By now, we're roughly up to BGP and traffiic engineering - see
Course Sequencing and associated problems
for the timing and also some suggested problems to tackle as you're folloowing along. Also, I'm intending having a Q&A "drop in" zoom session on Tue Oct 27th, 11-12 - Zoom link is on moodle...
Email me ahead of time if you have specific questions/things you've tackled you want feedback on! Asynchronous working is a far better way than lots of online meetings in my experience...
This week we are up to centralised routing, both on paper, and in practice with ways to control MPLS or SR, for example - the Sequence, timing and problems for lectures are online too.
You should have access to moodle/panopto + lab web pages with cached downloaded mp4s as well.
The intro to the course & to routing section is where we're roughly be up to now.
there's also an index for lecture order & data the material should be "covered' by, plus some suggested simple problems to look at, to test your understanding.
thanks (already) to folks who emailed corrections&bug reports on videos! appreciated - keep 'em comiing!
take care, and hope to see people eventually
cheers
jon
Nine Circles of Hell for Computer Science... in the dock, with apologies to Dante These are (in order): 1. Cloud (jurisdiction) 2. Things (liability) 3. ML (explicability) 4. Blockchain (privacy) 5. Compliance (cybersecurity) 6. Robots (safety) 7. Singularity (upload) 8. Legol(*) (sustainability) 9. QC (probable cause) * as with John Cleese interviews with his therapist, where moving house is more traumatic than divorce and only just after loss of a loved one and losing a limb, I think explaining computer science for law is almost as hard as explaining law to computer scientists, and only marginally easier than explaining Quantum Computing... 1. Cloud (jurisdiction) I don't think we're in Kansas any more... 2. Things (liability) The thing is, this is all your fault. 3. Machine Learning (explicability) I told you so 4. Blockchain (privacy) "You can't fool me, there ain't no Sanity Claus" 5. Compliance (cybersecurity) You can't prove a system secure, only that it is (now) insecure, so how do you claim compliance (see 1,2,3,4,9)
New angle - Privacy Enhancing Technologies are pretty hard to explain, too - if they are used as part of compliance, how can you tell? 6. Robots (safety) "I thought you said 'a robot shall not inure a human being or allow one to come to arms through inaction". 7. Singularity (upload) "where have all the people gone, today" 8. Legol(*) (sustainability) see also https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~jac22/emergence.pdf 9. Quantum Computing (probable cause) you are trying to persuade a jury that someone is guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt here are four possible Quantum Computational examples of algorithms: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runaway_Jury https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12_Angry_Men_(1957_film)
Sigcomm 2016 for me As general chair, I felt I'd have to attend Sigcomm in Brazil, even though I had a co-chair who is local, in fact not least to give moral support for him. However, for me, August involves my family holiday typically, and this year was no different. So we'd booked a large villa in southwest france for 2 weeks for up to 20 people, so that the extended family (from UK, Ireland, North America & Kenya and anyone else who wanted to drop in on their travels) could all be there. So one week in, I had to head for the conference, taking a couple of the family with to get 1 to Berlin, 1 back to london, (another couple were heading the other way from London to France at the same time... Montpelier->Floreanopolis took about 30 hours (with a very good flight from LATAM for 830$ connecting in Sao Paolo with only a 3 hour connection). I met a couple of people on the last 1 hour flight who had come from Beijing (one poster & one paper author), who's journey was also about 30 hours, plus a couple of Europeans who had a journey of about 15 hours - like mine would have been had I not been on annual vacation. So while the conference, as a social event, and a technical piece of my day job, is really excellent (much gratitude to the superb Brazilian hosts!), I missed a whole week of seeing my extended family, including some of them who I only see then, but won't til next year now. So it is disappointing that a number of people who had papers to present (note, I didn't), did not attend. On papers with an average of 5+ authors, they couldn't find one person to travel and present. The excuse was the Zika outbreak. There is more Zika in some US locations than in the conference location, but hey, who expects everyone to be rational. It seems also that many of these authors were connected with papers with Microsoft authors. Microsoft were not a sponsor of the conference either (they have been in the past), despite having an author on 20% of