Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) is the protocol backing the core routing decisions on the Internet. It maintains a table of IP networks or 'prefixes' which designate network reachability among autonomous systems (AS). Point of concern in BGP is its lack of effective security measures which makes Internet vulnerable to different forms of attacks. Many solutions have been proposed till date to combat BGP security issues but not a single one is deployable in practical scenario. Any security proposal with optimal solution should offer adequate security functions, performance overhead and deployment cost. This paper critically analyzes the deployment issues of best three proposals considering trade-off between security functions and performance overhead.

Comparative analysis of

From the Book:
“Clean code that works” is Ron Jeffries’ pithy phrase. The goal is clean code that works, and for a whole bunch of reasons:
Clean code that works is a predictable way to develop. You know when you are finished, without having to worry about a long bug trail.Clean code that works gives you a chance to learn all the lessons that the code has to teach you. If you only ever slap together the first thing you think of, you never have time to think of a second, better, thing. Clean code that works improves the lives of users of our software.Clean code that works lets your teammates count on you, and you on them.Writing clean code that works feels good.But how do you get to clean code that works? Many forces drive you away from clean code, and even code that works. Without taking too much counsel of our fears, here’s what we do—drive development with automated tests, a style of development called “Test-Driven Development” (TDD for short). 
In Test-Driven Development, you:
Write new code only if you first have a failing automated test.Eliminate duplication.

Two simple rules, but they generate complex individual and group behavior. Some of the technical implications are:You must design organically, with running code providing feedback between decisionsYou must write your own tests, since you can’t wait twenty times a day for someone else to write a testYour development environment must provide rapid response to small changesYour designs must consist of many highly cohesive, loosely coupled components, just to make testing easy

The two rules imply an order to the tasks ofprogramming:
1. Red—write a little test that doesn’t work, perhaps doesn’t even compile at first
2. Green—make the test work quickly, committing whatever sins necessary in the process
3. Refactor—eliminate all the duplication created in just getting the test to work


Red/green/refactor. The TDD’s mantra.

Assuming for the moment that such a style is possible, it might be possible to dramatically reduce the defect density of code and make the subject of work crystal clear to all involved. If so, writing only code demanded by failing tests also has social implications:
If the defect density can be reduced enough, QA can shift from reactive to pro-active workIf the number of nasty surprises can be reduced enough, project managers can estimate accurately enough to involve real customers in daily developmentIf the topics of technical conversations can be made clear enough, programmers can work in minute-by-minute collaboration instead of daily or weekly collaborationAgain, if the defect density can be reduced enough, we can have shippable software with new functionality every day, leading to new business relationships with customers


So, the concept is simple, but what’s my motivation? Why would a programmer take on the additional work of writing automated tests? Why would a programmer work in tiny little steps when their mind is capable of great soaring swoops of design? Courage.
Courage
Test-driven development is a way of managing fear during programming. I don’t mean fear in a bad way, pow widdle prwogwammew needs a pacifiew, but fear in the legitimate, this-is-a-hard-problem-and-I-can’t-see-the-end-from-the-beginning sense. If pain is nature’s way of saying “Stop!”, fear is nature’s way of saying “Be careful.” Being careful is good, but fear has a host of other effects:
Makes you tentativeMakes you want to communicate lessMakes you shy from feedbackMakes you grumpy

None of these effects are helpful when programming, especially when programming something hard. So, how can you face a difficult situation and:
Instead of being tentative, begin learning concretely as quickly as possible.Instead of clamming up, communicate more clearly.Instead of avoiding feedback, search out helpful, concrete feedback.(You’ll have to work on grumpiness on your own.) 

Imagine programming as turning a crank to pull a bucket of water from a well. When the bucket is small, a free-spinning crank is fine. When the bucket is big and full of water, you’re going to get tired before the bucket is all the way up. You need a ratchet mechanism to enable you to rest between bouts of cranking. The heavier the bucket, the closer the teeth need to be on the ratchet.

The tests in test-driven development are the teeth of the ratchet. Once you get one test working, you know it is working, now and forever. You are one step closer to having everything working than you were when the test was broken. Now get the next one working, and the next, and the next. By analogy, the tougher the programming problem, the less ground should be covered by each test.

