Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Peyman Kazemian

dblp:94/7950 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Network management and operations
network verification
0.432013
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
0.322014
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
0.322014
Automatic Test Packet Generation · IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw. 2014
Automatic test packet generation · CoNEXT 2012
Network management and operations
network testing
0.322014
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
0.212014
Automatic Test Packet Generation · IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw. 2014
Network management and operations
static checking
0.222012
Header Space Analysis: Static Checking for Networks · NSDI 2012
Automatic test packet generation · CoNEXT 2012
Network management and operations › network verification
policy compliance
0.212013
Real Time Network Policy Checking Using Header Space Analysis · NSDI 2013
Network management and operations › fault management
fault diagnosis
0.112012
Automatic test packet generation · CoNEXT 2012
Software-defined and programmable networks
programmable data plane
0.122013
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
0.112014
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
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2014 Automatic Test Packet Generation
abstract
Networks 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
NSDI1
2012 Automatic test packet generation
abstract
Networks 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
CoNEXT2
2012 Header Space Analysis: Static Checking for Networks
Peyman Kazemian, George Varghese, Nick McKeown
NSDI1