[Ndn-interest] Usefulness of routing protocol?

Syed Hassan Ahmed s.h.ahmed at ieee.org
Sun Jan 17 22:41:44 PST 2016

Dear Prof. Lixia Zhang,

I understand your point. In fact, I have read those papers that you
mentioned. However, I believe that existing solutions will require
significant changes before they can work well for NDN. Since these
solutions were designed for a specific networking protocol such as
Zigbee, 802.15.4, 802.11 family and so on. Here when we talk about NDN, we
are moving towards multiple interfaces (faces) as per my understanding.
Moreover, I would like to take your attention to the recent paper published
in the ACM Sigcom Workshop 2013,


In this paper, the authors intended to mitigate the broadcast storm, since
the battery operated devices might be consuming additional energy to
perform all those searches and forwarding operations enforced by the Naive
NDN approach.

Also, the following survey provides some insights on the forwarding of
interest in NDN enabled wireless ad hoc scenarios.

To be precise, in mobile environments, I think it is worthy to investigate
the forwarding strategies, and still we need improvements at the
architectural level that should accept the modifications and new forwarding
protocols specific to the application requirements and so. For example, by
exchanging some control messages such as Beacons in case of 802.11p, we can
have some preliminary knowledge about the neighboring nodes and then the
consumer can decide and control the Interest propagation and similarly the
intermediate nodes as well.

Kind Regards,
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
*Syed Hassan Ahmed*
사예드 하산 아흐메드

PhD Research Scholar,
MoNeT Wireless Lab, <http://monet.knu.ac.kr>
Kyungpook National University,
Daegu City, Republic of Korea.
Cell: +82-10-9883-0786

On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 3:05 PM, Lixia Zhang <lixia at cs.ucla.edu> wrote:

> 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
> 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/
> 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"
> Lixia
> 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/
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 4:50 AM, Lixia Zhang <lixia at cs.ucla.edu> wrote:
>> > On Jan 17, 2016, at 10:48 AM, Dennis Olvany <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.
>> Lixia
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20160118/8da6b99f/attachment.html>

More information about the Ndn-interest mailing list