A model of BGP routing for network engineering
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The performance of IP networks depends on a wide variety of dynamic conditions. Traffic shifts, equipment failures, planned maintenance, and topology changes in other parts of the Internet can all degrade performance. To maintain good performance, network operators must continually reconfigure the routing protocols. Operators configure BGP to control how traffic flows to neighboring Autonomous Systems (ASes), as well as how traffic traverses their networks. However, because BGP route selection is distributed, indirectly controlled by configurable policies, and influenced by complex interactions with intradomain routing protocols, operators cannot predict how a particular BGP configuration would behave in practice. To avoid inadvertently degrading network performance, operators need to evaluate the effects of configuration changesbefore deploying them on a live network. We propose an algorithm that computes the outcome of the BGP route selection process for each router in asingleAS, given only a static snapshot of the network state, without simulating the complex details of BGP message passing. We describe a BGP emulator based on this algorithm; the emulator exploits the unique characteristics of routing data to reduce computational overhead. Using data from a large ISP, we show that the emulator correctly computes BGP routing decisions and has a running time that is acceptable for many tasks, such as traffic engineering and capacity planning.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".