network or to divide it into different networks interconnected by routers. If a host is physically moved from one network area to another in a routed network, it has to get a new IP address; if this system is moved within a bridged network, it doesn't have to reconfigure anything.
When designing a network, one can choose to put multiple segments into one bridged network or to divide it into different networks interconnected by routers. If a host is physically moved from one network area to another in a routed network, it has to get a new IP address; if this system is moved within a bridged network, it doesn't have to reconfigure anything.
Backup Domain Controller
In Windows NT 4 server domains, the Backup Domain Controller (BDC) is a computer that has a copy of the user accounts database. Unlike the accounts database on the Primary Domain Controller(PDC), the BDC database is a read only copy. When changes are made to the master accounts database on the PDC, the PDC pushes the updates down to the BDCs.
Most domains will have at least one BDC, often there are several BDCs in a domain. These domains exist to provide fault tolerance. If the PDC fails, then it can be replaced by a BDC. In such circumstances, an administrator promotes a BDC to be the new PDC. BDCs can also authenticate user logon requests - and take some of the authentication load from the PDC.
When Windows 2000 was released, the NT domain as found in NT 4 and prior versions was replaced by Active Directory. In Active Directory domains running in native mode the concept of the primary and backup domain controllers do not exist. In these domains, all domain controllers are considered to be equal. A side effect of this change is the loss of ability to create a "read-only" domain controller. Windows Server 2008 reintroduces this capability.
Most domains will have at least one BDC, often there are several BDCs in a domain. These domains exist to provide fault tolerance. If the PDC fails, then it can be replaced by a BDC. In such circumstances, an administrator promotes a BDC to be the new PDC. BDCs can also authenticate user logon requests - and take some of the authentication load from the PDC.
When Windows 2000 was released, the NT domain as found in NT 4 and prior versions was replaced by Active Directory. In Active Directory domains running in native mode the concept of the primary and backup domain controllers do not exist. In these domains, all domain controllers are considered to be equal. A side effect of this change is the loss of ability to create a "read-only" domain controller. Windows Server 2008 reintroduces this capability.
Analog data to digital signal:
The process is called digitization. Sampling frequency must be at least twice that of highest frequency present in the the signal so that it may be fairly regenerated. Quantization - Max. and Min values of amplitude in the sample are noted. Depending on number of bits (say n) we use we divide the interval (min,max) into 2(^n) number of levels. The amplitude is then approximated to the nearest level by a 'n' bit integer. The digital signal thus consists of blocks of n bits.On reception the process is reversed to produce analog signal. But a lot of data can be lost if fewer bits are used or sampling frequency not so high.
Pulse code modulation(PCM): Here intervals are equally spaced. 8 bit PCB uses 256 different levels of amplitude. In non-linear encoding levels may be unequally spaced.
Delta Modulation(DM): Since successive samples do not differ very much we send the differences between previous and present sample. It requires fewer bits than in PCM.
Pulse code modulation(PCM): Here intervals are equally spaced. 8 bit PCB uses 256 different levels of amplitude. In non-linear encoding levels may be unequally spaced.
Delta Modulation(DM): Since successive samples do not differ very much we send the differences between previous and present sample. It requires fewer bits than in PCM.
Aloha Protocols
Pure Aloha
Pure Aloha is an unslotted, fully-decentralized protocol. It is extremely simple and trivial to implement. The ground rule is - "when you want to talk, just talk!". So, a node which wants to transmits, will go ahead and send the packet on its broadcast channel, with no consideration whatsoever as to anybody else is transmitting or not.
One serious drawback here is that, you dont know whether what you are sending has been received properly or not (so as to say, "whether you've been heard and understood?"). To resolve this, in Pure Aloha, when one node finishes speaking, it expects an acknowledgement in a finite amount of time - otherwise it simply retransmits the data. This scheme works well in small networks where the load is not high. But in large, load intensive networks where many nodes may want to transmit at the same time, this scheme fails miserably. This led to the development of Slotted Aloha.
Slotted Aloha
This is quite similar to Pure Aloha, differing only in the way transmissions take place. Instead of transmitting right at demand time, the sender waits for some time. This delay is specified as follows - the timeline is divided into equal slots and then it is required that transmission should take place only at slot boundaries. To be more precise, the slotted-Aloha makes the following assumptions:
All frames consist of exactly L bits.
Time is divided into slots of size L/R seconds (i.e., a slot equals the time to transmit one frame).
Nodes start to transmit frames only at the beginnings of slots.
The nodes are synchronized so that each node knows when the slots begin.