Readers of Extreme Programming Explained will notice a difference in tone between XP and TDD. TDD isn’t an absolute like Extreme Programming. XP says, “Here are things you must be able to do to be prepared to evolve further.” TDD is a little fuzzier. TDD is an awareness of the gap between decision and feedback during programming, and techniques to control that gap. “What if I do a paper design for a week, then test-drive the code? Is that TDD?” Sure, it’s TDD. You were aware of the gap between decision and feedback and you controlled the gap deliberately.

That said, most people who learn TDD find their programming practice changed for good. “Test Infected” is the phrase Erich Gamma coined to describe this shift. You might find yourself writing more tests earlier, and working in smaller steps than you ever dreamed would be sensible. On the other hand, some programmers learn TDD and go back to their earlier practices, reserving TDD for special occasions when ordinary programming isn’t making progress.

There are certainly programming tasks that can’t be driven solely by tests (or at least, not yet). Security software and concurrency, for example, are two topics where TDD is not sufficient to mechanically demonstrate that the goals of the software have been met. Security relies on essentially defect-free code, true, but also on human judgement about the methods used to secure the software. Subtle concurrency problems can’t be reliably duplicated by running the code.

Once you are finished reading this book, you should be ready to:
Start simplyWrite automated testsRefactor to add design decisions one at a time

This book is organized into three sections.
An example of writing typical model code using TDD. The example is one I got from Ward Cunningham years ago, and have used many times since, multi-currency arithmetic. In it you will learn to write tests before code and grow a design organically.An example of testing more complicated logic, including reflection and exceptions, by developing a framework for automated testing. This example also serves to introduce you to the xUnit architecture that is at the heart of many programmer-oriented testing tools. In the second example you will learn to work in even smaller steps than in the first example, including the kind of self-referential hooha beloved of computer scientists.Patterns for TDD. Included are patterns for the deciding what tests to write, how to write tests using xUnit, and a greatest hits selection of the design patterns and refactorings used in the examples.

I wrote the examples imagining a pair programming session. If you like looking at the map before wandering around, you may want to go straight to the patterns in Section 3 and use the examples as illustrations. If you prefer just wandering around and then looking at the map to see where you’ve been, try reading the examples through and refering to the patterns when you want more detail about a technique, then using the patterns as a reference.

Several reviewers have commented they got the most out of the examples when they started up a programming environment and entered the code and ran the tests as they read.

A note about the examples. Both examples, multi-currency calculation and a testing framework, appear simple. There are (and I have seen) complicated, ugly, messy ways of solving the same problems. I could have chosen one of those complicated, ugly, messy solutions to give the book an air of “reality.” However, my goal, and I hope your goal, is to write clean code that works. Before teeing off on the examples as being too simple, spend 15 seconds imagining a programming world in which all code was this clear and direct, where there were no complicated solutions, only apparently complicated problems begging for careful thought. TDD is a practice that can help you lead yourself to exactly that careful thought.

Test Driven Development: By Example

Autonomic communications seek to improve the ability of network and services to cope with unpredicted change, including changes in topology, load, task, the physical and logical characteristics of the networks that can be accessed, and so forth. Broad-ranging autonomic solutions require designers to account for a range of end-to-end issues affecting programming models, network and contextual modeling and reasoning, decentralised algorithms, trust acquisition and maintenance---issues whose solutions may draw on approaches and results from a surprisingly broad range of disciplines. We survey the current state of autonomic communications research and identify significant emerging trends and techniques.

A survey of autonomic communications

Nowadays, numerous journals and conferences have published articles related to context-aware systems, indicating many researchers' interest. Therefore, the goal of this paper is to review the works that were published in journals, suggest a new classification framework of context-aware systems, and explore each feature of classification framework. This paper is based on a literature review of context-aware systems from 2000 to 2007 using a keyword index and article title search. The classification framework is developed based on the architecture of context-aware systems, which consists of the following five layers: concept and research layer, network layer, middleware layer, application layer and user infrastructure layer. The articles are categorized based on the classification framework. This paper allows researchers to extract several lessons learned that are important for the implementation of context-aware systems.

