[Ndn-interest] Hop-by-Hop Flow Balance

[Dave Oran (oran)]

> On Mar 16, 2016, at 11:02 AM, Greg White <g.white at cablelabs.com> wrote:
> 
> On 3/15/16, 3:22 PM, "Ndn-interest on behalf of Marc.Mosko at parc.com" <ndn-interest-bounces at lists.cs.ucla.edu on behalf of Marc.Mosko at parc.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>> 
>> For small-size data, such as IoT, I think it is better to put the data in the Interest and use the Data object as a ACK.
> 
> 
> And with fragmentation support, “small-size” could be large.  :)
> 
> For IoT applications, this method seems far superior to the alternative.  Minimizing the need for IoT devices to publish routable names seems like a good idea from the perspective of routing scalability.
> 
I agree, although this is easily avoidable with an Interest-Interest-Data paradigm. For another example of how this might work see the Web Paradigms paper from last year’s ICN conference.

> Since the Interest can be signed by the producer (in CCN at least, I assume the same is true in NDN), it seems the only thing it lacks is the possibility for data to be cached in-network.
> 
…and encrypted…so you can’t just launch stuff; you need to get some symmetric (possibly shared) keys in place. 

> Furthermore, the Data object (ACK) could provide a next-name that is unique to the receiver to allow stateful communication if needed.
True, but devices that just want to squark stuff all not all that likely to want to keep per-receiver state.

> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ndn-interest mailing list
> Ndn-interest at lists.cs.ucla.edu
> http://www.lists.cs.ucla.edu/mailman/listinfo/ndn-interest