MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2062012755 · doi:10.1109/glocom.2011.6134496

On Resilience of Split-Architecture Networks

2011· article· en· W2062012755 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware-Defined Networks and 5G
Canadian institutionsEricsson (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsResilience (materials science)Computer scienceForwarding planeArchitectureDistributed computingController (irrigation)Set (abstract data type)Reliability (semiconductor)Software deploymentComputer networkTopology (electrical circuits)Engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The split architecture network assumes a logically centralized controller, which is physically separated from a large set of data plane forwarding switches. When the control plane becomes decoupled from the data plane, the requirement to the failure resilience and recovery mechanisms changes. In this work we investigate one of the most important practical issues in split architecture deployment, the placement of controllers in a given network. We first demonstrate that the location of controllers have high impact on the network resilience using a real network topology. Motivated by such observation, we propose a min-cut based controller placement algorithm and compare it with greedy based approach. Our simulation results show significant reliability improvements with an intelligent placement strategy. Our work is the first attempt on the resilience properties of a split architecture network.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.891
Threshold uncertainty score0.298

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.189 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Quick stats

Citations123
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoftware-Defined Networks and 5GFrench-language works237,207