MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2471650598 · doi:10.1109/noms.2016.7502826

On the feasibility of core-rooted path addressing

2016· article· en· W2471650598 on OpenAlexafffund
Cong Guo, Martin Karsten

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCaching and Content Delivery
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceRouting tableComputer networkThe InternetDistributed computingNetwork topologyRobustness (evolution)Software deploymentRouting (electronic design automation)Network architecturePacket forwardingRouting protocolWorld Wide WebSoftware engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Addressing, routing, and forwarding in the Internet must form a coherent architecture that satisfies user and technical requirements, such as performance, robustness, and efficiency. This paper presents the Core-Rooted Path Addressing (CRPA) architecture, which is a novel combination of mostly known architectural components. CRPA is designed as a network layer for physical topologies and combines a generic rendezvous service with the path addressing principle. The benefits of CRPA include forwarding components that are completely independent of dynamic routing, as well as compact forwarding tables. The key challenge for such a design is the overall practicality of its addressing scheme. This paper investigates the characteristics of CRPA using Internet topology analysis and simulation, and the findings indicate that it is practicable. Forwarding table sizes are quite manageable, and the frequency and scope of dynamic updates are reduced. While actual deployment might be unrealistic in the current Internet ecosystem, its straightforward design can make CRPA a valuable benchmark for systematic reasoning about network architecture.

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 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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.391
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

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 head0.138
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.158 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCaching and Content DeliveryFrench-language works237,207