Scribd
Upload
92 views52 pages

Cs/ee 143 Communication Networks Chapter 3 Ethernet: Text: Walrand & Parakh, 2010 Steven Low CMS, EE, Caltech

This document discusses communication networks and Ethernet. It begins with a brief history of Aloha networks and how they evolved into slotted Aloha networks. It then discusses the development of Ethernet, including CSMA/CD and how Ethernet switches work using forwarding tables and the spanning tree protocol. It concludes with an informal proof of Little's law relating average queue length, arrival rate, and service rate in queuing systems.

Uploaded by

Thinh Tran Van
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
92 views52 pages

Cs/ee 143 Communication Networks Chapter 3 Ethernet: Text: Walrand & Parakh, 2010 Steven Low CMS, EE, Caltech

This document discusses communication networks and Ethernet. It begins with a brief history of Aloha networks and how they evolved into slotted Aloha networks. It then discusses the development of Ethernet, including CSMA/CD and how Ethernet switches work using forwarding tables and the spanning tree protocol. It concludes with an informal proof of Little's law relating average queue length, arrival rate, and service rate in queuing systems.

Uploaded by

Thinh Tran Van
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 52

cs/ee 143 Communication Networks

Chapter 3 Ethernet
Text: Walrand & Parakh, 2010
Steven Low
CMS, EE, Caltech

Warning
These notes are not self-contained,
probably not understandable,
unless you also were in the lecture

They are supplement to not replacement for class attendance

Agenda
Ethernet history/devices
Switch Ethernet forwarding table
Spanning tree protocol
Littles theorem (informal proof)

Ethernet

Each (layer 2) network


full connectivity: every node can reach every other node
broadcast capable: every node (inc. router) can broadcast to all other nodes
e.g. Ethernet, WiFi, cable network, etc.

Aloha network (1970)

Randomized multiple access


Send on frequency f1; receive ack on frquency f2.
If no ack after timeout, wait a random time and re-transmit

Aloha network (1970)

Randomized multiple access


If an ack is not outstanding, transmit immediately
If no ack, re-transmit after a random delay

Aloha network (1970)

Randomized multiple access


Max utilization (prob of success) ~ 1/e ~ 37%

Slotted Aloha utilization


Model
Slotted time, fixed packet size, n stations
1 slot = 1 pkt transmission time
In each slot, each station transmits
independently with probability p
Prob (slot t has a successful transmission)

R( p) np 1 p

n1

Slotted Aloha utilization


max R( p) np 1 p

n1

0 R'( p ) n 1 p

* n1

1 p (n1)p
*

n(n1)p 1 p
*

1
p
n
*

max utilization = R( p )

n1

1
1
= 1

n
e

as n

* n2

Slotted Aloha utilization


max R( p) np 1 p

n1

0 R'( p ) n 1 p

* n1

1 p (n1)p
*

n(n1)p 1 p
*

1
p
n
*

max utilization = R( p )

n1

1
1
= 1

n
e

as n

* n2

Slotted Aloha utilization


max R( p) np 1 p

n1

0 R'( p ) n 1 p

* n1

1 p (n1)p
*

n(n1)p 1 p
*

1
p
n
*

max utilization = R( p )

n1

1
1
= 1

n
e

as n

* n2

Unslotted Aloha utilization


Model
Fixed packet size, n stations
Slotted time of duration << 1.
pkt transmission time lasts 1/time slots
In each slot, each station transmits
independently with probability p
Small approximates unslotted operation
Prob (slot has a successful transmission)

R( p) np 1 p

n1

Unslotted ALOHA utilization

Prob (a pkt transmission started in an arbitrary


-slot by station 1 is successful)
n1
n1
n1 K

S( p) p 1 p 1 p = p 1 p

2
K: 1 time slots

Unslotted ALOHA utilization

Prob (a pkt transmission started in an arbitrary


-slot by station 1 is successful)
n1
n1
n1 K

S( p) p 1 p 1 p = p 1 p

2
K: 1 time slots

Unslotted ALOHA utilization


max S( p) p 1 p

n1 K

0 S'( p ) 1 p
*

n1 K

(n1)Kp 1 p
*

1 p (n1)Kp
*

1
p
(n1)K 1
*

n1 K 1

Unslotted ALOHA utilization


max S( p) p 1 p

n1 K

0 S'( p ) 1 p
*

n1 K

(n1)Kp 1 p
*

n1 K 1

1 p (n1)Kp
*

1
p
(n1)K 1
*

reduces to slotted case


If K=1

Unslotted ALOHA utilization


n
*
utilization := S( p )

n1 K

n
1
1

(n1)K 1
(n1)K 1
n1 K

n
1
1

n1 K
(n1)K 1
n1
1
k 2

as n and 0
2e

Unslotted ALOHA utilization


n
*
utilization := S( p )

n1 K

n
1
1

(n1)K 1
(n1)K 1
n1 K

n
1
1

n1 K
(n1)K 1
n1
1
k 2

as n and 0
2e

Unslotted ALOHA utilization


n
*
utilization := S( p )

n1 K

n
1
1

(n1)K 1
(n1)K 1
n1 K

n
1
1

n1 K
(n1)K 1
n1
1
k 2

as n and 0
2e

Ethernet cable (1973-76)

CSMA/CD (carrier sensing multiple access/collision detection)


1. Wait till channel is idle; wait for a random time.
2. Transmit when the channel is idle following the random wait.
3. Abort if collision is detected, and goto 1.

