MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2113666857 · doi:10.1109/pccc.1996.493653

TCP over ATM: simulation model and performance results

2002· article· en· W2113666857 on OpenAlexafffund
R. J. Gurski, Carey Williamson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNetwork Traffic and Congestion Control
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceZeta-TCPTCP accelerationComputer networkTCP global synchronizationTCP tuningAsynchronous Transfer ModeTCP Friendly Rate ControlTransmission Control ProtocolCUBIC TCPATM adaptation layerH-TCPDistributed computingNetwork packet

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While the transmission control protocol (TCP) generally provides robust performance across many network environments, several researchers have identified the poor end-to-end performance achieved by TCP on asynchronous transfer mode (ATM) networks. The performance problems arise for several reasons: (1) a size mismatch between TCP segments and ATM cells; (2) the simple protocols used for segmentation and reassembly in ATM, and for retransmission in TCP; (3) specific "optimizations" in TCP, made primarily for low-bandwidth Internet environments which do not work well in high speed ATM networks; (4) features (or misfeatures) in most TCP protocol implementations; and (5) subtle interactions between all of these factors. This paper describes a simulation model that we have constructed to study TCP performance on ATM networks, as well as a set of simulation experiments conducted using the model. The TCP model is detailed enough to recreate many of the performance problems identified by other researchers, as well as to evaluate potential solutions to the performance problems. The TCP model adds to the traffic modeling toolkit available in our existing ATM network simulator, and enables the further study of performance issues in TCP over ATM.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.812
Threshold uncertainty score0.213

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations14
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNetwork Traffic and Congestion ControlFrench-language works237,207