RFC567 - Cross Country Network Bandwidth

时间:2005-02-11 来源: 作者: 点击:
Network Working Group L. Peter Deutsch (PARC-MAXC)Request for Comments: 567 September 6, 1973NIC #18970 CROSS-COUNTRY NETWORK BANDWIDTHThe following computation of cross-country network bandwidth wascontributed by Butler Lampson of PARC.Consider wha
  
Network Working Group                             L. Peter Deutsch  (PARC-MAXC)
Request for Comments: 567                                     September 6, 1973
NIC #18970

            CROSS-COUNTRY NETWORK BANDWIDTH

The following computation of cross-country network bandwidth was
contributed by Butler Lampson of PARC.

Consider what happens when a TIP user on the West Coast, connected to a
full-duplex Host on the East Coast, strikes a key on his terminal.

The TIP sends a one-character message (1 packet).

The destination IMP sends a RFNM (1 packet).

The destination Host sends an ALLocate - this seems to be the strategy
used by TENEX Hosts, at least (1 packet).

Thc TIP sends a RFNM for the ALLocate (1 packet).

The same sequence repeats itself, with roles interchanged, for the echo
character (4 packets).

This constitutes 4 packets or 4OOO bits in each direction. The current
cross-country transmission capability of the ARPANET is 3 5OKb phone
lines; ergo, it can only support 3*50000/4000=37.5 such characters per
second!

It may be that RFNMs are transmitted between IMPs more efficiently; at
best this can only double the network capacity.

This computation may help explain why cross-country TIP users (e.g. the
substantial West Coast community of BBN-TENEX users) experience such
bad echo response, at least in bursts: the network itself may be
experiencing momentary peak loads.

If this argument is correct, the proposed remote echoing facilities of
the new TELNET protocol could have a major effect on network operation.

------分隔线----------------------------
顶一下
(0)
0%
踩一下
(0)
0%
------分隔线----------------------------
最新评论 查看所有评论
发表评论 查看所有评论
请自觉遵守互联网相关的政策法规,严禁发布色情、暴力、反动的言论。
评价:
表情:
用户名: 密码: 验证码:
推荐内容