Hi Ilshat, hey, don't do the X.509 format yet. Sorry, I did not explain myself correctly. Let's leave that for the end: you'll only do it if you have enough time, ok? For now I'd rather focus on the tests ;)
Thx, Juan 2015-07-26 22:04 GMT+02:00 Ilshat Shakirov <[email protected]>: > Hello, > > Here is small status update (by the results of the this week): > http://shakirov-dev.blogspot.ru/2015/07/8th-week.html#more > > Vicente, Juan, thanks for the responses. > > did you try tools/create_a_team.sh? >> > Yes, I've tried it, but I faced with problems with Xterm. I've tried to > reinstall it, but it didn't help. I will try more. > > --- > > Just one thing: when the DS technique is completed we'll send the public >> key under a X.509 certificate format. Ideally this certificate should be >> signed by a trusted certificate authority and contain information about the >> organization managing the splitter to offer some degree of trust. >> > It's ok. To be honest I've never do this before, so Ill google it. > > Regarding of the experiments: ll try to perform it as you described. > > So my tasks for 9th week: > 1. Sending keys with X.509 format > 2. Perform tests for the STrPe technique. > > Also, I wanted to develop heuristic for the excluding malicious peers from > the team based on the all the team (not only trusted peers). Do you have > any ideas? I think about smth like: 'exclude peer if more than x% of the > team marked it as malicious'. Also, we can assign 'reputation' to each > peer, so some peers will have more influence on the decision of excluding > peer. What do you think? > > Thanks! =) > > > 2015-07-23 2:01 GMT+05:00 Juan Álvaro Muñoz Naranjo < > [email protected]>: > >> Hi Ilshat, >> >> first of all thanks for your update, it was very interesting. Just one >> thing: when the DS technique is completed we'll send the public key under a >> X.509 certificate format. Ideally this certificate should be signed by a >> trusted certificate authority and contain information about the >> organization managing the splitter to offer some degree of trust. The >> certificate might even be distributed with the software, or be given by the >> web page if we were in a web player with WebRTC. Otherwise the attacker >> might send its own public key to the peers impersonating the splitter. But >> for now it is ok like that. >> >> Now, let's get to the point. How to run the experiments. Vicente already >> suggested the use of tools/create_a_team.sh in a previous message (thank >> you Vicente!). Also, Cristóbal suggests this: >> https://github.com/cristobalmedinalopez/p2psp-chunk-scheduling/blob/master/tools/run_experiment.sh >> These solutions are for experiments in one machine of course, which is >> enough for us. If you need more peers you should be able to combine several >> machines by running one script per machine. Of course, we're interested in >> seeing how peers' buffers are filled with chunks and not in video playback: >> as you can see, both scripts send the video signal to /dev/null. >> >> Which experiment to run? We propose the following: we're interested in >> average expulsion times for an attacker, and if all of them are expulsed >> after a given time. Also, the average percentage of gaps in the peers' >> buffers (so we can see if playback is possible in presence of attackers and >> after how long). I think you should measure time in terms of sending rounds >> (you know, one round would be the splitter sending one chunk to every >> member of the team). >> >> So, let's say that you have a team of 100 peers. From that team, a >> percentage of peers will be malicious: 1%, 10%, 25%, 50%. I imagine a plot >> in which the X axis is time (number of rounds) and in which we depict: >> number of remaining malicious peers in the team (because some of them will >> be expulsed) and average filling of peers' buffers. Ideally, as the number >> of remaining malicious peers decreases the filling of buffers should >> increase. >> >> Showing the number of complains from peers in the first technique would >> be also interesting. >> >> Another thing to measure would be the percentage of bandwidth used for >> real multimedia data (this is, how many bytes from the total are really >> used for transmitting the video). You can compare the baseline (no security >> measures, just plain video without malicious attackers) against both >> techniques. >> >> So, for running these experiments you'll need to decide which information >> you want to store from each peer (buffer filling percentage at each >> iteration, how many malicious peers at each iteration, how many bytes were >> sent and how many of them were used for video, how many complains arrived >> to the splitter in every iteration). Am I forgetting anything? >> >> My suggestion is run the experiment for the first technique and see how >> it goes. Make sure to run the experiment more than once, say 5 times, and >> then get the average of them all. >> >> Good work, >> >> Juan >> >> 2015-07-21 20:06 GMT+02:00 Vicente Gonzalez < >> [email protected]>: >> >>> Hi Ilshat, >>> >>> did you try tools/create_a_team.sh? >>> >>> (I tested to run up to 100 peers in my 8HG Mac machine) >>> >>> Regards, >>> Vi. >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 8:36 PM Ilshat Shakirov <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hello!, >>>> >>>> Sorry for the long delay. >>>> >>>> Here is status update about CIS of rules project: >>>> http://shakirov-dev.blogspot.ru/2015/07/5-6-7-week.html >>>> >>>> Also, I need some help with testing a big (ie, 20 peers) p2psp-teams. I >>>> want solution that allows to reproduce testing experiments easily. So the >>>> commenting lines (to remove need in running vlc) is not suitable for this. >>>> I've wrote simple script which runs several peers (in one machine) and >>>> here is result >>>> <https://www.evernote.com/shard/s427/sh/0b070670-8de9-4a61-acec-562035cfc3ef/7403917d3ca736eea6d60da8ba23543b>. >>>> I think it's quite hard to understand smth in this (and reproduce). So, >>>> what is the best solution for testing p2psp-teams and gather some stats? >>>> >>>> Thanks! >>>> >>>> 2015-06-25 16:13 GMT+05:00 Vicente Gonzalez < >>>> [email protected]>: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 5:48 PM L.G.Casado <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>> >>>>>> El mié, 24-06-2015 a las 16:44 +0500, Ilshat Shakirov escribió: >>>>>> >>>>>> Ok; Is there any option run peer without running a player? I'm going >>>>>> to run all peers in one local machine, is it right? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> At this moment, the easiest way to test a lot of peers in one machine >>>>> is to connect to each peer a NetCat client [ >>>>> http://netcat.sourceforge.net/]. It is not the most efficient >>>>> solution, but you should be able to run hundreds of peers in a 8GB >>>>> machine. >>>>> However, is quite simple to avoid sending the stream in each peer. Just >>>>> comment (temporally) the code that feeds the player. >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Vi. >>>>> -- >>>>> -- >>>>> Vicente González Ruiz >>>>> Depto de Informática >>>>> Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingeniería >>>>> Universidad de Almería >>>>> >>>>> Carretera Sacramento S/N >>>>> 04120, La Cañada de San Urbano >>>>> Almería, España >>>>> >>>>> e-mail: [email protected] >>>>> http://www.ual.es/~vruiz >>>>> tel: +34 950 015711 >>>>> fax: +34 950 015486 >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>> -- >>> Vicente González Ruiz >>> Depto de Informática >>> Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingeniería >>> Universidad de Almería >>> >>> Carretera Sacramento S/N >>> 04120, La Cañada de San Urbano >>> Almería, España >>> >>> e-mail: [email protected] >>> http://www.ual.es/~vruiz >>> tel: +34 950 015711 >>> fax: +34 950 015486 >>> >> >> >
-- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~p2psp Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~p2psp More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
