ANONYMOUS wrote:
> Hope you're well! I think I've introduced a negative acknowledgement that also stops it from just waiting to timeout but I'm not 100% certain. I plotted the results from both the original protocol (waits for it to timeout) and the modified one (neg acknowledgement). The modified one transmits 6 more frames over the course of an hour. Is that what you would expect for the protocol with the negative acknowledgement, or is that not enough of an improvement compared to whats expected?
Hi. It would be an impressive result if you were describing what we hope an improved protocol will do - deliver (and have accepted by the receiver) more *messages* per unit time (here, one hour), than the standard stop-and-wait. While you might be transmitting more *frames* per hour, how many of those are duplicate frames (carrying duplicate messages), that are rejected by the receiver?
As you'll see from the posts at the bottom of the sample solutions
[CITS3002]⬈ , the sample only shows 5-10% improvement in *messages* per hour.
Are you observing a fantastic improvement in delivered messages?