In computer networking, classic Layer-2 bridges (and modern switches acting as multiport bridges) perform frame forwarding and filtering. Do such bridging devices inherently introduce a small processing delay into the network path compared with an unmanaged shared medium?

Difficulty: Easy

Correct Answer: Correct

Explanation:


Introduction / Context:
Understanding how bridges and switches affect latency is a foundational networking topic. A bridge examines incoming frames, consults its MAC address table, and decides whether to forward, filter, or flood. This processing, along with store-and-forward buffering or cut-through behaviors, adds a small but measurable delay compared with a simple shared medium. Recognizing this helps with performance tuning and realistic expectations when adding devices to a path.


Given Data / Assumptions:

  • The device is a Layer-2 bridge or an Ethernet switch (a multiport bridge).
  • The device performs MAC learning and forwarding decisions.
  • Frames may be buffered for store-and-forward operation, error checking, or congestion management.


Concept / Approach:
A bridge must at minimum read enough of the frame header to determine the output port. In store-and-forward mode, it receives the entire frame and checks FCS before forwarding, inherently adding latency proportional to frame length and line rate. Even cut-through switching, which forwards after reading the destination MAC, incurs serialization and lookup delay. Therefore, bridging adds a small processing delay compared with a passive medium, though the delay is typically sub-millisecond on modern hardware.


Step-by-Step Solution:

Identify operations: header inspection + forwarding decision → non-zero processing time. Account for buffering: store-and-forward introduces full-frame latency; cut-through still has partial-frame delay. Include queueing: under load, output-port contention adds additional queueing delay. Conclude: bridges introduce small delays relative to a shared passive medium → the statement is correct.


Verification / Alternative check:
Empirical tests with back-to-back latency measurements show a few microseconds to tens of microseconds of added delay per switch hop, depending on architecture, speed (Fast/Gigabit/10G), and features (QoS, ACLs). Passive components (cables, unmanaged splitters on older media) do not make forwarding decisions and thus do not add comparable processing delay.


Why Other Options Are Wrong:

  • Incorrect: contradicts the inevitable processing/serialization delay in bridges.
  • Only on wireless links: bridging delay is independent of wireless; it occurs on wired links too.
  • Only with VLANs: VLAN tagging adds minimal overhead; bridging delay exists even without VLANs.
  • Only on half-duplex: duplex mode does not eliminate lookup/buffer delays.


Common Pitfalls:
Assuming “negligible” means “zero”; ignoring queueing delay under congestion; confusing propagation delay (speed of signal in cable) with processing delay (device time to make decisions).


Final Answer:
Correct

More Questions from Windows NT

Discussion & Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment!
Join Discussion