[Ndn-interest] NDN overhead

[Lixia Zhang]

> On Jul 29, 2016, at 3:20 AM, Nour El Houda Ben Youssef <NourElHouda.BenYoussef at wevioo.com> wrote:
> 
> Yes indeed I already checked this thread
> Yet too many aspects still fuzzy
>  
> First of all, we know that each layer in the Internet protocol Suite causes its overhead which why we talk about control overhead, signaling overhead, etc
> With  NDN Interest packets or nacks are considered as which overhead exactly
>  
> Second, as I tried to experiment NFD, I noticed that I’m able only to use NDN as an overlay network on top of udp or TCP… So for my overhead: would it be the Internet protocol suite overheads in addition to ndn overhead (interests and nacks)?

(I would not call NACK as overhead -- one could do without NACK, just that leaves failure/problem detection to timeout, which can significantly impact performance)

regarding whether NDN runs over tunnels, one should separates the design from the code available today.

1/ By design, NDN can run over anything that can do datagram delivery, bluetooth, wifi, any layer 2 links, and any tunnels at any levels.

2/ in terms of code: I believe one can run directly over wifi and ethernet; we did NDN over bluotooth a few years back, but I dont think that old code still works with the new NFD.

But to travel far (cross many routers that only know IP), one needs to use tunnels.  this is similar to early days of IP: during my early years of grad school, IP ran over ethernet locally, but to go far it had to either use telephone dialup, or go through leased lines from phone companies (Arpanet). 

Here is a short interview article that seems relevant to your interest and you might want to take a look:
http://web.cs.ucla.edu/~lixia/papers/1603login_interview.pdf <http://web.cs.ucla.edu/~lixia/papers/1603login_interview.pdf>

Lixia
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.lists.cs.ucla.edu/pipermail/ndn-interest/attachments/20160729/6e3b1840/attachment.html>