CONCLUDE
1. The ability of PTNS liver resection to treat liver cancer
Liver resection is a feasible method to treat solitary HCC cases, with liver resection indications, with a size smaller than 15 cm (in case of location in the left lobe), smaller than 5 cm (in case of location in the right lobe), with a resection surface not related to important structures such as the hepatic pedicle, hepatic vein, and vena cava.
Maybe you are interested!
-
Research on the application of laparoscopic surgery to assist in resection of pancreatic head duodenum to treat ampullary tumors - 24 -
Research on the application of laparoscopic surgery to assist in resection of pancreatic head duodenum to treat ampullary tumors - 22 -
Study on indications and effects of pulmonary valve resection in tetralogy of Fallot surgery - 23 -
![Qos Assurance Methods for Multimedia Communications
zt2i3t4l5ee
zt2a3gs
zt2a3ge
zc2o3n4t5e6n7ts
low. The EF PHB requires a sufficiently large number of output ports to provide low delay, low loss, and low jitter.
EF PHBs can be implemented if the output ports bandwidth is sufficiently large, combined with small buffer sizes and other network resources dedicated to EF packets, to allow the routers service rate for EF packets on an output port to exceed the arrival rate λ of packets at that port.
This means that packets with PHB EF are considered with a pre-allocated amount of output bandwidth and a priority that ensures minimum loss, minimum delay and minimum jitter before being put into operation.
PHB EF is suitable for channel simulation, leased line simulation, and real-time services such as voice, video without compromising on high loss, delay and jitter values.
Figure 2.10 Example of EF installation
Figure 2.10 shows an example of an EF PHB implementation. This is a simple priority queue scheduling technique. At the edges of the DS domain, EF packet traffic is prioritized according to the values agreed upon by the SLA. The EF queue in the figure needs to output packets at a rate higher than the packet arrival rate λ. To provide an EF PHB over an end-to-end DS domain, bandwidth at the output ports of the core routers needs to be allocated in advance to ensure the requirement μ > λ. This can be done by a pre-configured provisioning process. In the figure, EF packets are placed in the priority queue (the upper queue). With such a length, the queue can operate with μ > λ.
Since EF was primarily used for real-time services such as voice and video, and since real-time services use UDP instead of TCP, RED is generally
not suitable for EF queues because applications using UDP will not respond to random packet drop and RED will strip unnecessary packets.
2.2.4.2 Assured Forwarding (AF) PHB
PHB AF is defined by RFC 2597. The purpose of PHB AF is to deliver packets reliably and therefore delay and jitter are considered less important than packet loss. PHB AF is suitable for non-real-time services such as applications using TCP. PHB AF first defines four classes: AF1, AF2, AF3, AF4. For each of these AF classes, packets are then classified into three subclasses with three distinct priority levels.
Table 2.8 shows the four AF classes and 12 AF subclasses and the DSCP values for the 12 AF subclasses defined by RFC 2597. RFC 2597 also allows for more than three separate priority levels to be added for internal use. However, these separate priority levels will only have internal significance.
PHB Class
PHB Subclass
Package type
DSCP
AF4
AF41
Short
100010
AF42
Medium
100100
AF43
High
100110
AF3
AF31
Short
011010
AF32
Medium
011100
AF33
High
011110
AF2
AF21
Short
010010
AF22
Medium
010100
AF23
High
010110
AF1
AF11
Short
001010
AF12
Medium
001100
AF13
High
001110
Table 2.8 AF DSCPs
The AF PHB ensures that packets are forwarded with a high probability of delivery to the destination within the bounds of the rate agreed upon in an SLA. If AF traffic at an ingress port exceeds the pre-priority rate, which is considered non-compliant or “out of profile”, the excess packets will not be delivered to the destination with the same probability as the packets belonging to the defined traffic or “in profile” packets. When there is network congestion, the out of profile packets are dropped before the in profile packets are dropped.
When service levels are defined using AF classes, different quantity and quality between AF classes can be realized by allocating different amounts of bandwidth and buffer space to the four AF classes. Unlike
EF, most AF traffic is non-real-time traffic using TCP, and the RED queue management strategy is an AQM (Adaptive Queue Management) strategy suitable for use in AF PHBs. The four AF PHB layers can be implemented as four separate queues. The output port bandwidth is divided into four AF queues. For each AF queue, packets are marked with three “colors” corresponding to three separate priority levels.
In addition to the 32 DSCP 1 groups defined in Table 2.8, 21 DSCPs have been standardized as follows: one for PHB EF, 12 for PHB AF, and 8 for CSCP. There are 11 DSCP 1 groups still available for other standards.
2.2.5.Example of Differentiated Services
We will look at an example of the Differentiated Service model and mechanism of operation. The architecture of Differentiated Service consists of two basic sets of functions:
Edge functions: include packet classification and traffic conditioning. At the inbound edge of the network, incoming packets are marked. In particular, the DS field in the packet header is set to a certain value. For example, in Figure 2.12, packets sent from H1 to H3 are marked at R1, while packets from H2 to H4 are marked at R2. The labels on the received packets identify the service class to which they belong. Different traffic classes receive different services in the core network. The RFC definition uses the term behavior aggregate rather than the term traffic class. After being marked, a packet can be forwarded immediately into the network, delayed for a period of time before being forwarded, or dropped. We will see that there are many factors that affect how a packet is marked, and whether it is forwarded immediately, delayed, or dropped.
