[Ndn-interest] Usefulness of routing protocol?
lixia at CS.UCLA.EDU
Sun Jan 17 22:05:58 PST 2016
> On Jan 17, 2016, at 6:23 PM, Syed Hassan Ahmed <s.h.ahmed at ieee.org> wrote:
> Dear Dennis,
> cc: Prof. Lixia Zhang and Dr. Alexander
> Somehow your question is valid, since we use Broadcasting interface in case of wireless, so eventually the Interest is flooded. For example, Every neighboring node of consumer C1, overhears the Interest packet, and then has to perform all those basic operations, including PIT, CS, FIB search. Moreover, if there is a case when those neighbors of C1 are not in intra transmission range, may involve in interest forwarding as well. That creates kind of broadcast storm, given that if there is only one provider initially in the network. I have explored this problem in case of vehicular environments, when we tried to simulate CCN on top of 802.11p. For reference, please read my following paper:
> http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?arnumber=7145392 <http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?arnumber=7145392>
Dear Syed Hassan,
thanks for your explanation of what happened in your scenario. I am afraid that specific scenario suffered a design defect.
In a all-wireless network (instead of a local wireless hop), one must have an effective way for individual nodes to decide whether it should, or should not, forward each received interest; e.g. see a simple example in this short paper (also on vehicular networking): "Rapid Traffic Information Dissemination Using Named Data" http://named-data.net/publications/nom/ <http://named-data.net/publications/nom/>
If you are interested in this topic (about how to control packet flooding in all-wireless broadcast environment): some sensor networking research work about a decade ago produced a rich set of literatures on this topic,
"Directed Diffusion for Wireless Sensor Networking" (just google it, it has about 3000 citations)
another one: "GRAdient Broadcast: A robust Data Delivery Protocol for Large Scale Sensor Networks"
> PhD Research Scholar,
> MoNeT Wireless Lab, <http://monet.knu.ac.kr/>
> Kyungpook National University,
> Daegu City, Republic of Korea.
> Cell: +82-10-9883-0786
> https://sites.google.com/site/shahmedknu/ <https://sites.google.com/site/shahmedknu/>
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 4:50 AM, Lixia Zhang <lixia at cs.ucla.edu <mailto:lixia at cs.ucla.edu>> wrote:
> > On Jan 17, 2016, at 10:48 AM, Dennis Olvany <dennisolvany at gmail.com <mailto:dennisolvany at gmail.com>> wrote:
> > The flooding behavior of NDN is already akin to a routing protocol. Clearly, there may be a benefit of knowing data reachability before interest is expressed, but it is also not useful to know data reachability if interest is never expressed. Is there a good use case for routing protocol integration with NDN?
> interesting questions.
> let me ask a clarification question first: wonder exactly what you meant by "The flooding behavior of NDN"?
> Since NDN interest looks for data and not aims at any specific node, NDN takes advantages of any communication media that is broadcast in nature (e.g. WiFi) in that whoever hears the questions may answer. But I dont think NDN interests in general get flooded in wide areas.
> Wonder exactly what you meant by "routing protocol integration with NDN"? The NDN testbed is running a routing protocol.
> Ndn-interest mailing list
> Ndn-interest at lists.cs.ucla.edu <mailto:Ndn-interest at lists.cs.ucla.edu>
> http://www.lists.cs.ucla.edu/mailman/listinfo/ndn-interest <http://www.lists.cs.ucla.edu/mailman/listinfo/ndn-interest>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Ndn-interest