skip to main content
10.1145/3131365.3131400acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesimcConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Public Access

Automatic metadata generation for active measurement

Published: 01 November 2017 Publication History

Abstract

Empirical research in the Internet is fraught with challenges. Among these is the possibility that local environmental conditions (e.g., CPU load or network load) introduce unexpected bias or artifacts in measurements that lead to erroneous conclusions. In this paper, we describe a framework for local environment monitoring that is designed to be used during Internet measurement experiments. The goals of our work are to provide a critical, expanded perspective on measurement results and to improve the opportunity for reproducibility of results. We instantiate our framework in a tool we call SoMeta, which monitors the local environment during active probe-based measurement experiments. We evaluate the runtime costs of SoMeta and conduct a series of experiments in which we intentionally perturb different aspects of the local environment during active probe-based measurements. Our experiments show how simple local monitoring can readily expose conditions that bias active probe-based measurement results. We conclude with a discussion of how our framework can be expanded to provide metadata for a broad range of Internet measurement experiments.

References

[1]
M Allman. 2013. On changing the culture of empirical Internet assessment. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review 43, 3 (2013), 78--83.
[2]
M. Allman and V. Paxson. 2007. Issues and etiquette concerning use of shared measurement data. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM Internet Measurement Conference. 135--140.
[3]
B. Augustin, X. Cuvellier, B. Orgogozo, F. Viger, T. Friedman, M. Latapy, C. Magnien, and R. Teixeira. 2006. Avoiding traceroute anomalies with Paris traceroute. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM Internet Measurement Conference. 153--158.
[4]
F. Baccelli, S. Machiraju, D. Veitch, and J. C. Bolot. 2007. On optimal probing for delay and loss measurement. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM Internet Measurement Conference. 291--302.
[5]
V. Bajpai, A. W. Berger, P. Eardley, J. Ott, and J. Schönwälder. 2016. Global Measurements: Practice and Experience (Report on Dagstuhl Seminar# 16012). ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review 46, 1 (2016), 32--39.
[6]
V. Bajpai, S. Eravuchira, and J. Schönwälder. 2015. Lessons learned from using the RIPE Atlas platform for measurement research. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review 45, 3 (2015), 35--42.
[7]
R. Beverly. 2016. Yarrp'ing the Internet: Randomized High-Speed Active Topology Discovery. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM Internet Measurement Conference.
[8]
BGPmon {n. d.}. BGPmon Deployment. http://bgpmon.netsec.colostate.edu/about.html. ({n. d.}). Accessed May 2017.
[9]
CAIDA {n. d.}. Ark Monitor Site Information. http://www.caida.org/projects/ark/siteinfo.xml. ({n. d.}). Accessed May 2017.
[10]
CAIDA {n. d.}. CAIDA Ark project. http://www.caida.org/projects/ark/. ({n. d.}). Accessed May 2017.
[11]
Center for Applied Internet Data Analysis (CAIDA). {n. d.}. DatCat: Internet Measurement Data Catalog. http://www.datcat.org. ({n. d.}). Accessed May 2017.
[12]
Center for Applied Internet Data Analysis (CAIDA). 2009. How to Document a Data Collection. http://www.caida.org/data/how-to/how-to_document_data.xml. (March 2009). Accessed May 2017.
[13]
C. Dovrolis, K. Gummadi, A. Kuzmanovic, and S. D. Meinrath. 2010. Measurement lab: Overview and an invitation to the research community. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review 40, 3 (2010), 53--56.
[14]
J. Heidemann, Y. Pradkin, R. Govindan, C. Papadopoulos, G. Bartlett, and J. Bannister. 2008. Census and Survey of the Visible Internet (extended). ISI-TR-2008-649 (2008).
[15]
T. Holterbach, C. Pelsser, R. Bush, and L. Vanbever. 2015. Quantifying interference between measurements on the RIPE Atlas platform. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM Internet Measurement Conference. 437--443.
[16]
J. D. Hunter. 2007. Matplotlib: A 2D graphics environment. Computing In Science & Engineering 9, 3 (2007), 90--95.
[17]
D. Kotz and T. Henderson. 2005. CRAWDAD: A community resource for archiving wireless data at Dartmouth. IEEE Pervasive Computing 4, 4 (2005), 12--14.
[18]
D. Kotz, T. Henderson, I. Abyzov, and J. Yeo. {n. d.}. CRAWDAD: A Community Resource for Archiving Wireless Data At Dartmouth. https://crawdad.cs.dartmouth.edu. ({n. d.}). Accessed May 2017.
[19]
B. Krishnamurthy, W. Willinger, P. Gill, and M. Arlitt. 2011. A Socratic method for validation of measurement-based networking research. Computer Communications 34, 1 (2011), 43--53.
[20]
M. Luckie. 2010. Scamper: a scalable and extensible packet prober for active measurement of the Internet. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM Internet Measurement Conference. 239--245.
[21]
M-Lab {n. d.}. M-Lab. https://www.measurementlab.net. ({n. d.}). Accessed May 2017.
[22]
R. K. P. Mok, W. Li, and R. K. C. Chang. 2015. Improving the packet send-time accuracy in embedded devices. In Passive and Active Network Measurement Conference. 332--344.
[23]
Nagios {n. d.}. Nagios: The Industry Standard in IT Infrastructure Monitoring. https://www.nagios.org. ({n. d.}). Accessed May 2017.
[24]
C. Partridge and M. Allman. 2016. Ethical considerations in network measurement papers. Commun. ACM 59, 10 (2016), 58--64.
[25]
V. Paxson. 2004. Strategies for Sound Internet Measurement. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM Internet Measurement Conference. 263--271.
[26]
C. Pelsser, L. Cittadini, S. Vissicchio, and R. Bush. 2013. From Paris to Tokyo: On the suitability of ping to measure latency. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM Internet Measurement Conference. 427--432.
[27]
RIPE {n.d.}. RIPE Atlas - RIPE Network Coordination Centre. https://atlas.ripe.net. ({n. d.}). Accessed May 2017.
[28]
C. Shannon, D. Moore, K. Keys, M. Fomenkov, B. Huffaker, et al. 2005. The Internet Measurement Data Catalog. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review 35, 5 (2005), 97--100.
[29]
J. Sommers. 2015. Lowering the Barrier to Systems-level Networking Projects. In Proceedings of the 46th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE). 651--656.
[30]
J. Sommers and P. Barford. 2007. An active measurement system for shared environments. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM Internet Measurement Conference. 303--314.

Cited By

View all

Index Terms

  1. Automatic metadata generation for active measurement

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Information & Contributors

      Information

      Published In

      cover image ACM Conferences
      IMC '17: Proceedings of the 2017 Internet Measurement Conference
      November 2017
      509 pages
      ISBN:9781450351188
      DOI:10.1145/3131365
      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Sponsors

      In-Cooperation

      • USENIX Assoc: USENIX Assoc

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      Published: 01 November 2017

      Permissions

      Request permissions for this article.

      Check for updates

      Author Tags

      1. metadata
      2. network measurement

      Qualifiers

      • Research-article

      Funding Sources

      Conference

      IMC '17
      IMC '17: Internet Measurement Conference
      November 1 - 3, 2017
      London, United Kingdom

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate 277 of 1,083 submissions, 26%

      Contributors

      Other Metrics

      Bibliometrics & Citations

      Bibliometrics

      Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)77
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)8
      Reflects downloads up to 27 Dec 2024

      Other Metrics

      Citations

      Cited By

      View all

      View Options

      View options

      PDF

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      Login options

      Media

      Figures

      Other

      Tables

      Share

      Share

      Share this Publication link

      Share on social media