| H. Tangmunarunkit, R. Govindan, S. Jamin, S. Shenker, and W. Willinger, "Network Topology Generators: Degree-Based vs. Structural," Proc. SIGCOMM '02, 2002. |
....links in the BGP AS graph as customer, provider, peer and sibling connections. Tangmunarankit et al. 21] used this classification to assess hop count di#erences between router level and AS level shortest paths versus shortest paths constrained by policies as inferred in [20] A related paper [22] evaluates topology generators on the basis of reachability functions, resilience and distortion (tree likeness) of the resulting graphs. Research on IP level maps of global Internet connectivity was described in [23] 24] Router level mapping was initiated with the Mercator project [25] the ....
H.Tangmunarunkit, R.Govindan, S.Jamin, S.Shenker, and W.Willinger, "Network Topology Generators: Degree based vs. Structural," in Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM 2002.
....shows strong evidence of sampling bias. Our results suggest that since long tailed degree distributions can arise simply through biased sampling of graphs, node degree distribution alone may not be a sufficiently robust metric for characterizing [7] or comparing router level topologies [24] [25] An interesting, and seemingly very difficult open question related to our work is that of conducting statistically unbiased random samples of properties of nodes and links in the Internet. Measurement methods targeted at a specific region of the Internet, such as those used by Rocketfuel to map ....
H. Tangmunarunkit, R. Govindan, S. Jamin, S. Shenker, and W. Willinger, "Network Topology Generators: Degree-Based vs. Structural," in Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM'02, Pittsburgh, PA, August 2002.
.... consistently highly skewed [11] Consequently, the research community has shown considerable interest in obtaining topology models that better resemble the real data [2] 5] 18] 23] as well as understanding the impact of such network topologies on the performance of network protocols [27] [32]. This new generation of synthetic Internet topology models is strongly driven by the observed skewed statistics of the degree sequence and its evolution, and by even further observations of more detailed graph theoretic characteristics of the network. Most notably, following the natural ....
....evaluated. One approach is to include detailed graph properties [5] 18] 23] while another approach is to use metrics that distinguish graphs with heavy tailed degree sequences as opposed to more regular topologies and may be correlated with further coarse characteristics of the network [27] [32]. Our approach is closer to the latter, and influenced from the proposal of [7] 10] that topology properties should be studied in connection to the functionality of the network. In particular, we shall study the correlation of the information retrieved from the eigenvectors of Section III to the ....
H. Tangmunarunkit, R. Govindan, S. Jamin, S. Shenker, and W. Willinger. Network topology generators: Degree-based vs structural. Sigcomm 2002.
....links in the BGP AS graph as customer, provider, peer and sibling connections. Tangmunarankit et al. 33] used this classification to assess hop count differences between router level and AS level shortest paths versus shortest paths constrained by policies as inferred in [32] A related paper [34] evaluates topology generators on the basis of reachability functions, resilience and distortion (tree likeness) of the resulting graphs. Research on global IP level Internet mapping was initiated in [35] and [36] Router level maps were collected by the Mercator project [37] which was the first ....
H.Tangmunarunkit, R.Govindan, S.Jamin, S.Shenker, and W.Willinger, "Network Topology Generators: Degree based vs. Structural," in Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM 2002.
....to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and or a fee. SIGCOMM 02, August 19 23, 2002, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA. Copyright 2002 ACM 1 58113 570 X 02 0008 . 5.00. topologies generated by tools such as GT ITM [26] or Brite [12] are representative [25]. The main contribution of this paper is to present new measurement techniques to infer high quality ISP maps while using as few measurements as possible. Our insight is that routing information can be exploited to select the measurements that are most valuable. One technique, directed probing, ....
H. Tangmunarunkit, R. Govindan, S. Jamin, S. Shenker, and W. Willinger. Network topology generators: Degree-based vs structural. In ACM SIGCOMM, August 2002.
No context found.
H. Tangmunarunkit, R. Govindan, S. Jamin, S. Shenker, and W. Willinger, "Network Topology Generators: Degree-Based vs. Structural," Proc. SIGCOMM '02, 2002.
No context found.
H. Tangmunarunkit, R. Govindan, S. Jamin, S. Shenker, and W. Willinger, "Network topology generators: Degree based vs. structural," in Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM, 2002.
No context found.
H. Tangmunarunkit, R. Govindan, S. Jamin, S. Shenker, and W. Willinger. Network topology generators: Degree-based vs structural, 2002.
No context found.
H. Tangmunarunkit, R. Govindan, S. Jamin, S. Shenker, and W. Willinger, "Network topology generators: Degree-based vs. structural," in ACM SIGCOMM, 2002, pp. 147--159.
No context found.
H. Tangmunarunkit, R. Govindan, S. Jamin, S. Shenker, and W. Willinger, "Network Topology Generators: Degree-Based vs. Structural," in Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM, (Pittsburgh, PA), pp. 147 -- 159, Aug. 2002.
No context found.
TANGMUNARUNKIT, H., GOVINDAN, R., JAMIN, S., SHENKER, S., AND WILLINGER, W. Network topology generators: Degree-based vs structural. In Proceedings of the SIGCOMM '02 Symposium on Communications Architectures and Protocols (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, August 2002).
No context found.
Tangmunarunkit, H., Govindan, R., Jamin, S., Shenker, S., and Willinger, W. Network Topology Generators: Degree-Based vs Structural. In Communications Architectures and Protocols (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, August 2002).
No context found.
H. Tangmunarunkit, R. Govindan, S. Jamin, S. Shenker, and W. Willinger. Network topology generators: Degree-based vs structural. In ACM SIGCOMM, Aug 2002.
No context found.
H. Tangmunarunkit, R. Govindan, S. Jamin, S. Shenker, and W. Willinger, "Network Topology Generators: Degree-Based vs. Structural," in Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM, (Pittsburgh, PA), pp. 147 -- 159, Aug. 2002.
No context found.
H. Tangmunarunkit, R. Govindan, S. Jamin, S. Shenker, and W. Willinger, "Network Topology Generators: Degree-Based vs. Structural.", in Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM, 2002.
No context found.
Tangmunarunkit, H., Govindan, R., Jamin, S., Shenker, S., and Willinger, W. Network topology generators: Degree-based vs structural. In Proceedings of the SIGCOMM '02 Symposium on Communications Architectures and Protocols (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, August 2002).
No context found.
H. Tangmunarunkit et al., "Network topology generators: Degree-based vs structural," in ACM SIGCOMM, 2002.
No context found.
H. Tangmunarunkit, R. Govindan, S. Jamin, S. Shenker, and W. Willinger. Network topology generators: Degree-based vs structural. In ACM SIGCOMM, Aug 2002.
No context found.
H. Tangmunarunkit, R. Govindan, S. Jamin, S. Shenker, and W. Willinger, "Network topology generators: Degree-based vs. structural," in Proc. of the ACM SIGCOMM, 2002.
No context found.
H. Tangmunarunkit et al., "Network topology generators: Degree-based vs structural," in ACM SIGCOMM, 2002.
No context found.
H. Tangmunarunkit, R. Govindan, S. Jamin, S. Shenker, and W. Willinger, "Network Topology Generators: Degree-Based vs. Structural," in Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM, (Pittsburgh, PA), pp. 147 -- 159, Aug. 2002.
No context found.
H. Tangmunarunkit, et al. Network topology generators: Degree-based vs structural. In ACM SIGCOMM, 2002.
Online articles have much greater impact More about CiteSeer.IST Add search form to your site Submit documents Feedback
CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC