Hubbry Logo
Token passingToken passingMain
Open search
Token passing
Community hub
Token passing
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Token passing
Token passing
Token passing
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

On a local area network, token passing is a channel access method where a packet called a token is passed between nodes to authorize that node to communicate.[1][2][3]

Channel access method

[edit]

In contrast to polling access methods, there is no pre-defined "master" node.[4] The most well-known examples are IBM Token Ring and ARCNET, but there were a range of others, including FDDI (Fiber Distributed Data Interface), which was popular in the early to mid 1990s.

Token passing schemes degrade deterministically under load, which is a key reason why they were popular for industrial control LANs such as Manufacturing Automation Protocol (MAP).[5] The advantage over contention based channel access (such as the CSMA/CD of early Ethernet), is that collisions are eliminated, and that the channel bandwidth can be fully utilized without idle time when demand is heavy.[6] The disadvantage is that even when demand is light, a station wishing to transmit must wait for the token, increasing latency.

Some types of token passing schemes do not need to explicitly send a token between systems because the process of "passing the token" is implicit. An example is the channel access method used during "Contention Free Time Slots" in the ITU-T G.hn standard for high-speed local area networking using existing home wires (power lines, phone lines and coaxial cable).[citation needed]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Token passing

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Token passing is a (MAC) protocol employed in local area networks (LANs) to regulate access to a shared by circulating a special control frame known as a token among connected stations. Only the station possessing the token at any given time is permitted to transmit data frames, after which it releases or passes the token to the next station in the logical sequence, thereby guaranteeing fair access and eliminating data collisions inherent in contention-based methods like (CSMA). This deterministic approach provides predictable latency, making it suitable for environments requiring reliable, ordered communication. The protocol manifests in two main variants standardized by the IEEE: token bus (IEEE 802.4), which operates over a physical bus or tree topology using coaxial cable or fiber optic media at speeds of 1, 5, or 10 Mb/s, and token ring (IEEE 802.5), which uses a logical ring topology—often implemented physically as a star—at speeds of 4 or 16 Mb/s via shielded twisted-pair cabling. In token bus, stations are logically ordered in a ring despite the physical layout, with the token passed based on station addresses to maintain sequence. Token ring, conversely, relies on active or passive hubs to relay frames around the ring, incorporating mechanisms like priority queuing and early token release to optimize throughput under varying loads. Both standards define frame formats, including delimiters, addresses, and control fields, along with procedures for token maintenance and error recovery. Originating from research in the 1970s, token passing gained prominence through IBM's development of the network, first implemented in as a high-performance alternative to emerging Ethernet technologies for enterprise LANs. IBM's design emphasized and , leading to its by the IEEE 802.5 , with the initial standard published in and subsequent revisions extending capabilities like 100 Mb/s operation. Meanwhile, IEEE 802.4 token bus, finalized in 1990, targeted industrial and broadband applications, such as manufacturing automation, where predictable access times were critical. Although once widely adopted—particularly in IBM-dominated environments—token passing protocols have largely been supplanted by Ethernet due to lower costs and higher speeds; both standards were withdrawn in the early 2000s. Their principles influence modern deterministic networking standards like (TSN). Key advantages of token passing include collision-free transmission, which enhances efficiency under heavy traffic loads compared to bus topologies, and deterministic performance, enabling bounded delays essential for real-time systems without requiring a central server for . However, it introduces complexities such as token loss recovery, which can disrupt the network if a station fails, and increased latency as frames traverse all nodes in the ring. These trade-offs, combined with the protocol's overhead for token circulation even during idle periods, contributed to its decline in favor of more flexible, scalable alternatives by the early .