papers in the conference, and making a thing of this on social media. It seems that the conference has value as a place to get visibility for work of the company or student interns at the company, but not enough to have a presence (not even a recruiting desk at an event where there are around 200 junior researchers in networking, one assumes many of who are looking for interesting paces of employment next). So for the first time we've allowed some remote presentations at SIGCOMM - we had one live one in at the NetPL on day 1 because a speaker was held up by a plane failure and so managed to Skype in, but we had two on day 2 in the main conference paper sessions, which were planned. Authors unable to attend ahead of time, sent in a canned video of their talk, then we skyped them in after for Q&A The biggest problem with this is non-technical - its to do with the loss of community building opportunities based in hallway conversations triggered by the talk or other things th speaker/authors may have done that are of interest to attendees - this loss is small for a small number of remote presentations, and in the case the remote presenter is a student, probably worse for them than for conference physical attendees. The loss is larger for the conference if the remote speaker is an experienced person who might act as a mentor or offer useful feedback on other presentations, live, in the other Q&A, or in hallways etc, if only they could have attended. one simple example - the authors of the 2nd paper on the 1st main paper session day differential provenance could interwork with authors of a paper on "light in the middle of the tunnel" in hottmiddlebox on friday. There's no advatnage to the primary author giving the remote presentation (rather than either anyone else, or anyone else coming to present it in person) because no-one at the conference gets to meet them anyhow, so they don't enhance theoir career any more than writing a Tech Report or putting a paper on ArXiv with a video. There was some care taken (at extra cost to the conference organising committees) to get decent videos and have them present (and esp. attention to audio both for speaker and for Q&A with the remote virtual attendee). However, 3 semi-technical problems became obvious in the first 2 talks 1/ the speaker is canned - they can't adapt to audience attention, they can't re-pace based on level of engagement, they can't change their presentation to account for other people's talks or reference another talk where there's common ideas or differences - the speaker can't interact with the slides, even pointing at axes to explain scales, or interesting features of a curve/anomalies, outliers etc.... 2/ there's no obvious way in this model, to ask a speaker to "go back to slide 5" in the Q&A 3/ having a human figure in the projection who is larger than life (as would appear on stage) is an elementary HCI fail. On the 2nd&3rd day of the main conference we had quite a few more remote presentations. While they continued to be well prepared, and the illusion of having the speaker in the room continued to be maintained by having a Skype capability for Q&A at the end of each canned talk, the number was really stretching the credulity and patience of many of us that out of 30+ distinct authors across that set of papers, 0 could get here. This continued on to trying to have a handover meeting where the only people from 2017 able to be physically here on the lunchtime of the last day of the main conference were people who were involved in the 2016 conference anyhow. The event was no more difficult to get to than many past conferences, nor are there more real (rather than perceived) risks about the location than many past locations. [In fact, I attended last year in london to go to the handover meeting to learn the tasks required of us, so I mssed vacation then too] A lot of people went out of their way to make this a successful event, despite the lack of full engagement by many people who obviously assume Sigcomm is worth submitting papers to for their career or their employers visibility, but don't buy into the community idea. That's sadly shortsighted of them. They will be perceived as places less interesting to go work for compared to those places that had a presence. Sad, because it has been incredible fun here and the local community showed up massively supportive, in huge numbers, and got a huge amount out of things. More loss for those who didn't make it here from north of the equator. For those of us who took time out from valuable family life, took a lot of care about re-locating the conference to deal with the public health issues with the original venue, it is doubly disappointing that there are people in our profession who don't share our view of what the nature of the event should be. It is very unlikely that I shall bother attending again, or consider being on the PC if asked. I dont care to work for people who don't care.
