Advertisement

The need for headers: An impossibility result for communication over unreliable channels

  • Alan Fekete
  • Nancy Lynch
Selected Presentations
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 458)

Abstract

It is proved that any protocol that constructs a reliable data link service using an unreliable physical channel service necessarily includes in the packets some header information that enables the protocol to treat different packets differently. The physical channel considered is permitted to lose, but not reorder or duplicate packets. The formal framework used for the proof is the I/O automaton model.

Keywords

Physical Layer Data Link Input Action Impossibility Result Liveness Property 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    Attiya, H., Fischer, M., Wang, D.-W., and Zuck, L., “Reliable Communication Using Unreliable Channels”, manuscript.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Bartlett, K., Scantlebury, R., and Wilkinson, P., “A Note on Reliable Full-Duplex Transmission over Half-Duplex Links” Communications of the ACM, 12(5):260–261, May 1969.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Bloom, B., “Constructing Two-Writer Atomic Registers” Proceedings of 6th ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, pp. 249–259, August 1987.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Chou, C.-T., and Gafni, E., “Understanding and Verifying Distributed Algorithms Using Stratified Decomposition” Proceedings of 7th ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, pp. 44–65, August 1988.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Fekete, A., Lynch, N., and Shrira, L., “A Modular Proof of Correctness for a Network Synchronizer” Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Distributed Algorithms, Amsterdam, Netherlands, July 1987, (J. van Leeuwen, ed), pp. 219–256. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 312, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Fekete, A., Lynch, N. A., Mansour, Y. and Spinelli, J., “The Data Link Layer: The Imposibility of Implementation in Face of Crashes”, Technical Memo, TM-355b, Laboratory for Computer Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Fekete, A, Lynch, N., Merritt, M., and Weihl, W., “Commutativity-Based Locking for Nested Transactions” to appear in JCSS.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Lynch, N., and Goldman, K., “Distributed Algorithms” Research Seminar Series MIT/LCS/RSS-5, Laboratory for Computer Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, 1989.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Lynch, N. A., Mansour, Y. and Fekete, A., “Data Link Layer: Two Impossibility Results,” Proceedings of 7th ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, pp. 149–170, August 1988.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Lynch N. A. and Tuttle M. R., “Hierarchical Correctness Proofs for Distributed Algorithms,” Proceedings of the 6th ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, pp. 137–151, August 1987.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Lynch, N., and Tuttle, M., “An Introduction to Input/Output Automata” CWI Quarterly, 2(3):219–246, September 1989.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Lynch, N., “A Hundred Impossibility Proofs for Distributed Computing”, Proceedings of 8th ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, pp. 1–28, August 1989.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Mansour, Y., and Schieber, B., “The Intractability of Bounded Protocols for non-FIFO Channels” Proceedings of 8th ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, pp. 59–72, August 1989.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    Nipkow, T., “Proof Transformations for Equational Theories” Proceedings of 5th Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, pp. 278–288, June 1990.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    Stenning, N., “A Data Transfer Protocol” Computer Networks, 1:99–110, 1976.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    Troxel, G., “A Hierarchical Proof of an Algorithm for Deadlock Recovery in a System using Remote Procedure Calls” MS thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science Cambridge, MA. January, 1990.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    Welch, J., Lamport, L., and Lynch, N., “A Lattice-Structured Proof of a Minimum Spanning tree Algorithm” Proceedings of 7th ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, pp. 28–43, August 1988.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    Wang, D.-W., and Zuck, L., “Tight Bounds for the Sequence Transmission Problem”, Proceedings of 8th ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, pp. 73–84, August 1989.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alan Fekete
    • 1
  • Nancy Lynch
    • 2
  1. 1.Software Systems Research Group Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of SydneyAustralia
  2. 2.MIT Lab for Computer ScienceCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations