A layered naming architecture for the internet

Abstract

Currently the Internet has only one level of name resolution, DNS, which converts user-level domain names into IP addresses. In this paper we borrow liberally from the literature to argue that there should be three levels of name resolution: from user-level descriptors to service identifiers; from service identifiers to endpoint identifiers; and from endpoint identifiers to IP addresses. These additional levels of naming and resolution (1) allow services and data to be first class Internet objects (in that they can be directly and persistently named), (2) seamlessly accommodate mobility and multi-homing and (3) integrate middleboxes (such as NATs and firewalls) into the Internet architecture. We further argue that flat names are a natural choice for the service and endpoint identifiers. Hence, this architecture requires scalable resolution of flat names, a capability that distributed hash tables (DHTs) can provide.

Allowing applications to evolve with the Internet: The case for Internet Resource Descriptors

“…Many proposals [8], [9], [10], [11], [12] advocate the introduction of new layers of transparent identifiers into the stack as a way of eliminating some of the naming and addressing problems in the current Internet architecture. In [9], the authors propose that applications start with a service identifier (SID) provided by the end-user, resolve it to a set of endpoint identifiers (EID), and then choose one to bind to a socket. EIDs are used only by the transport layer, and are translated and bound to network addresses in order for routing and communication to occur.…”

“…As we have stated in Section I, a striking feature of today's Internet architecture and all the proposals addressing its name-address binding limitations is that they all assume that applications must bind themselves to transparent identifiers (e.g., IP addresses or SIDs) that are known outside the hosts in which the applications run. It has been pointed out in [9] that, if transparent identifiers are used, then the only way to break the early binding between names and addresses is by introducing additional layers of such identifiers and the protocols and interfaces needed to use them. However, this approach still locks the applications, and the socket API or newly proposed network APIs, to particular formats for the transparent identifiers and the communication protocols using them.…”

Service-Centric Networking with SCAFFOLD

“…Flat service-level names: Several other papers advocate the use of flat, service-level names [35,2,36,33,3]. However, these systems take a different approach to name resolution by relying on a global lookup service like DNS or a DHT; instead, SCAFFOLD uses successive refinement to bind to a service instance.…”

“…However, these systems take a different approach to name resolution by relying on a global lookup service like DNS or a DHT; instead, SCAFFOLD uses successive refinement to bind to a service instance. In addition, some of these architectures use early binding [35,2,36], in contrast to SCAFFOLD's use of late binding.…”

Mobility Management Scheme Based On Identifier/Locator Separation in Mobile IP Environment for Future Internet

“…However, one of the major issues in current internet architecture is that it was not designed to support the user mobility. This is because the current IP address are used both to identify the interface of a host which is connected to Internet and to all of the application layer, IP address identify a host and it is used in the application and transport layer simultaneously [5]. From the view of the network layer, IP address represents the current topological location of the host and forward packet to the host.…”