Resilience options for provisioning anycast cloud services with virtual optical networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Optical networks are crucial to support increasingly demanding cloud services. Delivering the requested quality of services (in particular latency) is key to successfully provisioning end-to-end services in clouds. Therefore, as for traditional optical network services, it is of utter importance to guarantee that clouds are resilient to any failure of either network infrastructure (links and/or nodes) or data centers. A crucial concept in establishing cloud services is that of network virtualization: the physical infrastructure is logically partitioned in separate virtual networks. To guarantee end-to-end resilience for cloud services in such a set-up, we need to simultaneously route the services and map the virtual network, in such a way that an alternate routing in case of physical resource failures is always available. Note that combined control of the network and data center resources is exploited, and the anycast routing concept applies: we can choose the data center to provide server resources requested by the customer to optimize resource usage and/or resiliency. This paper investigates the design of scalable optimization models to perform the virtual network mapping resiliently. We compare various resilience options, and analyze their compromise between bandwidth requirements and resiliency quality.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".