Fundamentals

Definition and Principles

Token passing is a channel access protocol employed in shared-medium networks, where a small control frame known as a token circulates sequentially among the connected nodes. This token serves as a permission mechanism, granting the possessing node the exclusive right to transmit over the medium while preventing other nodes from doing so simultaneously. By design, token passing operates as a controlled access method, ensuring that only one node can initiate transmission at a time, thereby eliminating the risk of collisions inherent in shared communication channels. The core principles of token passing revolve around deterministic access, which provides predictable and fair transmission opportunities for all nodes in the network. Unlike random access protocols such as CSMA/CD, where nodes contend probabilistically for the medium and may experience variable delays or collisions, token passing enforces an ordered rotation of the token, guaranteeing that each node receives a turn within a bounded time frame. This structured approach promotes equitable bandwidth allocation in multi-node environments, particularly suited to local area networks (LANs) where multiple stations share a single broadcast channel. Central to the protocol is the concept of the token as a lightweight permission packet that maintains network order by circulating continuously in a logical . To avoid simultaneous transmissions, only a single active token exists per network, which is passed from one node to the next upon completion of any data transmission or after a timeout period. This mechanism enhances bandwidth efficiency in environments with multiple nodes, as it minimizes idle time and overhead associated with collision resolution, fostering reliable and ordered communication over shared media.

Basic Operation

In token passing systems, a special control frame known as the token circulates sequentially among networked nodes, granting the holder exclusive rights to transmit and thereby managing medium access in a controlled manner. The process initiates with token generation, typically performed by a designated node during network startup, after which the token is passed to the subsequent node according to a predefined , such as a logical ring . Each node continuously monitors the network for the token's arrival. Upon receipt, the node inspects whether it has pending for transmission. In an idle state, if no is available, the node forwards the token unchanged to the next node, allowing circulation to continue without interruption. Conversely, in a busy state, if is queued, the node captures the token and, during the time it holds the token (limited by a holding ), transmits one or more data frames over the shared medium to the destination(s). The exact mechanism varies by : in ring topologies, the data frame circulates until returning to the sender for removal; in bus topologies, frames are broadcast on the medium. To prevent any single node from monopolizing access, transmission is limited by a token holding , after which the node must release the token even if additional remains. Following transmission, the node generates a free token and releases it to the next node in the sequence, restoring the system to an idle circulation state. Nodes adhere to these behaviors by passively waiting for the token when not in possession and strictly observing holding time limits to promote equitable access across the network. If the token is lost due to errors or failures, timeout mechanisms detect the absence—such as a node failing to receive the token within an expected period—and trigger recovery by regenerating the token through a designated node.

Historical Development

Origins and Early Concepts

Token passing emerged in the late as a response to the limitations of early shared-medium networks, particularly the contention-based access methods that led to unpredictable delays and collisions in emerging local area networks (LANs). Influenced by ring buffer concepts in , which enabled efficient circular data circulation between processes, researchers sought deterministic alternatives to protocols like and early CSMA variants. These ideas were initially explored in ring topologies to ensure fair and ordered medium access, addressing the inefficiencies of mechanisms that could cause prolonged wait times in busy environments. A pivotal early proposal came in 1969 from researchers David W. Farmer and John Newhall, who conceptualized a where a circulating control signal—later formalized as a token—granted transmission rights to nodes in sequence, initially termed the Newhall ring. This built on prior work in distributed systems and was extended by David Farber at the , through the NSF-funded Distributed Computer System (DCS) project starting in 1969. Funded with $250,000 annually from 1970, the DCS implemented a 2.5 Mbps token-passing ring using twisted-pair wiring and 8-bit tokens, becoming operational by late 1973 and stable by early 1974; it emphasized over network commercialization, influencing subsequent LAN designs. In parallel, initiated research in the mid-1970s at its Zurich Research Laboratory, led by figures like Werner Bux and Hans Müller, drawing inspiration from academic efforts such as the Cambridge Ring (developed from 1974 at the , using slot passing akin to tokens for medium access). These prototypes addressed the performance unpredictability of Robert Metcalfe's 1973 Ethernet, which relied on CSMA/CD and suffered from collision-induced delays in office settings requiring reliable, real-time communication. IBM's early experiments focused on scalable ring architectures for business environments, prioritizing bounded latency over Ethernet's statistical multiplexing.

