Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

LMAP Information Model and Data Model Published

August 23rd, 2017 Comments off

The EU funded LEONE project (2012-2015) contributed to the development of standards for large-scale measurements of Internet performance, produced by the LMAP working group of the IETF. The key specifications, the LMAP information model and the LMAP YANG data model, have been published as RFCs just a few days ago. It took roughly five years from the start of the formation of the working group until the publication of the core specifications. The first version of the information model was posted roughly 2.5 years before publication of the final document. This example shows that initiating and completing standardization work within the lifetime of EU projects is just not realistic.


Measuring Webpage Similarity from Dual-Stacked Hosts

June 1st, 2016 Comments off

Measuring Webpage Similarity from Dual-Stacked Hosts from Vaibhav Bajpai on Vimeo.

In this talk, we compare the similarity of webpages delivered over IPv4 and IPv6. It was presented at the RIPE 72 plenary in Copenhagen.


Vantage Point Selection for IPv6 Measurements: Benefits and Limitations of RIPE Atlas Tags

June 1st, 2016 Comments off

Vantage Point Selection for IPv6 Measurements: Benefits and Limitations of RIPE Atlas Tags from Vaibhav Bajpai on Vimeo.

In this talk, we show an application of system tags by performing vantage point selection of dual-stacked probes. This exploration reveals how with around 2K dual-stacked probes, RIPE Atlas provides the richest source of vantage points for IPv6 measurement studies. User tags on the other hand are based on a manual process which is largely dependent on proactive participation of probe hosts. We show that user tags tend to become stale over time. It was presented at the MAT working group at RIPE 72 in Copenhagen.


Dagstuhl Seminar: Global Measurements: Practice and Experience

January 19th, 2016 Comments off

We helped organize a Dagstuhl seminar on Global Measurements: Practice and Experience from January 04 – 07, 2016. This was a followup of the seminar on Global Measurement Framework. The second seminar aimed at discussing the practical experience gained with building global measurement platforms. It brought together people who are actively involved in the design and maintenance of global measurement systems, who do research on the data delivered by global measurement systems, and who use data derived from global measurement systems in order to manage networks or services or as input for regulatory decisions. Here is a picture from the event:



Measurement Research within the Python3 Ecosystem

November 21st, 2014 Comments off

Measurement Research within the Python3 Ecosystem from Vaibhav Bajpai on Vimeo.

In this talk, we present a set of tools that we find useful for measurement research and would like to share them with the larger RIPE community. Given the nature of the talk, we will make a live demo of running code snippets using the IPython notebook.


Dagstuhl Seminar: Global Measurement Framework

December 29th, 2013 Comments off

We participated in a Dagstuhl seminar on Global Measurements Framework from November 17 – 20, 2013. The seminar discussed challenges in running a large-scale measurement platform, its associated privacy issues, with a particular focus on how to make it more useful within the regulators, ISPs, and end-users community. Here is a picture from the event:




IPv6 Traffic Growth Update

June 12th, 2013 Comments off

Here is another update of our IPv6 traffic. Averaged over the last year, the IPv6 traffic is about 5% of the overall Internet traffic we have. This is pretty good given the fact that only some parts of Jacobs’ network currently advertises IPv6. In particular, we have no IPv6 in the student dorms (and the graph clearly suggests that students are a major contributor to our Internet traffic – in particular during finals periods).


IPv6 Traffic Growth Update

September 27th, 2012 Comments off

Our IPv6 traffic keeps growing, reaching new records since the students are back on campus. Even our outgoing traffic is on the rise. Perhaps Jacobs should go ahead and start making their core services (e.g., the official Jacobs web pages) IPv6 ready as well.


CNDS Web Pages 2.0

July 9th, 2012 Comments off

We are in the process of updating our web pages. We aim at making things more consistent and useful for us and the outside world. One of the new features we added is our new calendar, which can be easily imported into other calendar software. We hope this will make it easier to follow events and deadlines. In order to highlight our activities to improve our pages, we switched to a new theme – wordpress makes all of this remarkably easy.


RFC Word Occurrence

March 23rd, 2012 Comments off

I planned it for a long time, but now seemed to be the right time – just before the next IETF.

Out of curiosity, I wanted to visualize the  occurrence frequency of the following terms over the years: [“MUST”, “MUST NOT”, “REQUIRED”, “SHALL”, “SHALL NOT”, “SHOULD”, “SHOULD NOT”, “RECOMMENDED”, “MAY”, “OPTIONAL”].

Since in majority of cases RFCs represent standards, I was curious to see how the usage of these terms evolved over the years. Of course, a more frequent occurrence of a term “MUST” from year to year does not indicate that the standards have become “stricter” in their statements and requirements, but nonetheless, the dynamics can be observed in the following two graphs.

The first graph (to the right) represents a total number of each keyword/term occurrence over the years. Publication years of the considered RFCs were truncated to 1985-2011, as the occurrence of these terms was minor in preceding years, and 2012 is still underway. “MUST” is a clear dominant among all terms. 2010 witnessed the largest share of “MUST” usage among all RFC document categories. Terms like “SHOULD”, “MAY” and “MUST NOT” have also shown a significant growth. However, the total number of published RFCs has also been increasing over past years, and therefore the graph below normalizes the term occurrence by the total number of RFCs that mentioned any of the terms in the corresponding year. “MUST” is still the dominant term, with a growth rate of ~80% between 2000 and 2010. Terms “MAY” and “SHOULD” follow each other closely. On the other hand, the usage of  terms like “REQUIRED”, “SHALL”, “SHALL NOT”, “SHOULD NOT”, “RECOMMENDED”, “OPTIONAL” between 2000 and 2010 has been steady and low.

There are a number of things that could be further checked, e.g., distribution by document category, according to working groups, correlation with the length of the document, etc., but that will follow at some point in future 🙂

Make your own conclusions (e.g., why do more frequently used terms seem to fluctuate simultaneously?), and feel free to share them with me, as well as any other suggestions on what other interesting stats I could extract from these documents.