MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3089682163 · doi:10.1145/3409796

Unveiling the Mystery of Internet Packet Forwarding

2020· review· en· W3089682163 on OpenAlexaff
Kai Bu, Avery Laird, Yutian Yang, Linfeng Cheng, Jiaqing Luo, Yingjiu Li, Kui Ren

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Computing Surveys · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInternet Traffic Analysis and Secure E-voting
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Science Foundation of Zhejiang ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaResearch Institute of Cyberspace Governance in Zhejiang University
KeywordsComputer scienceThe InternetIP forwardingComputer networkNetwork packetPath (computing)Packet forwardingRouting (electronic design automation)ArchitectureComputer securitySource routingDistributed computingRouting protocolRouting tableWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Validating the network paths taken by packets is critical in constructing a secure Internet architecture. Any feasible solution must both enforce packet forwarding along end-host specified paths and verify whether packets have taken those paths. However, the current Internet supports neither enforcement nor verification. Likely due to the radical changes to the Internet architecture and a long-standing confusion between routing and forwarding, only limited solutions for path validation exist in the literature. This survey article aims to reinvigorate research on the essential topic of path validation by crystallizing not only how path validation works but also where seemingly qualified solutions fall short. The analyses explore future research directions in path validation aimed at improving security, privacy, and efficiency.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.008
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations27
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM Computing SurveysSame topicInternet Traffic Analysis and Secure E-votingFrench-language works237,207