Question: In cases with shared medium how is it delivered

Answer: the packets may be delivered according to a multiple access scheme

Packet mode communication may be implemented with or without intermediate forwarding nodes (packet switches or routers). Packets are normally forwarded by intermediate network nodes asynchronously using first-in, first-out buffering, but may be forwarded according to some scheduling discipline for fair queuing, traffic shaping, or for differentiated or guaranteed quality of service, such as weighted fair queuing or leaky bucket. <hl> In case of a shared physical medium (such as radio or 10BASE5), the packets may be delivered according to a multiple access scheme . <hl>

Packet mode communication may be implemented with or without intermediate forwarding nodes (packet switches or routers). Packets are normally forwarded by intermediate network nodes asynchronously using first-in, first-out buffering, but may be forwarded according to some scheduling discipline for fair queuing, traffic shaping, or for differentiated or guaranteed quality of service, such as weighted fair queuing or leaky bucket. In case of a shared physical medium (such as radio or 10BASE5), <hl> the packets may be delivered according to a multiple access scheme <hl>.

In case of a shared physical medium (such as radio or 10BASE5), <hl> the packets may be delivered according to a multiple access scheme <hl> .


Question: What did Baran develop during research at RAND

Baran developed the concept of distributed adaptive message block switching during his research at the RAND Corporation for the US Air Force into survivable communications networks, first presented to the Air Force in the summer of 1961 as briefing B-265, later published as RAND report P-2626 in 1962, and finally in report RM 3420 in 1964. Report P-2626 described a general architecture for a large-scale, distributed, survivable communications network. The work focuses on three key ideas: use of a decentralized network with multiple paths between any two points, dividing user messages into message blocks, later called packets, and delivery of these messages by store and forward switching.

Answer: the concept of distributed adaptive message block switching

<hl> Baran developed the concept of distributed adaptive message block switching during his research at the RAND Corporation for the US Air Force into survivable communications networks, first presented to the Air Force in the summer of 1961 as briefing B-265, later published as RAND report P-2626 in 1962, and finally in report RM 3420 in 1964. <hl> Report P-2626 described a general architecture for a large-scale, distributed, survivable communications network. The work focuses on three key ideas: use of a decentralized network with multiple paths between any two points, dividing user messages into message blocks, later called packets, and delivery of these messages by store and forward switching.

Baran developed <hl> the concept of distributed adaptive message block switching <hl> during his research at the RAND Corporation for the US Air Force into survivable communications networks, first presented to the Air Force in the summer of 1961 as briefing B-265, later published as RAND report P-2626 in 1962, and finally in report RM 3420 in 1964. Report P-2626 described a general architecture for a large-scale, distributed, survivable communications network. The work focuses on three key ideas: use of a decentralized network with multiple paths between any two points, dividing user messages into message blocks, later called packets, and delivery of these messages by store and forward switching.


Question: What was developed for the Air Force

Answer: survivable communications networks

<hl> Baran developed the concept of distributed adaptive message block switching during his research at the RAND Corporation for the US Air Force into survivable communications networks , first presented to the Air Force in the summer of 1961 as briefing B-265, later published as RAND report P-2626 in 1962, and finally in report RM 3420 in 1964. <hl> Report P-2626 described a general architecture for a large-scale, distributed, survivable communications network. The work focuses on three key ideas: use of a decentralized network with multiple paths between any two points, dividing user messages into message blocks, later called packets, and delivery of these messages by store and forward switching.

Baran developed the concept of distributed adaptive message block switching during his research at the RAND Corporation for the US Air Force into <hl> survivable communications networks <hl>, first presented to the Air Force in the summer of 1961 as briefing B-265, later published as RAND report P-2626 in 1962, and finally in report RM 3420 in 1964. Report P-2626 described a general architecture for a large-scale, distributed, survivable communications network. The work focuses on three key ideas: use of a decentralized network with multiple paths between any two points, dividing user messages into message blocks, later called packets, and delivery of these messages by store and forward switching.

Baran developed the concept of distributed adaptive message block switching during his research at the RAND Corporation for the US Air Force into <hl> survivable communications networks <hl> , first presented to the Air Force in the summer of 1961 as briefing B-265, later published as RAND report P-2626 in 1962, and finally in report RM 3420 in 1964.


Question: What 3 things does the Air Force work key on

Answer: use of a decentralized network with multiple paths between any two points, dividing user messages into message blocks

Baran developed the concept of distributed adaptive message block switching during his research at the RAND Corporation for the US Air Force into survivable communications networks, first presented to the Air Force in the summer of 1961 as briefing B-265, later published as RAND report P-2626 in 1962, and finally in report RM 3420 in 1964. Report P-2626 described a general architecture for a large-scale, distributed, survivable communications network. <hl> The work focuses on three key ideas: use of a decentralized network with multiple paths between any two points, dividing user messages into message blocks , later called packets, and delivery of these messages by store and forward switching. <hl>

Baran developed the concept of distributed adaptive message block switching during his research at the RAND Corporation for the US Air Force into survivable communications networks, first presented to the Air Force in the summer of 1961 as briefing B-265, later published as RAND report P-2626 in 1962, and finally in report RM 3420 in 1964. Report P-2626 described a general architecture for a large-scale, distributed, survivable communications network. The work focuses on three key ideas: <hl> use of a decentralized network with multiple paths between any two points, dividing user messages into message blocks <hl>, later called packets, and delivery of these messages by store and forward switching.

The work focuses on three key ideas: <hl> use of a decentralized network with multiple paths between any two points, dividing user messages into message blocks <hl> , later called packets, and delivery of these messages by store and forward switching.


Question: How are Air force messages delivered

Answer: delivery of these messages by store and forward switching

Baran developed the concept of distributed adaptive message block switching during his research at the RAND Corporation for the US Air Force into survivable communications networks, first presented to the Air Force in the summer of 1961 as briefing B-265, later published as RAND report P-2626 in 1962, and finally in report RM 3420 in 1964. Report P-2626 described a general architecture for a large-scale, distributed, survivable communications network. <hl> The work focuses on three key ideas: use of a decentralized network with multiple paths between any two points, dividing user messages into message blocks, later called packets, and delivery of these messages by store and forward switching . <hl>

Baran developed the concept of distributed adaptive message block switching during his research at the RAND Corporation for the US Air Force into survivable communications networks, first presented to the Air Force in the summer of 1961 as briefing B-265, later published as RAND report P-2626 in 1962, and finally in report RM 3420 in 1964. Report P-2626 described a general architecture for a large-scale, distributed, survivable communications network. The work focuses on three key ideas: use of a decentralized network with multiple paths between any two points, dividing user messages into message blocks, later called packets, and <hl> delivery of these messages by store and forward switching <hl>.

The work focuses on three key ideas: use of a decentralized network with multiple paths between any two points, dividing user messages into message blocks, later called packets, and <hl> delivery of these messages by store and forward switching <hl> .


Question: What was report P-2626

Answer: a general architecture for a large-scale, distributed, survivable communications network

Baran developed the concept of distributed adaptive message block switching during his research at the RAND Corporation for the US Air Force into survivable communications networks, first presented to the Air Force in the summer of 1961 as briefing B-265, later published as RAND report P-2626 in 1962, and finally in report RM 3420 in 1964. <hl> Report P-2626 described a general architecture for a large-scale, distributed, survivable communications network . <hl> The work focuses on three key ideas: use of a decentralized network with multiple paths between any two points, dividing user messages into message blocks, later called packets, and delivery of these messages by store and forward switching.

Baran developed the concept of distributed adaptive message block switching during his research at the RAND Corporation for the US Air Force into survivable communications networks, first presented to the Air Force in the summer of 1961 as briefing B-265, later published as RAND report P-2626 in 1962, and finally in report RM 3420 in 1964. Report P-2626 described <hl> a general architecture for a large-scale, distributed, survivable communications network <hl>. The work focuses on three key ideas: use of a decentralized network with multiple paths between any two points, dividing user messages into message blocks, later called packets, and delivery of these messages by store and forward switching.

Report P-2626 described <hl> a general architecture for a large-scale, distributed, survivable communications network <hl> .


Question: What delivery message was used

Answer: by store and forward switching

Baran developed the concept of distributed adaptive message block switching during his research at the RAND Corporation for the US Air Force into survivable communications networks, first presented to the Air Force in the summer of 1961 as briefing B-265, later published as RAND report P-2626 in 1962, and finally in report RM 3420 in 1964. Report P-2626 described a general architecture for a large-scale, distributed, survivable communications network. <hl> The work focuses on three key ideas: use of a decentralized network with multiple paths between any two points, dividing user messages into message blocks, later called packets, and delivery of these messages by store and forward switching . <hl>

Baran developed the concept of distributed adaptive message block switching during his research at the RAND Corporation for the US Air Force into survivable communications networks, first presented to the Air Force in the summer of 1961 as briefing B-265, later published as RAND report P-2626 in 1962, and finally in report RM 3420 in 1964. Report P-2626 described a general architecture for a large-scale, distributed, survivable communications network. The work focuses on three key ideas: use of a decentralized network with multiple paths between any two points, dividing user messages into message blocks, later called packets, and delivery of these messages <hl> by store and forward switching <hl>.

The work focuses on three key ideas: use of a decentralized network with multiple paths between any two points, dividing user messages into message blocks, later called packets, and delivery of these messages <hl> by store and forward switching <hl> .


