Can you count the letter "n" in:
an optical one (i.e., the so-called Optical Internet). Optical packetswitched (OPS) network is a strong candidate for this Optical Internet.
over an OPS core network.
packet handling) on the performance of the Internet protocol suite.
in case of UDP, delay jitter.
packet aggregation implies waiting delay for some packets.
network, the throughput of the flow may be adversely affected.
aggregation), and aggregating packets from the same flow (perflow aggregation).
the contending packets in random access memory (RAM).
routing avoids packet being lost by routing them to longer paths.
Deflection routing also leads to out-of-order delivery of packets.
aggregation schemes increases UDP delay jitter.
by deflection routing can be more prominent.
since it is much more expensive, we would not consider it in this study.
between IP subnetworks.
results in larger UDP delay jitter.
routing. We conclude in Section V.
subnetworks, and are responsible for packet classification, aggregation, and segregation, in addition to the switching functionalities.
needed at the ingress OPS.
two optical packets contending for the same output link.
packet deflected at its ingress OPS is dropped on the deflection path.
forwarded to the shortest path are not dropped.
in the same manner as the traffic in the forward direction.
TCP performance versus ∆ with different aggregation schemes.
The simulation model we use.
BASELINE PARAMETERS USED IN THE SIMULATION .
we study the impact of using different interval values.
our simulation are summarized in Table I.
a cut-through manner without any queueing delay at intermediate nodes.
Modifications are hence needed to account for this characteristic.
throughput than no aggregation only at large aggregation intervals.
throughput increases with ∆.
packets and forwards them to the optical switch every fixed interval.
of larger sequence numbers have arrived through the shortest path).
loss more often than others, leading to an unfair share of bandwidth.
interval to another becomes more correlated.
UDP performance versus ∆ with different aggregation schemes.
deflected TCP packet. This is also true for per-flow aggregation.
may break the TCP pipelining transmission.
throughput (goodput). This has been demonstrated in Fig. 3(a).
Fig. 5. UDP packet delay jitter versus ∆ with different aggregation schemes.
a smaller delay jitter than per-flow aggregation when ∆ is large.
with mixed-flow aggregation and ∆ = 1 ms.
as long as its deflection cost is larger than the aggregation interval.
TCP performance versus the mean of deflection cost &micro;.
UDP delay jitter versus &micro; and σ.
This is in general true in our study, given ∆ = 1 ms and σ = 4 ms.
throughput and fairness either.
delay jitter performance is affected by out-of-order packet delivery.
linearly with both &micro; and σ, as shown in Fig. 7.
TCP and UDP performance versus p.
cost results in larger UDP delay jitter.
135, Mar. 2001.
routing,” in Proc. IEEE GLOBECOM’92, pp. 1911–1920, Dec. 1992.
Journal of Lightwave Technology, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 490–501, Apr. 2000.
IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 47–59, Feb.
2000, pp. 235–246, Nov. 2000.
[6] J. P. Jue, “An algorithm for loopless deflection in photonic packetswitched networks,” in Proc. IEEE ICC’2002, pp. 2776 –2780, Apr.
pp. 1637–1646, Jun. 1991.
the Internet,” in Proc. IEEE ICON’2002, pp. 383–388, Aug. 2002.
and Networks, pp. 206–213, 2000.
Communications, pp. 708–713, 2001.
DEC Research Report TR-301, Sept. 1984.

user
I found 192 "n"s in the provided passage.
assistant