Standardization Efforts

The standardization of token passing protocols was primarily driven by the working group, which formalized key specifications in the to enable interoperable local area networks (LANs). The IEEE 802.4 standard for Token Bus, ratified in September 1984 and published as ANSI/IEEE Std 802.4-1985, defined a token-passing access method and physical layer specifications for broadband cable networks. This standard implemented a logical bus over a physical bus or , supporting deterministic access suitable for real-time applications. It was particularly influential in industrial settings, such as ' Manufacturing Automation Protocol (MAP), which adopted IEEE 802.4 for factory automation networks requiring reliable, prioritized communication. Following closely, the IEEE 802.5 standard for was initially ratified in 1985 as ANSI/IEEE Std 802.5-1985, with significant contributions from , which had prototyped the technology since the early . This standard specified a physical star topology with a logical ring configuration, operating at initial speeds of 4 Mbps and later expanded to 16 Mbps through IBM's commercial implementations and subsequent revisions. The standard underwent multiple updates, including revisions in 1995 and 1998 (IEEE Std 802.5-1998), to incorporate enhancements like dedicated token support and improved , ensuring compatibility with evolving LAN requirements until the late 1990s. In parallel, the (FDDI), developed by the ANSI X3T9.5 committee in the mid-1980s and standardized as ANSI X3.166-1989, emerged as a high-speed derivative of token passing principles. FDDI provided 100 Mbps transmission over dual counter-rotating fiber-optic rings, adapting timed token passing from concepts for backbone networks while adding redundancy for . By the 2000s, however, token passing standards like IEEE 802.4 and 802.5 declined sharply due to Ethernet's () growing dominance, driven by lower costs, simpler , and faster gigabit advancements. As of 2025, these protocols persist in niche industrial legacy systems, such as manufacturing environments requiring deterministic behavior, often through virtual token mechanisms integrated into modern Ethernet infrastructures.

Implementations

Token Ring Networks

Token Ring networks implement token passing in a logical ring topology, where data circulates unidirectionally among connected stations, ensuring controlled access to the medium. Physically, these networks employ a star-wired configuration using Multistation Access Units (MAUs) as central hubs to connect stations, forming a logical ring by relaying signals through internal ports while allowing for easier fault isolation and station management compared to a pure ring layout. MAUs can operate in active mode, using relays to actively pass signals and support features like automatic reconfiguration, or passive mode for simpler, non-amplified connections. Standard operating speeds were 4 Mbps and 16 Mbps, with later extensions to 100 Mbps, utilizing shielded twisted pair (STP) or unshielded twisted pair (UTP) cabling types such as Type 1 (STP for backbone), Type 2 (STP with integrated services), Type 3 (UTP for telephony integration), and Type 6 (flat patch cables). The IEEE 802.5 standard was maintained until 2009 but is now obsolete. Developed primarily by in the early 1980s, saw widespread deployment in corporate local area networks (LANs) during the late 1980s and , particularly for integrating with IBM's (SNA) in enterprise environments requiring reliable, deterministic performance. By 1990, IBM held a dominant position with approximately 58% in 4 Mbps adapters and over 92% in 16 Mbps adapters, reflecting its strong influence in business computing where 's structured access suited mainframe and system connectivity. Peak adoption occurred around 1990, with millions of adapters shipped annually, but declined sharply in the mid- as Ethernet's lower and faster evolution—driven by 10/100 Mbps advancements—overtook it, reducing to niche legacy use by the late . Key unique features of Token Ring networks include beaconing for fault detection, where a station detecting a serious issue, such as signal loss, transmits frames every 20 ms to alert neighbors and isolate the problem domain, enabling neighbor stations to perform diagnostics and purge the ring if needed. Ring wrapping provides redundancy by allowing the network to reconfigure around faults, such as by closing internal relays in to bypass failed segments or stations, maintaining connectivity in dual-ring extensions for higher . These networks support up to 250 stations per ring, limited by propagation delays and token circulation time, with cabling standards (Types 1–6) enabling flexible installations over distances up to 100 meters per lobe in STP configurations.