Question: What concept was developed by Baran while researching at RAND

Answer: distributed adaptive message block switching

<hl> Baran developed the concept of distributed adaptive message block switching during his research at the RAND Corporation for the US Air Force into survivable communications networks, first presented to the Air Force in the summer of 1961 as briefing B-265, later published as RAND report P-2626 in 1962, and finally in report RM 3420 in 1964. <hl> Report P-2626 described a general architecture for a large-scale, distributed, survivable communications network. The work focuses on three key ideas: use of a decentralized network with multiple paths between any two points, dividing user messages into message blocks, later called packets, and delivery of these messages by store and forward switching.

Baran developed the concept of <hl> distributed adaptive message block switching <hl> during his research at the RAND Corporation for the US Air Force into survivable communications networks, first presented to the Air Force in the summer of 1961 as briefing B-265, later published as RAND report P-2626 in 1962, and finally in report RM 3420 in 1964. Report P-2626 described a general architecture for a large-scale, distributed, survivable communications network. The work focuses on three key ideas: use of a decentralized network with multiple paths between any two points, dividing user messages into message blocks, later called packets, and delivery of these messages by store and forward switching.


Question: What things did the network concentrate on

Answer: use of a decentralized network with multiple paths between any two points, dividing user messages into message blocks, later called packets

Baran developed the concept of distributed adaptive message block switching during his research at the RAND Corporation for the US Air Force into survivable communications networks, first presented to the Air Force in the summer of 1961 as briefing B-265, later published as RAND report P-2626 in 1962, and finally in report RM 3420 in 1964. Report P-2626 described a general architecture for a large-scale, distributed, survivable communications network. <hl> The work focuses on three key ideas: use of a decentralized network with multiple paths between any two points, dividing user messages into message blocks, later called packets , and delivery of these messages by store and forward switching. <hl>

Baran developed the concept of distributed adaptive message block switching during his research at the RAND Corporation for the US Air Force into survivable communications networks, first presented to the Air Force in the summer of 1961 as briefing B-265, later published as RAND report P-2626 in 1962, and finally in report RM 3420 in 1964. Report P-2626 described a general architecture for a large-scale, distributed, survivable communications network. The work focuses on three key ideas: <hl> use of a decentralized network with multiple paths between any two points, dividing user messages into message blocks, later called packets <hl>, and delivery of these messages by store and forward switching.

The work focuses on three key ideas: <hl> use of a decentralized network with multiple paths between any two points, dividing user messages into message blocks, later called packets <hl> , and delivery of these messages by store and forward switching.


Question: What did Donald Davies Develop

Starting in 1965, Donald Davies at the National Physical Laboratory, UK, independently developed the same message routing methodology as developed by Baran. He called it packet switching, a more accessible name than Baran's, and proposed to build a nationwide network in the UK. He gave a talk on the proposal in 1966, after which a person from the Ministry of Defence (MoD) told him about Baran's work. A member of Davies' team (Roger Scantlebury) met Lawrence Roberts at the 1967 ACM Symposium on Operating System Principles and suggested it for use in the ARPANET.

Answer: independently developed the same message routing methodology as developed by Baran

<hl> Starting in 1965, Donald Davies at the National Physical Laboratory, UK, independently developed the same message routing methodology as developed by Baran . <hl> He called it packet switching, a more accessible name than Baran's, and proposed to build a nationwide network in the UK. He gave a talk on the proposal in 1966, after which a person from the Ministry of Defence (MoD) told him about Baran's work. A member of Davies' team (Roger Scantlebury) met Lawrence Roberts at the 1967 ACM Symposium on Operating System Principles and suggested it for use in the ARPANET.

Starting in 1965, Donald Davies at the National Physical Laboratory, UK, <hl> independently developed the same message routing methodology as developed by Baran <hl>. He called it packet switching, a more accessible name than Baran's, and proposed to build a nationwide network in the UK. He gave a talk on the proposal in 1966, after which a person from the Ministry of Defence (MoD) told him about Baran's work. A member of Davies' team (Roger Scantlebury) met Lawrence Roberts at the 1967 ACM Symposium on Operating System Principles and suggested it for use in the ARPANET.

Starting in 1965, Donald Davies at the National Physical Laboratory, UK, <hl> independently developed the same message routing methodology as developed by Baran <hl> .


Question: What did Davies call his system

Answer: packet switching

Starting in 1965, Donald Davies at the National Physical Laboratory, UK, independently developed the same message routing methodology as developed by Baran. <hl> He called it packet switching , a more accessible name than Baran's, and proposed to build a nationwide network in the UK. <hl> He gave a talk on the proposal in 1966, after which a person from the Ministry of Defence (MoD) told him about Baran's work. A member of Davies' team (Roger Scantlebury) met Lawrence Roberts at the 1967 ACM Symposium on Operating System Principles and suggested it for use in the ARPANET.

Starting in 1965, Donald Davies at the National Physical Laboratory, UK, independently developed the same message routing methodology as developed by Baran. He called it <hl> packet switching <hl>, a more accessible name than Baran's, and proposed to build a nationwide network in the UK. He gave a talk on the proposal in 1966, after which a person from the Ministry of Defence (MoD) told him about Baran's work. A member of Davies' team (Roger Scantlebury) met Lawrence Roberts at the 1967 ACM Symposium on Operating System Principles and suggested it for use in the ARPANET.

He called it <hl> packet switching <hl> , a more accessible name than Baran's, and proposed to build a nationwide network in the UK.


Question: What did Davies want to build

Answer: proposed to build a nationwide network in the UK

Starting in 1965, Donald Davies at the National Physical Laboratory, UK, independently developed the same message routing methodology as developed by Baran. <hl> He called it packet switching, a more accessible name than Baran's, and proposed to build a nationwide network in the UK . <hl> He gave a talk on the proposal in 1966, after which a person from the Ministry of Defence (MoD) told him about Baran's work. A member of Davies' team (Roger Scantlebury) met Lawrence Roberts at the 1967 ACM Symposium on Operating System Principles and suggested it for use in the ARPANET.

Starting in 1965, Donald Davies at the National Physical Laboratory, UK, independently developed the same message routing methodology as developed by Baran. He called it packet switching, a more accessible name than Baran's, and <hl> proposed to build a nationwide network in the UK <hl>. He gave a talk on the proposal in 1966, after which a person from the Ministry of Defence (MoD) told him about Baran's work. A member of Davies' team (Roger Scantlebury) met Lawrence Roberts at the 1967 ACM Symposium on Operating System Principles and suggested it for use in the ARPANET.

He called it packet switching, a more accessible name than Baran's, and <hl> proposed to build a nationwide network in the UK <hl> .


Question: What use was suggested for the system

Answer: use in the ARPANET

Starting in 1965, Donald Davies at the National Physical Laboratory, UK, independently developed the same message routing methodology as developed by Baran. He called it packet switching, a more accessible name than Baran's, and proposed to build a nationwide network in the UK. He gave a talk on the proposal in 1966, after which a person from the Ministry of Defence (MoD) told him about Baran's work. <hl> A member of Davies' team (Roger Scantlebury) met Lawrence Roberts at the 1967 ACM Symposium on Operating System Principles and suggested it for use in the ARPANET . <hl>

Starting in 1965, Donald Davies at the National Physical Laboratory, UK, independently developed the same message routing methodology as developed by Baran. He called it packet switching, a more accessible name than Baran's, and proposed to build a nationwide network in the UK. He gave a talk on the proposal in 1966, after which a person from the Ministry of Defence (MoD) told him about Baran's work. A member of Davies' team (Roger Scantlebury) met Lawrence Roberts at the 1967 ACM Symposium on Operating System Principles and suggested it for <hl> use in the ARPANET <hl>.

A member of Davies' team (Roger Scantlebury) met Lawrence Roberts at the 1967 ACM Symposium on Operating System Principles and suggested it for <hl> use in the ARPANET <hl> .


Question: Who developed the same technology as Baran

Answer: Donald Davies

<hl> Starting in 1965, Donald Davies at the National Physical Laboratory, UK, independently developed the same message routing methodology as developed by Baran. <hl> He called it packet switching, a more accessible name than Baran's, and proposed to build a nationwide network in the UK. He gave a talk on the proposal in 1966, after which a person from the Ministry of Defence (MoD) told him about Baran's work. A member of Davies' team (Roger Scantlebury) met Lawrence Roberts at the 1967 ACM Symposium on Operating System Principles and suggested it for use in the ARPANET.

Starting in 1965, <hl> Donald Davies <hl> at the National Physical Laboratory, UK, independently developed the same message routing methodology as developed by Baran. He called it packet switching, a more accessible name than Baran's, and proposed to build a nationwide network in the UK. He gave a talk on the proposal in 1966, after which a person from the Ministry of Defence (MoD) told him about Baran's work. A member of Davies' team (Roger Scantlebury) met Lawrence Roberts at the 1967 ACM Symposium on Operating System Principles and suggested it for use in the ARPANET.


Question: What did Davies call the System

Answer: packet switching

Starting in 1965, Donald Davies at the National Physical Laboratory, UK, independently developed the same message routing methodology as developed by Baran. <hl> He called it packet switching , a more accessible name than Baran's, and proposed to build a nationwide network in the UK. <hl> He gave a talk on the proposal in 1966, after which a person from the Ministry of Defence (MoD) told him about Baran's work. A member of Davies' team (Roger Scantlebury) met Lawrence Roberts at the 1967 ACM Symposium on Operating System Principles and suggested it for use in the ARPANET.

Starting in 1965, Donald Davies at the National Physical Laboratory, UK, independently developed the same message routing methodology as developed by Baran. He called it <hl> packet switching <hl>, a more accessible name than Baran's, and proposed to build a nationwide network in the UK. He gave a talk on the proposal in 1966, after which a person from the Ministry of Defence (MoD) told him about Baran's work. A member of Davies' team (Roger Scantlebury) met Lawrence Roberts at the 1967 ACM Symposium on Operating System Principles and suggested it for use in the ARPANET.

