p2psp team mailing list archive

[Juan Álvaro Muñoz Naranjo <juanalvaro83@xxxxxxxxx>]

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 <im.shakirov@xxxxxxxxx>:

> 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 <
> juanalvaro83@xxxxxxxxx>:
>
>> 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 <
>> vicente.gonzalez.ruiz@xxxxxxxxx>:
>>
>>> 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 <im.shakirov@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> 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 <
>>>> vicente.gonzalez.ruiz@xxxxxxxxx>:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 5:48 PM L.G.Casado <leo@xxxxxx> 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: vruiz@xxxxxx
>>>>> 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: vruiz@xxxxxx
>>> http://www.ual.es/~vruiz
>>> tel: +34 950 015711
>>> fax: +34 950 015486
>>>
>>
>>
>