Networking Named Content

1
Networking Named Content

• Van Jacobson, Diana K. Smetters, James D.
  Thornton, Michael F. Plass, Nicholas H. Briggs,
  Rebecca L. Braynard

2
Content Centric Networking

• Network use has evolved since IP was designed
• Usage of the Internet is in terms of what not
  where
• CCN architecure built on named data rather than
  named hosts
• Provides security, scalability, performance.

3
Content Centric Networking

• Two packet types Interest and Data
• Heirarchical content naming scheme
• Allows dynamic content generation active names
• CCN node has 3 components FIB, Content Store and
  PIT
• FIB Forwarding table, allows multiple output
  faces
• Content Store Buffer, also caches Data packets
• PIT Pending Interest Table

4
CCN Nodes

• Processing an Interest
• Matching Data is found in the Content Store gt
  send it and consume Interest
• Pending Interest in PITgt add this face to
  RequestingFaces list
• Use FIB to forward Interest on outgoing faces,
  add to PIT
• Processing Data
• Data follows a chain if PIT entries back to the
  source
• Duplicate and unsolicited Data is discarded

5
Reliability and Flow Control

• Interests serve the role of window advertisements
• Each packet is independent gt TCP SACK is
  implicit
• Flow balance is maintained at each hop, not
  end-to-end like TCP
• Thus additional, TCP-like congestion control
  mechanisms not required.

6
Naming Content

• Hierarchical content names with a flexible format
• Individual name consists of a number of
  components
• Names can be relative to some known name, e.g.
  next/previous
• Same content can have multiple names! Problems
  with caching?
• A source of data performs a Register operation
  for a prefix

7
Routing

• Routing between CCN nodes can occur over
  unmodified OSPF.
• Incremental deployment of CCN nodes is possible
• Integration with BGP is also possible
• Routers do not construct spanning trees
• Loops are not possible anyway
• Multiple paths can be used

8
Content Based Security

• Security travels with the content, it is not a
  property of the connection
• CCN authenticates name-content bindings by
  signing the name and content in each data packet
• Arbitrary key management schemes can be used over
  CCN
• Keys can be sent over CCN since they are just
  another piece of data
• If we trust some public keys, we can infer more

9
Network Security

• Sending a malicious packet to a host is difficult
  because CCN talks only about content, not to
  hosts
• Data based DoS attacks are impossible because
  only one Data packet is forwarded per Interest
• Interest flooding
• Multiple Interests for the same content are
  combined
• Limit the forwarding of unsuccesful interests
• What if sender and receiver collude?

10
Evaluation

• Transfer time vs Number of Sinks

11
Evaluation

• Failover

12
An Architecture for Internet Data Transfer

• Niraj Tolia, Michael Kaminsky, David G. Andersen,
  and Swapnil Patil

13
Data Oriented Transfer Service

• Seperate control from data
• Control logic is application specific use DOT
  for all data transfer
• Benefits
• Transfer techniques can reused and new ones tried
• Coding, multi-pass compression, caching etc. can
  be applied by the transfer service
• Multi-path transfers
• Cross application data processors

14
DOT

• DOT provides an API and a plugin architecture
• Transfer Plugins eg. Multi-path, portable
  storage
• Storage Plugins access to local data, divide
  data into chunks, compute hashes
• Basic API
• Sender calls put with data, gets back an OID
• Receiver uses OID to get data

15
Evaluation

• Multipath Plugin Using two 100 Mbit/s Ethernet
  links, transfer time went down from 3.59 seconds
  to 1.90 seconds
• Modified Postfix mail server to use DOT
• Minimal modification 184 LoC
• DOT saves 20 of total message bytes transferred
• Duplicated messages
• Partial redundancies in messages

16
Thank You!