When bit stuffing is used, is it possible for the loss, insertion, or modification of a single bit to cause an error not detected by the checksum? If not, why not? If so, how? Does the checksum length play a role here?
Answer to relevant QuestionsCan you think of any circumstances under which an open-loop protocol, (e.g., a Hamming code) might be preferable to the feedback-type protocols discussed throughout this chapter?One way of detecting errors is to transmit data as a block of n rows of k bits per row and adding parity bits to each row and each column. The lower-right corner is a parity bit that checks its row and its column. Will this ...In protocol 3, is it possible that the sender starts the timer when it is already running? If so, how might this occur? If not, why is it impossible?Consider the operation of protocol 6 over a 1-Mbps error-free line. The maximum frame size is 1000 bits. New packets are generated 1 second apart. The timeout interval is 10 msec. If the special acknowledgement timer were ...PPP is based closely on HDLC, which uses bit stuffing to prevent accidental flag bytes within the payload from causing confusion. Give at least one reason why PPP uses byte stuffing instead.
Post your question