Question

The sender side of rdt3.0 simply ignores (that is, takes no action on) all received packets that are either in error or have the wrong value in the acknum field of an acknowledgment packet. Suppose that in such circumstances, rdt3.0 were simply to retransmit the current data packet. Would the protocol still work?

Answer 1

Answer:

It might not work efficiently.

Explanation:

The function of the protocol rtd3.0 is to transfer data to a receiver from a sender.

As soon as the receiver received the packet transferred by the sender, we respond acknowledge (Ack) to the sender so that sender can confirm the receiver has gotten it.  

The receiver will not send any acknowledgment if the packet he receives are such that bits contain error or not in order.

After that timeout, the packet will be re-transmitted by the sender.

It is then possible the protocol might seem to be inefficient if a packet is sent many times, because other packets will have to wait to sent until the current packet is sent successfully.

The solution to prevent this kind of issue is to allow for the occurrence of premature timeouts.

Answer 2

Even though there are no premature timeouts or failures, retransmission happens solely on the premise of an obtained recognition packet containing an exception.

Protocol

Retransmitting the existing data package throughout the eventuality of acquiring an error packet will indeed result in quite an overloading on the sender end. Excessive overload has been caused by the frequent retransmission of the present data payload.

If a received packet contains always a one-bit mistake, the sender will retransmission the data packet, presuming the packet was destroyed.

Thus the response above is correct.

Find out more information about the protocol here:

https://brainly.com/question/8430576