Diary for herman

Older diary entries for herman (starting at number 23):

19 Dec 2000  »

Final Scores

Well, not completely final, since I need to doublecheck the numbers. I was careful to replace excused _1 quiz scores by the averages of the other quiz scores before computing the totals. See the grades page for some details, including a graph of the distribution. It's pretty clear there are a few very high scores (A+) and a couple of low scores (C range).

Project Grades

Here's my preliminary scoring of the projects. Some of these projects are really excellent efforts. I wish I could bend the rules and make scores higher for some "extra" features, but since the categories were previously fixed for the scoring, I'll stick to that.

pin   a   b   c   d   e   f   g
----  --  --  --  --  --  --  ---
1403  40  20  0   0   20  0   80
1969  40  30  0   10  15  20  115
2241  40  30  10  10  10  20  120
2609  40  20  0   0   5   18  83
3874  40  20  0   0   23  20  103
3672  40  25  10  15  30  20  140
3396  40  30  15  5   10  20  120
3155  40  40  10  5   20  20  135
3547  40  30  15  20  5   20  130
4129  40  20  0   0   10  20  90
5524  40  40  20  20  25  20  165
5688  40  20  10  5   20  20  115
6318  35  20  0   0   8   20  83
6624  40  40  15  15  25  20  155
6873  35  30  0   0   20  20  105
7611  40  20  0   10  20  20  110
7600  40  20  0   5   10  20  95
8062  40  40  20  20  20  20  160
8896  40  40  10  5   20  20  135
8112  40  30  0   10  15  20  115
8718  40  40  20  15  25  20  160
9249  40  30  0   15  10  20  115
---------------------------------
(a) = basic functionality, max 40 pts
(b) = networking component, max 40 pts
(c) = advanced functionality, max 20 pts
(d) = creativity, max 20 pts
(e) = diary, max 30 pts
(f) = web page, max 20 pts
(g) = total of (a)-(f)

18 Dec 2000  »

Project Web Pages

I've just spent the morning revamping the projects list to contain pointers to everyone's project web page (at least I think I got everyone's page).

Project Grading

Using the grading guidelines, I am now going through my notes from the project demonstrations and looking over the web pages and diaries to evaluate the various components.

Although I will be able to assign points, I haven't found a good way to privately also make comments about the project evaluations. In some cases, I think the project effort is excellent and the result very nice, but there is not enough attention to diaries, networking aspects, and so on --- so the scores will be lower in such cases.

11 Dec 2000  »

In Japan

I'm in Japan today. I hope everyone has no trouble making their project web pages!

24 Nov 2000  »

Exam 3

Examination 3 is graded. This time, scores are lower, reflecting the fact that students are concentrating on projects --- as they should --- instead of studying for an examination, which contributes less to the final grade than working on projects. Projects are more important!

8 Nov 2000  »

Multicast

My next lecture covers Section 4.4 of the textbook, which introduces some protocols for multicast routing. This link to a document at 3com can be a helpful supplement to the textbook.

7 Nov 2000  »

Pictures of the Internet

Since I'm covering BGP routing and the Internet backbone, some pictures are in order.

3 Nov 2000  »

Grading

I've graded the second exam and fourth quiz. See the grades page to see the scores. If you're curious about the solutions to the second exam, look here.

19 Oct 2000  »

Exam 2

It's not graded. I'm not sure when I'll be able to grade it, given other time demands. I did post an update to the reading assignments for the next week.

16 Oct 2000  »

cleaning up sliding windows

I skipped over several important topics in my lectures on link protocols. These are explained in the textbook, but it will be helpful to mention them explicitly.

  1. variable frame size. In the examples I've presented for calculation of window size, effective bandwidth, and so on, there is an assumption that frames are all the same size (only the ACK is smaller). In fact, many protocols allow for varying frame sizes.
  2. full-duplex, half-duplex, and assymetric bandwidth situations. There is some relation between how window protocols work, the best design for parameters of these protocols, and how bandwidth is allocated in a channel between two endpoints.
  3. NACK (Negative ACK, sometimes also written as NAK). This can be a complement to ACKs, an alternative technique to using ACK packets, or convey extra information from receiver to sender.
  4. two-way sending. In practice, on many channels, both endpoints of a channel have data to send. In these circumstances, the sliding window is used simultaneously by both sides, each endpoint acting both as a sender and a receiver.
  5. piggybacking. This term mainly arises in the context of two-way sending. Why send a separate ACK packet when you also have a data frame to send? Why not combine both into one packet? That's the essence of piggybacking.
None of these points are essential to understanding how the basic window protocols work, but they are essential to getting ``the big picture'' of how things work out in practice.

15 Oct 2000  »

course notes

I'm having some difficulty in preparing and posting course notes. Finally I've posted the notes for Thursday's class (several days late) because I think there is some error in one of the calculations, but I couldn't remember exactly where. The next notes on Ethernet will require some figure drawing that may be too time-consuming.

14 older entries...

[ Home | Help | Articles | Account | People | Projects ]