Ethernet cable (1973-76)

Truncated binary exponential backoff


1. Pick X uniformly at random from {0, 1, ..., 2^n-1}, n = min (10, m), m
= #collisions. Give up & declare error when m = 16.
2. Wait X x 512 bit times (4,096 bits for 1G)
3. If collide, increment m and repeat.

Ethernet cable (1973-76)

Capture or winner-takes-all effect


A station that collides is more likely to pick a larger random backoff
time.
A station that successfully transmits is more likely to pick a smaller
backoff time and hence more likely to successfully transmit again

Ethernet hub (1980s)

CSMA/CD as in Ethernet cable

Ethernet hub (1980s)

A station waits a random multiples of T = 2 PROP before transmitting


When n stations transmit independently with prob p, then prob of success
is <= 1/e when n is large
Hence avg time till first success = e T
Utilization = TRANS / (TRANS + (e-1)T) = 1 / (1 + 3.4A), A = PROP/TRAN

Ethernet switch

Ethernet switch eliminates collision, provided


switch buffer is big enough.

Ethernet switch: forwarding table

(Ethernet) MAC address


1. 48 bit
2. Globally unique to MAC device, location independent (c.f. IP)
3. Broadcast address: 48 ones

Ethernet switch: forwarding table

x y:

[ y | x | data ]

Agenda
Ethernet history/devices
Switch Ethernet forwarding table
Spanning tree protocol
Littles theorem (informal proof)

Ethernet switch routing: STP

Goal
Operation
Example
Performance

x y:

[ y | x | data ]

Spanning tree protocol


Goal: for all switches in a LAN to
compute a shortest-path tree
used to route layer-2 packets
one tree for entire LAN
rooted at the switch with the smallest ID
(MAC address)
decentralized, asynchronous, robust
computation

Spanning tree protocol


Three criteria
1. The root switch always forwards messages
on all its ports
2. Each switch computes its shortest path (in
#bridges) to root
3. All switches connected to a LAN elect a
designated switch for the LAN to send
packets towards root switch
A switch that is not elected for any of the LANs it
is connected to will not receive nor forward any
data packet

Spanning tree protocol


Switches send packets asynchronously with
[myID|currentrootID|distancetoroot]

A switch relays packets whose current root ID


is the smallest it has seen so far (& smaller
than its own current root ID), and adds 1 to
distance to root
If the distances to root on STP packets
received by a switch on all its ports are the
same or smaller than what it believes its
distance is, then the switch stops forwarding
until protocol converges
Completely decentralized, asynchronous, robust

STP: example

Im 3
I think root is 3
my distance to root is 0

STP: example

Im 3
I think root is 3
my distance to root is 0

STP: example

a new initiation
before previous
converges

STP: example

a new initiation
before previous
converges

STP: example

a new initiation
before previous
converges

STP: example

During transient, B5 may connect to root B1


either via B3 or B4 which should B5 use?
Ans: use switch with a smaller ID (B3)

Spanning tree for all switches

x y:

[ y | x | data ]

STP: designated switches

B4 believes its distance to root B1 is 2


The STP packets from both its ports have distances equal or less. So
it does not forward and is not a designated switch for neither LAN
Neither B4 nor B5 will be involved in forwarding data packets

Spanning tree protocol


Performance
Unique path between every sourcedestination path
Can potentially be bad since 2 switches
may communicate only via root
e.g. in a ring of switches, the switch with the
largest ID communicates with root via the
longest path

Penalty is usually not too bad since it is in


a LAN

Agenda
Ethernet history/devices
Switch Ethernet forwarding table
Spanning tree protocol
Littles theorem (informal proof)

Littles law

L T
capacity:
pkts/s (> )

arrival rate:

pkts/s

L pkts

Littles law

L
Ti

t : #packets arrived by t
t : #packets departed by t
Ti : delay of packet i
Lt t t : #packets in system at t

Littles law
t L t
Ti

t
t

L d
0

Littles law
t L t
Ti

t
t

i1

t
t

L d
0

Littles law
t L t
Ti

t
t

i1

t
t

L d
0

i1

Littles law
t L t
Ti

t
t

i1

t 1
Ti

t t i1

t
t

L d
0

1
L d

t0

i1

t 1

Ti

t t i1

Littles law
t L t
Ti

T
t

t 1
Ti

t t i1

L
t

as t

1
L d

t0

T
t

t 1

Ti

t t i1

Queueing system
random arrival
process with rate

with average

pkts/s

Littles law

random service time

1
s/pkt

L T

Verifies directly for M/M/1, but holds


much more generally
Extremely useful because of its
generality

M/M/1 queue
Poisson arrival
process with rate

pkts/s

Exponential service time


with average

1
avg total delay T

1 /
avg waiting time Tq T

avg # pkts in system L


1
s/pkt

Queueing system
random arrival
process with rate

random service time

1
s/pkt

with average

pkts/s

L T

T
Tq T

Lq

Lq Tq

Tq

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy