Calendar Sites | 19 Nov 12:57 2015

The International Conference on Pervasive and Embedded Computing - PEC 2016


The International Conference on Pervasive and Embedded Computing – PEC 2016


25 - 27 July, 2016

Lisbon, Portugal


 <> Regular Papers

Paper Submission: February 16, 2016

Authors Notification: May 5, 2016

Camera Ready and Registration: May 19, 2016 


 <> Position Papers

Paper Submission: May 2, 2016

Authors Notification: June 6, 2016

Camera Ready and Registration: June 17, 2016

(Continue reading)

Mark Allman | 8 Oct 04:32 2015

IEEE Internet Computing special issue


In case anyone is has some cool measurement work that needs a home,
I wanted to mention that papers will soon be due for a special issue
of IEEE Internet Computing on the topic of 'Measuring the Internet'.
Papers are due Oct 30.  All the info is at the following URL:



end2end-interest mailing list
end2end-interest <at>
Contact list-owner <at> for assistance.
Joe Touch | 18 Sep 22:50 2015

DOE Network 2025 Challenges - Call for Position Papers

                     DOE Network 2025 Challenges

                       Call for Position Papers

The US Department of Energy Office of Science - Advanced Scientific
Computing Research (DOE/SC - ASCR) program office is pleased to
announce the Network 2025 Challenges workshop. This workshop will be
held Feb 1-2, 2016 in the Washington, DC area. DOE/SC operates a large
collection of unique experimental and computing facilities, which
generate and consume petabytes of data on a monthly basis
( The
goal of this workshop is to engage and coordinate the computer
communications research community with the DOE/SC science communities
to articulate the network and transport layer research challenges for
the next decade.

The workshop is intended to foster discussions that will generate a
roadmap which is expected to guide a multi-program, decade-long
network and transport layer research effort as part of a larger,
comprehensive network research program to support DOE's science
missions. Other workshops will address other layers of the network
stack. Of particular interest are medium-term (5-year) challenges,
long-term (10-year) challenges, and non-traditional challenges ("what
if...") that present unique opportunities for DOE's scientific
networking needs.

Attendance at this workshop will be limited and informed by position
papers submitted by interested researchers. These papers will be
circulated to initiate pre-meeting discussions. Invited participants
(Continue reading)

Antonis Papadogiannakis | 26 Aug 09:15 2015

PAM 2016 - Call for Papers

Passive and Active Measurement Conference 2016 (PAM 2016)
31 March - 1 April 2016
Heraklion, Crete, Greece <>

Call for Papers

PAM seeks to bring together both the network research and operations communities to consider network
measurement and analysis techniques, particularly those in the earlier stages of research.

PAM has in the past focused on research and practical applications of network measurement at Layer-3.
However, over the last years PAM broadened its scope to encompass measurements of networked
applications, content distribution networks, online social networks, overlay networks, and more.
Measurement technology is needed at all layers of the stack: for power profiling of hardware components;
at the MAC/network/transport layers; as well as up the stack for application profiling and even to
collect user feedback. Measurement technologies are being designed for the digital home, residential
access networks, wireless and mobile access, enterprise, ISP and data center networks.

Although PAM traditionally attracts work that is at an early stage, works that are a reappraisal or
independent validation of previous results, or which enhance the reproducibility of network
measurement research, for instance by publishing new datasets on an existing topic, are explicitly
included in PAM's ambit.

Original papers are invited, but not limited to, the following topics:
Tools and infrastructure:
Passive and active measurement tools: techniques, design and experience
Management and operation of measurement infrastructures
Management and visualization of measurement data
Measurements across the stack:
(Continue reading)

Jackie Blanco | 14 Jul 10:42 2015

☎ Second Computer Graphics, Multimedia and Image Processing - 2015 Malaysia

The Second International Conference on Computer Graphics, Multimedia and 
Image Processing (CGMIP2015)

Universitas Siswa Bangsa Internasional
Jakarta, Indonesia
October 29-31, 2015
cgmip15 <at>


Research topics not limited to:

- 3D imaging
- Case studies and emerging technologies
- Color and texture
- Computational geometry
- Computer art and entertainment (including games)
- Case studies
- Classification and clustering techniques
- Compression methods
- Computer animation
- Curves and meshes

- e-Learning applications and computer graphics
- Emerging technologies
- Emerging display technologies
(Continue reading)

Ingemar Johansson S | 26 May 13:38 2015

TCP HyStart patch deployment


Does anybody know if the TCP Cubic HyStart patch described in the link below is being used widely ?
It does not seem to be implemented in the latest Linux code.

Ingemar Johansson  M.Sc.
Senior Researcher

Ericsson AB
Wireless Access Networks
Labratoriegränd 11
971 28, Luleå, Sweden
Phone +46-1071 43042
SMS/MMS +46-73 078 3289
ingemar.s.johansson <at><mailto:ingemar.s.johansson <at>>

"No man has a good enough memory
  to be a successful liar"
    Abraham Lincoln<>

end2end-interest mailing list
end2end-interest <at>
(Continue reading)

Debarshi Sanyal | 6 May 08:14 2015

Regarding use of Reed-Solomon code in wireless networks



We were working on design of wormhole detection methods in MANETs.
To achieve detection, we propose to measure the time taken for a test nonce
to move from one node to it's neighbor node. If the time taken is larger
than the expected time for a packet to travel between two neighbor nodes,
the link is probably a wormhole link.