Token Bus Networks

Token Bus networks, defined by the IEEE 802.4 standard, utilize a physical bus or topology implemented with to create a logical ring for token passing among connected stations. Stations on the shared medium form a dynamic ordered list, organized by descending physical address order, which enables the token to circulate sequentially in a virtual ring manner without requiring a physical loop. This architecture supports broadband transmission at data rates of 5 Mbps or 10 Mbps, leveraging on the to separate control and data channels for reliable operation in noisy environments. The IEEE 802.4 standard was withdrawn in 2002. The protocol's design emphasizes predictable access in shared-medium scenarios, where stations transmit only upon receiving the token, thereby avoiding collisions through ordered token passing. Transmission occurs in time slots determined by the token hold time on the medium, allowing efficient use of the cable while accommodating dynamic station insertion and removal to maintain the logical ring integrity. Token Bus networks can scale to support up to 1000 nodes, making them suitable for extensive deployments, and they integrate with Ethernet via bridges for interoperability in mixed environments. Deployment of Token Bus was concentrated in industrial and factory automation applications, notably through General Motors' Manufacturing Automation Protocol (MAP), which adopted IEEE 802.4 for its lower layers to enable real-time control in manufacturing settings. Its use in office environments was limited due to the installation complexity and cost of broadband coaxial wiring, which required specialized cabling and head-end equipment unlike simpler twisted-pair alternatives. By the 2000s, Token Bus had largely been phased out in favor of Ethernet-based solutions, though it persisted in niche industrial sectors like petroleum refining for legacy systems. Unlike token ring implementations, which rely on a physical ring for office-oriented wiring, Token Bus targeted broadband industrial use with its bus topology.

Protocol Details

Token and Frame Structures

In token passing protocols, the token serves as a small control frame that circulates among network stations to grant permission to transmit data, ensuring orderly access to the shared medium. The standard token format, as defined in IEEE 802.5 for Token Ring networks, consists of three bytes: a starting delimiter (SD), an access control (AC) byte, and an ending delimiter (ED). The SD is a 1-byte field containing the bit pattern "JK0JK0EE" (where J and K are non-data symbols in the differential Manchester encoding used for synchronization), which uniquely signals the beginning of the token to receivers. The AC byte, also 1 byte, includes three priority bits (PPP) for access level (ranging from 0 to 7), a token bit (T) set to 0 to indicate it is a token rather than a data frame, a monitor bit (M) set to 0 for normal circulation (used by the active monitor station to detect duplicates), and three reservation bits (RRR) that allow downstream stations to reserve the token at a specific priority level. The ED is a 1-byte field with the pattern "JK1JK1EE", where the intermediate frame bit (I) is set to 1 to indicate no continuation and the error detection bit (E) is 0 for a valid token, marking its end and aiding in error checking. These fields enable the token to circulate continuously in an idle ring, with a station seizing it by setting the T bit to 1 and appending data to form a frame, after which it is released or passed to the next station. Data frames in token passing protocols extend the token structure by inserting additional fields between the AC and ED to carry information, transforming the token into a larger frame for transmission. In IEEE 802.5 Token Ring, the data frame begins with the same 1-byte SD as the token, followed by the AC byte (with T set to 1 to denote a data frame). A 1-byte frame control (FC) field follows, consisting of two bits (FF) indicating the frame type (e.g., 00 for LLC data, 01 for MAC management) and six control bits specific to the type, such as routing information indicator for source routing. This is succeeded by a 6-byte destination address (DA) and 6-byte source address (SA), both using 48-bit MAC addresses (with universal or local scope indicated in the first bit). The information field carries the payload, up to 4464 bytes in standard implementations to support efficient ring operation at 16 Mbps, accommodating upper-layer data from the LLC sublayer. A 4-byte frame check sequence (FCS) provides error detection using a 32-bit cyclic redundancy check (CRC) polynomial over the FC through information fields. The frame concludes with the 1-byte ED (similar to the token's but with I=1 for non-intermediate frames) and a 1-byte frame status (FS) field, which duplicates two bits from the AC for error checking and includes an address-recognized (A) bit (set to 1 if the DA matches a receiver) and a frame-copied (C) bit (set to 1 if the frame is successfully copied by the destination), enabling sender acknowledgment without separate replies. Variations in token and frame structures exist across token passing standards to accommodate different physical topologies and arbitration needs. In IEEE 802.4 Token Bus, which operates over a physical bus or topology forming a logical ring, the token is a specialized MAC frame rather than a minimal 3-byte structure, including a (at least 1 byte for bit ), 1-byte SD ("00001000" pattern), 6-byte DA (addressing the next station in the logical ring for passing), 6-byte SA (sender's address), 4-byte FCS for integrity, and 1-byte ED, with no data field to keep it concise for rapid circulation and bus via carrier sense multiple access with collision avoidance (CSMA/CA)-like mechanisms. Data frames in 802.4 follow a similar header but insert a 1-byte FC after the SD (indicating token, data, or control with embedded priority bits PPP for access control) and include a variable LLC data field up to approximately 8182 bytes (with 2-byte addresses) or 8174 bytes (with 6-byte addresses), plus the same FCS and ED, resulting in longer headers overall to support station insertion, neighbor discovery, and ring maintenance on the broadcast bus medium. These adaptations in 802.4 ensure reliable token passing in a non-point-to-point environment, contrasting with the fixed-ring simplicity of 802.5.

