A Tussle Analysis for Information-Centric Networking Architectures

Κωστόπουλος, Αλέξανδρος; Papafili, Ioanna; Kalogiros, Costas; Levä, Tapio; Zhang, Nan; Trossen, Dirk

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-30241-1_2

Cited by 8 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The first approach is tailored for architectures that decouple name resolution from routing and forwarding ( [9], [26], [27], [23]). This decoupling adheres to the "design for tussle" principle [29], thus enabling content providers to potentially establish an interface with the nameresolution system for logging purposes. The second approach foresees the direct involvement of the CPs, i.e., as detailed in [4], CPs can be responsible for directly providing users with the name/identifier of the content they are interested in, which is subsequently used by intermediate routers to reach the content (i.e.,, name-based routing).…”

Section: B Exposing Information Through Name Resolutionmentioning

confidence: 99%

On information exposure through named content

Κατσαρός

Saino

Psaras

et al. 2014

10th International Conference on Heterogeneous Networking for Quality, Reliability, Security and Robustness

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-The proposed shift from host-centric to information-centric networking (ICN) has triggered extensive research in the area of content naming. Efforts have so far focused on the scalability and security properties that can make content objects routable and self-certifying. In this paper, we argue that the information that is exposed through explicitly naming content objects has been overlooked, although several operational and performance issues depend on the information that a name holds. We therefore revisit content naming design decisions taking into account information exposure and deployability of the ICN paradigm.

show abstract

Section: B Exposing Information Through Name Resolutionmentioning

confidence: 99%

On information exposure through named content

Κατσαρός

Saino

Psaras

et al. 2014

10th International Conference on Heterogeneous Networking for Quality, Reliability, Security and Robustness

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The framework has been used to analyze protocols with a moderate level of uncertainty regarding their adoption by stakeholders. For example, it has been used on CoAP [25] , Multipath-TCP [9], and Host Identity Protocol [26].…”

Section: Framework For the Feasibility Analysis Of Internet Protocolsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Tussle analyses have identified conflicts based on trust, economics, security, among others. More importantly, key design aspects remain unanswered, including the management of global content identifiers or the inter-domain routing of multisource content [9][10][11]. To address these challenges, two deployment strategies have been devised aiming for gradual ICN deployments that remain IP interoperable, namely ICN-over-IP and IP-over-ICN [12].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Feasibility of IP-over-ICN

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The IP-over-ICN strategy intends to establish islands of networks that internally route packets based on Information-Centric Networking (ICN) while maintaining IP-based protocols at the ingress and egress of the network. This strategy aims at benefits from the use of ICN-based routing while maintaining backward compatibility with IP-based services. In the long run, an ICNbased Internet architecture may emerge from the interconnection of these ICN-based islands. We assess the feasibility of this strategy by discussing the willingness of Internet stakeholders to adopt one particular IP-over-ICN implementation based on the Publish-Subscribe Internet Technologies (PURSUIT) for flow-based routing, multicast routing, and service routing. We suggest that the IP-over-PURSUIT solution offers viable mechanisms for IP interoperability and routing scalability as well as potential advantages in comparison to substitutes, including IP-based solutions, such as IPv6; Multiprotocol Level Switching; and hybrid ICN; as well as other IP-over-ICN implementations based on Content-Centric Networking. We indicate that triple play operators and micro-operators have a greater incentive to adopt IP-over-PURSUIT since they can maximize the utilization of the multicast and service routing, respectively. However, we argue that IP-over-PURSUIT requires new exterior inter-stakeholder interfaces for significant operator traffic to be delivered through its new and cost-efficient routing capabilities, thus increasing the likelihood of operator adoption. Finally, we suggest that the advent of an ICN-based Internet architecture might be delayed until Internet stakeholders can trustworthily delegate the delivery of valuable content and services via information-based exchange points.

show abstract

“…The feasibility of networking technologies has been investigated, anticipating stakeholder conflicts or tussles concerning trust, economics, security, and others. Tussle analysis has been applied to improvements of the Internet Protocol (Clark et al, 2002) and Future Internet Architectures, such as ICN (Kostopoulos et al, 2012;Trossen and Kostopoulos, 2011). Similar methods based on multistakeholder adoption have been employed for assessing the feasibility of specific Internet protocols, including CoAP (Levä et al, 2014), Multipath-TCP (Kostopoulos et al, 2012), Host Identity Protocol , and IPv6 (Tadayoni and Henten, 2016).…”

Section: Previous Evaluations Of Networking Technologymentioning

confidence: 99%