If two or more frames collide in a slot, then all the nodes detect the collision event before the slot ends.
In this way, the number of collisions that can possibly take place is reduced by a huge margin. And hence, the performance become much better compared to Pure Aloha. collisions may only take place with nodes that are ready to speak at the same time. But nevertheless, this is a substantial reduction.
Pure Aloha is an unslotted, fully-decentralized protocol. It is extremely simple and trivial to implement. The ground rule is - "when you want to talk, just talk!". So, a node which wants to transmits, will go ahead and send the packet on its broadcast channel, with no consideration whatsoever as to anybody else is transmitting or not.
One serious drawback here is that, you dont know whether what you are sending has been received properly or not (so as to say, "whether you've been heard and understood?"). To resolve this, in Pure Aloha, when one node finishes speaking, it expects an acknowledgement in a finite amount of time - otherwise it simply retransmits the data. This scheme works well in small networks where the load is not high. But in large, load intensive networks where many nodes may want to transmit at the same time, this scheme fails miserably. This led to the development of Slotted Aloha.
Slotted Aloha
This is quite similar to Pure Aloha, differing only in the way transmissions take place. Instead of transmitting right at demand time, the sender waits for some time. This delay is specified as follows - the timeline is divided into equal slots and then it is required that transmission should take place only at slot boundaries. To be more precise, the slotted-Aloha makes the following assumptions:
All frames consist of exactly L bits.
Time is divided into slots of size L/R seconds (i.e., a slot equals the time to transmit one frame).
Nodes start to transmit frames only at the beginnings of slots.
The nodes are synchronized so that each node knows when the slots begin.
If two or more frames collide in a slot, then all the nodes detect the collision event before the slot ends.
In this way, the number of collisions that can possibly take place is reduced by a huge margin. And hence, the performance become much better compared to Pure Aloha. collisions may only take place with nodes that are ready to speak at the same time. But nevertheless, this is a substantial reduction.
Pure Aloha is an unslotted, fully-decentralized protocol. It is extremely simple and trivial to implPure Alohaement. The ground rule is - "when you want to talk, just talk!". So, a node which wants to transmits, will go ahead and send the packet on its broadcast channel, with no consideration whatsoever as to anybody else is transmitting or not.
One serious drawback here is that, you dont know whether what you are sending has been received properly or not (so as to say, "whether you've been heard and understood?"). To resolve this, in Pure Aloha, when one node finishes speaking, it expects an acknowledgement in a finite amount of time - otherwise it simply retransmits the data. This scheme works well in small networks where the load is not high. But in large, load intensive networks where many nodes may want to transmit at the same time, this scheme fails miserably. This led to the development of Slotted Aloha.
Slotted Aloha
This is quite similar to Pure Aloha, differing only in the way transmissions take place. Instead of transmitting right at demand time, the sender waits for some time. This delay is specified as follows - the timeline is divided into equal slots and then it is required that transmission should take place only at slot boundaries. To be more precise, the slotted-Aloha makes the following assumptions:
All frames consist of exactly L bits.
Time is divided into slots of size L/R seconds (i.e., a slot equals the time to transmit one frame).
Nodes start to transmit frames only at the beginnings of slots.
The nodes are synchronized so that each node knows when the slots begin.
If two or more frames collide in a slot, then all the nodes detect the collision event before the slot ends.
In this way, the number of collisions that can possibly take place is reduced by a huge margin. And hence, the performance become much better compared to Pure Aloha. collisions may only take place with nodes that are ready to speak at the same time. But nevertheless, this is a substantial reduction.
One serious drawback here is that, you dont know whether what you are sending has been received properly or not (so as to say, "whether you've been heard and understood?"). To resolve this, in Pure Aloha, when one node finishes speaking, it expects an acknowledgement in a finite amount of time - otherwise it simply retransmits the data. This scheme works well in small networks where the load is not high. But in large, load intensive networks where many nodes may want to transmit at the same time, this scheme fails miserably. This led to the development of Slotted Aloha.
Slotted Aloha
This is quite similar to Pure Aloha, differing only in the way transmissions take place. Instead of transmitting right at demand time, the sender waits for some time. This delay is specified as follows - the timeline is divided into equal slots and then it is required that transmission should take place only at slot boundaries. To be more precise, the slotted-Aloha makes the following assumptions:
All frames consist of exactly L bits.
Time is divided into slots of size L/R seconds (i.e., a slot equals the time to transmit one frame).
Nodes start to transmit frames only at the beginnings of slots.
The nodes are synchronized so that each node knows when the slots begin.
If two or more frames collide in a slot, then all the nodes detect the collision event before the slot ends.
