MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2166291902 · doi:10.1109/itre.2005.1503074

Securing RSVP and RSVP-TE signaling protocols and their performance study

2005· article· en· W2166291902 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
FieldEngineering
TopicIPv6, Mobility, Handover, Networks, Security
Canadian institutionsEion (Canada)Carleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceHash functionComputer networkSignaling protocolQuality of serviceAuthentication (law)Multiprotocol Label SwitchingMessage authentication codeCryptographyComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

RSVP and RSVP-TE are signaling protocols used to set up paths and/or support quality of service (QoS) requirements in IP and MPLS-based networks, respectively. This paper analyzes an authentication mechanism for securing the RSVP and RSVP-TE control messages, and studies their performance. This design and implementation of the authentication mechanism, which is based on RFC2747, using four commonly adopted hash algorithms - MD5, RIPEMD160, SHA-1, and SHA-256, not only improves security, but also provides useful information from the performance aspect. The time for authenticating the signaling messages depends on the algorithm used, and increases slightly in the order of MD5, SHA-1, RIPEMD160 and SHA-256. The performance of the RSVP-TE with multiple sessions was measured.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.780
Threshold uncertainty score0.956

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.211 · 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