He called it <hl> packet switching <hl> , a more accessible name than Baran's, and proposed to build a nationwide network in the UK.


Question: What was suggested at the Symposium in 1967

Answer: suggested it for use in the ARPANET

Starting in 1965, Donald Davies at the National Physical Laboratory, UK, independently developed the same message routing methodology as developed by Baran. He called it packet switching, a more accessible name than Baran's, and proposed to build a nationwide network in the UK. He gave a talk on the proposal in 1966, after which a person from the Ministry of Defence (MoD) told him about Baran's work. <hl> A member of Davies' team (Roger Scantlebury) met Lawrence Roberts at the 1967 ACM Symposium on Operating System Principles and suggested it for use in the ARPANET . <hl>

Starting in 1965, Donald Davies at the National Physical Laboratory, UK, independently developed the same message routing methodology as developed by Baran. He called it packet switching, a more accessible name than Baran's, and proposed to build a nationwide network in the UK. He gave a talk on the proposal in 1966, after which a person from the Ministry of Defence (MoD) told him about Baran's work. A member of Davies' team (Roger Scantlebury) met Lawrence Roberts at the 1967 ACM Symposium on Operating System Principles and <hl> suggested it for use in the ARPANET <hl>.

A member of Davies' team (Roger Scantlebury) met Lawrence Roberts at the 1967 ACM Symposium on Operating System Principles and <hl> suggested it for use in the ARPANET <hl> .


Question: What does each packet includ in connectionless mode

In connectionless mode each packet includes complete addressing information. The packets are routed individually, sometimes resulting in different paths and out-of-order delivery. Each packet is labeled with a destination address, source address, and port numbers. It may also be labeled with the sequence number of the packet. This precludes the need for a dedicated path to help the packet find its way to its destination, but means that much more information is needed in the packet header, which is therefore larger, and this information needs to be looked up in power-hungry content-addressable memory. Each packet is dispatched and may go via different routes; potentially, the system has to do as much work for every packet as the connection-oriented system has to do in connection set-up, but with less information as to the application's requirements. At the destination, the original message/data is reassembled in the correct order, based on the packet sequence number. Thus a virtual connection, also known as a virtual circuit or byte stream is provided to the end-user by a transport layer protocol, although intermediate network nodes only provides a connectionless network layer service.

Answer: each packet includes complete addressing information

<hl> In connectionless mode each packet includes complete addressing information . <hl> The packets are routed individually, sometimes resulting in different paths and out-of-order delivery. Each packet is labeled with a destination address, source address, and port numbers. It may also be labeled with the sequence number of the packet. This precludes the need for a dedicated path to help the packet find its way to its destination, but means that much more information is needed in the packet header, which is therefore larger, and this information needs to be looked up in power-hungry content-addressable memory. Each packet is dispatched and may go via different routes; potentially, the system has to do as much work for every packet as the connection-oriented system has to do in connection set-up, but with less information as to the application's requirements. At the destination, the original message/data is reassembled in the correct order, based on the packet sequence number. Thus a virtual connection, also known as a virtual circuit or byte stream is provided to the end-user by a transport layer protocol, although intermediate network nodes only provides a connectionless network layer service.

In connectionless mode <hl> each packet includes complete addressing information <hl>. The packets are routed individually, sometimes resulting in different paths and out-of-order delivery. Each packet is labeled with a destination address, source address, and port numbers. It may also be labeled with the sequence number of the packet. This precludes the need for a dedicated path to help the packet find its way to its destination, but means that much more information is needed in the packet header, which is therefore larger, and this information needs to be looked up in power-hungry content-addressable memory. Each packet is dispatched and may go via different routes; potentially, the system has to do as much work for every packet as the connection-oriented system has to do in connection set-up, but with less information as to the application's requirements. At the destination, the original message/data is reassembled in the correct order, based on the packet sequence number. Thus a virtual connection, also known as a virtual circuit or byte stream is provided to the end-user by a transport layer protocol, although intermediate network nodes only provides a connectionless network layer service.

In connectionless mode <hl> each packet includes complete addressing information <hl> .


Question: How are the packets routed

Answer: individually, sometimes resulting in different paths and out-of-order delivery

In connectionless mode each packet includes complete addressing information. <hl> The packets are routed individually, sometimes resulting in different paths and out-of-order delivery . <hl> Each packet is labeled with a destination address, source address, and port numbers. It may also be labeled with the sequence number of the packet. This precludes the need for a dedicated path to help the packet find its way to its destination, but means that much more information is needed in the packet header, which is therefore larger, and this information needs to be looked up in power-hungry content-addressable memory. Each packet is dispatched and may go via different routes; potentially, the system has to do as much work for every packet as the connection-oriented system has to do in connection set-up, but with less information as to the application's requirements. At the destination, the original message/data is reassembled in the correct order, based on the packet sequence number. Thus a virtual connection, also known as a virtual circuit or byte stream is provided to the end-user by a transport layer protocol, although intermediate network nodes only provides a connectionless network layer service.

In connectionless mode each packet includes complete addressing information. The packets are routed <hl> individually, sometimes resulting in different paths and out-of-order delivery <hl>. Each packet is labeled with a destination address, source address, and port numbers. It may also be labeled with the sequence number of the packet. This precludes the need for a dedicated path to help the packet find its way to its destination, but means that much more information is needed in the packet header, which is therefore larger, and this information needs to be looked up in power-hungry content-addressable memory. Each packet is dispatched and may go via different routes; potentially, the system has to do as much work for every packet as the connection-oriented system has to do in connection set-up, but with less information as to the application's requirements. At the destination, the original message/data is reassembled in the correct order, based on the packet sequence number. Thus a virtual connection, also known as a virtual circuit or byte stream is provided to the end-user by a transport layer protocol, although intermediate network nodes only provides a connectionless network layer service.

The packets are routed <hl> individually, sometimes resulting in different paths and out-of-order delivery <hl> .


Question: What is included with each packet label

Answer: Each packet is labeled with a destination address, source address, and port numbers. It may also be labeled with the sequence number of the packet

In connectionless mode each packet includes complete addressing information. The packets are routed individually, sometimes resulting in different paths and out-of-order delivery. <hl> Each packet is labeled with a destination address, source address, and port numbers. It may also be labeled with the sequence number of the packet . <hl> This precludes the need for a dedicated path to help the packet find its way to its destination, but means that much more information is needed in the packet header, which is therefore larger, and this information needs to be looked up in power-hungry content-addressable memory. Each packet is dispatched and may go via different routes; potentially, the system has to do as much work for every packet as the connection-oriented system has to do in connection set-up, but with less information as to the application's requirements. At the destination, the original message/data is reassembled in the correct order, based on the packet sequence number. Thus a virtual connection, also known as a virtual circuit or byte stream is provided to the end-user by a transport layer protocol, although intermediate network nodes only provides a connectionless network layer service.

In connectionless mode each packet includes complete addressing information. The packets are routed individually, sometimes resulting in different paths and out-of-order delivery. <hl> Each packet is labeled with a destination address, source address, and port numbers. It may also be labeled with the sequence number of the packet <hl>. This precludes the need for a dedicated path to help the packet find its way to its destination, but means that much more information is needed in the packet header, which is therefore larger, and this information needs to be looked up in power-hungry content-addressable memory. Each packet is dispatched and may go via different routes; potentially, the system has to do as much work for every packet as the connection-oriented system has to do in connection set-up, but with less information as to the application's requirements. At the destination, the original message/data is reassembled in the correct order, based on the packet sequence number. Thus a virtual connection, also known as a virtual circuit or byte stream is provided to the end-user by a transport layer protocol, although intermediate network nodes only provides a connectionless network layer service.

<hl> Each packet is labeled with a destination address, source address, and port numbers. It may also be labeled with the sequence number of the packet <hl> .


Question: What happens to the packet at the destination

Answer: the original message/data is reassembled in the correct order, based on the packet sequence number

In connectionless mode each packet includes complete addressing information. The packets are routed individually, sometimes resulting in different paths and out-of-order delivery. Each packet is labeled with a destination address, source address, and port numbers. It may also be labeled with the sequence number of the packet. This precludes the need for a dedicated path to help the packet find its way to its destination, but means that much more information is needed in the packet header, which is therefore larger, and this information needs to be looked up in power-hungry content-addressable memory. Each packet is dispatched and may go via different routes; potentially, the system has to do as much work for every packet as the connection-oriented system has to do in connection set-up, but with less information as to the application's requirements. <hl> At the destination, the original message/data is reassembled in the correct order, based on the packet sequence number . <hl> Thus a virtual connection, also known as a virtual circuit or byte stream is provided to the end-user by a transport layer protocol, although intermediate network nodes only provides a connectionless network layer service.

In connectionless mode each packet includes complete addressing information. The packets are routed individually, sometimes resulting in different paths and out-of-order delivery. Each packet is labeled with a destination address, source address, and port numbers. It may also be labeled with the sequence number of the packet. This precludes the need for a dedicated path to help the packet find its way to its destination, but means that much more information is needed in the packet header, which is therefore larger, and this information needs to be looked up in power-hungry content-addressable memory. Each packet is dispatched and may go via different routes; potentially, the system has to do as much work for every packet as the connection-oriented system has to do in connection set-up, but with less information as to the application's requirements. At the destination, <hl> the original message/data is reassembled in the correct order, based on the packet sequence number <hl>. Thus a virtual connection, also known as a virtual circuit or byte stream is provided to the end-user by a transport layer protocol, although intermediate network nodes only provides a connectionless network layer service.