Figure 2.12 DiffServ Example
Core functionality: When a DS-marked packet arrives at a Diffservcapable router, the packet is forwarded to the next router based on
Per-hop behavior is associated with packet classes. Per-hop behavior affects router buffers and the bandwidth shared between competing classes. An important principle of the Differentiated Service architecture is that a routers per-hop behavior is based only on the packets marking or the class to which it belongs. Therefore, if packets sent from H1 to H3 as shown in the figure receive the same marking as packets from H2 to H4, then the network routers treat the packets exactly the same, regardless of whether the packet originated from H1 or H2. For example, R3 does not distinguish between packets from h1 and H2 when forwarding packets to R4. Therefore, the Differentiated Service architecture avoids the need to maintain router state about separate source-destination pairs, which is important for network scalability.
Chapter Conclusion
Chapter 2 has presented and clarified two main models of deploying and installing quality of service in IP networks. While the traditional best-effort model has many disadvantages, later models such as IntServ and DiffServ have partly solved the problems that best-effort could not solve. IntServ follows the direction of ensuring quality of service for each separate flow, it is built similar to the circuit switching model with the use of the RSVP resource reservation protocol. IntSer is suitable for services that require fixed bandwidth that is not shared such as VoIP services, multicast TV services. However, IntSer has disadvantages such as using a lot of network resources, low scalability and lack of flexibility. DiffServ was born with the idea of solving the disadvantages of the IntServ model.
DiffServ follows the direction of ensuring quality based on the principle of hop-by-hop behavior based on the priority of marked packets. The policy for different types of traffic is decided by the administrator and can be changed according to reality, so it is very flexible. DiffServ makes better use of network resources, avoiding idle bandwidth and processing capacity on routers. In addition, the DifServ model can be deployed on many independent domains, so the ability to expand the network becomes easy.
Chapter 3: METHODS TO ENSURE QoS FOR MULTIMEDIA COMMUNICATIONS
In packet-switched networks, different packet flows often have to share the transmission medium all the way to the destination station. To ensure the fair and efficient allocation of bandwidth to flows, appropriate serving mechanisms are required at network nodes, especially at gateways or routers, where many different data flows often pass through. The scheduler is responsible for serving packets of the selected flow and deciding which packet will be served next. Here, a flow is understood as a set of packets belonging to the same priority class, or originating from the same source, or having the same source and destination addresses, etc.
In normal state when there is no congestion, packets will be sent as soon as they are delivered. In case of congestion, if QoS assurance methods are not applied, prolonged congestion can cause packet drops, affecting service quality. In some cases, congestion is prolonged and widespread in the network, which can easily lead to the network being frozen, or many packets being dropped, seriously affecting service quality.
Therefore, in this chapter, in sections 3.2 and 3.3, we introduce some typical network traffic load monitoring techniques to predict and prevent congestion before it occurs through the measure of dropping (removing) packets early when there are signs of impending congestion.
3.1. DropTail method
DropTail is a simple, traditional queue management method based on FIFO mechanism. All incoming packets are placed in the queue, when the queue is full, the later packets are dropped.
Due to its simplicity and ease of implementation, DropTail has been used for many years on Internet router systems. However, this algorithm has the following disadvantages:
− Cannot avoid the phenomenon of “Lock out”: Occurs when 1 or several traffic streams monopolize the queue, making packets of other connections unable to pass through the router. This phenomenon greatly affects reliable transmission protocols such as TCP. According to the anti-congestion algorithm, when locked out, the TCP connection stream will reduce the window size and reduce the packet transmission speed exponentially.
− Can cause Global Synchronization: This is the result of a severe “Lock out” phenomenon. Some neighboring routers have their queues monopolized by a number of connections, causing a series of other TCP connections to be unable to pass through and simultaneously reducing the transmission speed. After those monopolized connections are temporarily suspended,
Once the queue is cleared, it takes a considerable amount of time for TCP connections to return to their original speed.
− Full Queue phenomenon: Data transmitted on the Internet often has an explosion, packets arriving at the router are often in clusters rather than in turn. Therefore, the operating mechanism of DropTail makes the queue easily full for a long period of time, leading to the average delay time of large packets. To avoid this phenomenon, with DropTail, the only way is to increase the routers buffer, this method is very expensive and ineffective.
− No QoS guarantee: With the DropTail mechanism, there is no way to prioritize important packets to be transmitted through the router earlier when all are in the queue. Meanwhile, with multimedia communication, ensuring connection and stable speed is extremely important and the DropTail algorithm cannot satisfy.
The problem of choosing the buffer size of the routers in the network is to “absorb” short bursts of traffic without causing too much queuing delay. This is necessary in bursty data transmission. The queue size determines the size of the packet bursts (traffic spikes) that we want to be able to transmit without being dropped at the routers.
In IP-based application networks, packet dropping is an important mechanism for indirectly reporting congestion to end stations. A solution that prevents router queues from filling up while reducing the packet drop rate is called dynamic queue management.
