[Bloat] Fwd: Measuring Web Similarity from Dual-stacked Hosts

[Rich Brown]

The following came from the NANOG list. It's IPv6 data, not performance info, but it's nice that we're getting mileage from the SamKnows infrastructure...

Rich

> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> From: nanog-request at nanog.org
> Subject: NANOG Digest, Vol 104, Issue 5
> Date: September 6, 2016 at 8:00:01 AM EDT
> To: nanog at nanog.org
> Reply-To: nanog at nanog.org
> 
> Send NANOG mailing list submissions to
> 	nanog at nanog.org
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	nanog-request at nanog.org
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	nanog-owner at nanog.org
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of NANOG digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>   1. measuring web similarity from dual-stacked hosts  
>      (Bajpai, Vaibhav)
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2016 12:36:35 +0000
> From: "Bajpai, Vaibhav" <v.bajpai at jacobs-university.de>
> To: "nanog at nanog.org" <nanog at nanog.org>
> Subject: measuring web similarity from dual-stacked hosts  
> Message-ID:
> 	<D27111C7-E7C1-4E95-98DE-D738402684C1 at jacobs-university.de>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> Dear NANOG,
> 
> Measuring Web Similarity from Dual-stacked Hosts
> ------------------------------------------------
> 
> How similar are the webpages accessed over IPv6 to their IPv4 counterparts? ?
> In situations where the content is dissimilar over IPv4 and IPv6, what factors
> contribute to the dissimilarity?
> 
> To answer ^ we developed a tool (simweb) and deployed it on 80 geographically
> distributed dual-stacked SamKnows probes. A paper presenting results from the
> collected dataset got accepted recently. We just released the tool and the
> paper [a]. Thought to share it along.
> 
> [a] http://goo.gl/sAsDcG
> 
> Feedback most welcome!
> You may recall a presentation of this work at RIPE 72 [b].
> 
> [b] https://ripe72.ripe.net/archives/video/126
> 
> Abstract
> --------
> 
> We compare the similarity of webpages delivered over IPv4 and IPv6. Using the
> SamKnows web performance (webget) test, we implemented an extension (simweb)
> that allows us to measure the similarity of webpages. The simweb test measures
> against ALEXA top 100 dual-stacked websites from 80 SamKnows probes connected
> to dual-stacked networks representing 58 different ASes. Using a two
> months-long dataset we show that 14% of these dual-stacked websites exhibit a
> dissimilarity in the number of fetched webpage elements, with 94% of them
> exhibiting a dissimilarity in their size. We show that 6% of these websites
> announce AAAA entries in the DNS but no content is delivered over IPv6 when an
> HTTP request is made. We also noticed several cases where not all webpage
> elements (such as images, javascript and CSS) of a dual-stacked website are
> available over IPv6. We show that 27% of the dual-stacked websites have some
> fraction of webpage elements that fail over IPv6, with 9% of the websites
> having more than 50% webpage elements that fail over IPv6. We perform a
> causality analysis and also identify sources for these failing elements. We
> show that 12% of these websites have more than 50% webpage elements that
> belong to the same origin source and fail over IPv6. Failure rates are largely
> affected by DNS resolution error on images, javascript and CSS content
> delivered from both same-origin and cross-origin sources. These failures tend
> to cripple experience for users behind an IPv6-only network and a
> quantification of failure cases may help improve IPv6 adoption on the Internet.
> 
> -- Vaibhav
> 
> ===================================
> Vaibhav Bajpai
> www.vaibhavbajpai.com
> 
> Postdoctoral Researcher
> Jacobs University Bremen, Germany
> ===================================
> 
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: signature.asc
> Type: application/pgp-signature
> Size: 496 bytes
> Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
> URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20160905/20fa36d2/attachment-0001.pgp>
> 
> End of NANOG Digest, Vol 104, Issue 5
> *************************************