At the destination, <hl> the original message/data is reassembled in the correct order, based on the packet sequence number <hl> .


Question: Is the packet header long

Connection-oriented transmission requires a setup phase in each involved node before any packet is transferred to establish the parameters of communication. The packets include a connection identifier rather than address information and are negotiated between endpoints so that they are delivered in order and with error checking. Address information is only transferred to each node during the connection set-up phase, when the route to the destination is discovered and an entry is added to the switching table in each network node through which the connection passes. The signaling protocols used allow the application to specify its requirements and discover link parameters. Acceptable values for service parameters may be negotiated. Routing a packet requires the node to look up the connection id in a table. The packet header can be small, as it only needs to contain this code and any information, such as length, timestamp, or sequence number, which is different for different packets.

Answer: The packet header can be small, as it only needs to contain this code and any information, such as length, timestamp, or sequence number

Connection-oriented transmission requires a setup phase in each involved node before any packet is transferred to establish the parameters of communication. The packets include a connection identifier rather than address information and are negotiated between endpoints so that they are delivered in order and with error checking. Address information is only transferred to each node during the connection set-up phase, when the route to the destination is discovered and an entry is added to the switching table in each network node through which the connection passes. The signaling protocols used allow the application to specify its requirements and discover link parameters. Acceptable values for service parameters may be negotiated. Routing a packet requires the node to look up the connection id in a table. <hl> The packet header can be small, as it only needs to contain this code and any information, such as length, timestamp, or sequence number , which is different for different packets. <hl>

Connection-oriented transmission requires a setup phase in each involved node before any packet is transferred to establish the parameters of communication. The packets include a connection identifier rather than address information and are negotiated between endpoints so that they are delivered in order and with error checking. Address information is only transferred to each node during the connection set-up phase, when the route to the destination is discovered and an entry is added to the switching table in each network node through which the connection passes. The signaling protocols used allow the application to specify its requirements and discover link parameters. Acceptable values for service parameters may be negotiated. Routing a packet requires the node to look up the connection id in a table. <hl> The packet header can be small, as it only needs to contain this code and any information, such as length, timestamp, or sequence number <hl>, which is different for different packets.

<hl> The packet header can be small, as it only needs to contain this code and any information, such as length, timestamp, or sequence number <hl> , which is different for different packets.


Question: Why is the node requiered to look up

Answer: Routing a packet requires the node to look up the connection id in a table

Connection-oriented transmission requires a setup phase in each involved node before any packet is transferred to establish the parameters of communication. The packets include a connection identifier rather than address information and are negotiated between endpoints so that they are delivered in order and with error checking. Address information is only transferred to each node during the connection set-up phase, when the route to the destination is discovered and an entry is added to the switching table in each network node through which the connection passes. The signaling protocols used allow the application to specify its requirements and discover link parameters. Acceptable values for service parameters may be negotiated. <hl> Routing a packet requires the node to look up the connection id in a table . <hl> The packet header can be small, as it only needs to contain this code and any information, such as length, timestamp, or sequence number, which is different for different packets.

Connection-oriented transmission requires a setup phase in each involved node before any packet is transferred to establish the parameters of communication. The packets include a connection identifier rather than address information and are negotiated between endpoints so that they are delivered in order and with error checking. Address information is only transferred to each node during the connection set-up phase, when the route to the destination is discovered and an entry is added to the switching table in each network node through which the connection passes. The signaling protocols used allow the application to specify its requirements and discover link parameters. Acceptable values for service parameters may be negotiated. <hl> Routing a packet requires the node to look up the connection id in a table <hl>. The packet header can be small, as it only needs to contain this code and any information, such as length, timestamp, or sequence number, which is different for different packets.

<hl> Routing a packet requires the node to look up the connection id in a table <hl> .


Question: What is a connection identifier

Answer: a connection identifier rather than address information and are negotiated between endpoints so that they are delivered in order and with error checking

Connection-oriented transmission requires a setup phase in each involved node before any packet is transferred to establish the parameters of communication. <hl> The packets include a connection identifier rather than address information and are negotiated between endpoints so that they are delivered in order and with error checking . <hl> Address information is only transferred to each node during the connection set-up phase, when the route to the destination is discovered and an entry is added to the switching table in each network node through which the connection passes. The signaling protocols used allow the application to specify its requirements and discover link parameters. Acceptable values for service parameters may be negotiated. Routing a packet requires the node to look up the connection id in a table. The packet header can be small, as it only needs to contain this code and any information, such as length, timestamp, or sequence number, which is different for different packets.

Connection-oriented transmission requires a setup phase in each involved node before any packet is transferred to establish the parameters of communication. The packets include <hl> a connection identifier rather than address information and are negotiated between endpoints so that they are delivered in order and with error checking <hl>. Address information is only transferred to each node during the connection set-up phase, when the route to the destination is discovered and an entry is added to the switching table in each network node through which the connection passes. The signaling protocols used allow the application to specify its requirements and discover link parameters. Acceptable values for service parameters may be negotiated. Routing a packet requires the node to look up the connection id in a table. The packet header can be small, as it only needs to contain this code and any information, such as length, timestamp, or sequence number, which is different for different packets.

The packets include <hl> a connection identifier rather than address information and are negotiated between endpoints so that they are delivered in order and with error checking <hl> .


Question: What does connection orientation require

Answer: a setup phase in each involved node before any packet is transferred to establish the parameters of communication

<hl> Connection-oriented transmission requires a setup phase in each involved node before any packet is transferred to establish the parameters of communication . <hl> The packets include a connection identifier rather than address information and are negotiated between endpoints so that they are delivered in order and with error checking. Address information is only transferred to each node during the connection set-up phase, when the route to the destination is discovered and an entry is added to the switching table in each network node through which the connection passes. The signaling protocols used allow the application to specify its requirements and discover link parameters. Acceptable values for service parameters may be negotiated. Routing a packet requires the node to look up the connection id in a table. The packet header can be small, as it only needs to contain this code and any information, such as length, timestamp, or sequence number, which is different for different packets.

Connection-oriented transmission requires <hl> a setup phase in each involved node before any packet is transferred to establish the parameters of communication <hl>. The packets include a connection identifier rather than address information and are negotiated between endpoints so that they are delivered in order and with error checking. Address information is only transferred to each node during the connection set-up phase, when the route to the destination is discovered and an entry is added to the switching table in each network node through which the connection passes. The signaling protocols used allow the application to specify its requirements and discover link parameters. Acceptable values for service parameters may be negotiated. Routing a packet requires the node to look up the connection id in a table. The packet header can be small, as it only needs to contain this code and any information, such as length, timestamp, or sequence number, which is different for different packets.

Connection-oriented transmission requires <hl> a setup phase in each involved node before any packet is transferred to establish the parameters of communication <hl> .


Question: WHat do x.25 and Frame Relay both require

Both X.25 and Frame Relay provide connection-oriented operations. But X.25 does it at the network layer of the OSI Model. Frame Relay does it at level two, the data link layer. Another major difference between X.25 and Frame Relay is that X.25 requires a handshake between the communicating parties before any user packets are transmitted. Frame Relay does not define any such handshakes. X.25 does not define any operations inside the packet network. It only operates at the user-network-interface (UNI). Thus, the network provider is free to use any procedure it wishes inside the network. X.25 does specify some limited re-transmission procedures at the UNI, and its link layer protocol (LAPB) provides conventional HDLC-type link management procedures. Frame Relay is a modified version of ISDN's layer two protocol, LAPD and LAPB. As such, its integrity operations pertain only between nodes on a link, not end-to-end. Any retransmissions must be carried out by higher layer protocols. The X.25 UNI protocol is part of the X.25 protocol suite, which consists of the lower three layers of the OSI Model. It was widely used at the UNI for packet switching networks during the 1980s and early 1990s, to provide a standardized interface into and out of packet networks. Some implementations used X.25 within the network as well, but its connection-oriented features made this setup cumbersome and inefficient. Frame relay operates principally at layer two of the OSI Model. However, its address field (the Data Link Connection ID, or DLCI) can be used at the OSI network layer, with a minimum set of procedures. Thus, it rids itself of many X.25 layer 3 encumbrances, but still has the DLCI as an ID beyond a node-to-node layer two link protocol. The simplicity of Frame Relay makes it faster and more efficient than X.25. Because Frame relay is a data link layer protocol, like X.25 it does not define internal network routing operations. For X.25 its packet IDs---the virtual circuit and virtual channel numbers have to be correlated to network addresses. The same is true for Frame Relays DLCI. How this is done is up to the network provider. Frame Relay, by virtue of having no network layer procedures is connection-oriented at layer two, by using the HDLC/LAPD/LAPB Set Asynchronous Balanced Mode (SABM). X.25 connections are typically established for each communication session, but it does have a feature allowing a limited amount of traffic to be passed across the UNI without the connection-oriented handshake. For a while, Frame Relay was used to interconnect LANs across wide area networks. However, X.25 and well as Frame Relay have been supplanted by the Internet Protocol (IP) at the network layer, and the Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) and or versions of Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) at layer two. A typical configuration is to run IP over ATM or a version of MPLS. <Uyless Black, X.25 and Related Protocols, IEEE Computer Society, 1991> <Uyless Black, Frame Relay Networks, McGraw-Hill, 1998> <Uyless Black, MPLS and Label Switching Networks, Prentice Hall, 2001> < Uyless Black, ATM, Volume I, Prentice Hall, 1995>