3.2. Random elimination method – RED
3.2.1 Overview
RED (Random Early Detection of congestion; Random Early Drop) is one of the first AQM algorithms proposed in 1993 by Sally Floyd and Van Jacobson, two scientists at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory of the University of California, USA. Due to its outstanding advantages compared to previous queue management algorithms, RED has been widely installed and deployed on the Internet.
The most fundamental point of their work is that the most effective place to detect congestion and react to it is at the gateway or router.
Source entities (senders) can also do this by estimating end-to-end delay, throughput variability, or the rate of packet retransmissions due to drop. However, the sender and receiver view of a particular connection cannot tell which gateways on the network are congested, and cannot distinguish between propagation delay and queuing delay. Only the gateway has a true view of the state of the queue, the link share of the connections passing through it at any given time, and the quality of service requirements of the
traffic flows. The RED gateway monitors the average queue length, which detects early signs of impending congestion (average queue length exceeding a predetermined threshold) and reacts appropriately in one of two ways:
− Drop incoming packets with a certain probability, to indirectly inform the source of congestion, the source needs to reduce the transmission rate to keep the queue from filling up, maintaining the ability to absorb incoming traffic spikes.
− Mark “congestion” with a certain probability in the ECN field in the header of TCP packets to notify the source (the receiving entity will copy this bit into the acknowledgement packet).
Figure 3. 1 RED algorithm
The main goal of RED is to avoid congestion by keeping the average queue size within a sufficiently small and stable region, which also means keeping the queuing delay sufficiently small and stable. Achieving this goal also helps: avoid global synchronization, not resist bursty traffic flows (i.e. flows with low average throughput but high volatility), and maintain an upper bound on the average queue size even in the absence of cooperation from transport layer protocols.
To achieve the above goals, RED gateways must do the following:
− The first is to detect congestion early and react appropriately to keep the average queue size small enough to keep the network operating in the low latency, high throughput region, while still allowing the queue size to fluctuate within a certain range to absorb short-term fluctuations. As discussed above, the gateway is the most appropriate place to detect congestion and is also the most appropriate place to decide which specific connection to report congestion to.
− The second thing is to notify the source of congestion. This is done by marking and notifying the source to reduce traffic. Normally the RED gateway will randomly drop packets. However, if congestion
If congestion is detected before the queue is full, it should be combined with packet marking to signal congestion. The RED gateway has two options: drop or mark; where marking is done by marking the ECN field of the packet with a certain probability, to signal the source to reduce the traffic entering the network.
− An important goal that RED gateways need to achieve is to avoid global synchronization and not to resist traffic flows that have a sudden characteristic. Global synchronization occurs when all connections simultaneously reduce their transmission window size, leading to a severe drop in throughput at the same time. On the other hand, Drop Tail or Random Drop strategies are very sensitive to sudden flows; that is, the gateway queue will often overflow when packets from these flows arrive. To avoid these two phenomena, gateways can use special algorithms to detect congestion and decide which connections will be notified of congestion at the gateway. The RED gateway randomly selects incoming packets to mark; with this method, the probability of marking a packet from a particular connection is proportional to the connections shared bandwidth at the gateway.
− Another goal is to control the average queue size even without cooperation from the source entities. This can be done by dropping packets when the average size exceeds an upper threshold (instead of marking it). This approach is necessary in cases where most connections have transmission times that are less than the round-trip time, or where the source entities are not able to reduce traffic in response to marking or dropping packets (such as UDP flows).
3.2.2 Algorithm
This section describes the algorithm for RED gateways. RED gateways calculate the average queue size using a low-pass filter. This average queue size is compared with two thresholds: minth and maxth. When the average queue size is less than the lower threshold, no incoming packets are marked or dropped; when the average queue size is greater than the upper threshold, all incoming packets are dropped. When the average queue size is between minth and maxth, each incoming packet is marked or dropped with a probability pa, where pa is a function of the average queue size avg; the probability of marking or dropping a packet for a particular connection is proportional to the bandwidth share of that connection at the gateway. The general algorithm for a RED gateway is described as follows: [5]
For each packet arrival
Caculate the average queue size avg If minth ≤ avg < maxth
div.maincontent .s1 { color: black; font-family:Times New Roman, serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 15pt; }
div.maincontent .s2 { color: black; font-family:Times New Roman, serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; font-size: 15pt; }
div.maincontent .p { color: black; font-family:Times New Roman, serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; margin:0pt; }
div.maincontent p { color: black; font-family:Times New Roman, serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; margin:0pt; }
div.maincontent .s3 { color: black; font-family:Times New Roman, serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; }
div.maincontent .s4 { color: black; font-family:Times New Roman, serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; }
div.maincontent .s5 { color: black; font-family:Times New Roman, serif; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; }
div.maincontent .s6 { color: black; font-family:Times New Roman, serif; font-style: italic; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; }
div.maincontent .s7 { color: black; font-family:Wingdings; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; }
div.maincontent .s8 { color: black; font-family:Arial, sans-serif; font-style: italic; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; font-size: 15pt; }
div.maincontent .s9 { color: black; font-family:Times New Roman, serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; }
div.maincontent .s10 { color: black; font-family:Times New Roman, serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 9pt; vertical-align: 6pt; }
div.maincontent .s11 { color: black; font-family:Times New Roman, serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 13pt; }
div.maincontent .s12 { color: black; font-family:Times New Roman, serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 10pt; }
div.maincontent .s13 { color: black; font-family:Times New Roman, serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-d](https://tailieuthamkhao.com/uploads/2022/05/15/danh-gia-hieu-qua-dam-bao-qos-cho-truyen-thong-da-phuong-tien-cua-chien-6-1-120x90.jpg)
Qos Assurance Methods for Multimedia Communications
zt2i3t4l5ee
zt2a3gs
zt2a3ge
zc2o3n4t5e6n7ts
low. The EF PHB requires a sufficiently large number of output ports to provide low delay, low loss, and low jitter.
