|
|
|
Assessment Details and Submission Guidelines
|
Trimester
|
|
T2 2018
|
Unit Code
|
|
MN504
|
Unit Title
|
|
Networked Application Management
|
Assessment
|
Group Assignment
|
Type
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Assessment
|
Network Analysis using Wireshark
|
Title
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purpose of the
|
This assignment is designed to develop deeper analytical understanding of
|
assessment
|
different distributed network conditions. At the completion of this assessment
|
(with
|
ULO
|
students should be able to:
|
Mapping)
|
|
|
d. Analyse performance and deployment issues for networked applications;
|
|
|
|
e. Compare appropriate industry tools and techniques to manage
|
|
|
|
networked applications;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weight
|
|
20%
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Marks
|
60
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Word limit
|
|
2000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Due Date
|
|
28/09/2018 11:55PM (Week 11 Friday)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Submission
|
|
All work must be submitted on Moodle by the due date along with a title
|
Guidelines
|
|
Page.
|
|
|
The assignment must be in MS Word format, 1.5 spacing, 11-pt Calibri (Body)
|
|
|
|
font and 2.54 cm margins on all four sides of your page with appropriate
|
|
|
|
section headings.
|
|
|
Reference sources must be cited in the text of the report, and listed
|
|
|
appropriately at the end in a reference list using IEEE referencing style.
|
Extension
|
|
If an extension of time to submit work is required, a Special Consideration
|
|
|
|
Application must be submitted directly on AMS. You must submit this
|
|
|
|
application three working days prior to the due date of the assignment.
|
|
|
|
Further information is available at:
|
|
|
|
http://www.mit.edu.au/about
-mit/institute-publications/policies-
|
|
|
|
procedures-and-guidelines/specialconsiderationdeferment
|
|
|
|
|
|
Academic
|
|
Academic Misconduct is a serious offence. Depending on the seriousness of
|
Misconduct
|
|
the case, penalties can vary from a written warning or zero marks to exclusion
|
|
|
|
from the course or rescinding the degree. Students should make themselves
|
|
|
|
familiar with the full policy and procedure available at:
|
|
|
|
http://www.mit.edu.au/about-mit/institute-publications/policies-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
procedures-and-guidelines/Plagiarism-Academic-Misconduct-Policy-
|
|
|
|
|
Procedure
For
further information, please refer to the Academic Integrity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Section in your Unit Description.
|
Prepared by:
Dr Lincy Jim
Moderated by: Dr Sanjeeb Shrestha
August, 2018
MN504 Networked Application Management
Assignment 2
Page
2
of
5
Assignment Description
The aim of the assignment is to develop an analytical understanding of performance and management of different types of networked applications. The assignment will provide an opportunity to understand network performance and management issues of networked applications using state of the art tools. These exercises provide an opportunity to demonstrate analytical ability of evaluating distributed systems performance, Quality of Service and service management.
Overview and General Instructions of Assignment
Students need to form a group of two in their own lab class and inform tutor about their group during Week 7 Lab. Each group will need to capture packets on their home network and at MIT while accessing the following websites. One website is of a news channel and the other one is a website for live streaming. The students are required to capture packets of multiple images from the news channel website and capture packets from the live stream website while streaming for 10 minutes once at MIT in a group and then on their home network individually. So at the end there will be six trace files, three for each website, two captured on MIT network and four on students’ home networks.
The websites to access are:
http://www.lightfm.com.au
http:// iview.abc.net.au
The complete report must be submitted on Moodle within due date. The report has following four main parts:
Part 1:
The first part of the report should be about general statistics of all six captures using Wireshark that must include:
1. Start time of capture
2. Total number of captured packets for each protocol
3. Total Number of lost packets
4. IP addresses of the client and server
Part 2:
The second part of the report must include screen shots of packet capture, screenshots of different statistics from Wireshark and complete analysis of those screenshots for both websites for all three networks.
Only
screenshots of the graphs or other statistics will not get any marks as those must be analysed in detail to discuss the quality of service for a particular application. The students are required to analyse the network
performance for the assigned websites considering following aspects:
1. Throughput
2. Round Trip Time
3. Packet Loss
While collecting statistics please make sure, you are looking at the right flow as your Wireshark file may have packets from other applications and flows as well. Figure 1 on next page shows the throughput graph generated by Wireshark and source and destination addresses are clearly shown. You need to collect statistics for flows which are from server to client.
Prepared by:
Dr Lincy Elizebeth Jim
Moderated by: Dr Sanjeeb Shrestha
August 2018
MN504 Networked Application Management
Assignment 2
Page
3
of
5
Figure 1: Throughput Graph showing source and destination IP addresses
To see the Packet loss you need to enter the following filter in Wireshark:
tcp.analysis.lost_Segment
Part 3:
The third part of the report is about comparing the collected Wireshark statistics of the two different networked applications on three different networks. The throughput graphs and TCP retransmission statistics for web page transfer and live streaming (provided in part 2) need to be compared with each other and for all three networks. The differences of the performance to be identified and reasons must be provided for such differences.
Part 4:
Students need to download, install, use and compare another free network performance measurement tool from the Internet on their home computer. One possible option is Microsoft Message Analyzer from
https://www.microsoft.com/en-au/download/details.aspx?id=44226.