Access Control and Priority Mechanisms

In token passing protocols, access control is enforced through mechanisms that regulate how long a station may transmit and ensure orderly token circulation. A key component is the token holding timer (THT), which limits the maximum transmission duration for a station possessing the token to prevent monopolization of the medium; this is typically set to 10 milliseconds in IEEE 802.5 implementations. During transmission, stations can reserve future token access by setting bits in the reservation field of passing frames, enabling priority-based queuing where higher-priority requests are queued ahead of lower ones. In IEEE 802.5 , the active monitor—a designated station responsible for ring —plays a critical role in token reinsertion by detecting lost tokens via timers tracking circulation and generating a new token to restore access when necessary. In contrast, IEEE 802.4 Token Bus uses priority-specific THT values, with longer holding times for higher priorities (e.g., up to 50 ms for priority 6 at 10 Mbps), and ring is distributed through periodic neighbor notification frames and processes to dynamically update the logical ring. Priority mechanisms in token passing allow differentiation of traffic classes. In IEEE 802.5 , a 3-bit priority field in the access control byte of token and frame structures defines eight levels (0 through 7), with higher values indicating greater urgency. When a station seizes the token, it may elevate its priority for transmission, but upon release, the token's priority is set to the maximum of its current level and any accumulated reservations, ensuring it is only captured by stations with equal or higher priority to maintain fairness within priority bands. For time-critical , preemptive reservations enable higher-priority stations to override lower ones by inserting their priority into the reservation field of circulating frames, allowing them to claim the next available token of sufficient level. In IEEE 802.4 Token Bus, priorities are handled via 3 bits (PPP) in the frame control field, supporting four levels (0, 2, 4, 6), with 6 being the highest for urgent ; stations queue frames by priority and request token capture at the appropriate level, with higher priorities allowing longer THT and preempting lower ones during contention for control frames. Error recovery in token passing addresses disruptions like token loss through distributed detection and corrective actions. In IEEE 802.5 , token loss is detected via neighbor monitoring, where each station tracks activity from its nearest active upstream neighbor (NAUN); prolonged inactivity signals potential loss, prompting the active monitor to intervene. In cases of severe faults, such as duplicate tokens or ring pollution, a purge station is elected through a contention process where stations transmit special claim frames with escalating parameters until one is selected to issue a , clearing erroneous frames. Ring initialization follows this purge with a sequence managed by the active monitor: it transmits a purge frame to reset the ring, followed by the insertion of an initial token with the monitor bit set, allowing stations to join and stabilize the ring. In IEEE 802.4 Token Bus, token loss is detected by individual station timers; if a station does not receive the token within its quiet time, it initiates a claim token procedure using contention-based transmission of claim frames on the bus, with the winner becoming the new token holder and rebuilding the logical ring via solicitation and response frames to notify neighbors and recover the sequence.