EF PHBs can be implemented if the output port's bandwidth is sufficiently large, combined with small buffer sizes and other network resources dedicated to EF packets, to allow the router's service rate for EF packets on an output port to exceed the arrival rate λ of packets at that port.
This means that packets with PHB EF are considered with a pre-allocated amount of output bandwidth and a priority that ensures minimum loss, minimum delay and minimum jitter before being put into operation.
PHB EF is suitable for channel simulation, leased line simulation, and real-time services such as voice, video without compromising on high loss, delay and jitter values.
Figure 2.10 Example of EF installation
Figure 2.10 shows an example of an EF PHB implementation. This is a simple priority queue scheduling technique. At the edges of the DS domain, EF packet traffic is prioritized according to the values agreed upon by the SLA. The EF queue in the figure needs to output packets at a rate higher than the packet arrival rate λ. To provide an EF PHB over an end-to-end DS domain, bandwidth at the output ports of the core routers needs to be allocated in advance to ensure the requirement μ > λ. This can be done by a pre-configured provisioning process. In the figure, EF packets are placed in the priority queue (the upper queue). With such a length, the queue can operate with μ > λ.
Since EF was primarily used for real-time services such as voice and video, and since real-time services use UDP instead of TCP, RED is generally
not suitable for EF queues because applications using UDP will not respond to random packet drop and RED will strip unnecessary packets.
2.2.4.2 Assured Forwarding (AF) PHB
PHB AF is defined by RFC 2597. The purpose of PHB AF is to deliver packets reliably and therefore delay and jitter are considered less important than packet loss. PHB AF is suitable for non-real-time services such as applications using TCP. PHB AF first defines four classes: AF1, AF2, AF3, AF4. For each of these AF classes, packets are then classified into three subclasses with three distinct priority levels.
Table 2.8 shows the four AF classes and 12 AF subclasses and the DSCP values for the 12 AF subclasses defined by RFC 2597. RFC 2597 also allows for more than three separate priority levels to be added for internal use. However, these separate priority levels will only have internal significance.
PHB Class
PHB Subclass
Package type
DSCP
AF4
AF41
Short
100010
AF42
Medium
100100
AF43
High
100110
AF3
AF31
Short
011010
AF32
Medium
011100
AF33
High
011110
AF2
AF21
Short
010010
AF22
Medium
010100
AF23
High
010110
AF1
AF11
Short
001010
AF12
Medium
001100
AF13
High
001110
Table 2.8 AF DSCPs
The AF PHB ensures that packets are forwarded with a high probability of delivery to the destination within the bounds of the rate agreed upon in an SLA. If AF traffic at an ingress port exceeds the pre-priority rate, which is considered non-compliant or “out of profile”, the excess packets will not be delivered to the destination with the same probability as the packets belonging to the defined traffic or “in profile” packets. When there is network congestion, the out of profile packets are dropped before the in profile packets are dropped.
When service levels are defined using AF classes, different quantity and quality between AF classes can be realized by allocating different amounts of bandwidth and buffer space to the four AF classes. Unlike
EF, most AF traffic is non-real-time traffic using TCP, and the RED queue management strategy is an AQM (Adaptive Queue Management) strategy suitable for use in AF PHBs. The four AF PHB layers can be implemented as four separate queues. The output port bandwidth is divided into four AF queues. For each AF queue, packets are marked with three “colors” corresponding to three separate priority levels.
In addition to the 32 DSCP 1 groups defined in Table 2.8, 21 DSCPs have been standardized as follows: one for PHB EF, 12 for PHB AF, and 8 for CSCP. There are 11 DSCP 1 groups still available for other standards.
2.2.5.Example of Differentiated Services
We will look at an example of the Differentiated Service model and mechanism of operation. The architecture of Differentiated Service consists of two basic sets of functions:
Edge functions: include packet classification and traffic conditioning. At the inbound edge of the network, incoming packets are marked. In particular, the DS field in the packet header is set to a certain value. For example, in Figure 2.12, packets sent from H1 to H3 are marked at R1, while packets from H2 to H4 are marked at R2. The labels on the received packets identify the service class to which they belong. Different traffic classes receive different services in the core network. The RFC definition uses the term behavior aggregate rather than the term traffic class. After being marked, a packet can be forwarded immediately into the network, delayed for a period of time before being forwarded, or dropped. We will see that there are many factors that affect how a packet is marked, and whether it is forwarded immediately, delayed, or dropped.