Answer: connection-oriented operations. But X.25 does it at the network layer of the OSI Model. Frame Relay does it at level two, the data link layer

<hl> Both X.25 and Frame Relay provide connection-oriented operations. But X.25 does it at the network layer of the OSI Model. Frame Relay does it at level two, the data link layer . <hl> Another major difference between X.25 and Frame Relay is that X.25 requires a handshake between the communicating parties before any user packets are transmitted. Frame Relay does not define any such handshakes. X.25 does not define any operations inside the packet network. It only operates at the user-network-interface (UNI). Thus, the network provider is free to use any procedure it wishes inside the network. X.25 does specify some limited re-transmission procedures at the UNI, and its link layer protocol (LAPB) provides conventional HDLC-type link management procedures. Frame Relay is a modified version of ISDN's layer two protocol, LAPD and LAPB. As such, its integrity operations pertain only between nodes on a link, not end-to-end. Any retransmissions must be carried out by higher layer protocols. The X.25 UNI protocol is part of the X.25 protocol suite, which consists of the lower three layers of the OSI Model. It was widely used at the UNI for packet switching networks during the 1980s and early 1990s, to provide a standardized interface into and out of packet networks. Some implementations used X.25 within the network as well, but its connection-oriented features made this setup cumbersome and inefficient. Frame relay operates principally at layer two of the OSI Model. However, its address field (the Data Link Connection ID, or DLCI) can be used at the OSI network layer, with a minimum set of procedures. Thus, it rids itself of many X.25 layer 3 encumbrances, but still has the DLCI as an ID beyond a node-to-node layer two link protocol. The simplicity of Frame Relay makes it faster and more efficient than X.25. Because Frame relay is a data link layer protocol, like X.25 it does not define internal network routing operations. For X.25 its packet IDs---the virtual circuit and virtual channel numbers have to be correlated to network addresses. The same is true for Frame Relays DLCI. How this is done is up to the network provider. Frame Relay, by virtue of having no network layer procedures is connection-oriented at layer two, by using the HDLC/LAPD/LAPB Set Asynchronous Balanced Mode (SABM). X.25 connections are typically established for each communication session, but it does have a feature allowing a limited amount of traffic to be passed across the UNI without the connection-oriented handshake. For a while, Frame Relay was used to interconnect LANs across wide area networks. However, X.25 and well as Frame Relay have been supplanted by the Internet Protocol (IP) at the network layer, and the Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) and or versions of Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) at layer two. A typical configuration is to run IP over ATM or a version of MPLS. <Uyless Black, X.25 and Related Protocols, IEEE Computer Society, 1991> <Uyless Black, Frame Relay Networks, McGraw-Hill, 1998> <Uyless Black, MPLS and Label Switching Networks, Prentice Hall, 2001> < Uyless Black, ATM, Volume I, Prentice Hall, 1995>

Both X.25 and Frame Relay provide <hl> connection-oriented operations. But X.25 does it at the network layer of the OSI Model. Frame Relay does it at level two, the data link layer <hl>. Another major difference between X.25 and Frame Relay is that X.25 requires a handshake between the communicating parties before any user packets are transmitted. Frame Relay does not define any such handshakes. X.25 does not define any operations inside the packet network. It only operates at the user-network-interface (UNI). Thus, the network provider is free to use any procedure it wishes inside the network. X.25 does specify some limited re-transmission procedures at the UNI, and its link layer protocol (LAPB) provides conventional HDLC-type link management procedures. Frame Relay is a modified version of ISDN's layer two protocol, LAPD and LAPB. As such, its integrity operations pertain only between nodes on a link, not end-to-end. Any retransmissions must be carried out by higher layer protocols. The X.25 UNI protocol is part of the X.25 protocol suite, which consists of the lower three layers of the OSI Model. It was widely used at the UNI for packet switching networks during the 1980s and early 1990s, to provide a standardized interface into and out of packet networks. Some implementations used X.25 within the network as well, but its connection-oriented features made this setup cumbersome and inefficient. Frame relay operates principally at layer two of the OSI Model. However, its address field (the Data Link Connection ID, or DLCI) can be used at the OSI network layer, with a minimum set of procedures. Thus, it rids itself of many X.25 layer 3 encumbrances, but still has the DLCI as an ID beyond a node-to-node layer two link protocol. The simplicity of Frame Relay makes it faster and more efficient than X.25. Because Frame relay is a data link layer protocol, like X.25 it does not define internal network routing operations. For X.25 its packet IDs---the virtual circuit and virtual channel numbers have to be correlated to network addresses. The same is true for Frame Relays DLCI. How this is done is up to the network provider. Frame Relay, by virtue of having no network layer procedures is connection-oriented at layer two, by using the HDLC/LAPD/LAPB Set Asynchronous Balanced Mode (SABM). X.25 connections are typically established for each communication session, but it does have a feature allowing a limited amount of traffic to be passed across the UNI without the connection-oriented handshake. For a while, Frame Relay was used to interconnect LANs across wide area networks. However, X.25 and well as Frame Relay have been supplanted by the Internet Protocol (IP) at the network layer, and the Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) and or versions of Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) at layer two. A typical configuration is to run IP over ATM or a version of MPLS. <Uyless Black, X.25 and Related Protocols, IEEE Computer Society, 1991> <Uyless Black, Frame Relay Networks, McGraw-Hill, 1998> <Uyless Black, MPLS and Label Switching Networks, Prentice Hall, 2001> < Uyless Black, ATM, Volume I, Prentice Hall, 1995>

Both X.25 and Frame Relay provide <hl> connection-oriented operations. But X.25 does it at the network layer of the OSI Model. Frame Relay does it at level two, the data link layer <hl> .


Question: What supplanted Frame Relay and X.25

Answer: supplanted by the Internet Protocol (IP) at the network layer, and the Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) and or versions of Multi-Protocol Label Switching

Both X.25 and Frame Relay provide connection-oriented operations. But X.25 does it at the network layer of the OSI Model. Frame Relay does it at level two, the data link layer. Another major difference between X.25 and Frame Relay is that X.25 requires a handshake between the communicating parties before any user packets are transmitted. Frame Relay does not define any such handshakes. X.25 does not define any operations inside the packet network. It only operates at the user-network-interface (UNI). Thus, the network provider is free to use any procedure it wishes inside the network. X.25 does specify some limited re-transmission procedures at the UNI, and its link layer protocol (LAPB) provides conventional HDLC-type link management procedures. Frame Relay is a modified version of ISDN's layer two protocol, LAPD and LAPB. As such, its integrity operations pertain only between nodes on a link, not end-to-end. Any retransmissions must be carried out by higher layer protocols. The X.25 UNI protocol is part of the X.25 protocol suite, which consists of the lower three layers of the OSI Model. It was widely used at the UNI for packet switching networks during the 1980s and early 1990s, to provide a standardized interface into and out of packet networks. Some implementations used X.25 within the network as well, but its connection-oriented features made this setup cumbersome and inefficient. Frame relay operates principally at layer two of the OSI Model. However, its address field (the Data Link Connection ID, or DLCI) can be used at the OSI network layer, with a minimum set of procedures. Thus, it rids itself of many X.25 layer 3 encumbrances, but still has the DLCI as an ID beyond a node-to-node layer two link protocol. The simplicity of Frame Relay makes it faster and more efficient than X.25. Because Frame relay is a data link layer protocol, like X.25 it does not define internal network routing operations. For X.25 its packet IDs---the virtual circuit and virtual channel numbers have to be correlated to network addresses. The same is true for Frame Relays DLCI. How this is done is up to the network provider. Frame Relay, by virtue of having no network layer procedures is connection-oriented at layer two, by using the HDLC/LAPD/LAPB Set Asynchronous Balanced Mode (SABM). X.25 connections are typically established for each communication session, but it does have a feature allowing a limited amount of traffic to be passed across the UNI without the connection-oriented handshake. For a while, Frame Relay was used to interconnect LANs across wide area networks. <hl> However, X.25 and well as Frame Relay have been supplanted by the Internet Protocol (IP) at the network layer, and the Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) and or versions of Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) at layer two. <hl> A typical configuration is to run IP over ATM or a version of MPLS. <Uyless Black, X.25 and Related Protocols, IEEE Computer Society, 1991> <Uyless Black, Frame Relay Networks, McGraw-Hill, 1998> <Uyless Black, MPLS and Label Switching Networks, Prentice Hall, 2001> < Uyless Black, ATM, Volume I, Prentice Hall, 1995>

