1.The advantages and disadvantages of star, bus and mesh topologies are discussed below:
As appeared differently in relation to the Bus topology it gives far superior execution. The signals not really get exchanged to each workstation. The execution of the framework depends on the capacity of the central hub. It is simple to join the new nodes or the devices (Zhang & Papachristodoulou, 2013).
It requires more cable than the other topologies. As the switch, concentrator or the hub gets fizzled, the appended nodes are crippled.
It works outstandingly as there is a small framework. It is the most straightforward framework topology for interfacing the computers or the peripherals directly. It requires less cable length than star topologies.
It is difficult to perceive the issues if the whole framework breaks down. It is hard to research each and every issue. It works poor for colossal systems (Cerutti et al., 2015).
Data could be exchanged from different gadgets concurrently. The topology tolerates high congestion of traffic. Indeed, even if one of the parts fails to execute, there are different alternatives also (Ren et al., 2013). So data transformation is not affected.
There have been large extents of repetition in different network associations. General cost of this framework is unreasonably high when appeared differently in relation to different topologies.
The “data encapsulation”, is the approach where the detailed implementation of the class is hidden from the client. The client can just play out a limited arrangement of operations on the shrouded class members. This is done through particular functions, known as the “methods”.
Decapsulation is the way toward opening up of the encapsulated information. These have been typically sent as packets on a network. It is characterized as the way toward opening the capsule alluding to the encapsulated data.
Multiplexing is the arrangement of techniques permitting the synchronous communication of some signals transversely over any single data connection (Patel et al., 2014). In the demultiplexing the channels has been used for breaking up the signals into the vital portions of the signals. The "demultiplexing" and "multiplexing" methods have been regularly involved with the fragmentation of the data signals (Fontaine, 2013). In the same manner, the "encapsulation" and the "decapsulation" procedures have been essentially related with data security.
3.Given-> bandwidth W = 6.8 MHz
The “Signal to noise ratio” (SNR) or R= 132
Let the bit rate be B.
B=W log (1+R) =6.8x106 log2 (1+132) = 6.8x106 log2 133 = 48 Mbps.
Let, number of signals= N.
∴ B = 2 * W * log2 (N)
=> 48= 2*6.8*log2 N
=> log2 N=
=> log2 N= 3.56 ≈ 4 (approximately)
=> N = 24= 16.
- The required bit rate = 48 Mbps
- Signal level = 16.
4.The amount of layers of OSI models display has been more than that of the TCP/IP models. Thusly, the OSI show conveys better value and significant number of decisions than the TCP/IP.
TCP/IP framework has been picked as the more proper option. This is on account that the execution of TCP/IP more sensible for real world implementation (Bora et al., 2014).
The usefulness of the system has been more effective than the other alternate models. The primary weakness is that the model is exceptionally hard to implement.
The OSI model has been more effective than others. However, it is very hard to implement (Alani, 2014). The TCP/IP on the other hand is easy to implement. Despite this, it performs slowly and is does not deliver good security
5.“Frame Size” or F = 5 million of bits…. [given]
“Transmission Time” = 5 x 106 /8 mS = 62500 =0.625 seconds
“Propagation Speed”= S = 2.2x 108 m/s
“Bandwidth” = 8 x 106 bps
“Link length” L = 1900 km = 1900 x 103 m.
“Queuing Time”= (10 x 3.5) mS = 35 mS.
“Processing Delay” = (1.8 x 10) mS = 18 mS.
“Propagation Time” = (1900 * 103 / 2.2* 108) uS = 8 uS
The overall “Delay Time” = (35 + 18 + .08 + 62500) = 62551.08mS = 0.63 sec
- The total delay time = 0.63 seconds.
- Here, the transmission delay has been dominant component.
- Here, the propagation time has been negligible component.
Figure: “The 4 States of POP3 Session”
(Source: Alexander, 2014)
There are four states in the POP 3 protocols:
This is established when the connection is done.
Here, the transactions have been performed over authorized connections.
Transactions are upgraded here.
When all the transaction is upgraded, POP 3 is closed.
Alani, M. M. (2014). Tcp/ip model. In Guide to OSI and TCP/IP models (pp. 19-50). Springer International Publishing.
Alexander, P. M. (2014). Actor-network theory in information systems research.
Baolin, L., Xianbo, H., & Jin, W. (2013). The Research and implementation of Key Technologies of Deep Packet inspection based on POP3 Protocol in Router Firewall. Journal of Convergence Information Technology, 8(9), 819.
Bora, G., Bora, S., Singh, S., & Arsalan, S. M. (2014). OSI reference model: An overview. International Journal of Computer Trends and Technology (IJCTT, 7(4).
Bueger, C. (2013). Actor?Network Theory, Methodology, and International Organization. International Political Sociology, 7(3), 338-342.
Cartes, A., & Brown, A. (2015). U.S. Patent No. 9,122,809. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
Cerutti, I., Behredin, A. M., Andriolli, N., Ladouceur, O. L., & Castoldi, P. (2016, July). Ring versus bus topology: A network performance comparison of photonic integrated NoC. In Transparent Optical Networks (ICTON), 2016 18th International Conference on (pp. 1-4). IEEE.
Dongmo, E., & Woafo, P. (2015). Effects of asymmetry, transmission delay and noises on the stability of an elementary electricity network. European Physical Journal B--Condensed Matter, 88(7).
Fontaine, N. K. (2013, July). Optical MIMO Demultiplexing and Space-Division Multiplexing using a Photonic Integrated Circuit. In Signal Processing in Photonic Communications (pp. SPT4D-1). Optical Society of America.
Gilbert, D. U., &Behnam, M. (2013). Trust and the United Nations global compact: A network theory perspective. Business & Society, 52(1), 135-169.
Holligan, C. (2015). Disenfranchised Violent Young Offenders in Scotland: Using Actor-Network Theory to Explore an Aetiology of Knife Crime. Sociology, 49(1), 123-138.
Kohno, T., Geambasu, R., & Levy, H. M. (2013). U.S. Patent No. 8,520,855. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
Melthis, J., Tang, S., Yang, P., Hanneghan, M., & Carter, C. (2016). Topologies for combining the internet of things and serious games. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 31(5), 2685-2696.
Motamedi, R., Rejaie, R., & Willinger, W. (2015). A survey of techniques for Internet topology discovery. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 17(2), 1044-1065.
Osman, Z. A. (2015). Real time monitoring for tank level based on isa 100.11 a using star topology (Doctoral dissertation, Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia).
Patel, K. A., Dynes, J. F., Lucamarini, M., Choi, I., Sharpe, A. W., Yuan, Z. L., ... & Shields, A. J. (2014). Quantum key distribution for 10 Gb/s dense wavelength division multiplexing networks. Applied Physics Letters, 104(5), 051123.
Raizen, H. S. (2015). U.S. Patent No. 9,069,481. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
Ren, Y., Liu, L., Yin, S., Han, J., Wu, Q., & Wei, S. (2013). A fault tolerant NoC architecture using quad-spare mesh topology and dynamic reconfiguration. Journal of Systems Architecture, 59(7), 482-491.
Shioda, S., & Yoshihara, M. (2015). Markov property of correlated random networks and its application to the analysis of the Internet topologies. Nonlinear Theory and Its Applications, IEICE, 6(2), 237-251.
Shirazi, F. (2014). Interrogating Iran’s restricted public cloud: An actor network theory perspective. Telematics and Informatics, 31(2), 228-236.
Zhang, X., & Papachristodoulou, A. (2013, June). A real-time control framework for smart power networks with star topology. In American Control Conference (ACC), 2013 (pp. 5062-5067). IEEE.