Grading Rubrics

HW Project 1 - Ethernet Switch - Simulator Checkpoint

Group Number: ___________________________

Grading breakdown:

• Group hardware Implementation / correctness in simulator: 60 points
• Individual questions: 40 points

Total Grade:

Hardware Tests in Simulator (60 points):

Individual Questions for Group Members (40 points):

1. What part of the project did you work on? (In detail)
2. What are the sequence of steps that will occur in your switch, from when a packet arrives to when it is sent out?
   1. Packets are pushed in from previous module (input arbiter)
   2. Need to accept enough of the packet to see the destination and source MAC addr, and save in buffer (FIFO). We have to buffer because the field we need to update (output ports) comes *before* the field we need to search on (destination addr).
      1. How will incoming packet data from the previous module be handled while the table is being searched? (A FIFO?)
   3. Lookup the destination immediately so we can update the output port(s) and send the packet to next module
   4. Learning the source address can happen while the packet is streaming through
3. What tests are currently implemented in the simulator? How did you decide what features should be included in your tests?

HW Project 1 - Ethernet Switch

Group Number: ___________________________

Grading breakdown:

• Hardware Implementation / correctness: 65 points
• Software Implementation / correctness: 15 points
• Written Report: 15 points
• Simulator Checkpoint: 5 points

Total Grade:

Hardware Tests (65 points):

Software Tests (20 points):

Written Report (15 points):

HW Project 2 - Router Design Document

Group Number: ___________________________

Grading Breakdown

• Introduction - 0 points
• Feature Set - 10 points
• Architectural Description - 40 points
• Other Architectural Issues - 15 points
• Testing - 15 points
• Writing Style (Clarity / Organization) - 15 points
• Honor code (division of labor) - 5 points

Total Grade:

Introduction (0 points):

Feature Set (10 points):

Architectural Description (40 points):

Other Architectural Issues (15 points):

Testing (15 points):

Writing Style (Clarity / Organization) (15 points):

(Items include introductions for all sections and clear descriptions of all design elements)

Honor code (5 points):

Other Comments:

SW Project 1 - Software Router

Group Number: ___________________________

Grading Breakdown

• Honor code - 5 points
• Implementation / correctness - 65 points
• Written report - 30 points

Total Grade:

Honor Code (5 points):

Implementation / correctness (65 points):

Written Report (30 points):

• (0) Introduction
• (4) Description of overall router structure
• (4) Description of router design modularity and extendibility
• (2) Description of router design thread-safety
• (4) Description of routing table design and implementation
• (4) Description of ARP system design and implementation
• (4) Description of packet flow through the router for multiple scenarios (e.g. locally addressed packets, forwarded packets, bad packets etc.)
• (4) Description of router testing and support for debugging
• (4) Writing style / clarity

Code change for #11 grading

Place pieces of the following code in sr_vns.c under the VNSPACKET section. You can corrupt the packet before passing it to your software router.  If you change it earlier in that section, you can corrupt the packet before logging it, and use wireshark to verify that the packet was mangled as desired.

• Note: Some types of packet errors will require the checksum to be recalculated. (Otherwise, we're just testing the bad checksum error over and over again).  Use your own checksum function instead of inet_cksum() as listed here.

     // JAS
     // -- Corrupt packet to test IPv6, bad checksum, fragments, etc... --

     /*
     int i;
     for(i=0; i<len-sizeof(c_packet_header); i++)
       {
         printf("x%02X\n", *(buf+sizeof(c_packet_header)+i));
       }
     */

     /*
     if(*(buf+sizeof(c_packet_header)+12) == 0x08
        && *(buf+sizeof(c_packet_header)+13) == 0x00)
       {
         // If IP: Corrupt IP header checksum
         *(buf+sizeof(c_packet_header)+24)=0xAA;
       }
     */

     /*      
     if(*(buf+sizeof(c_packet_header)+12) == 0x08
        && *(buf+sizeof(c_packet_header)+13) == 0x00)
       {
         // If IP: Change to IPv6 / Header length 5
         *(buf+sizeof(c_packet_header)+14)=0x65;

         // Now Recalculate the checksum                                                                      
         *((uint16_t *) (buf+sizeof(c_packet_header)+24)) = 0;
         *((uint16_t *) (buf+sizeof(c_packet_header)+24)) = inet_chksum(buf+sizeof(c_packet_header)+14, 20);
       }
     */

     /*
     if(*(buf+sizeof(c_packet_header)+12) == 0x08
        && *(buf+sizeof(c_packet_header)+13) == 0x00)
       {
         // If IP: Clear "don't fragment" bit 
         // Set "more frags follow" bit
         // Set fragment offset to 0
         *(buf+sizeof(c_packet_header)+20)=0x20;

         // Now Recalculate the checksum                                                                      
         *((uint16_t *) (buf+sizeof(c_packet_header)+24)) = 0;
         *((uint16_t *) (buf+sizeof(c_packet_header)+24)) = inet_chksum(buf+sizeof(c_packet_header)+14, 20);
       }
     */

     /*
     if(*(buf+sizeof(c_packet_header)+12) == 0x08
        && *(buf+sizeof(c_packet_header)+13) == 0x00)
       {
         // If IP: Change IHL to 6 (from 5)
         // so there is room for IP options
         *(buf+sizeof(c_packet_header)+14)=0x46;

         // Now Recalculate the checksum                                                                      
         *((uint16_t *) (buf+sizeof(c_packet_header)+24)) = 0;
         *((uint16_t *) (buf+sizeof(c_packet_header)+24)) = inet_chksum(buf+sizeof(c_packet_header)+14, 20);
       }
     */

HW Project 3 - Hardware Router

Group Number: ___________________________

Grading Breakdown

• Implementation / correctness - 85 points
• Written report - 15 points

Total Grade:

Implementation / correctness (85 points):

Written Report (15 points):

SW Project 2 - User Interface

Group Number: ___________________________

Grading Breakdown

• Implementation / correctness - 60 points
• Usability of the user interface - 10 points
• Written report - 30 points

Total Grade:

Implementation / correctness (60 points):

User Interface Usability (10 points):

(Online help/documentation is required for either the command-line or web interface)

Written Report (30 points):

• A clear, concise description of how your router handles ARP timeouts
• A clear, concise description of how the TCP/IP stack is integrated into your router
• A clear, concise description of the design of your echo server
• A clear, concise description of the design of your user interface
• A user manual for your user interface
• An updated and expanded description of your testing methodology

Integration

Group Number: ___________________________

Grading Breakdown

• Correctness with reference hardware: 40 points
• Correctness with your hardware: 50 points
• Performance: 10 points

Total Grade:

Correctness with reference hardware (40 points):

Correctness with your hardware (50 points):

Performance (10 points):

Performance is measured with your hardware router implementation

Project Presentation

Group Number: ___________________________

Total Grade:

Overview (1 point)

Technical Description (4 points)

Challenges / Insights / Lessons Learned (3 points)

Presentation Style (2 points)

Final Report

Group Number: ___________________________

Total Grade:

Introduction (5 points):

Software (15 points):

(Have you addressed comments given in your previous assignments?)

Hardware (15 points):

(Have you addressed comments given in your previous assignments?)

Integration (25 points):

(See bulleted list in project assignment)

Testing (10 points):

(See bulleted list in project assignment)

Conclusions (15 points):

(See bulleted list in project assignment)

Writing quality (15 points):

(Are all sections of your document well-written?  Do they integrate together into a coherent report?)