Figure 2.12 DiffServ Example
Core functionality: When a DS-marked packet arrives at a Diffservcapable router, the packet is forwarded to the next router based on
Per-hop behavior is associated with packet classes. Per-hop behavior affects router buffers and the bandwidth shared between competing classes. An important principle of the Differentiated Service architecture is that a router's per-hop behavior is based only on the packet's marking or the class to which it belongs. Therefore, if packets sent from H1 to H3 as shown in the figure receive the same marking as packets from H2 to H4, then the network routers treat the packets exactly the same, regardless of whether the packet originated from H1 or H2. For example, R3 does not distinguish between packets from h1 and H2 when forwarding packets to R4. Therefore, the Differentiated Service architecture avoids the need to maintain router state about separate source-destination pairs, which is important for network scalability.
Chapter Conclusion
Chapter 2 has presented and clarified two main models of deploying and installing quality of service in IP networks. While the traditional best-effort model has many disadvantages, later models such as IntServ and DiffServ have partly solved the problems that best-effort could not solve. IntServ follows the direction of ensuring quality of service for each separate flow, it is built similar to the circuit switching model with the use of the RSVP resource reservation protocol. IntSer is suitable for services that require fixed bandwidth that is not shared such as VoIP services, multicast TV services. However, IntSer has disadvantages such as using a lot of network resources, low scalability and lack of flexibility. DiffServ was born with the idea of solving the disadvantages of the IntServ model.
DiffServ follows the direction of ensuring quality based on the principle of hop-by-hop behavior based on the priority of marked packets. The policy for different types of traffic is decided by the administrator and can be changed according to reality, so it is very flexible. DiffServ makes better use of network resources, avoiding idle bandwidth and processing capacity on routers. In addition, the DifServ model can be deployed on many independent domains, so the ability to expand the network becomes easy.
Chapter 3: METHODS TO ENSURE QoS FOR MULTIMEDIA COMMUNICATIONS
In packet-switched networks, different packet flows often have to share the transmission medium all the way to the destination station. To ensure the fair and efficient allocation of bandwidth to flows, appropriate serving mechanisms are required at network nodes, especially at gateways or routers, where many different data flows often pass through. The scheduler is responsible for serving packets of the selected flow and deciding which packet will be served next. Here, a flow is understood as a set of packets belonging to the same priority class, or originating from the same source, or having the same source and destination addresses, etc.
In normal state when there is no congestion, packets will be sent as soon as they are delivered. In case of congestion, if QoS assurance methods are not applied, prolonged congestion can cause packet drops, affecting service quality. In some cases, congestion is prolonged and widespread in the network, which can easily lead to the network being "frozen", or many packets being dropped, seriously affecting service quality.
Therefore, in this chapter, in sections 3.2 and 3.3, we introduce some typical network traffic load monitoring techniques to predict and prevent congestion before it occurs through the measure of dropping (removing) packets early when there are signs of impending congestion.
3.1. DropTail method
DropTail is a simple, traditional queue management method based on FIFO mechanism. All incoming packets are placed in the queue, when the queue is full, the later packets are dropped.
Due to its simplicity and ease of implementation, DropTail has been used for many years on Internet router systems. However, this algorithm has the following disadvantages:
− Cannot avoid the phenomenon of “Lock out”: Occurs when 1 or several traffic streams monopolize the queue, making packets of other connections unable to pass through the router. This phenomenon greatly affects reliable transmission protocols such as TCP. According to the anti-congestion algorithm, when locked out, the TCP connection stream will reduce the window size and reduce the packet transmission speed exponentially.
− Can cause Global Synchronization: This is the result of a severe “Lock out” phenomenon. Some neighboring routers have their queues monopolized by a number of connections, causing a series of other TCP connections to be unable to pass through and simultaneously reducing the transmission speed. After those monopolized connections are temporarily suspended,
Once the queue is cleared, it takes a considerable amount of time for TCP connections to return to their original speed.
− Full Queue phenomenon: Data transmitted on the Internet often has an explosion, packets arriving at the router are often in clusters rather than in turn. Therefore, the operating mechanism of DropTail makes the queue easily full for a long period of time, leading to the average delay time of large packets. To avoid this phenomenon, with DropTail, the only way is to increase the router's buffer, this method is very expensive and ineffective.
− No QoS guarantee: With the DropTail mechanism, there is no way to prioritize important packets to be transmitted through the router earlier when all are in the queue. Meanwhile, with multimedia communication, ensuring connection and stable speed is extremely important and the DropTail algorithm cannot satisfy.
The problem of choosing the buffer size of the routers in the network is to “absorb” short bursts of traffic without causing too much queuing delay. This is necessary in bursty data transmission. The queue size determines the size of the packet bursts (traffic spikes) that we want to be able to transmit without being dropped at the routers.
In IP-based application networks, packet dropping is an important mechanism for indirectly reporting congestion to end stations. A solution that prevents router queues from filling up while reducing the packet drop rate is called dynamic queue management.
3.2. Random elimination method – RED
3.2.1 Overview
RED (Random Early Detection of congestion; Random Early Drop) is one of the first AQM algorithms proposed in 1993 by Sally Floyd and Van Jacobson, two scientists at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory of the University of California, USA. Due to its outstanding advantages compared to previous queue management algorithms, RED has been widely installed and deployed on the Internet.
The most fundamental point of their work is that the most effective place to detect congestion and react to it is at the gateway or router.
