[Ndn-interest] [icnrg] Caching Dynamic Content

Wed May 17 23:07:48 PDT 2017

Thank you for your clarification,

However, this is true only if the content is static (correct me please if I'm wrong). I can not see the benefits of caching in dynamic content scenarios.

Let’s reform my old example in another way!
Assuming 02 consumers C1 and C2 from the same network, sending a request to Facebook and Youtube.
• The  case of Facebook: both of Interest packets carry the sane name  com/facebook (or something like), because of they carry the same name, an Interest aggregation will be done (How can we distinguish between different requests with the same name for dynamic ontent). Facebook  server sent the Data packet to them, how can the ICN engine distinguish between consumers and which one has which Data (C1(Data) is not the same as C2(Data)). Also, we can not cache the Data, because it has a relation to a specific consumer, even if we cache it and serve it to the same consumer request from a different network in different Interest request, it can not be true as the content by nature should be dynami.
• The case of Youtube: C1 and C2 send the same Interest request to V1, both of them got the same video, an intermediate node cache the video (if it is a shared video and can not break the copyright rule – how ICN deal with copyrights). Moreover, even the video is a static content, but Youtube integrates ads on it (business view), which means if we cache it, Youtube can not integrate ads on it (even if we cache the video and ads, ads should be dynamic from video/consumer to another), in another word, Youtube can not get money using this networking paradigm.

I think ICN (NDN) can not be applied to real network environment, just when if it can be commercialized and companies can get their benefits  from the offered service, especially in dynamic content networks.

Boubakr Nour (Ph.D Candidate)
Beijing Institute of Technology (北京理工大学)

From: David Oran
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 7:36 PM
To: Cedric Westphal
Cc: n.boubakr at bit.edu.cn; ndn-interest at lists.cs.ucla.edu; icnrg at irtf.org
Subject: Re: [Ndn-interest] [icnrg] Caching Dynamic Content

I stand corrected! :-)
On 16 May 2017, at 14:45, Cedric Westphal wrote:
Caching is a win under THREE conditions ;-)

1. For error control
2. For sharing the same content among multiple consumers
3. To smooth out link variability over time. 

For an example of c), the most extreme case is that of DTN. Assume A wants to send contente to C. Node A would send a content for node B to cache because the link A-B is up; the link A-B may go down, but link B-C comes up, and the content can now be shared from the cache of B to C. But this case covers bandwidth fluctuation due to congestion and/or wireless interface fluctuations. See: F. Bronzino, D. Stojadinovic, C. Westphal, D. Raychaudhuri, Exploiting Network Awareness to Enhance DASH over Wireless, IEEE CCNC, January 2016 https://users.soe.ucsc.edu/~cedric/papers/bronzino2016exploiting.pdf

C.

From: Ndn-interest [mailto:ndn-interest-bounces at lists.cs.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of David Oran
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2017 6:51 AM
To: n.boubakr at bit.edu.cn
Cc: ndn-interest at lists.cs.ucla.edu; icnrg at irtf.org
Subject: Re: [Ndn-interest] [icnrg] Caching Dynamic Content

Caching is a win under two conditions:
a) for error control (recovering from lost Interest or data messages due to congestion, mobility, or other disruptions), or re-fetch of content that is unchanged
b) for sharing the same content among multiple consumers.
The former remains useful even if each user gets different content.
The latter is useful only if multiple consumers are getting the same identical content, and if the content is unencrypted or encrypted under a shared key.
You are right that dynamically generated content that is unique per consumer will not experience any sharing gains though caching, but may have value for error control or temporal sharing.
Some privacy advocates recommend that all content be encrypted with non-shared keys, in order to provide protection against correlation attacks, leakage through key sharing not controlled by the consumer, and perfect forward secrecy (PFS).
So, there you have it…
On 12 May 2017, at 0:19, n.boubakr at bit.edu.cn wrote:
Dear all,

Talking about the in-network caching for dynamic-content on ICN, I have the following miss-understanding:
1. Let’s take a scenario when two end-users want to access to the same website (e.g. Facebook), they requested facebook.com/home, well the name appears the same for both users, however, the content of each request is not the same. How does ICN work with this situation, because caching such content is not useful at all (even if the same user requests the same content name, the content will be different)? Does in-network caching have no benefits with dynamic content? Also, how does the content delivery process in this situation (because Interest/Data packets have not the requester name), how ICN nodes distinguish between the two (N) requesters?
2. Another question arises, requesting a video from Youtube for example (the video can be cached on any node), however, the real process is that the Youtube page associated with such video has some dynamic content such as Recommended Videos… Also, the video itself has many ads that appear on the video and they are different from user to another, and cannot be cached, and they are the main business method for the company. How can ICN treat the business model for such situation, as any company will not migrate to ICN if ICN can not ensure a business achievement?

Best regards,

Boubakr Nour (Ph.D Candidate)
Beijing Institute of Technology (北京理工大学)
_______________________________________________
icnrg mailing list
icnrg at irtf.org
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/icnrg
DaveO

DaveO

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.lists.cs.ucla.edu/pipermail/ndn-interest/attachments/20170518/6da9bde3/attachment.html>