UARA in edge routers: an effective approach to user fairness and traffic shaping
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY The ever‐increasing share of the peer‐to‐peer (P2P) traffic flowing in the Internet has unleashed new challenges to the quality of service provisioning. Striving to accommodate the rise of P2P traffic or to curb its growth has led to many schemes being proposed: P2P caches, P2P filters, ALTO mechanisms and re‐ECN. In this paper, we propose a scheme named ‘UARA:textbfUser/ A pplication‐aware R ED‐based A QM’ which has a better perspective on the problem: UARA is proposed to be implemented at the edge routers providing real‐time near‐end‐user traffic shaping and congestion avoidance. UARA closes the loopholes exploited by the P2P traffic by bringing under control the P2P users who open and use numerous simultaneous connections. In congestion times, UARA monitors the flows of each user and caps the bandwidth used by ‘power users’ which leads to the fair usage of network resources. While doing so, UARA also prioritizes the real‐time traffic of each user, further enhancing the average user quality of experience (QoE). UARA hence centralizes three important functionalities at the edge routers: (1) congestion avoidance; (2) providing user fairness; (3) prioritizing real‐time traffic. The simulation results indicate that average user QoE is significantly improved in congestion times with UARA at the edge routers. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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 it