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

Unveiling the Mystery of Internet Packet Forwarding

2020· review· en· W3089682163 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

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.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Open science
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.987
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0060.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.061
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