IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Icnrg-harmonization] NDN use of nameless Data

Lixia Zhang <lixia@cs.ucla.edu> Tue, 06 September 2016 00:13 UTC

Return-Path: <lixia@cs.ucla.edu>
X-Original-To: icnrg-harmonization@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: icnrg-harmonization@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C796812B472 for <icnrg-harmonization@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Sep 2016 17:13:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.408
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.408 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.508, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vxQfxoxpdyfy for <icnrg-harmonization@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Sep 2016 17:13:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (zimbra.cs.ucla.edu [131.179.128.68]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 08CA412B0EF for <icnrg-harmonization@irtf.org>; Mon, 5 Sep 2016 17:13:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id E52FB160D74; Mon, 5 Sep 2016 17:13:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.cs.ucla.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id U6nfMWaoVZZU; Mon, 5 Sep 2016 17:13:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7E0F160DFF; Mon, 5 Sep 2016 17:13:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at zimbra.cs.ucla.edu
Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.cs.ucla.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id NExCOftybK7o; Mon, 5 Sep 2016 17:13:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.7] (cpe-76-91-246-89.socal.res.rr.com [76.91.246.89]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 679A2160D74; Mon, 5 Sep 2016 17:13:53 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_392432A7-6E63-4399-BA2D-E32A01FF8A65"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
From: Lixia Zhang <lixia@cs.ucla.edu>
In-Reply-To: <D96E28F4A22C864DBC6C871B5B1C4CC320CC5020@SJCEML701-CHM.china.huawei.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2016 17:13:52 -0700
Message-Id: <D3ECA763-0117-4F51-AEE6-7EEB50967C0A@cs.ucla.edu>
References: <92ABC834-3C47-4B3C-9D85-83493B8B9414@parc.com> <D96E28F4A22C864DBC6C871B5B1C4CC320CC5020@SJCEML701-CHM.china.huawei.com>
To: Ravi Ravindran <ravi.ravindran@huawei.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/icnrg-harmonization/PbckLm6FxmDvmMxVrCdISFGs1Yw>
Cc: "icnrg-harmonization@irtf.org" <icnrg-harmonization@irtf.org>, "Marc.Mosko@parc.com" <Marc.Mosko@parc.com>
Subject: Re: [Icnrg-harmonization] NDN use of nameless Data
X-BeenThere: icnrg-harmonization@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: ICN Harmonization Discussion <icnrg-harmonization.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/icnrg-harmonization>, <mailto:icnrg-harmonization-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/icnrg-harmonization/>
List-Post: <mailto:icnrg-harmonization@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:icnrg-harmonization-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/icnrg-harmonization>, <mailto:icnrg-harmonization-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2016 00:13:57 -0000

> On Sep 1, 2016, at 11:24 AM, Ravi Ravindran <ravi.ravindran@huawei.com> wrote:
> 
> But one big difference here with CCNx is that, in NDN is that all objects are named.

Yes, hence the name of the architecture: named data networking :-)

> I think we should reconsider this notion of nameless objects in CCNx, and define a way to carry locator names in the Interest messages.
>  
> Regards,
> Ravi

To me the so called "locator" is another misconception.

Lixia

>  
> From: Icnrg-harmonization [mailto:icnrg-harmonization-bounces@irtf.org] On Behalf Of Marc.Mosko@parc.com
> Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2016 8:24 AM
> To: icnrg-harmonization@irtf.org
> Subject: [Icnrg-harmonization] NDN use of nameless Data
>  
> There has been a bit of talk about CCNx making explicit the use of nameless objects, but I’d like to point out that one can do essentially the same thing in NDN using the Interest Link.  If CCNx were to adopt the Link approach to routing indirection, it could be done this way too (though using the ContentObjectHashRestriction field, not the implicit digest).
>  
> This is based on the 0.2-alpha-3 NDN packet format specification and the SNAMP-NDN-Scalability.pdf paper.  If I have misread something, please let me know.
>  
> The NDN spec says a Name is zero or more NameComponent.  Therefore, I can create a Data object with an empty name.  In an Interest, I can put one NameComponent of type ImplicitSha256DigestComponent and set Min/Max SuffixComponents to 0 and then include one or more Link objects in the Interest for routing.
>  
> My understanding of NDN is that because the ImplicitSha256DigestComponent is not in the FIB, a forwarder will forward via the Link.  The nameless Data Object – having 0 name components – will have a FullName of only its ImplicitSha256DigestComponent and that will match the name in the Interest.
>  
> I believe this use of NDN also maintains the property we were going after in CCNx nameless objects in that one cannot poison the cache by feting a Data object by hash that could then later be confused with a Data object being fetched by prefix or name (unless one put a 0 component name in the Interest with MaxSuffixComponents of at least 1 and used Link routing).
>  
> Marc
> _______________________________________________
> Icnrg-harmonization mailing list
> Icnrg-harmonization@irtf.org
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/icnrg-harmonization

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email