Source entities (senders) can also do this by estimating end-to-end delay, throughput variability, or the rate of packet retransmissions due to drop. However, the sender and receiver view of a particular connection cannot tell which gateways on the network are congested, and cannot distinguish between propagation delay and queuing delay. Only the gateway has a true view of the state of the queue, the link share of the connections passing through it at any given time, and the quality of service requirements of the
traffic flows. The RED gateway monitors the average queue length, which detects early signs of impending congestion (average queue length exceeding a predetermined threshold) and reacts appropriately in one of two ways:
− Drop incoming packets with a certain probability, to indirectly inform the source of congestion, the source needs to reduce the transmission rate to keep the queue from filling up, maintaining the ability to absorb incoming traffic spikes.
− Mark “congestion” with a certain probability in the ECN field in the header of TCP packets to notify the source (the receiving entity will copy this bit into the acknowledgement packet).
Figure 3. 1 RED algorithm
The main goal of RED is to avoid congestion by keeping the average queue size within a sufficiently small and stable region, which also means keeping the queuing delay sufficiently small and stable. Achieving this goal also helps: avoid global synchronization, not resist bursty traffic flows (i.e. flows with low average throughput but high volatility), and maintain an upper bound on the average queue size even in the absence of cooperation from transport layer protocols.
To achieve the above goals, RED gateways must do the following:
− The first is to detect congestion early and react appropriately to keep the average queue size small enough to keep the network operating in the low latency, high throughput region, while still allowing the queue size to fluctuate within a certain range to absorb short-term fluctuations. As discussed above, the gateway is the most appropriate place to detect congestion and is also the most appropriate place to decide which specific connection to report congestion to.
− The second thing is to notify the source of congestion. This is done by marking and notifying the source to reduce traffic. Normally the RED gateway will randomly drop packets. However, if congestion
If congestion is detected before the queue is full, it should be combined with packet marking to signal congestion. The RED gateway has two options: drop or mark; where marking is done by marking the ECN field of the packet with a certain probability, to signal the source to reduce the traffic entering the network.
− An important goal that RED gateways need to achieve is to avoid global synchronization and not to resist traffic flows that have a sudden characteristic. Global synchronization occurs when all connections simultaneously reduce their transmission window size, leading to a severe drop in throughput at the same time. On the other hand, Drop Tail or Random Drop strategies are very sensitive to sudden flows; that is, the gateway queue will often overflow when packets from these flows arrive. To avoid these two phenomena, gateways can use special algorithms to detect congestion and decide which connections will be notified of congestion at the gateway. The RED gateway randomly selects incoming packets to mark; with this method, the probability of marking a packet from a particular connection is proportional to the connection's shared bandwidth at the gateway.
− Another goal is to control the average queue size even without cooperation from the source entities. This can be done by dropping packets when the average size exceeds an upper threshold (instead of marking it). This approach is necessary in cases where most connections have transmission times that are less than the round-trip time, or where the source entities are not able to reduce traffic in response to marking or dropping packets (such as UDP flows).
3.2.2 Algorithm
This section describes the algorithm for RED gateways. RED gateways calculate the average queue size using a low-pass filter. This average queue size is compared with two thresholds: minth and maxth. When the average queue size is less than the lower threshold, no incoming packets are marked or dropped; when the average queue size is greater than the upper threshold, all incoming packets are dropped. When the average queue size is between minth and maxth, each incoming packet is marked or dropped with a probability pa, where pa is a function of the average queue size avg; the probability of marking or dropping a packet for a particular connection is proportional to the bandwidth share of that connection at the gateway. The general algorithm for a RED gateway is described as follows: [5]
For each packet arrival
Caculate the average queue size avg If minth ≤ avg < maxth
div.maincontent .s1 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 15pt; }
div.maincontent .s2 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; font-size: 15pt; }
div.maincontent .p { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; margin:0pt; }
div.maincontent p { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; margin:0pt; }
div.maincontent .s3 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; }
div.maincontent .s4 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; }
div.maincontent .s5 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; }
div.maincontent .s6 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: italic; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; }
div.maincontent .s7 { color: black; font-family:Wingdings; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; }
div.maincontent .s8 { color: black; font-family:Arial, sans-serif; font-style: italic; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; font-size: 15pt; }
div.maincontent .s9 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; }
div.maincontent .s10 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 9pt; vertical-align: 6pt; }
div.maincontent .s11 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 13pt; }
div.maincontent .s12 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 10pt; }
div.maincontent .s13 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-d -
Evaluation of the effectiveness of selective tibial nerve resection in the treatment of lower limb muscle spasticity sequelae - 19
With the above criteria for selecting patients, PTNS can perform simple liver resections such as left lateral segmentectomy, peripheral liver resections (HPT 2, 3, 4, 5, 6), major anatomical liver resections (right, left, central, anterior segmental, posterior segmental...), with a success rate of 95.9%.
2. Safety level of PTNS liver resection
Liver resection was safe with an overall complication rate of 5% and no mortality during hospitalization. The average blood loss during surgery was 100ml. Complications associated with liver resection included: postoperative bleeding (0.77%), bile leakage (0.77%), and ascites (1.54%).
3. The effectiveness of PTNS liver resection in treating liver cancer
The effectiveness of minimally invasive surgery
Minimally invasive laparoscopic liver resection helps patients recover quickly after surgery and leave the hospital early. Patients recover bowel circulation 2.5 days after surgery, move and do personal hygiene 2.6 days after surgery and stay in hospital for an average of 6 days.
