MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2098543742 · doi:10.1109/icbn.2005.1589602

Modeling and stability analysis of fair rate calculation in resilient packet rings

2005· article· en· W2098543742 on OpenAlexaff
A. Shokrani, Ioannis Lambadaris, J. Talim

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNetwork Traffic and Congestion Control
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceNetwork packetNode (physics)Computer networkConvergence (economics)Ring networkReuseBandwidth (computing)Rate of convergenceReal-time computingChannel (broadcasting)Network topology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Resilient packet ring (RPR), which is standardized as IEEE 802.17, is a new medium access control (MAC) protocol for high-speed metro-area ring networks. RPR supports spatial reuse and, therefore, maintaining fairness among different nodes in accessing the ring bandwidth is a challenging task in RPR. In order to achieve fairness among nodes, a fairness algorithm is employed at each RPR node. When a node is not given access to the ring it becomes congested. In this case, the fairness algorithm calculates and advertises a fair rate to all upstream nodes contributing to the congestion point. Consequently, the congested node will be able to add its local traffic to the ring. In this paper, we develop an analytical model for fair rate calculation in the standard RPR fairness algorithm in the parking lot scenario. We first ignore the link propagation delay and model the system using a non-linear discrete-time low-pass filter. We, then, consider the link propagation delay and develop a more realistic model. We verify our model by simulation results and analyze the convergence of the fairness algorithm. Further, the effect of various parameters on the convergence time is investigated. Finally, we determine the low-pass filter coefficient in order to ensure that the convergence time of the algorithm in the parking lot scenario is within its minimum range.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.478
Threshold uncertainty score0.189

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.223 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNetwork Traffic and Congestion ControlFrench-language works237,207