Faculty of Engineering and Mathematical Sciences 
Not logged in (login)


This forum is provided to promote discussion amongst students enrolled in Computer Networks (CITS3002).
Before posting a question here, you may like to read the article How To Ask Questions The Smart Way.

If just starting the project, please search this forum for related topics (from Week-8) before posting new questions.
RSS cloud
Jump to:

Lab 3: stop and wait still wins?

1 of 654 articles shown, currently 1 other person reading this forum.
From: Edward A.
Date: Thu 2nd Apr, 6:01pm
I am currently doing lab 3 (very behind, I know) and I am comparing the plots for how many messages delivered in 1 hour for my piggybacking protocol vs the stopandwait protocol and my protocol loses (see plot.html).

My nodes are pretty talkative, and messages take a while to get between them. This scenario would be reasonably ideal for piggybacking. Messages take a long time to get between nodes and so sending an ack and a data frame separately would potentially be slower than waiting for the application layer to generate a frame, piggybacking the ack with the data frame and sending a single frame. 

However, as you can see from my results the stop and wait protocol beats my implementation only slightly. I was wondering if anyone else had similar results?

I have played with increasing the propagation delay more and the piggybacking protocol does send more messages than the stop and wait protocol under those circumstances, but the difference is not as pronounced as I would have expected. 

Related articles

Lab 3: stop and wait still wins? (all 3) RSS
├─ THIS   Thu 2nd Apr, 6:01pm, Edward A.
├─ reply 1   Thu 2nd Apr, 6:02pm, Edward A.  O.P.
└─ reply 2   Thu 2nd Apr, 6:03pm, Edward A.  O.P.
This Page

Program written by: [email protected]
Feedback welcome
Last modified:  8:27am May 24 2020