Both X.25 and Frame Relay provide connection-oriented operations. But X.25 does it at the network layer of the OSI Model. Frame Relay does it at level two, the data link layer. Another major difference between X.25 and Frame Relay is that X.25 requires a handshake between the communicating parties before any user packets are transmitted. Frame Relay does not define any such handshakes. X.25 does not define any operations inside the packet network. It only operates at the user-network-interface (UNI). Thus, the network provider is free to use any procedure it wishes inside the network. X.25 does specify some limited re-transmission procedures at the UNI, and its link layer protocol (LAPB) provides conventional HDLC-type link management procedures. Frame Relay is a modified version of ISDN's layer two protocol, LAPD and LAPB. As such, its integrity operations pertain only between nodes on a link, not end-to-end. Any retransmissions must be carried out by higher layer protocols. The X.25 UNI protocol is part of the X.25 protocol suite, which consists of the lower three layers of the OSI Model. It was widely used at the UNI for packet switching networks during the 1980s and early 1990s, to provide a standardized interface into and out of packet networks. Some implementations used X.25 within the network as well, but its connection-oriented features made this setup cumbersome and inefficient. Frame relay operates principally at layer two of the OSI Model. However, its address field (the Data Link Connection ID, or DLCI) can be used at the OSI network layer, with a minimum set of procedures. Thus, it rids itself of many X.25 layer 3 encumbrances, but still has the DLCI as an ID beyond a node-to-node layer two link protocol. The simplicity of Frame Relay makes it faster and more efficient than X.25. Because Frame relay is a data link layer protocol, like X.25 it does not define internal network routing operations. For X.25 its packet IDs---the virtual circuit and virtual channel numbers have to be correlated to network addresses. The same is true for Frame Relays DLCI. How this is done is up to the network provider. Frame Relay, by virtue of having no network layer procedures is connection-oriented at layer two, by using the HDLC/LAPD/LAPB Set Asynchronous Balanced Mode (SABM). X.25 connections are typically established for each communication session, but it does have a feature allowing a limited amount of traffic to be passed across the UNI without the connection-oriented handshake. For a while, Frame Relay was used to interconnect LANs across wide area networks. However, X.25 and well as Frame Relay have been <hl> supplanted by the Internet Protocol (IP) at the network layer, and the Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) and or versions of Multi-Protocol Label Switching <hl> (MPLS) at layer two. A typical configuration is to run IP over ATM or a version of MPLS. <Uyless Black, X.25 and Related Protocols, IEEE Computer Society, 1991> <Uyless Black, Frame Relay Networks, McGraw-Hill, 1998> <Uyless Black, MPLS and Label Switching Networks, Prentice Hall, 2001> < Uyless Black, ATM, Volume I, Prentice Hall, 1995>


Question: What were X.25 and Frame relay used for

Answer: Frame Relay was used to interconnect LANs across wide area networks. However, X.25 and well as Frame Relay have been supplanted

Both X.25 and Frame Relay provide connection-oriented operations. But X.25 does it at the network layer of the OSI Model. Frame Relay does it at level two, the data link layer. Another major difference between X.25 and Frame Relay is that X.25 requires a handshake between the communicating parties before any user packets are transmitted. Frame Relay does not define any such handshakes. X.25 does not define any operations inside the packet network. It only operates at the user-network-interface (UNI). Thus, the network provider is free to use any procedure it wishes inside the network. X.25 does specify some limited re-transmission procedures at the UNI, and its link layer protocol (LAPB) provides conventional HDLC-type link management procedures. Frame Relay is a modified version of ISDN's layer two protocol, LAPD and LAPB. As such, its integrity operations pertain only between nodes on a link, not end-to-end. Any retransmissions must be carried out by higher layer protocols. The X.25 UNI protocol is part of the X.25 protocol suite, which consists of the lower three layers of the OSI Model. It was widely used at the UNI for packet switching networks during the 1980s and early 1990s, to provide a standardized interface into and out of packet networks. Some implementations used X.25 within the network as well, but its connection-oriented features made this setup cumbersome and inefficient. Frame relay operates principally at layer two of the OSI Model. However, its address field (the Data Link Connection ID, or DLCI) can be used at the OSI network layer, with a minimum set of procedures. Thus, it rids itself of many X.25 layer 3 encumbrances, but still has the DLCI as an ID beyond a node-to-node layer two link protocol. The simplicity of Frame Relay makes it faster and more efficient than X.25. Because Frame relay is a data link layer protocol, like X.25 it does not define internal network routing operations. For X.25 its packet IDs---the virtual circuit and virtual channel numbers have to be correlated to network addresses. The same is true for Frame Relays DLCI. How this is done is up to the network provider. Frame Relay, by virtue of having no network layer procedures is connection-oriented at layer two, by using the HDLC/LAPD/LAPB Set Asynchronous Balanced Mode (SABM). X.25 connections are typically established for each communication session, but it does have a feature allowing a limited amount of traffic to be passed across the UNI without the connection-oriented handshake. <hl> For a while, Frame Relay was used to interconnect LANs across wide area networks. However, X.25 and well as Frame Relay have been supplanted by the Internet Protocol (IP) at the network layer, and the Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) and or versions of Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) at layer two. <hl> A typical configuration is to run IP over ATM or a version of MPLS. <Uyless Black, X.25 and Related Protocols, IEEE Computer Society, 1991> <Uyless Black, Frame Relay Networks, McGraw-Hill, 1998> <Uyless Black, MPLS and Label Switching Networks, Prentice Hall, 2001> < Uyless Black, ATM, Volume I, Prentice Hall, 1995>

Both X.25 and Frame Relay provide connection-oriented operations. But X.25 does it at the network layer of the OSI Model. Frame Relay does it at level two, the data link layer. Another major difference between X.25 and Frame Relay is that X.25 requires a handshake between the communicating parties before any user packets are transmitted. Frame Relay does not define any such handshakes. X.25 does not define any operations inside the packet network. It only operates at the user-network-interface (UNI). Thus, the network provider is free to use any procedure it wishes inside the network. X.25 does specify some limited re-transmission procedures at the UNI, and its link layer protocol (LAPB) provides conventional HDLC-type link management procedures. Frame Relay is a modified version of ISDN's layer two protocol, LAPD and LAPB. As such, its integrity operations pertain only between nodes on a link, not end-to-end. Any retransmissions must be carried out by higher layer protocols. The X.25 UNI protocol is part of the X.25 protocol suite, which consists of the lower three layers of the OSI Model. It was widely used at the UNI for packet switching networks during the 1980s and early 1990s, to provide a standardized interface into and out of packet networks. Some implementations used X.25 within the network as well, but its connection-oriented features made this setup cumbersome and inefficient. Frame relay operates principally at layer two of the OSI Model. However, its address field (the Data Link Connection ID, or DLCI) can be used at the OSI network layer, with a minimum set of procedures. Thus, it rids itself of many X.25 layer 3 encumbrances, but still has the DLCI as an ID beyond a node-to-node layer two link protocol. The simplicity of Frame Relay makes it faster and more efficient than X.25. Because Frame relay is a data link layer protocol, like X.25 it does not define internal network routing operations. For X.25 its packet IDs---the virtual circuit and virtual channel numbers have to be correlated to network addresses. The same is true for Frame Relays DLCI. How this is done is up to the network provider. Frame Relay, by virtue of having no network layer procedures is connection-oriented at layer two, by using the HDLC/LAPD/LAPB Set Asynchronous Balanced Mode (SABM). X.25 connections are typically established for each communication session, but it does have a feature allowing a limited amount of traffic to be passed across the UNI without the connection-oriented handshake. For a while, <hl> Frame Relay was used to interconnect LANs across wide area networks. However, X.25 and well as Frame Relay have been supplanted <hl> by the Internet Protocol (IP) at the network layer, and the Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) and or versions of Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) at layer two. A typical configuration is to run IP over ATM or a version of MPLS. <Uyless Black, X.25 and Related Protocols, IEEE Computer Society, 1991> <Uyless Black, Frame Relay Networks, McGraw-Hill, 1998> <Uyless Black, MPLS and Label Switching Networks, Prentice Hall, 2001> < Uyless Black, ATM, Volume I, Prentice Hall, 1995>


Question: What is a typical configuration

Answer: A typical configuration is to run IP over ATM or a version of MPLS

Both X.25 and Frame Relay provide connection-oriented operations. But X.25 does it at the network layer of the OSI Model. Frame Relay does it at level two, the data link layer. Another major difference between X.25 and Frame Relay is that X.25 requires a handshake between the communicating parties before any user packets are transmitted. Frame Relay does not define any such handshakes. X.25 does not define any operations inside the packet network. It only operates at the user-network-interface (UNI). Thus, the network provider is free to use any procedure it wishes inside the network. X.25 does specify some limited re-transmission procedures at the UNI, and its link layer protocol (LAPB) provides conventional HDLC-type link management procedures. Frame Relay is a modified version of ISDN's layer two protocol, LAPD and LAPB. As such, its integrity operations pertain only between nodes on a link, not end-to-end. Any retransmissions must be carried out by higher layer protocols. The X.25 UNI protocol is part of the X.25 protocol suite, which consists of the lower three layers of the OSI Model. It was widely used at the UNI for packet switching networks during the 1980s and early 1990s, to provide a standardized interface into and out of packet networks. Some implementations used X.25 within the network as well, but its connection-oriented features made this setup cumbersome and inefficient. Frame relay operates principally at layer two of the OSI Model. However, its address field (the Data Link Connection ID, or DLCI) can be used at the OSI network layer, with a minimum set of procedures. Thus, it rids itself of many X.25 layer 3 encumbrances, but still has the DLCI as an ID beyond a node-to-node layer two link protocol. The simplicity of Frame Relay makes it faster and more efficient than X.25. Because Frame relay is a data link layer protocol, like X.25 it does not define internal network routing operations. For X.25 its packet IDs---the virtual circuit and virtual channel numbers have to be correlated to network addresses. The same is true for Frame Relays DLCI. How this is done is up to the network provider. Frame Relay, by virtue of having no network layer procedures is connection-oriented at layer two, by using the HDLC/LAPD/LAPB Set Asynchronous Balanced Mode (SABM). X.25 connections are typically established for each communication session, but it does have a feature allowing a limited amount of traffic to be passed across the UNI without the connection-oriented handshake. For a while, Frame Relay was used to interconnect LANs across wide area networks. However, X.25 and well as Frame Relay have been supplanted by the Internet Protocol (IP) at the network layer, and the Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) and or versions of Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) at layer two. <hl> A typical configuration is to run IP over ATM or a version of MPLS . <hl> <Uyless Black, X.25 and Related Protocols, IEEE Computer Society, 1991> <Uyless Black, Frame Relay Networks, McGraw-Hill, 1998> <Uyless Black, MPLS and Label Switching Networks, Prentice Hall, 2001> < Uyless Black, ATM, Volume I, Prentice Hall, 1995>

