[Ndn-interest] How is scalability done globally given current name structure

Andrea Detti andrea.detti at uniroma2.it
Fri Jan 16 01:16:18 PST 2015

Dear Kuo,
this seems to me  again the plain old scalability problem of NDN/CCN 
that I (re)-observed in the mailing list some days ago (see my mails or 
Locator hints, updated cisco packet format draft).

I proposed the introduction of a ContentLocator TLV field (aka locator 
hint, routing info, forwarding alias, etc. ) which contains a set of 
names used to help routing in those contexts where pure routing by 
object name practically does not scale. ContentLocator is used by an 
NDN/CCN router when FIB is unable to forward on (Object) name.

Thus in your case the Interest fields would be:

(Object) Name : Foo
ContentLocator : {ndn/tw/sinica/Foo;  ndn/edu/ucla/Foo}

The NDN strategy layer chooses which is the better serving location 
between  ndn/tw/sinica/Foo and  ndn/edu/ucla/Foo

Only ndn/tw/sinica/ and ndn/edu/ucla/ are advertized on the global 
routing plane,  thus reducing the FIB entries to the (e.g.) number of 
Autonomous Systems. Plain old locator identifier split approach proposed 
by several researchers before  me.

Clearly, you need a secure, reliable and scalable resolution system (as 
properly observed by DaveO) to obtain the ContentLocator field at the 
communication session start. And also a name management system that 
authorizes you tho name an object as Foo.

I guess that sooner or later people mostly involved in defining the 
NDN/CCN protocol will face this old scalability problem (I apologize if 
you already solved this scalability issue and I miss some information) .

Conversely, as now it seems to me, this technology can be used only in 
small closed environments, that however could be an interesting use-case 
too, albeit with a little bit smaller impact with respect to the 
original global scope: "Information-centric networking (ICN) is an 
approach to evolve the Internet infrastructure"  (citing ICNRG home page)


On 01/16/2015 03:52 AM, AnChe Kuo wrote:
> Dear Sir or Madam
> I am an intern at Academia Sinica and a student at NCTU, Taiwan,
> and I have been studying NDN for a few month now.
> If I wrote an application and call it "Foo", then can I simply 
> register "Foo" into the global NDN network? Given current 
> architecture, each router administrator is allowed to register only 
> names satisfying certain pattern that is assigned to them, right? So 
> if Academia Sinica now joins NDN network, we might get a prefix 
> "ndn/tw/sinica", which means I can only register my application as 
> "ndn/tw/sinica/Foo".
> But this present a problem. If some one in UCLA decided that she loves 
> this application, and also runs a producer there, she would have to 
> register it as "/ndn/edu/ucla/Foo". Now how can a client in China get 
> the content that is closest to him if he only knows the application 
> name "Foo"? If he sends an interest named "Foo", then longest prefix 
> match won't find anything. If he has to know the full name 
> "/ndn/edu/ucla/Foo", then we have lost the benefit of 
> NDN architecture, because it is almost equivalent to an exact source, 
> not just a content name.
> So how does NDN intend to solve the problem?
> 1. If NDN only focus on a small network, with applications for IoT or 
> M2M can register their names freely, then what are the benefits of NDN 
> other then its more natural architecture for related application? If 
> we look at efficiency, then TCP/IP is probably enough for a small area 
> network, will NDN offer the improvement that is necessary?
> 2. If we release the top level namespace for all applications to 
> register, so that we may register "Foo" into global routers, with 
> these top level namespace managed by some organization (similar to 
> ICANN), then will we suffer from routing table explosion? Because now 
> we have each unique URLs, and millions of different applications 
> registered at the top level to serve the global users.
> So far these are my concerns. I understand I might be having the wrong 
> question, because it might no be the intended use of NDN or the 
> current objective of the whole NDN project. But either way I would 
> love to hear from your feedback, or any critique on my question is 
> welcomed.
> -- 
> Best Wishes,
> 郭安哲
> Kuo, AnChe(Schwannden)
> _______________________________________________
> Ndn-interest mailing list
> Ndn-interest at lists.cs.ucla.edu
> http://www.lists.cs.ucla.edu/mailman/listinfo/ndn-interest

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.lists.cs.ucla.edu/pipermail/ndn-interest/attachments/20150116/e77e44eb/attachment.html>

More information about the Ndn-interest mailing list