[Nfd-dev] strange results

Junxiao Shi shijunxiao at email.ARIZONA.EDU
Sun Mar 1 10:08:17 PST 2015


Hi Lixia

Yes, UCLA knows CSU is a better nexthop than UMICH, so it will prefer CSU
for the next Interest.

However, UMICH thinks UIUC is a better nexthop than CSU, which isn't true.
This will affect future traffic than originates from UMICH.

Yours, Junxiao

On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 10:42 AM, Lixia Zhang <lixia at cs.ucla.edu> wrote:
>
> On Feb 28, 2015, at 10:28 PM, Lan Wang (lanwang) <lanwang at memphis.edu>
> wrote:
>
>  In case you are wondering why this is a problem.  Look at the UMich
> node.  It first forwarded the Interest to CSU, but that one didn't bring
> back the data (perhaps it was correctly suppressed).  However, its second
> Interest to UIUC did bring back data (which should not have happened).  So
> from that point on, it's going to use UIUC instead of the better path CSU
> to forward Interest to CAIDA.  We did observe this problem.
>
> Lan
>
>
> Lan, I do not know exactly how your ping measurement works, but from the
> above description, it seems that,
>
> - for each ping interest with nonce=N, for any node to get duplicates,
> there ought to be a branching point along its (the interest’s) path
>
> - UMich is not this point, since CSU already detected the interest from
> UMich as duplicate (So CSU node has seen interest(N) from some other
> neighbor)
>
> - this branching point (could be the origin consumer?) should be able to
> tell a good path from a worse path, right?
>
> Lixia
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.lists.cs.ucla.edu/pipermail/nfd-dev/attachments/20150301/56ad57e0/attachment.html>


More information about the Nfd-dev mailing list