Advantages and Limitations

Key Benefits

Token passing protocols deliver deterministic by ensuring that each station gains access to medium within a bounded time frame, specifically the maximum wait equal to the ring latency multiplied by the number of stations. This guaranteed access time prevents indefinite delays, making token passing particularly suitable for real-time applications such as voice and video transmission, where consistent timing is essential. A primary advantage is the collision-free operation inherent in token passing, as only the station holding the token may transmit , thereby eliminating the need for backoff mechanisms and carrier sensing common in contention-based systems. Under heavy network loads, this results in near-100% channel efficiency, approaching the theoretical maximum bandwidth utilization while providing fair allocation of resources among all stations regardless of their position in the . The protocol's predictability stems from its bounded latency characteristics, which ensure that transmission delays remain constant and independent of traffic volume, supporting reliable operation in industrial control systems requiring precise timing for processes. Additionally, token passing scales effectively in ordered ring topologies, where the method inherently avoids hidden node problems that plague other network configurations, maintaining performance as the number of nodes increases without requiring complex collision resolution. Priority mechanisms within token passing further enhance by allowing higher-priority traffic to seize the token more readily.

Primary Drawbacks

One significant drawback of token passing protocols is the vulnerability to single points of failure, which can halt the entire network. In networks, the logical ring structure means that the failure of a single station or link disrupts token circulation, preventing all nodes from transmitting data until recovery procedures are initiated. Similarly, token loss—due to node crashes, transmission errors, or token duplication—requires an active monitor station to detect and regenerate the token, introducing substantial recovery overhead and potential downtime. In token bus networks, while the physical bus offers some , distributed token requires stations to detect failures and reconfigure the logical ring, which can lead to delays affecting network availability. Token passing also exhibits high latency under light network loads, making it inefficient for environments with bursty or intermittent . Stations must wait for the token to complete a full circulation—averaging half the ring time in token rings—before attempting transmission, even when the medium is otherwise idle. This overhead dominates under low utilization, where token passing consumes a disproportionate share of bandwidth without carrying useful data, leading to poorer performance compared to contention-based alternatives in such scenarios. For token bus, the logical ring overlaid on the physical bus exacerbates this issue, as token rotation among nodes adds delay regardless of volume. The implementation complexity and associated costs further limit the practicality of token passing systems. Specialized hardware, such as network interface cards (NICs) with integrated token logic and timing mechanisms, is required to handle token detection, insertion, and , increasing deployment expenses over simpler bus-based solutions. Maintenance proves challenging, particularly in large rings, due to the need for ongoing monitoring of token malfunctions, frame duplication, and ring reconfiguration, which demands sophisticated protocols and skilled administration. Scalability is constrained, with typically limited to around 250 stations to maintain acceptable delays, and expansion beyond 1,000 nodes becomes impractical due to cumulative latency and management overhead. These factors contributed to the decline of token passing in favor of more flexible technologies like Ethernet.