Now to combat channel errors, is it worth encoding the nonce with
Reed-Solomon code?

Our understanding is that propagation time between neighbor nodes in
commodity wi-fi setups is much smaller than the time taken to encode and
decode a nonce (say, 64 bytes long). So delay variations in encode/decode
process will easily mask any delay in propagation time.

We would be immensely thankful if you could throw some light on this since
we do not have access to hardware platforms to get real measurements. We
are interested to know the approximate encode and decode times for RS code
on common hardware platforms.

Debarshi Kumar Sanyal
KIIT University, Bhubaneswar, India
end2end-interest mailing list
end2end-interest <at>
(Continue reading)

Djamel Sadok | 5 May 12:29 2015

Re: j'accuse NFV

nothing is wrong with e2e encryption. Perhaps all traffic will be encrypted
in a few years anyway.

I only want to find out if there could be a way to adopt NFV while leaving
a choice for traffic that does not want to be NFV´ed perhaps because of the
fear that some middlebox function (NFV) may alter some e2e
http2/QUIC/SPDY/.. clever adaptation that booble engineers have  just come
up with.


On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 6:24 PM, <dpreed <at>> wrote:

> What's wrong with e2e encryption as the right answer?  I'm missing
> something here.
> On Monday, May 4, 2015 1:55pm, "Djamel Sadok" <jamel <at>> said:
>  > To have a FW is difficult (performance wise) and sometimes illegal to
> have
> > DPI on the subnet to build an IDS.
> >
> > But what happens when everyone bypasses NFVs?
> >
> > Still, it could be necessary to maintain both religions side by side. But
> > how can a user check that its packets have not been NFV´ed by some
> > functions? other than e2e encrypting?
> >
(Continue reading)

Khaled Elsayed | 5 May 10:55 2015

Re: j'accuse NFV

But if endpoints have such choice to bypass or turn off, would there be any
endpoint out there that would choose not to?

On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 5:14 PM, David P. Reed <dpreed <at>> wrote:

> This argument presumes that firewalls work.... of course they can know
> neither the meaning of the packet to the sender nor the meaning to the
> receiver. So just as an air filter cannot protect your ears from shocking
> utterances,  the idea that a packet firewall ought to be entrusted to
> protect communicators from mischief is silly...
> Of course the endpoints need to be able to shut down or to bypass such
> "helpful" things as firewalls. They are at best kludges.
> On May 4, 2015, Khaled Elsayed <kelsayed <at>> wrote:
>> You mean like a hacking packet would say please don't process me via that
>> nifty NFV firewall or something :-)
>> Khaled
>> On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 2:27 PM, Djamel Sadok <jamel <at>> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>> May be we could also give the end user flow the possibility to say that
>>> it
>>> does not want to have its data packets processed by any NFV or even black
>>> list some NFVs (types of functions) on the path. Would this be possible
(Continue reading)

Detlef Bosau | 1 May 23:53 2015

Re: A very prominent example for the "bandwidth fallacy" and LFN in mobile networks.

In a sense, Ham is nothing else than "WiFi in big" :-) So, the problems
should be pretty much the same.

Perhaps, Ham misses the /CA and the line coding is  certainly more
simple than in WiFi, but the basics should be very similar.

Am 01.05.2015 um 20:40 schrieb David P. Reed:
> Detlef's comments make huge sense to me. I'm a Ham licensee and also
> quite aware of physics and networks. The nonsense in the peer review
> ed literature is shameful for the most part.
> On May 1, 2015, Detlef Bosau <detlef.bosau <at>> wrote:
>     The following article deals with GPRS.
>          <at> article{ meyer,
>         author ="Michael Meyer and Joachim Sachs and Markus Holzke",
>         title ="{Performance Evaluation of A TCP Proxy in WCDMA
>         Networks}",
>         journal ="IEEE Wireless Communications",
>         year = "2003",
>         month = "October"
>         }
>     Let me quote only a short passage from "TCP in the context of WCDMA":
>         Depending on the assigned data rate,
(Continue reading)

Jon Crowcroft | 29 Apr 11:34 2015

j'accuse NFV

Try as I might, I cannot really see Network Function Virtualization as much
more than yet another telco landgrab on internet stuff. But somewhat more
critically, I vew the idea of taking some of our precious middle bodily
fluid flow processing functions, and moving them a) off the box built by a
middlebox expert, and b) off the direct path, as actually
counter-productive. Lets just take three boring run-of-the-arithmetic-mill
such services:-

load balancer - this is on the latency critical path before you get to any
service - additional latency/hops/virtualization overhead is
counter-indicated by any sane business model

wan accelerator - especially for 2.9x-4.8xG wireless data networking
services - these are kind of rather localized by definition, right? I mean
they are dealing with impedance mis-matches in the interweb (tcp splice,
etc - see

firewall (or ids) - so these sit on trust boundaries, so it seems like a
reduction in security to move them anywhere (like above a hypervisor,
unless people are running, say, seL4:-), plus they might also be protecting
the infrastructure itself as well as customers, so it would seem
counter-productive to increase their attach surface in any way

So ok, not all virtualization involves moving stuff to a different location
often. But it does also imply some resource pooling (i.e. more than 1
instance of a Foo in the NFooV is running above the hyperv) - so this seems
like you might be buying into a wealth of pain with elasticity, when you
had just nailed down super-hard multiplexed allocation of cycles for
forwarding or filtering or protocol adaptation or responsive redirection
(Continue reading)