Effective treatment of liver cancer
With appropriate disease selection criteria, PTNS liver resection still ensures the principles of liver cancer treatment, bringing patients relatively good post-operative survival results. Specifically: The rate of resection area more than 1 cm from the tumor is 85.8%. The rate of resection area without cancer cells is 98.8%. No cancer
metastasis of trocar or abdominal cavity seeding. PTNS can still perform anatomical liver resections to best comply with the principles of liver cancer treatment: right, left, posterior, anterior segmental, left middle segmental, left lateral segmental, HPT 3, HPT 4, HPT 5. The average disease-free survival time (no recurrence) is 52.63 ± 3.00 months. The disease-free survival rates at 1, 3, 5 years are 79.3%, 56.0% and 46.8%, respectively. The average overall survival time is 69.43 ± 2.97 months. The overall survival rates at 1, 3, 5 years are 96.4%, 78.7% and 77.3%, respectively.
PROPOSAL
Continue to study and evaluate the role of PTNS liver resection in treating liver cancer.
A better designed comparative study with long-term follow-up of PTNS and open liver resection is needed to further evaluate the role of minimally invasive surgery in the treatment of HCC.
Clinical application
Through research, laparoscopic liver resection surgery gradually forms a technical process. We realize that with appropriate patient selection criteria, hepatobiliary surgeons with laparoscopic skills can safely perform simple liver resections such as left lobe liver resection, peripheral liver HPT resection.
It is important to note the risk of major vascular injury causing severe blood loss for HPT 5 tumors in the early stages of the procedure. Early conversion to open surgery is recommended in cases with severe blood loss prognosis to avoid laparotomy in emergency situations. The extracapsular Glisson pedicle control technique simplifies laparoscopic liver resection, allowing for anatomical segmental resection, reducing blood loss and better compliance with cancer treatment principles.
Major and difficult liver resections need to continue to improve their techniques to increase feasibility and make them easier to apply in the practice of treating liver cancer.
Once evaluated and its effectiveness is confirmed, PTNS liver resection can be technically transferred for application at treatment facilities, bringing patients with liver cancer many benefits of minimally invasive surgery.
LIST OF RELATED RESEARCH WORKS
1. Tran Cong Duy Long, Nguyen Hoang Bac, Nguyen Duc Thuan, Le Tien Dat, Dang Quoc Viet, Pham Hong Phu, Tran Thai Ngoc Huy (2015). "Early results of laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma". Ho Chi Minh City Medicine . Volume 19, Supplement No. 1, pp. 225 - 233.
2. Tran Cong Duy Long, Nguyen Hoang Bac, Nguyen Duc Thuan, Le Tien Dat, Dang Quoc Viet, Pham Hong Phu, Tran Thai Ngoc Huy (2015). "Mid-term and long-term results after laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma." Ho Chi Minh City Medicine . Volume 19, Supplement No. 1, pp. 234 - 240.
REFERENCES
VIETNAMESE
1. Do Tuan Anh, Tran Binh Giang, Nguyen Quang Nghia, Do Kim Son (2006), "Laparoscopic liver resection surgery: 16 cases at Viet Duc Hospital". Vietnamese Medicine, Special issue February (319), pp.184-190.
2. Nguyen Hoang Bac, Tran Cong Duy Long (2008), "Evaluation of the role of laparoscopic surgery in the diagnosis and treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma". Ho Chi Minh City Medical Journal, vol. 12(1), pp.179-185.
3. Nguyen Hoang Bac, Tran Cong Duy Long, Nguyen Duc Thuan (2008), "Laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma". Ho Chi Minh City Medical Journal, vol. 12(4), pp.241-246.
4. Do Manh Hung, Do Tuan Anh, Tran Binh Giang, Trinh Quoc Dat (2014), "Results of laparoscopic liver resection surgery due to liver tumors at Viet Duc Friendship Hospital". Laparoscopic surgery and endoscopy Vietnam, vol. 2(4), pp. 43-46.
5. Tran Cong Duy Long, Nguyen Duc Thuan, Nguyen Hoang Bac, Le Tien Dat, Dang Quoc Viet (2013), "Application of posterior Glisson pedicle dissection technique in anatomical liver resection for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma". Ho Chi Minh City Medical Journal, vol. 17(1), pp.64-68.
6. Do Kim Son, Do Tuan Anh, Nguyen Quang Nghia (2005), "Laparoscopic liver resection surgery: The first two cases in Vietnam". Surgery No. (1), pp.42-49.
7. Ton That Tung (1971), Liver resection . Science and Technology Publishing House.
ENGLISH
8. Abu Hilal M., Underwood T., Taylor MG, Hamdan K., Elberm H., Pearce NW (2010), "Bleeding and hemostasis in laparoscopic liver surgery". Surg Endosc, 24(3), pp.572-577.
9. Azagra J., Goergen M., Gilbart E., Jacobs D. (1996), "Laparoscopic anatomical (hepatic) left lateral segmentectomy—technical aspects". Surg Endosc, 10(7), pp.758-761.
10. Balzan S., Belghiti J., Farges O., Ogata S., Sauvanet A., Delefosse D., Durand F. (2005), "The "50-50 criteria" on postoperative day 5: an accurate predictor of liver failure and death after hepatectomy". Ann Surg, 242(6), pp.824-828, discussion 828-829.
