Hi
In the demo code, for example in:
https://github.com/knowledgedefinednetworking/demo-routenet/blob/master/dem…
A form of normalisation is applied:
predictions = 0.54*preds + 0.37
This is consistent with the parse() function here:
https://github.com/knowledgedefinednetworking/demo-routenet/blob/master/cod…
if k == 'delay':
features[k] = (features[k] - 0.37) / 0.54
if k == 'traffic':
features[k] = (features[k] - 0.17) / 0.13
if k == 'link_capacity':
features[k] = (features[k] - 25.0) / 40.0
There is another case here:
https://github.com/knowledgedefinednetworking/network-modeling-GNN/blob/mas…
if k == 'delay':
features[k] = (tf.math.log(features[k]) + 1.78) / 0.93
if k == 'traffic':
features[k] = (features[k] - 0.28) / 0.15
if k == 'jitter':
features[k] = (features[k] - 1.5) / 1.5
if k == 'link_capacity':
features[k] = (features[k] - 27.0) / 14.86
if k == 'queue_sizes':
features[k] = (features[k] - 16.5) / 15.5
What is the basis for this normalisation and those specific constants please?
Why does the normalisation in routenet_with_link_cap and routenet_with_forwarding_nodes differ?
Many thanks
Nathan
Hi
The NSF net topology is, I think, represented in this diagram:
https://github.com/knowledgedefinednetworking/NetworkModelingDatasets/blob/…
The same network is also, I think, represented by the NED file in this compressed tar:
http://knowledgedefinednetworking.org/data/datasets_v0/nsfnet.tar.gz
That NED file is also here in my project:
https://github.com/Data-Science-Projects/demo-routenet/blob/master/tests/un…
In that NED file, I see these connections:
node2.port[2] <--> Channel10kbps <--> node5.port[0];
node4.port[1] <--> Channel40kbps <--> node5.port[1];
node5.port[2] <--> Channel10kbps <--> node12.port[0];
node5.port[3] <--> Channel10kbps <--> node13.port[0];
In my (refactored from original code) I have these values for the connections at https://github.com/Data-Science-Projects/demo-routenet/blob/master/src/rout…
[{0: 1, 1: 3, 2: 2}, {0: 0, 1: 2, 2: 7}, {0: 0, 1: 1, 2: 5}, {0: 0, 1: 4, 2: 8}, {0: 3, 1: 5, 2: 6}, {0: 2, 1: 4, 2: 12, 3: 13}, {0: 4, 1: 7}, {0: 1, 1: 6, 2: 10}, {0: 3, 1: 9, 2: 11}, {0: 8, 1: 10, 2: 12}, {0: 7, 1: 9, 2: 11, 3: 13}, {0: 8, 1: 10, 2: 12}, {0: 5, 1: 9, 2: 11}, {0: 5, 1: 10}]
Node 5 is: {0: 2, 1: 4, 2: 12, 3: 13}, which means node 5 is connected to nodes 2, 4, 12 and 13. In the diagram, node 5 is connected to 2, 4, 12 and 8.
Does anyone have any ideas as to where the discrepancy is coming from please?
Many thanks
Nathan
Hi
Can anyone here help me understand how to run the network simulations with OMNeT++ to recreate the original data pipeline please?
Many thanks
Nathan
(Please forward this to your CEO, because this is urgent. Thanks)
This is a formal email. We are the Domain Registration Service company in China. Here I have something to confirm with you. On August 6, 2019, we received an application from Kaiqian Ltd requested "kdn" as their internet keyword and China (CN) domain names (kdn.cn, kdn.com.cn, kdn.net.cn, kdn.org.cn). But after checking it, we find this name conflict with your company name or trademark. In order to deal with this matter better, it's necessary to send email to you and confirm whether your company have association with this Chinese company or not?
Best Regards
***************************************
Peter Liu | Service & Operations Manager
China Registry (Head Office) | 6012, Xingdi Building, No. 1698 Yishan Road, Shanghai 201103, China
Tel: +86-02164193517 | Fax: +86-02164198327 | Mob: +86-13816428671
Email: peter(a)chinaregistry.org
Web: www.chinaregistry.org
***************************************
This email contains privileged and confidential information intended for the addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy this email and inform the sender immediately. We appreciate you respecting the confidentiality of this information by not disclosing or using the information in this email.