In this way, the number of collisions that can possibly take place is reduced by a huge margin. And hence, the performance become much better compared to Pure Aloha. collisions may only take place with nodes that are ready to speak at the same time. But nevertheless, this is a substantial reduction.
Pure Aloha is an unslotted, fully-decentralized protocol. It is extremely simple and trivial to implPure Alohaement. The ground rule is - "when you want to talk, just talk!". So, a node which wants to transmits, will go ahead and send the packet on its broadcast channel, with no consideration whatsoever as to anybody else is transmitting or not.
One serious drawback here is that, you dont know whether what you are sending has been received properly or not (so as to say, "whether you've been heard and understood?"). To resolve this, in Pure Aloha, when one node finishes speaking, it expects an acknowledgement in a finite amount of time - otherwise it simply retransmits the data. This scheme works well in small networks where the load is not high. But in large, load intensive networks where many nodes may want to transmit at the same time, this scheme fails miserably. This led to the development of Slotted Aloha.
Slotted Aloha
This is quite similar to Pure Aloha, differing only in the way transmissions take place. Instead of transmitting right at demand time, the sender waits for some time. This delay is specified as follows - the timeline is divided into equal slots and then it is required that transmission should take place only at slot boundaries. To be more precise, the slotted-Aloha makes the following assumptions:
All frames consist of exactly L bits.
Time is divided into slots of size L/R seconds (i.e., a slot equals the time to transmit one frame).
Nodes start to transmit frames only at the beginnings of slots.
The nodes are synchronized so that each node knows when the slots begin.
If two or more frames collide in a slot, then all the nodes detect the collision event before the slot ends.
In this way, the number of collisions that can possibly take place is reduced by a huge margin. And hence, the performance become much better compared to Pure Aloha. collisions may only take place with nodes that are ready to speak at the same time. But nevertheless, this is a substantial reduction.
One serious drawback here is that, you dont know whether what you are sending has been received properly or not (so as to say, "whether you've been heard and understood?"). To resolve this, in Pure Aloha, when one node finishes speaking, it expects an acknowledgement in a finite amount of time - otherwise it simply retransmits the data. This scheme works well in small networks where the load is not high. But in large, load intensive networks where many nodes may want to transmit at the same time, this scheme fails miserably. This led to the development of Slotted Aloha.
Slotted Aloha
This is quite similar to Pure Aloha, differing only in the way transmissions take place. Instead of transmitting right at demand time, the sender waits for some time. This delay is specified as follows - the timeline is divided into equal slots and then it is required that transmission should take place only at slot boundaries. To be more precise, the slotted-Aloha makes the following assumptions:
All frames consist of exactly L bits.
Time is divided into slots of size L/R seconds (i.e., a slot equals the time to transmit one frame).
Nodes start to transmit frames only at the beginnings of slots.
The nodes are synchronized so that each node knows when the slots begin.
If two or more frames collide in a slot, then all the nodes detect the collision event before the slot ends.
In this way, the number of collisions that can possibly take place is reduced by a huge margin. And hence, the performance become much better compared to Pure Aloha. collisions may only take place with nodes that are ready to speak at the same time. But nevertheless, this is a substantial reduction.
Pure Aloha is an unslotted, fully-decentralized protocol. It is extremely simple and trivial to implPure Alohaement. The ground rule is - "when you want to talk, just talk!". So, a node which wants to transmits, will go ahead and send the packet on its broadcast channel, with no consideration whatsoever as to anybody else is transmitting or not.
One serious drawback here is that, you dont know whether what you are sending has been received properly or not (so as to say, "whether you've been heard and understood?"). To resolve this, in Pure Aloha, when one node finishes speaking, it expects an acknowledgement in a finite amount of time - otherwise it simply retransmits the data. This scheme works well in small networks where the load is not high. But in large, load intensive networks where many nodes may want to transmit at the same time, this scheme fails miserably. This led to the development of Slotted Aloha.
Slotted Aloha
This is quite similar to Pure Aloha, differing only in the way transmissions take place. Instead of transmitting right at demand time, the sender waits for some time. This delay is specified as follows - the timeline is divided into equal slots and then it is required that transmission should take place only at slot boundaries. To be more precise, the slotted-Aloha makes the following assumptions:
All frames consist of exactly L bits.
Time is divided into slots of size L/R seconds (i.e., a slot equals the time to transmit one frame).
Nodes start to transmit frames only at the beginnings of slots.
The nodes are synchronized so that each node knows when the slots begin.
If two or more frames collide in a slot, then all the nodes detect the collision event before the slot ends.