Comparisons

Versus Contention-Based Protocols

Token passing protocols, such as those used in (IEEE 802.5) and Token Bus (IEEE 802.4) networks, employ a controlled access model where a special token circulates among stations, granting exclusive transmission rights to the holder and preventing simultaneous access by multiple nodes. In contrast, contention-based protocols like (Carrier Sense Multiple Access with Collision Detection), as implemented in Ethernet (), rely on a mechanism where stations listen before transmitting (carrier sense) and detect collisions if transmissions overlap, followed by a backoff and retry process to resolve conflicts. This fundamental difference ensures that token passing eliminates collisions entirely through its deterministic token circulation, providing bounded access times, while CSMA/CD inherently allows for potential collisions, introducing variability in medium access. Performance profiles of these protocols diverge notably based on network load. Under low loads, where few stations are active, CSMA/CD exhibits lower average latency due to its immediate transmission attempts without the overhead of token passing, making it more responsive for sporadic traffic. However, token passing shines at high loads, maintaining stable throughput close to the network's capacity—often approaching 99% utilization—because the token ensures fair and orderly access without collision-related inefficiencies. CSMA/CD, conversely, suffers from increased collisions and backoff delays under heavy traffic, leading to throughput degradation and highly variable delays that can exceed worst-case bounds in token systems. For instance, in simulations with 100 stations and packet sizes of 2000 bits across data rates up to 24 Mbps, token passing demonstrates minimal deterioration in performance as load increases, while CSMA/CD's efficiency drops significantly. These characteristics influence their respective use cases. Token passing is particularly suited for predictable, time-critical environments such as flexible systems, where deterministic access guarantees low message delays for control signals in industrial settings like factories. CSMA/CD, with its simplicity and lower latency under light loads, better serves general-purpose networks with bursty, non-real-time . Over time, Ethernet's contention-based approach prevailed in widespread adoption due to its cost-effective implementation and flexibility, despite the collision overhead, largely supplanting token passing in non-industrial applications.

Versus Other Controlled Access Methods

Token passing differs from polling in its decentralized approach, where stations pass a control token in a logical ring or bus , eliminating the need for a central controller to query each station sequentially. This reduces overhead associated with a master station's polling messages and walk times, enabling more efficient channel utilization under moderate loads, as no dedicated controller is required to manage access. However, token circulation introduces latency proportional to the network's delay and number of stations, potentially delaying access more than polling's bounded cycle times in small networks with low traffic. Compared to (TDMA) and reservation protocols, token passing provides dynamic slot allocation based on token possession, allowing stations to transmit variable-length without fixed time slots assigned in advance. This flexibility suits bursty patterns common in local area networks (LANs), where stations can hold the token longer to send multiple , achieving higher throughput than TDMA's rigid scheduling that wastes slots during idle periods. In contrast, TDMA offers predictable delays and better in wireless environments through fixed slots and guard times, but token passing's adaptability comes at the cost of overhead and vulnerability to token loss in mobile scenarios. Other controlled access protocols like the distributed-queue dual-bus (DQDB) protocol, standardized as IEEE 802.6 for networks (MANs), introduce greater complexity through distributed queues on dual counter-propagating buses, contrasting with the simplicity of single-token circulation in protocols like IEEE 802.5 . While basic token passing ensures fairness by guaranteeing in wired LANs, achieving equal bandwidth sharing under uniform loads, DQDB's queue arbitration and bandwidth balancing modules address head-of-line blocking but require additional signaling for slot requests, reducing overall simplicity and increasing protocol overhead. DQDB provides superior bandwidth balancing in MANs with asymmetric , allowing up to 153 Mbit/s aggregate throughput on dual 100 Mbit/s buses, whereas token passing excels in , low-latency access for symmetric wired environments but lacks inherent mechanisms for dynamic load balancing across directions.