The tool should be used to analyse the network traffic captured while accessing one of the news websites mentioned in Table 1. The chosen tool should be compared with Wireshark on the basis of following criteria:
1. Ease of access and use: how easy it is to download, install and start using (any changes to be made to the system etc.) as compared to Wireshark
2. GUI: Compare at least four GUI features of the chosen tool with Wireshark
Prepared by:
Dr Lincy Elizebeth Jim
Moderated by: Dr Sanjeeb Shrestha
August 2018
MN504 Networked Application Management
Assignment 2
Page
4
of
5
3. Visualisation of traffic: After capturing packets by the chosen tool the effectiveness of the visualisation of the network traffic should be compared with Wireshark.
4. Statistics generation: At least one statistics like throughput, RTT etc. needs to be generated by the chosen tool and to be compared with the same generated by Wireshark.
The comparison must include screenshots for both tools (your chosen tool and Wireshark) to judge the validity of the comparison.
Marking criteria:
Section to be included in
|
|
Description of the section
|
Marks
|
the report
|
|
|
|
Introduction
|
Outline of the assignment
|
4
|
|
Overall structure of the report
|
|
|
|
|
General Statistics
|
For each capture following should be discussed:
|
9
|
|
1.
|
Time of capture
|
|
|
2.
|
Total number of captured packets
|
|
|
3.
|
IP addresses of client and server
|
|
|
|
|
Network Performance
|
Screenshots and analysis of the following:
|
5 x 3 = 15
|
|
1.
|
Throughput
|
|
|
2.
|
Round Trip Time
|
|
|
3.
|
Packet Loss
|
|
|
|
|
Comparison 1
|
Comparison of the throughput and TCP retransmissions
|
5 x 3 = 15
|
|
of both applications on three networks and discussion of
|
|
|
the reasons for the difference.
|
|
|
|
|
Comparison 2
|
Comparison of the chosen tool with Wireshark in terms
|
3 x 4 = 12
|
|
of:
|
|
|
|
1.
|
Ease of access and use
|
|
|
2.
|
GUI
|
|
|
3.
|
Visualisation of traffic
|
|
|
4.
|
Statistics generation
|
|
|
The screenshots for both tools should be provided
|
|
|
|
|
Conclusion
|
Complete summary of the report specially the
|
3
|
|
comparison.
|
|
|
|
|
Reference style
|
Follow IEEE reference style.
|
2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
60
|
|
|
|
|
Prepared by:
Dr Lincy Elizebeth Jim
Moderated by: Dr Sanjeeb Shrestha
August 2018
MN504 Networked Application Management
Assignment 2
Page
5
of
5
Marking Rubric for Assignment
#2:
Total Marks 60
Grade
|
HD
|
DI
|
CR
|
P
|
Mark
|
> 80%
|
70-79%
|
60-69%
|
50-59%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Excellent
|
Very Good
|
Good
|
Satisfactory
|
|
|
|
|
|
Introduction
|
Clear and concise
|
Clear outline is
|
Some outline is
|
Some outline is
|
|
outline is provided,
|
provided, report
|
provided, report
|
provided,.
|
/4
|
report structure is
|
structure is
|
structure is
|
|
|
described properly
|
described.
|
somewhat
|
|
|
|
|
discussed
|
|
General
|
All required aspects
|
All required
|
Some aspects are
|
Very few aspects
|
Statistics
|
are discussed
|
aspects are
|
discussed
|
are discussed
|
|
exceptionally well
|
discussed
|
|
|
/9
|
|
|
|
|
Network
|
All required matters
|
Most of the
|
Some required
|
Few of the
|
Performance
|
are analysed in detail
|
required matters
|
matters are
|
required matters
|
/15
|
and exceptionally
|
are analysed in
|
analysed in detail
|
are analysed
|
|
well, All screen shots
|
detail , All screen
|
and , Some
|
|
|
are clear and
|
shots are clear
|
screen shots are
|
|
|
complete
|
and complete
|
clear and
|
|
|
|
|
complete
|
|
Comparison 1
|
In detail comparison
|
Some comparison
|
Some comparison
|
Comparison and
|
|
is provided and
|
is provided and
|
is provided and
|
justification is
|
/15
|
justification is given
|
justification given
|
incomplete
|
incomplete
|
|
exceptionally well
|
|
justification is
|
|
|
|
|
there
|
|
Comparison 2
|
In detail comparison
|
Some comparison
|
Some comparison
|
Comparison and
|
|
is provided and
|
is provided and
|
is provided and
|
justification is
|
/12
|
justification is given
|
justification given
|
incomplete
|
incomplete
|
|
exceptionally well
|
|
justification is
|
|
|
|
|
there
|
|
Conclusion
|
Logic is clear and
|
Consistency
|
Mostly consistent
|
Adequate
|
|
easy to follow with
|
logical and
|
logical and
|
cohesion and
|
/3
|
strong arguments
|
convincing
|
convincing
|
conviction
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reference
|
Clear styles with
|
Clear referencing
|
Generally good
|
Sometimes clear
|
style
|
excellent source of
|
style
|
referencing style
|
referencing style
|
|
references.
|
|
|
|
/2
|
|
|
|
|
Fail
Unsatisfactory
This is no relevance to the assignment topic.
Not related
Not related
or/and
incomplete
Not related
and/or
incomplete
Not related
and/or
incomplete
Argument is
confused and
disjointed
Lacks
consistency with
many errors
Prepared by:
Dr Lincy Elizebeth Jim
Moderated by: Dr Sanjeeb Shrestha
August 2018