In this way, the number of collisions that can possibly take place is reduced by a huge margin. And hence, the performance become much better compared to Pure Aloha. collisions may only take place with nodes that are ready to speak at the same time. But nevertheless, this is a substantial reduction.
One serious drawback here is that, you dont know whether what you are sending has been received properly or not (so as to say, "whether you've been heard and understood?"). To resolve this, in Pure Aloha, when one node finishes speaking, it expects an acknowledgement in a finite amount of time - otherwise it simply retransmits the data. This scheme works well in small networks where the load is not high. But in large, load intensive networks where many nodes may want to transmit at the same time, this scheme fails miserably. This led to the development of Slotted Aloha.
Slotted Aloha
This is quite similar to Pure Aloha, differing only in the way transmissions take place. Instead of transmitting right at demand time, the sender waits for some time. This delay is specified as follows - the timeline is divided into equal slots and then it is required that transmission should take place only at slot boundaries. To be more precise, the slotted-Aloha makes the following assumptions:
All frames consist of exactly L bits.
Time is divided into slots of size L/R seconds (i.e., a slot equals the time to transmit one frame).
Nodes start to transmit frames only at the beginnings of slots.
The nodes are synchronized so that each node knows when the slots begin.
If two or more frames collide in a slot, then all the nodes detect the collision event before the slot ends.
In this way, the number of collisions that can possibly take place is reduced by a huge margin. And hence, the performance become much better compared to Pure Aloha. collisions may only take place with nodes that are ready to speak at the same time. But nevertheless, this is a substantial reduction.
Addressing Scheme
IP addresses are of 4 bytes and consist of :
i) The network address, followed by
ii) The host address
The first part identifies a network on which the host resides and the second part identifies the particular host on the given network. Some nodes which have more than one interface to a network must be assigned separate internet addresses for each interface. This multi-layer addressing makes it easier to find and deliver data to the destination. A fixed size for each of these would lead to wastage or under-usage that is either there will be too many network addresses and few hosts in each (which causes problems for routers who route based on the network address) or there will be very few network addresses and lots of hosts (which will be a waste for small network requirements). Thus, we do away with any notion of fixed sizes for the network and host addresses.
We classify networks as follows:
Large Networks : 8-bit network address and 24-bit host address. There are approximately 16 million hosts per network and a maximum of 126 ( 2^7 - 2 ) Class A networks can be defined. The calculation requires that 2 be subtracted because 0.0.0.0 is reserved for use as the default route and 127.0.0.0 be reserved for the loop back function. Moreover each Class A network can support a maximum of 16,777,214 (2^24 - 2) hosts per network. The host calculation requires that 2 be subtracted because all 0's are reserved to identify the network itself and all 1s are reserved for broadcast addresses. The reserved numbers may not be assigned to individual hosts.
Medium Networks : 16-bit network address and 16-bit host address. There are approximately 65000 hosts per network and a maximum of 16,384 (2^14) Class B networks can be defined with up to (2^16-2) hosts per network.
Small networks : 24-bit network address and 8-bit host address. There are approximately 250 hosts per network.
You might think that Large and Medium networks are sort of a waste as few corporations/organizations are large enough to have 65000 different hosts. (By the way, there are very few corporations in the world with even close to 65000 employees, and even in these corporations it is highly unlikely that each employee has his/her own computer connected to the network.) Well, if you think so, you're right. This decision seems to have been a mistak
i) The network address, followed by
ii) The host address
The first part identifies a network on which the host resides and the second part identifies the particular host on the given network. Some nodes which have more than one interface to a network must be assigned separate internet addresses for each interface. This multi-layer addressing makes it easier to find and deliver data to the destination. A fixed size for each of these would lead to wastage or under-usage that is either there will be too many network addresses and few hosts in each (which causes problems for routers who route based on the network address) or there will be very few network addresses and lots of hosts (which will be a waste for small network requirements). Thus, we do away with any notion of fixed sizes for the network and host addresses.
We classify networks as follows:
Large Networks : 8-bit network address and 24-bit host address. There are approximately 16 million hosts per network and a maximum of 126 ( 2^7 - 2 ) Class A networks can be defined. The calculation requires that 2 be subtracted because 0.0.0.0 is reserved for use as the default route and 127.0.0.0 be reserved for the loop back function. Moreover each Class A network can support a maximum of 16,777,214 (2^24 - 2) hosts per network. The host calculation requires that 2 be subtracted because all 0's are reserved to identify the network itself and all 1s are reserved for broadcast addresses. The reserved numbers may not be assigned to individual hosts.