Context-aware systems

Innovation Diffusion as a Spatial Process

http://mpc.ece.utexas.edu/Papers/ComparitiveEvaluationOfRSSI.pdf

Comparative evaluation of Received Signal-Strength Index (RSSI) based indoor localization techniques for construction jobsites

Today's mobile applications require constant adaptation to their changing environments, or contexts. Technological advances have increased the pervasiveness of mobile computing devices such as laptops, handhelds, and embedded sensors. The sheer amount of context information available for adaptation places a heightened burden on application developers as they must manage and utilize vast amounts of data from diverse sources. Facilitating programming in this data-rich environment requires a middleware that provides context information to applications in an abstract form. In this paper, we demonstrate the feasibility of such a middleware that allows programmers to focus on high-level interactions among programs and to employ declarative abstract context specifications in settings that exhibit transient interactions with opportunistically encountered components. We also discuss the novel context-aware abstractions the middleware provides and the programming knowledge necessary to write applications using it. Finally, we provide examples demonstrating the infrastructure's ability to support differing tasks from a wide variety of application domains

/pdf/egospaces-facilitating-rapid-development-of-context-aware-2oassryyza.pdf

EgoSpaces: facilitating rapid development of context-aware mobile applications

Sensor networks are becoming increasingly pervasive. Existing methods of aggregation in sensor networks offer mostly standard mathematical operators over homogeneous data types. In this paper, we instead focus on supporting emerging scenarios in which applications will need to extract abstracted measurements from diverse sets of sensor network nodes. This paper introduces the virtual sensors abstraction that enables an application developer to programmatically specify an application's high-level data requirements. This paper reports on our initial work with the virtual sensors and the results of our prototype implementation.

/pdf/virtual-sensors-abstracting-data-from-physical-sensors-ytf3xgx1u4.pdf

Virtual sensors: abstracting data from physical sensors

Some of the most dynamic systems being built today consist of physically mobile hosts and logically mobile agents. Such systems exhibit frequent configuration changes and a great deal of resource variability. Applications executing under these circumstances need to react continuously and rapidly to changes in operating conditions and must adapt their behavior accordingly. The development of such applications demands a reexamination of the notion of context and the mechanisms used to manage the application's response to contextual changes. This paper introduces EgoSpaces, a coordination model and middleware for ad hoc mobile environments. EgoSpaces focuses on the needs of application development in ad hoc environments by proposing an agent-centered notion of context, called a view, whose scope extends beyond the local host to data and resources associated with hosts and agents within a subnet surrounding the agent of interest. An agent may operate over multiple views whose definitions may change over time. An agent uses declarative specifications to constrain the contents of each view by employing a rich set of constraints that take into consideration properties of the individual data items, the agents that own them, the hosts on which the agents reside, and the physical and logical topology of the ad hoc network. This paper formalizes the concept of view, explores the notion of programming against views, discusses possible implementation strategies for transparent context maintenance, and describes our current prototype of the system. We include examples to illustrate the expressive power of the view abstraction and to relate it to other research on coordination models and middleware.

/pdf/egocentric-context-aware-programming-in-ad-hoc-mobile-1x89ax7yqr.pdf

Egocentric context-aware programming in ad hoc mobile environments

Context-aware computing is characterized by the ability of a software system to continuously adapt its behavior to a changing environment over which it has little or no control. Previous work along these lines presumed a rather narrow definition of context, one that was centered on resources immediately available to the component in question, e.g., communication bandwidth, physical location, etc. This paper explores context-aware computing in the setting of ad hoc networks consisting of numerous mobile hosts that interact with each other opportunistically via transient wireless interconnections. We extend the context to encompass awareness of an entire neighborhood within the ad hoc network. A formal abstract characterization of this new perspective is proposed. The result is a specification method and associated context maintenance protocol. The former enables an application to define an individualized context, one that extends across multiple mobile hosts in the ad hoc network. The latter makes it possible to delegate the continuous reevaluation of the context and the performance of operations on it to some middleware operating below the application level. This relieves application development of the obligation of explicitly managing mobility and its implications on the component's behavior.

/pdf/network-abstractions-for-context-aware-mobile-computing-88he3ebeca.pdf

Christine Julien

Papers

Comparative evaluation of Received Signal-Strength Index (RSSI) based indoor localization techniques for construction jobsites

EgoSpaces: facilitating rapid development of context-aware mobile applications

Virtual sensors: abstracting data from physical sensors

Egocentric context-aware programming in ad hoc mobile environments

Network abstractions for context-aware mobile computing