References

  1. https://standards.ieee.org/ieee/802.4/1091/
  2. https://standards.ieee.org/ieee/802.5/6530/
  3. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6434299
  4. https://www.ieee802.org/1/files/public/docs2014/tsn-nfinn-IEEE-TSN-Status-for-IETF-1114-v01.pdf
  5. https://www.techtarget.com/searchnetworking/definition/Token-Ring
  6. https://web.engr.oregonstate.edu/~thinhq/teaching/ece465/fall06/3rdEditionChapter5.pdf
  7. https://www.opentextbooks.org.hk/ditatopic/3612
  8. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/193467
  9. https://trishagee.com/2011/06/22/dissecting_the_disruptor_whats_so_special_about_a_ring_buffer/
  10. https://historyofcomputercommunications.info/section/8.6/Token-Ring-and-David-Farber%2C-UC-Irvine-and-the-NSF-1969-1974/
  11. https://web.cs.wpi.edu/~rek/Undergrad_Nets/B04/Token_Ring.pdf
  12. https://www.righto.com/2021/02/strange-chip-teardown-of-vintage-ibm.html
  13. https://historyofcomputercommunications.info/section/11.11/The-Emergence-of-Technological-Order-1983-1984/
  14. https://ethw.org/Milestones:Origin_of_the_IEEE_802_Family_of_Networking_Standards%2C_1980-1999
  15. https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/computer-networks/token-bus-ieee-802-4/
  16. https://kenney.faculty.ucdavis.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/332/2018/03/Sponsors-Communities-and-Standards_-Ethernet-vs.-Token-Ring-in-the-Local-Area-Networking-Business.pdf
  17. https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/zvm/7.4.0?topic=structure-token-ring-ieee-8025
  18. https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/Legacy/SP/nistspecialpublication500-212.pdf
  19. https://www.filibeto.org/sun/lib/networking/internetworking_technology_overview/Fiber_Distributed_Data_Interface_%28FDDI%29.pdf
  20. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223356403_Enforcing_the_timing_behavior_of_real-time_stations_in_legacy_bus-based_industrial_Ethernet_networks
  21. https://research.ibm.com/publications/architecture-and-design-of-a-reliable-token-ring-network
  22. https://www.ibm.com/docs/ssw_ibm_i_73/rzaju/rzaju000pdf.pdf
  23. https://bitsavers.org/communications/architectureTechnologyCorporation/IBM_Token-Ring_Product_Guide_198608.pdf
  24. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/computer-science/token-ring
  25. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/computer-science/token-bus
  26. https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/Legacy/SP/nbsspecialpublication500-127.pdf
  27. http://www.sci.brooklyn.cuny.edu/~dzhu/cis748x/ch-12.pdf
  28. https://drbtaneja.com/ieee-802-4-token-bus-in-detail/
  29. https://intranetssn.github.io/www.ssn.net/twiki/pub/CseIntranet/CseBCS6551/TokenBus.pdf
  30. https://www.cse.wustl.edu/~jain/cis677-98/ftp/e_7brdg.pdf
  31. https://bitsavers.trailing-edge.com/pdf/datapro/Datapro_Reports_on_PC_and_LAN_Communications_1992/Vol3_746.pdf
  32. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=44afd198188ab7b5430df4b041cfdc2e44e3fccd
  33. https://business.comcast.com/community/browse-all/details/life-begins-at-40-how-ethernet-s-future-could-be-even-more-golden-than-its-past
  34. https://mentor.ieee.org/802.15/dcn/06/15-06-0107-00-wng0-retrospective-radio-wire-data-communication
  35. http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/internetworking/troubleshooting/guide/tr1906.html
  36. https://www.employees.org/univercd/Feb-1998/CiscoCD/cc/td/doc/cisintwk/ito_doc/55031.htm
  37. https://www.datacottage.com/nch/troperation.htm
  38. https://patents.google.com/patent/US5280478A/en
  39. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19950007750
  40. https://www.siberoloji.com/physical-topologies-ieee-802-3-ieee-802-5-networks-differ/
  41. https://www.sfu.ca/~ljilja/ENSC427/Spring16/News/Leon-Garcia_Widjaja/LGW2EChapter6Presentation.pdf
  42. https://www.coursera.org/articles/token-ring
  43. https://unstop.com/blog/token-ring-in-computer-networks
  44. https://course.ece.cmu.edu/~ece649/lectures/13_protocols_handouts.pdf
  45. https://www.idc-online.com/technical_references/pdfs/data_communications/Token_Passing_Lans.pdf
  46. https://web.cs.wpi.edu/~rek/Undergrad_Nets/B06/Token_Ring.pdf
  47. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220382009_Comparative_dynamic_performance_of_token_passing_and_CSMACD_LANs_for_a_flexible_manufacturing_system
  48. https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/15-565j-integrating-esystems-global-information-systems-spring-2002/7254d27d9f2196dd1d8417831f7d2f77_lecture07.pdf
  49. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel2/719/552/00013361.pdf
  50. https://zenodo.org/records/1281152/files/article.pdf?download=1
  51. https://ris.utwente.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/5673008/00639829.pdf
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.