Slide 1Slide 2Slide 3Slide 4Slide 5Slide 6Slide 7Slide 8Slide 9Slide 10Slide 11Slide 12Slide 13Slide 14Slide 15Slide 16Networking Named ContentVan Jacobson, Diana K. Smetters, James D. Thornton, Michael F. Plass, Nicholas H. Briggs, Rebecca L. BraynardContent Centric NetworkingNetwork use has evolved since IP was designedUsage of the Internet is in terms of what not whereCCN: architecure built on named data rather than named hostsProvides security, scalability, performance.Content Centric NetworkingTwo packet types: Interest and DataHeirarchical content naming schemeAllows dynamic content generation: active namesCCN node has 3 components: FIB, Content Store and PITFIB: Forwarding table, allows multiple output facesContent Store: Buffer, also caches Data packetsPIT: Pending Interest TableCCN NodesProcessing an Interest:–Matching Data is found in the Content Store => send it and consume Interest–Pending Interest in PIT=> add this face to RequestingFaces list–Use FIB to forward Interest on outgoing faces, add to PITProcessing Data:Data follows a chain if PIT entries back to the sourceDuplicate and unsolicited Data is discardedReliability and Flow ControlInterests serve the role of window advertisementsEach packet is independent => TCP SACK is implicitFlow balance is maintained at each hop, not end-to-end like TCPThus additional, TCP-like congestion control mechanisms not required.Naming ContentHierarchical content names with a flexible formatIndividual name consists of a number of componentsNames can be relative to some known name, e.g. next/previousSame content can have multiple names! Problems with caching?A source of data performs a Register operation for a prefixRoutingRouting between CCN nodes can occur over unmodified OSPF. Incremental deployment of CCN nodes is possibleIntegration with BGP is also possibleRouters do not construct spanning treesLoops are not possible anywayMultiple paths can be usedContent Based SecuritySecurity travels with the content, it is not a property of the connectionCCN authenticates name-content bindings by signing the name and content in each data packetArbitrary key management schemes can be used over CCNKeys can be sent over CCN since they are just another piece of dataIf we trust some public keys, we can infer moreNetwork SecuritySending a malicious packet to a host is difficult because CCN talks only about content, not to hostsData based DoS attacks are impossible because only one Data packet is forwarded per InterestInterest flooding:Multiple Interests for the same content are combinedLimit the forwarding of unsuccesful interestsWhat if sender and receiver collude?EvaluationTransfer time vs Number of SinksEvaluationFailoverAn Architecture for Internet Data TransferNiraj Tolia, Michael Kaminsky, David G. Andersen, and Swapnil PatilData Oriented Transfer ServiceSeperate control from dataControl logic is application specific; use DOT for all data transferBenefits:Transfer techniques can reused and new ones triedCoding, multi-pass compression, caching etc. can be applied by the transfer serviceMulti-path transfersCross application data processorsDOTDOT provides an API and a plugin architectureTransfer Plugins: eg. Multi-path, portable storageStorage Plugins: access to local data, divide data into chunks, compute hashesBasic API: Sender calls put with data, gets back an OIDReceiver uses OID to get dataEvaluationMultipath Plugin: Using two 100 Mbit/s Ethernet links, transfer time went down from 3.59 seconds to 1.90 secondsModified Postfix mail server to use DOTMinimal modification: 184 LoCDOT saves 20% of total message bytes transferredDuplicated messagesPartial redundancies in messagesThank
View Full Document
Unlocking...