Both X.25 and Frame Relay provide connection-oriented operations. But X.25 does it at the network layer of the OSI Model. Frame Relay does it at level two, the data link layer. Another major difference between X.25 and Frame Relay is that X.25 requires a handshake between the communicating parties before any user packets are transmitted. Frame Relay does not define any such handshakes. X.25 does not define any operations inside the packet network. It only operates at the user-network-interface (UNI). Thus, the network provider is free to use any procedure it wishes inside the network. X.25 does specify some limited re-transmission procedures at the UNI, and its link layer protocol (LAPB) provides conventional HDLC-type link management procedures. Frame Relay is a modified version of ISDN's layer two protocol, LAPD and LAPB. As such, its integrity operations pertain only between nodes on a link, not end-to-end. Any retransmissions must be carried out by higher layer protocols. The X.25 UNI protocol is part of the X.25 protocol suite, which consists of the lower three layers of the OSI Model. It was widely used at the UNI for packet switching networks during the 1980s and early 1990s, to provide a standardized interface into and out of packet networks. Some implementations used X.25 within the network as well, but its connection-oriented features made this setup cumbersome and inefficient. Frame relay operates principally at layer two of the OSI Model. However, its address field (the Data Link Connection ID, or DLCI) can be used at the OSI network layer, with a minimum set of procedures. Thus, it rids itself of many X.25 layer 3 encumbrances, but still has the DLCI as an ID beyond a node-to-node layer two link protocol. The simplicity of Frame Relay makes it faster and more efficient than X.25. Because Frame relay is a data link layer protocol, like X.25 it does not define internal network routing operations. For X.25 its packet IDs---the virtual circuit and virtual channel numbers have to be correlated to network addresses. The same is true for Frame Relays DLCI. How this is done is up to the network provider. Frame Relay, by virtue of having no network layer procedures is connection-oriented at layer two, by using the HDLC/LAPD/LAPB Set Asynchronous Balanced Mode (SABM). X.25 connections are typically established for each communication session, but it does have a feature allowing a limited amount of traffic to be passed across the UNI without the connection-oriented handshake. For a while, Frame Relay was used to interconnect LANs across wide area networks. However, X.25 and well as Frame Relay have been supplanted by the Internet Protocol (IP) at the network layer, and the Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) and or versions of Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) at layer two. <hl> A typical configuration is to run IP over ATM or a version of MPLS <hl>. <Uyless Black, X.25 and Related Protocols, IEEE Computer Society, 1991> <Uyless Black, Frame Relay Networks, McGraw-Hill, 1998> <Uyless Black, MPLS and Label Switching Networks, Prentice Hall, 2001> < Uyless Black, ATM, Volume I, Prentice Hall, 1995>

<hl> A typical configuration is to run IP over ATM or a version of MPLS <hl> .


Question: WHen did ARPNET and SITA become operational

ARPANET and SITA HLN became operational in 1969. Before the introduction of X.25 in 1973, about twenty different network technologies had been developed. Two fundamental differences involved the division of functions and tasks between the hosts at the edge of the network and the network core. In the datagram system, the hosts have the responsibility to ensure orderly delivery of packets. The User Datagram Protocol (UDP) is an example of a datagram protocol. In the virtual call system, the network guarantees sequenced delivery of data to the host. This results in a simpler host interface with less functionality than in the datagram model. The X.25 protocol suite uses this network type.

Answer: 1969

<hl> ARPANET and SITA HLN became operational in 1969 . <hl> Before the introduction of X.25 in 1973, about twenty different network technologies had been developed. Two fundamental differences involved the division of functions and tasks between the hosts at the edge of the network and the network core. In the datagram system, the hosts have the responsibility to ensure orderly delivery of packets. The User Datagram Protocol (UDP) is an example of a datagram protocol. In the virtual call system, the network guarantees sequenced delivery of data to the host. This results in a simpler host interface with less functionality than in the datagram model. The X.25 protocol suite uses this network type.

ARPANET and SITA HLN became operational in <hl> 1969 <hl>. Before the introduction of X.25 in 1973, about twenty different network technologies had been developed. Two fundamental differences involved the division of functions and tasks between the hosts at the edge of the network and the network core. In the datagram system, the hosts have the responsibility to ensure orderly delivery of packets. The User Datagram Protocol (UDP) is an example of a datagram protocol. In the virtual call system, the network guarantees sequenced delivery of data to the host. This results in a simpler host interface with less functionality than in the datagram model. The X.25 protocol suite uses this network type.

ARPANET and SITA HLN became operational in <hl> 1969 <hl> .


Question: 2 differences betwen X.25 and ARPNET CITA technologies

Answer: Two fundamental differences involved the division of functions and tasks between the hosts at the edge of the network and the network core

ARPANET and SITA HLN became operational in 1969. Before the introduction of X.25 in 1973, about twenty different network technologies had been developed. <hl> Two fundamental differences involved the division of functions and tasks between the hosts at the edge of the network and the network core . <hl> In the datagram system, the hosts have the responsibility to ensure orderly delivery of packets. The User Datagram Protocol (UDP) is an example of a datagram protocol. In the virtual call system, the network guarantees sequenced delivery of data to the host. This results in a simpler host interface with less functionality than in the datagram model. The X.25 protocol suite uses this network type.

ARPANET and SITA HLN became operational in 1969. Before the introduction of X.25 in 1973, about twenty different network technologies had been developed. <hl> Two fundamental differences involved the division of functions and tasks between the hosts at the edge of the network and the network core <hl>. In the datagram system, the hosts have the responsibility to ensure orderly delivery of packets. The User Datagram Protocol (UDP) is an example of a datagram protocol. In the virtual call system, the network guarantees sequenced delivery of data to the host. This results in a simpler host interface with less functionality than in the datagram model. The X.25 protocol suite uses this network type.

<hl> Two fundamental differences involved the division of functions and tasks between the hosts at the edge of the network and the network core <hl> .


Question: WHat does UserDatagram Protocol gaurentee

Answer: In the virtual call system, the network guarantees sequenced delivery of data to the host

ARPANET and SITA HLN became operational in 1969. Before the introduction of X.25 in 1973, about twenty different network technologies had been developed. Two fundamental differences involved the division of functions and tasks between the hosts at the edge of the network and the network core. In the datagram system, the hosts have the responsibility to ensure orderly delivery of packets. The User Datagram Protocol (UDP) is an example of a datagram protocol. <hl> In the virtual call system, the network guarantees sequenced delivery of data to the host . <hl> This results in a simpler host interface with less functionality than in the datagram model. The X.25 protocol suite uses this network type.

ARPANET and SITA HLN became operational in 1969. Before the introduction of X.25 in 1973, about twenty different network technologies had been developed. Two fundamental differences involved the division of functions and tasks between the hosts at the edge of the network and the network core. In the datagram system, the hosts have the responsibility to ensure orderly delivery of packets. The User Datagram Protocol (UDP) is an example of a datagram protocol. <hl> In the virtual call system, the network guarantees sequenced delivery of data to the host <hl>. This results in a simpler host interface with less functionality than in the datagram model. The X.25 protocol suite uses this network type.

<hl> In the virtual call system, the network guarantees sequenced delivery of data to the host <hl> .


Question: X.25 uses what type network type

Answer: User Datagram Protocol

ARPANET and SITA HLN became operational in 1969. Before the introduction of X.25 in 1973, about twenty different network technologies had been developed. Two fundamental differences involved the division of functions and tasks between the hosts at the edge of the network and the network core. In the datagram system, the hosts have the responsibility to ensure orderly delivery of packets. <hl> The User Datagram Protocol (UDP) is an example of a datagram protocol. <hl> In the virtual call system, the network guarantees sequenced delivery of data to the host. This results in a simpler host interface with less functionality than in the datagram model. The X.25 protocol suite uses this network type.

ARPANET and SITA HLN became operational in 1969. Before the introduction of X.25 in 1973, about twenty different network technologies had been developed. Two fundamental differences involved the division of functions and tasks between the hosts at the edge of the network and the network core. In the datagram system, the hosts have the responsibility to ensure orderly delivery of packets. The <hl> User Datagram Protocol <hl> (UDP) is an example of a datagram protocol. In the virtual call system, the network guarantees sequenced delivery of data to the host. This results in a simpler host interface with less functionality than in the datagram model. The X.25 protocol suite uses this network type.


Question: What was Apple Talk

AppleTalk was a proprietary suite of networking protocols developed by Apple Inc. in 1985 for Apple Macintosh computers. It was the primary protocol used by Apple devices through the 1980s and 90s. AppleTalk included features that allowed local area networks to be established ad hoc without the requirement for a centralized router or server. The AppleTalk system automatically assigned addresses, updated the distributed namespace, and configured any required inter-network routing. It was a plug-n-play system.

Answer: a proprietary suite of networking protocols developed by Apple Inc. in 1985

<hl> AppleTalk was a proprietary suite of networking protocols developed by Apple Inc. in 1985 for Apple Macintosh computers. <hl> It was the primary protocol used by Apple devices through the 1980s and 90s. AppleTalk included features that allowed local area networks to be established ad hoc without the requirement for a centralized router or server. The AppleTalk system automatically assigned addresses, updated the distributed namespace, and configured any required inter-network routing. It was a plug-n-play system.

