As contrasted with the Bus topology it provides far better execution. The signals do not necessarily get transferred to every workstation. The performance of the system relies on the ability of the core hub. It has been easy to interconnect new nodes or the gadgets. Within this topology new nodes could be included without impacting the rest part of the system (Zhang & Papachristodoulou, 2013). Additionally components could be likewise evacuated easily.
It needs more length of the cables than the linear topologies. On the off chance the switch, concentrator or hub gets failed, the nodes appended are incapacitated. It has been more costly than the “bus topologies” due to the cost of the hubs (Osman, 2015).
It functions admirably as there is a small system. It has been the simplest system topology for interfacing PCs or the peripherals in a linear way. It needs less length of the cables than the star topology (Cartes & Brown, 2015).
It has been not easy to recognize the obstacles if the complete system fails. It could not be simple to investigate individual issues of the devices. It has been poor for huge networks (Cerutti et al., 2015). Terminators have been needed for the end points of the primary cable. Extra devices back the system off.
Transferring of information from various devices at the same time is done. The topology could bear high traffic. Even one of the parts fails to execute, there has been dependency on other options (Ren et al., 2013). Hence the exchange of information doesn't get harmed. Expansion and the alteration in topology could be done without disturbing other nodes.
There have been high redundancy scopes in various network connections. The overall expense of the system is higher than other topologies. Setting-up and upkeep of mesh topology is exceptionally complicated. Even administration of mesh topology is difficult.
The information moves from the higher layer to lower layer of the TCP/IP stack. Then every layer incorporates a collection of important data called the “header” besides the real information. This acquiring header and the information from higher layer then changes to the information that has been repackaged in the following level with the header of the next lower layer. The “header” has been the alternative information put toward the starting of the data blocks as it is transferred (Raizen, 2015). This supplemental data has been utilized at the receiving side to separate the data from that “encapsulated” information bundle. This pressing of information in each level is called as the data encapsulation.
The turn-around procedure of the encapsulation or decapsulation happens when information is reached on the targeted PC. As the information climbs from lower level to higher level of the “TCP/IP stack”, every level unloads the relating header and utilizes the data remaining in the header (Kohno, Geambasu & Levy, 2013). This is done to convey the “packet” to the correct network application that has been lingering for the information.
Multiplexing has been the set of methods that has been allowing the simultaneous communication of a few signals crosswise around a connection of information. There might be scenarios that the transmission power of the medium connecting the two distinct devices is higher than the prerequisite of transmission of the devices. Then connection is dispersed for boosting the link’s connection (Patel et al., 2014). For example, a link is fit for conveying various stations of Television. The channels in demultiplexing are used for disintegrating the multiplexed signals into its important signaled pieces.
The “encapsulation” and “decapsulation” methods for exchange of the information packets in the system are unique in relation to the “multiplexing” and “demultiplexing” procedures. The “demultiplexing” and “multiplexing” techniques are often included with disintegration of complicated information signals (Fontaine, 2013). Likewise, the “encapsulation” and “decapsulation” strategies are fundamentally related with the information security.
3. It is given that bandwidth B = 6.8 MHz
The “Signal to noise ratio” or SNR or S= 132
Let the bit rate be R.
R=B log (1+S) =6.8x106 log2 (1+132) = 6.8x106 log2 133 = 48 Mbps.
Let the number of signals be L.
∴ R = 2 * B * log2 (L)
=> 48= 2*6.8*log2 L
=> log2 L=
=> log2 L= 3.56 ≈ 4 (approximately)
=> L = 24= 16.
The required bit rate is 48 Mbps and signal level is 16.
4. The quantity of layers of “OSI model” has been greater than that of the TCP/IP models. Consequently, this “OSI model” delivers better usefulness and a more noteworthy quantity of choices than TCP/IP. Hypothetically the OSI model has been greatly improved than the TCP/IP and gives better confirmation and security method for its system.
Despite the fact that the OSI model gives preferred choices over the TCP/IP, yet the practical use of the model is exceptionally troublesome. Henceforth, the TCP/IP model is chosen as the more appropriate alternative. This is because the implementation of TCP/IP model in real world is more reasonable (Bora et al., 2014).
The primary preferred standpoint of OSI model is that it has been giving more alternatives in that network system. The usefulness of that system has been more effective than the it’s alternate models. The primary weakness lies in the fact that the model has been exceptionally hard to implement.
The principle preferred standpoint of the TCP/IP model has been that it could be anything but not difficult to implement (Alani, 2014). In any case, the principle detriment is that, it has been slower than other models and furthermore it gives poor security.
5. The “Frame Size” or S = 5 million of bits. [given]
The “Propagation Speed” = 2.2x 108 m/s
The “link length” = 1900 km = 1900 x 103
The “Transmission Time” = 5 x 106 /8 mS = 62500 =.625 seconds
The “Bandwidth” = 8 x 106 bps
The “Propagation Time” = 1900 x 103 / 2.2x 108 uS = 8 uS
The “Queuing Time”= 10 x 3.5 mS = 35 mS.
The “Processing Delay” = 1.8 x 10 mS = 18 mS.
Complete “Delay Time” = 35 + 18 + .08 + 62500 = 62551.08mS = 0.63 sec
- The complete tome of delay = 0.63 seconds.
- The transmission delay is the dominant component.
- The propagation time is the negligible component.
Figure 1: Four States of POP3 Session
There have been a total of 4 states in POP 3 protocols. They are the:
- Authorization: This one has been established as the connection has been done.
- Transaction: Here, the transactions are done on the authorized connections.
- Update: Here the transactions get updated.
- Closed: As every transaction gets upgraded, the POP 3 gets 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.