RFC346 Satellite Considerations

0346 Satellite Considerations. J. Postel. May 1972. (Format: TXT=2778 bytes) (Status: UNKNOWN)

日本語訳
RFC一覧

参照

Network Working Group                           Jon Postel
Request for Comments: 346                       Computer Science
                                                UCLA-NMC
NIC : 10425                                     30 May 72

Categories :  Echo Plex, Satellite
References :  RFC's 1, 5, 51

                        Satellite Considerations

The consideration of using space satellite transmission links in the
ARPANET should be cause for some thought by the parties making use of
the network.  The satellite transmission path will not necessarily affect
the transmission rate but it will affect the delay.  The change in the
delay characteristics can be approximated by the change in path length.
Thus if the satellite is in synchronous orbit about 22,000 miles above
the earth, the path length is about 44,000 miles compared to (worst
case) 3,000 miles or about a 15 to 1 increase in path length and delay.
(The time for light to travel 3,000 miles is .016 seconds, to travel
44,000 miles is .236 seconds.)
In the current (surface) ARPANET delays are such that interactive
servers with character-at-a-time remote echo are only marginally useful.
While I believe that this delay (unmeasured) is largely due to the host
systems, adding a half second transmission delay will cause these
marginal systems to become unusable.
Thought should also be given to buffer allocations.  If a receiving
system allows only one line of text to be buffered at a time and
refreshes the allocation as each line is output to a human user there
will be at least a half second delay between the arrival of each line at
the receiving system.  This need not be a problem until the speed of the
output device is above about 150 characters/second.  This "small buffer"
problem can be expected to occur even with lower speed devices since
host delays are estimated to be in the range 0.1 second to 1.0 second.
I suggest that it is appropriate to resume a discussion of measures to
circumvent the difficulties brought about by these large delay
characteristics. Some areas of discussion could be: buffer sizes in
servers and users, echo plex techniques, moving part of the input
processing to the user system.  If it is decided to move the echo plex
functions to the user system, it would be wise to try for a "standard"
package, thus reducing a M times N problem to a M plus N problem.
Please dig out and read RFC's #1 Crocker, #5 Rulifson, #51 Elie to see
some previous thinking about this type of problem.

       [ This RFC was put into machine readable form for entry ]
       [ into the online RFC archives by BBN Corp. under the   ]
       [ direction of Alex McKenzie.                   12/96   ]





                                                                [Page 1]

一覧

 RFC 1〜100  RFC 1401〜1500  RFC 2801〜2900  RFC 4201〜4300 
 RFC 101〜200  RFC 1501〜1600  RFC 2901〜3000  RFC 4301〜4400 
 RFC 201〜300  RFC 1601〜1700  RFC 3001〜3100  RFC 4401〜4500 
 RFC 301〜400  RFC 1701〜1800  RFC 3101〜3200  RFC 4501〜4600 
 RFC 401〜500  RFC 1801〜1900  RFC 3201〜3300  RFC 4601〜4700 
 RFC 501〜600  RFC 1901〜2000  RFC 3301〜3400  RFC 4701〜4800 
 RFC 601〜700  RFC 2001〜2100  RFC 3401〜3500  RFC 4801〜4900 
 RFC 701〜800  RFC 2101〜2200  RFC 3501〜3600  RFC 4901〜5000 
 RFC 801〜900  RFC 2201〜2300  RFC 3601〜3700  RFC 5001〜5100 
 RFC 901〜1000  RFC 2301〜2400  RFC 3701〜3800  RFC 5101〜5200 
 RFC 1001〜1100  RFC 2401〜2500  RFC 3801〜3900  RFC 5201〜5300 
 RFC 1101〜1200  RFC 2501〜2600  RFC 3901〜4000  RFC 5301〜5400 
 RFC 1201〜1300  RFC 2601〜2700  RFC 4001〜4100  RFC 5401〜5500 
 RFC 1301〜1400  RFC 2701〜2800  RFC 4101〜4200 

スポンサーリンク

FPDF - コンストラクタ

ホームページ製作・web系アプリ系の製作案件募集中です。

上に戻る