AppleTalk was <hl> a proprietary suite of networking protocols developed by Apple Inc. in 1985 <hl> for Apple Macintosh computers. It was the primary protocol used by Apple devices through the 1980s and 90s. AppleTalk included features that allowed local area networks to be established ad hoc without the requirement for a centralized router or server. The AppleTalk system automatically assigned addresses, updated the distributed namespace, and configured any required inter-network routing. It was a plug-n-play system.


Question: WHat were features of Apple Talk

Answer: that allowed local area networks to be established ad hoc without the requirement for a centralized router or server

AppleTalk was a proprietary suite of networking protocols developed by Apple Inc. in 1985 for Apple Macintosh computers. It was the primary protocol used by Apple devices through the 1980s and 90s. <hl> AppleTalk included features that allowed local area networks to be established ad hoc without the requirement for a centralized router or server . <hl> The AppleTalk system automatically assigned addresses, updated the distributed namespace, and configured any required inter-network routing. It was a plug-n-play system.

AppleTalk was a proprietary suite of networking protocols developed by Apple Inc. in 1985 for Apple Macintosh computers. It was the primary protocol used by Apple devices through the 1980s and 90s. AppleTalk included features <hl> that allowed local area networks to be established ad hoc without the requirement for a centralized router or server <hl>. The AppleTalk system automatically assigned addresses, updated the distributed namespace, and configured any required inter-network routing. It was a plug-n-play system.

AppleTalk included features <hl> that allowed local area networks to be established ad hoc without the requirement for a centralized router or server <hl> .


Question: What did the Apple system assign automatically

Answer: automatically assigned addresses, updated the distributed namespace, and configured any required inter-network routing

AppleTalk was a proprietary suite of networking protocols developed by Apple Inc. in 1985 for Apple Macintosh computers. It was the primary protocol used by Apple devices through the 1980s and 90s. AppleTalk included features that allowed local area networks to be established ad hoc without the requirement for a centralized router or server. <hl> The AppleTalk system automatically assigned addresses, updated the distributed namespace, and configured any required inter-network routing . <hl> It was a plug-n-play system.

AppleTalk was a proprietary suite of networking protocols developed by Apple Inc. in 1985 for Apple Macintosh computers. It was the primary protocol used by Apple devices through the 1980s and 90s. AppleTalk included features that allowed local area networks to be established ad hoc without the requirement for a centralized router or server. The AppleTalk system <hl> automatically assigned addresses, updated the distributed namespace, and configured any required inter-network routing <hl>. It was a plug-n-play system.

The AppleTalk system <hl> automatically assigned addresses, updated the distributed namespace, and configured any required inter-network routing <hl> .


Question: This type of system is known as

Answer: a plug-n-play system

It was a plug-n-play system .

AppleTalk was a proprietary suite of networking protocols developed by Apple Inc. in 1985 for Apple Macintosh computers. It was the primary protocol used by Apple devices through the 1980s and 90s. AppleTalk included features that allowed local area networks to be established ad hoc without the requirement for a centralized router or server. The AppleTalk system automatically assigned addresses, updated the distributed namespace, and configured any required inter-network routing. <hl> It was a plug-n-play system . <hl>

AppleTalk was a proprietary suite of networking protocols developed by Apple Inc. in 1985 for Apple Macintosh computers. It was the primary protocol used by Apple devices through the 1980s and 90s. AppleTalk included features that allowed local area networks to be established ad hoc without the requirement for a centralized router or server. The AppleTalk system automatically assigned addresses, updated the distributed namespace, and configured any required inter-network routing. It was <hl> a plug-n-play system <hl>.


Question: What network was designed by the french

The CYCLADES packet switching network was a French research network designed and directed by Louis Pouzin. First demonstrated in 1973, it was developed to explore alternatives to the early ARPANET design and to support network research generally. It was the first network to make the hosts responsible for reliable delivery of data, rather than the network itself, using unreliable datagrams and associated end-to-end protocol mechanisms. Concepts of this network influenced later ARPANET architecture.

Answer: CYCLADES packet switching network

<hl> The CYCLADES packet switching network was a French research network designed and directed by Louis Pouzin. <hl> First demonstrated in 1973, it was developed to explore alternatives to the early ARPANET design and to support network research generally. It was the first network to make the hosts responsible for reliable delivery of data, rather than the network itself, using unreliable datagrams and associated end-to-end protocol mechanisms. Concepts of this network influenced later ARPANET architecture.

The <hl> CYCLADES packet switching network <hl> was a French research network designed and directed by Louis Pouzin. First demonstrated in 1973, it was developed to explore alternatives to the early ARPANET design and to support network research generally. It was the first network to make the hosts responsible for reliable delivery of data, rather than the network itself, using unreliable datagrams and associated end-to-end protocol mechanisms. Concepts of this network influenced later ARPANET architecture.


Question: What was a first for this network

Answer: to make the hosts responsible for reliable delivery of data, rather than the network itself

The CYCLADES packet switching network was a French research network designed and directed by Louis Pouzin. First demonstrated in 1973, it was developed to explore alternatives to the early ARPANET design and to support network research generally. <hl> It was the first network to make the hosts responsible for reliable delivery of data, rather than the network itself , using unreliable datagrams and associated end-to-end protocol mechanisms. <hl> Concepts of this network influenced later ARPANET architecture.

The CYCLADES packet switching network was a French research network designed and directed by Louis Pouzin. First demonstrated in 1973, it was developed to explore alternatives to the early ARPANET design and to support network research generally. It was the first network <hl> to make the hosts responsible for reliable delivery of data, rather than the network itself <hl>, using unreliable datagrams and associated end-to-end protocol mechanisms. Concepts of this network influenced later ARPANET architecture.

It was the first network <hl> to make the hosts responsible for reliable delivery of data, rather than the network itself <hl> , using unreliable datagrams and associated end-to-end protocol mechanisms.


Question: How was this possible

Answer: using unreliable datagrams and associated end-to-end protocol mechanisms

The CYCLADES packet switching network was a French research network designed and directed by Louis Pouzin. First demonstrated in 1973, it was developed to explore alternatives to the early ARPANET design and to support network research generally. <hl> It was the first network to make the hosts responsible for reliable delivery of data, rather than the network itself, using unreliable datagrams and associated end-to-end protocol mechanisms . <hl> Concepts of this network influenced later ARPANET architecture.

The CYCLADES packet switching network was a French research network designed and directed by Louis Pouzin. First demonstrated in 1973, it was developed to explore alternatives to the early ARPANET design and to support network research generally. It was the first network to make the hosts responsible for reliable delivery of data, rather than the network itself, <hl> using unreliable datagrams and associated end-to-end protocol mechanisms <hl>. Concepts of this network influenced later ARPANET architecture.

It was the first network to make the hosts responsible for reliable delivery of data, rather than the network itself, <hl> using unreliable datagrams and associated end-to-end protocol mechanisms <hl> .


Question: This network influenced later models of

Answer: later ARPANET architecture

The CYCLADES packet switching network was a French research network designed and directed by Louis Pouzin. First demonstrated in 1973, it was developed to explore alternatives to the early ARPANET design and to support network research generally. It was the first network to make the hosts responsible for reliable delivery of data, rather than the network itself, using unreliable datagrams and associated end-to-end protocol mechanisms. <hl> Concepts of this network influenced later ARPANET architecture . <hl>

The CYCLADES packet switching network was a French research network designed and directed by Louis Pouzin. First demonstrated in 1973, it was developed to explore alternatives to the early ARPANET design and to support network research generally. It was the first network to make the hosts responsible for reliable delivery of data, rather than the network itself, using unreliable datagrams and associated end-to-end protocol mechanisms. Concepts of this network influenced <hl> later ARPANET architecture <hl>.

Concepts of this network influenced <hl> later ARPANET architecture <hl> .


Question: What is DECnet

DECnet is a suite of network protocols created by Digital Equipment Corporation, originally released in 1975 in order to connect two PDP-11 minicomputers. It evolved into one of the first peer-to-peer network architectures, thus transforming DEC into a networking powerhouse in the 1980s. Initially built with three layers, it later (1982) evolved into a seven-layer OSI-compliant networking protocol. The DECnet protocols were designed entirely by Digital Equipment Corporation. However, DECnet Phase II (and later) were open standards with published specifications, and several implementations were developed outside DEC, including one for Linux.

Answer: a suite of network protocols created by Digital Equipment Corporation

<hl> DECnet is a suite of network protocols created by Digital Equipment Corporation , originally released in 1975 in order to connect two PDP-11 minicomputers. <hl> It evolved into one of the first peer-to-peer network architectures, thus transforming DEC into a networking powerhouse in the 1980s. Initially built with three layers, it later (1982) evolved into a seven-layer OSI-compliant networking protocol. The DECnet protocols were designed entirely by Digital Equipment Corporation. However, DECnet Phase II (and later) were open standards with published specifications, and several implementations were developed outside DEC, including one for Linux.

DECnet is <hl> a suite of network protocols created by Digital Equipment Corporation <hl>, originally released in 1975 in order to connect two PDP-11 minicomputers. It evolved into one of the first peer-to-peer network architectures, thus transforming DEC into a networking powerhouse in the 1980s. Initially built with three layers, it later (1982) evolved into a seven-layer OSI-compliant networking protocol. The DECnet protocols were designed entirely by Digital Equipment Corporation. However, DECnet Phase II (and later) were open standards with published specifications, and several implementations were developed outside DEC, including one for Linux.

DECnet is <hl> a suite of network protocols created by Digital Equipment Corporation <hl> , originally released in 1975 in order to connect two PDP-11 minicomputers.