Cross Country Network Bandwidth
RFC 567
This RFC is labeled as "Legacy"; it was published before a formal source was recorded.
This RFC is not endorsed by the IETF and has no formal standing in the
IETF standards process.
| Document | Type |
RFC
- Unknown
(September 1973)
Updated by RFC 568
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | |||
| Last updated | 2013-03-02 | ||
| RFC stream | Legacy | ||
| Formats | |||
| IESG | Responsible AD | (None) | |
| Send notices to | (None) |
RFC 567
Network Working Group L. Peter Deutsch (PARC-MAXC)
Request for Comments: 567 September 6, 1973
NIC #18970
CROSS-COUNTRY NETWORK BANDWIDTH
The following computation of cross-country network bandwidth was
contributed by Butler Lampson of PARC.
Consider what happens when a TIP user on the West Coast, connected to a
full-duplex Host on the East Coast, strikes a key on his terminal.
The TIP sends a one-character message (1 packet).
The destination IMP sends a RFNM (1 packet).
The destination Host sends an ALLocate - this seems to be the strategy
used by TENEX Hosts, at least (1 packet).
Thc TIP sends a RFNM for the ALLocate (1 packet).
The same sequence repeats itself, with roles interchanged, for the echo
character (4 packets).
This constitutes 4 packets or 4OOO bits in each direction. The current
cross-country transmission capability of the ARPANET is 3 5OKb phone
lines; ergo, it can only support 3*50000/4000=37.5 such characters per
second!
It may be that RFNMs are transmitted between IMPs more efficiently; at
best this can only double the network capacity.
This computation may help explain why cross-country TIP users (e.g. the
substantial West Coast community of BBN-TENEX users) experience such
bad echo response, at least in bursts: the network itself may be
experiencing momentary peak loads.
If this argument is correct, the proposed remote echoing facilities of
the new TELNET protocol could have a major effect on network operation.