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

Tai-Lin Chu tailinchu at gmail.com
Fri Jan 16 22:27:07 PST 2015

Chaim Rieger's idea is what ndn is going now.

On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 7:15 PM, Chaim Rieger <chaim.rieger at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/16/2015 1:16 AM, Andrea Detti wrote:
>> 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)
>> Andrea
> Why can this naming convention only be used on small scale, why not take
> the philosophy of the DNS convention and apply it as follows.
> Each name that must be publicly routable is advertised to the world
> Only top level domain should be advertised
> within each top level domain all the subdomain (or sub data) are/is only
> routable within the self domain
> This will allow (for example) UCLA to control and allocate names to all
> data within the UCLA network, and not have to advertise routing for it.
> Why not let each entity control their own naming convention, which will
> in turn also place the responsibility for routing within self on said
> entity and not on the rest of the world keeping the public routing
> tables very small.
> Correct me if I am completely out out line please.
> _______________________________________________
> Ndn-interest mailing list
> Ndn-interest at lists.cs.ucla.edu
> http://www.lists.cs.ucla.edu/mailman/listinfo/ndn-interest

More information about the Ndn-interest mailing list