An accurate model for fair rate calculation in resilient packet rings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resilient packet ring (RPR), which is being 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 requires to ensure fairness among different nodes competing for the ring bandwidth. In order to achieve fairness among nodes, a fairness algorithm is employed at each RPR node. In case of congestion, 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 insert its local traffic into the ring. In this paper, we develop an accurate model for fair rate calculation in the standard RPR fairness algorithm. We first ignore the link propagation delay and model the system using a non-linear discrete-time low-pass filter. We then consider link propagation delay and develop a more realistic model. We verify our model by simulation results and analyze the effect of system parameters on the calculated fair rate. This model can be used to evaluate performance of the RPR standard fairness algorithm in terms of stability and convergence time
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".