11. Belghiti J., Guevara OA, Noun R., Saldinger PF, Kianmanesh R. (2001), "Liver hanging maneuver: a safe approach to right hepatectomy without liver mobilization". J Am Coll Surg, 193(1), pp.109-111.
12. Belli G., Limongelli P., Fantini C., D'Agostino A., Cioffi L., Belli A., Russo G. (2009), "Laparoscopic and open treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis". Br J Surg, 96(9), pp.1041-1048.
13. Bhojani FD, Fox A., Pitzul K., Gallinger S., Wei A., Moulton CA, Okrainec A., Cleary SP (2012), "Clinical and economic comparison of laparoscopic to open liver resections using a 2-to-1 matched pair analysis: an institutional experience". J Am Coll Surg, 214(2), pp.184-195.
14. Bismuth H. (1982), "Surgical anatomy and anatomical anatomy of the liver". World J Surg, 6(1), pp.3-9.
15. Blumgart LH (2007), "Surgery of the liver, biliary tract, and pancreas".
16. Bruix J., Sherman M. (2011), "Management of hepatocellular carcinoma: an update". Hepatology, 53(3), pp.1020-1022.
17. Bryant R., Laurent A., Tayar C., van Nhieu JT, Luciani A., Cherqui
D. (2008), "Liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma". Surg Oncol Clin N Am, 17(3), pp.607-633, ix.
18. Buell JF, Cherqui D., Geller DA, O'Rourke N., Iannitti D., Dagher I., Koffron AJ, Thomas M., Gayet B., Han HS, Wakabayashi G., Belli G., Kaneko H., Ker C.G., Scatton O., Laurent A., Abdalla
EK, Chaudhury P., Dutson E., Gamblin C., D'Angelica M., Nagorney D., Testa G., Labow D., Manas D., Poon RT, Nelson H., Martin R., Clary B., Pinson W.C., Martinie J., Vauthey JN, Goldstein R., Roayaie S., Barlet D., Espat J., Abecassis M., Rees M., Fong Y., McMasters KM, Broelsch C., Busuttil R., Belghiti J., Strasberg S., Chari RS (2009), "The international position on laparoscopic liver surgery: The Louisville Statement, 2008". Ann Surg, 250(5), pp.825-830.
19. Clavien P.-A., Sarr MG, Fong Y. (2007), Atlas of upper gastrointestinal and hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery . Springer Science & Business Media
20. Cucchetti A., Cescon M., Trevisani F., Pinna AD (2012), "Current concepts in hepatic resection for hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhotic patients". World J Gastroenterol, 18(44), pp.6398-6408.
21. Cucchetti A., Qiao G.-L., Cescon M., Li J., Xia Y., Ercolani G., Shen F., Pinna AD (2014), "Anatomic versus nonanatomic resection in cirrhotic patients with early hepatocellular carcinoma". Surgery, 155(3), pp.512-521.
22. Chen H.-Y., Juan C.-C., Ker C.-G. (2008), "Laparoscopic liver surgery for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma". Ann Surg Oncol, 15(3), pp.800-806.
23. Chen HY, Juan CC, Ker CG (2008), "Laparoscopic liver surgery for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma". Ann Surg Oncol, 15(3), pp.800-806.
24. Cherqui D., Laurent A., Tayar C., Chang S., Van Nhieu JT, Loriau J., Karoui M., Duvoux C., Dhumeaux D., Fagniez PL (2006),
"Laparoscopic liver resection for peripheral hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with chronic liver disease: midterm results and perspectives". Ann Surg, 243(4), pp.499-506.
25. Cho A., Yamamoto H., Kainuma O., Ota T., Park S., Arimitsu H., Ikeda A., Souda H., Nabeya Y., Takiguchi N., Nagata M. (2013), "Extrahepatic Glissonean approach for laparoscopic major liver resection (with video)". J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci, 20(2), pp.141-144.
26. Cho C.S., Park J., Fong Y. (2007), "HEPATIC RESECTION".
27. Cho JY, Han HS, Yoon YS, Shin SH (2008), "Experiences of laparoscopic liver resection including lesions in the posterosuperior segments of the liver". Surg Endosc, 22(11), pp.2344-2349.
28. Chung CD, Lau LL, Ko KL, Wong AC, Wong S., Chan AC, Poon RT, Lo CM, Fan ST (2010), "Laparoscopic liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma". Asian Journal of Surgery, 33(4), pp.168-172.
29. Dagher I., Belli G., Fantini C., Laurent A., Tayar C., Lainas P., Tranchart H., Franco D., Cherqui D. (2010), "Laparoscopic hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma: a European experience". J Am Coll Surg, 211(1), pp.16-23.
30. Dagher I., Di Giuro G., Dubrez J., Lainas P., Smadja C., Franco D. (2009), "Laparoscopic versus open right hepatectomy: a comparative study". Am J Surg, 198(2), pp.173-177.
31. Dagher I., Gayet B., Tzanis D., Tranchart H., Fuks D., Soubrane O., Han HS, Kim KH, Cherqui D., O'Rourke N. (2014), "International experience for laparoscopic major liver resection". J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci, 21(10), pp.732-736.