Medium Networks : 16-bit network address and 16-bit host address. There are approximately 65000 hosts per network and a maximum of 16,384 (2^14) Class B networks can be defined with up to (2^16-2) hosts per network.
Small networks : 24-bit network address and 8-bit host address. There are approximately 250 hosts per network.
You might think that Large and Medium networks are sort of a waste as few corporations/organizations are large enough to have 65000 different hosts. (By the way, there are very few corporations in the world with even close to 65000 employees, and even in these corporations it is highly unlikely that each employee has his/her own computer connected to the network.) Well, if you think so, you're right. This decision seems to have been a mistak
Addressing on IITK Network
If we do not have connection with the outside world directly then we could have Private IP addresses ( 172.31 ) which are not to be publicised and routed to the outside world. Switches will make sure that they do not broadcast packets with such addressed to the outside world. The basic reason for implementing subnetting was to avoid broadcast. So in our case we can have some subnets for security and other reasons although if the switches could do the routing properly, then we do not need subnets. In the IITK network we have three subnets -CC, CSE building are two subnets and the rest of the campus is one subset
Addressing hidden node problem (CSMA/CA)
Consider the figure above.Suppose A wants to send a packet to B. Then it will first send a small packet to B called "Request to Send" (RTS). In response, B sends a small packet to A called "Clear to Send" (CTS). Only after A receives a CTS, it transmits the actual data. Now, any of the nodes which can hear either CTS or RTS assume the network to be busy. Hence even if some other node which is out of range of both A and B sends an RTS to C (which can hear at least one of the RTS or CTS between A and B), C would not send a CTS to it and hence the communication would not be established between C and D.
One issue that needs to be addressed is how long the rest of the nodes should wait before they can transmit data over the network. The answer is that the RTS and CTS would carry some information about the size of the data that B intends to transfer. So, they can calculate time that would be required for the transmission to be over and assume the network to be free after that.Another interesting issue is what a node should do if it hears RTS but not a corresponding CTS. One possibility is that it assumes the recipient node has not responded and hence no transmission is going on, but there is a catch in this. It is possible that the node hearing RTS is just on the boundary of the node sending CTS. Hence, it does hear CTS but the signal is so deteriorated that it fails to recognize it as a CTS. Hence to be on the safer side, a node will not start transmission if it hears either of an RTS or a CTS.
The assumption made in this whole discussion is that if a node X can send packets to a node Y, it can also receive a packet from Y, which is a fair enough assumption given the fact that we are talking of a local network where standard instruments would be used. If that is not the case additional complexities would get introduced in the system.
One issue that needs to be addressed is how long the rest of the nodes should wait before they can transmit data over the network. The answer is that the RTS and CTS would carry some information about the size of the data that B intends to transfer. So, they can calculate time that would be required for the transmission to be over and assume the network to be free after that.Another interesting issue is what a node should do if it hears RTS but not a corresponding CTS. One possibility is that it assumes the recipient node has not responded and hence no transmission is going on, but there is a catch in this. It is possible that the node hearing RTS is just on the boundary of the node sending CTS. Hence, it does hear CTS but the signal is so deteriorated that it fails to recognize it as a CTS. Hence to be on the safer side, a node will not start transmission if it hears either of an RTS or a CTS.
The assumption made in this whole discussion is that if a node X can send packets to a node Y, it can also receive a packet from Y, which is a fair enough assumption given the fact that we are talking of a local network where standard instruments would be used. If that is not the case additional complexities would get introduced in the system.
Address Resolution Protocol
Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) is a telecommunications protocol used for resolution of network layer addresses into link layer addresses during internetwork transmissions. This function is critical in multiple-access networks for determining link layer addresses when relaying network layer transmissions. ARP was defined by RFC 826 in 1982.[1] It is Internet Standard STD 37.
ARP has been implemented in many combinations of network and overlaying internetwork technologies, such as IPv4, Chaosnet, DECnet and Xerox PUP over the IEEE 802 group, FDDI, X.25, Frame Relay and ATM, IPv4 over IEEE 802.3 and IEEE 802.11 being the two most common cases.
NDP is the ICMPv6-based equivalent to ARP in IPv6 internetworks.
ARP has been implemented in many combinations of network and overlaying internetwork technologies, such as IPv4, Chaosnet, DECnet and Xerox PUP over the IEEE 802 group, FDDI, X.25, Frame Relay and ATM, IPv4 over IEEE 802.3 and IEEE 802.11 being the two most common cases.
NDP is the ICMPv6-based equivalent to ARP in IPv6 internetworks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)