Demo Data from VLDB 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Peyman Kazemian
dblp:94/7950
· DBLP profile ↗
4ranked-venue papers
2as first author
0since 2021 · last 2014
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Computer networks · 4 · 2 first-author
Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.
| Computer networks
4 papers |
Network management and operations · 96% Software-defined and programmable networks · 4% |
Topics — the 10 heaviest of 10, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Network management and operations
network verification |
0.4 | 3 | 2013 | Real Time Network Policy Checking Using Header Space Analysis · NSDI 2013 Header Space Analysis: Static Checking for Networks · NSDI 2012 Automatic test packet generation · CoNEXT 2012 |
Network management and operations › network testing
automatic test packet generation |
0.3 | 2 | 2014 | Automatic Test Packet Generation · IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw. 2014 Automatic test packet generation · CoNEXT 2012 |
Network management and operations › fault management › fault diagnosis
fault localization |
0.3 | 2 | 2014 | Automatic Test Packet Generation · IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw. 2014 Automatic test packet generation · CoNEXT 2012 |
Network management and operations
network testing |
0.3 | 2 | 2014 | Automatic Test Packet Generation · IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw. 2014 Automatic test packet generation · CoNEXT 2012 |
Network management and operations › fault management › fault diagnosis
network fault diagnosis |
0.2 | 1 | 2014 | Automatic Test Packet Generation · IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw. 2014 |
Network management and operations
static checking |
0.2 | 2 | 2012 | Header Space Analysis: Static Checking for Networks · NSDI 2012 Automatic test packet generation · CoNEXT 2012 |
Network management and operations › network verification
policy compliance |
0.2 | 1 | 2013 | Real Time Network Policy Checking Using Header Space Analysis · NSDI 2013 |
Network management and operations › fault management
fault diagnosis |
0.1 | 1 | 2012 | Automatic test packet generation · CoNEXT 2012 |
Software-defined and programmable networks
programmable data plane |
0.1 | 2 | 2013 | Real Time Network Policy Checking Using Header Space Analysis · NSDI 2013 Header Space Analysis: Static Checking for Networks · NSDI 2012 |
Network management and operations › network configuration
router configuration |
0.1 | 1 | 2014 | Automatic Test Packet Generation · IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw. 2014 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
test packet generation · 0.3header space analysis · 0.3fault localization · 0.2router configuration modeling · 0.1
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2014 | Automatic Test Packet GenerationabstractNetworks are getting larger and more complex, yet administrators rely on rudimentary tools such as ping and traceroute to debug problems. We propose an automated and systematic approach for testing and debugging networks called “Automatic Test Packet Generation” (ATPG). ATPG reads router configurations and generates a device-independent model. The model is used to generate a minimum set of test packets to (minimally) exercise every link in the network or (maximally) exercise every rule in the network. Test packets are sent periodically, and detected failures trigger a separate mechanism to localize the fault. ATPG can detect both functional (e.g., incorrect firewall rule) and performance problems (e.g., congested queue). ATPG complements but goes beyond earlier work in static checking (which cannot detect liveness or performance faults) or fault localization (which only localize faults given liveness results). We describe our prototype ATPG implementation and results on two real-world data sets: Stanford University's backbone network and Internet2. We find that a small number of test packets suffices to test all rules in these networks: For example, 4000 packets can cover all rules in Stanford backbone network, while 54 are enough to cover all links. Sending 4000 test packets 10 times per second consumes less than 1% of link capacity. ATPG code and the data sets are publicly available. Hongyi Zeng, Peyman Kazemian, George Varghese, Nick McKeown |
IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw. | 2 |
| 2013 | Real Time Network Policy Checking Using Header Space Analysis
Peyman Kazemian, Hongyi Zeng, George Varghese, Nick McKeown, Scott Whyte |
NSDI | 1 |
| 2012 | Automatic test packet generationabstractNetworks are getting larger and more complex; yet administrators rely on rudimentary tools such as ping and traceroute to debug problems. We propose an automated and systematic approach for testing and debugging networks called "Automatic Test Packet Generation" (ATPG). ATPG reads router configurations and generates a device-independent model. The model is used to generate a minimum set of test packets to (minimally) exercise every link in the network or (maximally) exercise every rule in the network. Test packets are sent periodically, and detected failures trigger a separate mechanism to localize the fault. ATPG can detect both functional (e.g., incorrect firewall rule) and performance problems (e.g., congested queue). ATPG complements but goes beyond earlier work in static checking (which cannot detect liveness or performance faults) or fault localization (which only localize faults given liveness results). Hongyi Zeng, Peyman Kazemian, George Varghese, Nick McKeown |
CoNEXT | 2 |
| 2012 | Header Space Analysis: Static Checking for Networks
Peyman Kazemian, George Varghese, Nick McKeown |
NSDI | 1 |