Re: [icnrg] Locator hint

[<[e-mail]>]

We have talked about both of these for a while now but we haven’t released
much documentation other than the presentations we’ve made.  You can see
those at http://www.ccnx.org.

The current set of drafts do not cover nameless objects because we don’t
have the language for these yet. The next revision will probably
incorporate that in.  Manifests come with their own draft but it won’t be
ready for next week’s meeting. As a note, most of the drafts are about
specs and not about the specific use cases.

Nacho

--
Nacho (Ignacio) Solis
Protocol Architect
Principal Scientist
Palo Alto Research Center (PARC)
[phone]
[e-mail]





On 1/9/15, 2:38 PM, "Andrea Detti" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>Great news.
>Is there already a document presenting these interesting features or it
>will be released shortly ?
>
>Andrea
>
>
>
>On 01/09/2015 08:06 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
>> CCN 1.0 has gone major revisions since the old CCN.  In the current
>>system
>> there are a number of features that make these issues less of a problem.
>>
>> Specifically, we have Manifests and Name-less objects.  These basically
>> allow you to have name indirection and objects hosted independently of
>> location.
>>
>> The name, which for us is a network name, is what the network uses to
>>find
>> stuff. It¹s easy to thing of this as the same as the user defined name.
>> In some cases it is, but in some cases it might not be.
>>
>> In CCN we can currently use manifests to do a form of secure translation
>> of one name to another. There are some limitations in terms of publisher
>> but the primitives are currently holding up for what we want to achieve.
>>
>> So, to answer your initial question, I think that the primitives we have
>> right now can give you a lot of what you¹re looking for.  Will we need
>>to
>> have some extra locator or some other scalability mechanism?  Maybe,
>>but I
>> think we can get far with the primitives we currently have.
>>
>> Nacho
>>
>>
>> --
>> Nacho (Ignacio) Solis
>> Protocol Architect
>> Principal Scientist
>> Palo Alto Research Center (PARC)
>> [phone]
>> [e-mail]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 1/9/15, 10:26 AM, "Andrea Detti" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>> I agree on all your points.
>>>
>>> Consequently, I see two choices in front of us before to think to use
>>> ICN in the global scale:
>>>
>>> 1) either we found a reasonable way to scale the routing by object name
>>> (including mobility and multi-destinations/multi-sources cases);
>>> 2) or we found a reliable and secure translation mechanism.
>>>
>>> Which of two will require less effort?
>>>
>>> I do not know :-)
>>>
>>> Andrea
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 01/09/2015 06:21 PM, David Oran wrote:
>>>> While we may be forced into doing something like this ultimately,
>>>>every
>>>> time you introduce a level of indirection via some kind of translation
>>>> function, you dramatically increase the attack surface against the
>>>> system. Not only do you have to secure the input and the output values
>>>> in the packets, you also have secure the translations against spoofing
>>>> and the service that performs the translation against the full panoply
>>>> of vulnerabilities.
>>>>
>>>> Routing hints are particularly tricky. I recall a proposal for NDN
>>>> routing hints that was presented at a recent NDN retreat that looked
>>>> superficially clever, but collapsed in a heap of security problems
>>>>after
>>>> a few hours of scrutiny.
>>>>
>>>> Invalidation of mappings is also quite delicate for routing systems
>>>> where the expectations of routing disruption durations are much
>>>>shorter
>>>> than say, name mapping disruptions in systems like DNS due to
>>>> translation cache TTLs.
>>>>
>>>> One thing that makes routing hints (as opposed to name->name
>>>> translations) particularly tricky for NDN/CCN-like architectures is
>>>> doing them in a way that does not break or substantially constrain
>>>> multi-destination delivery. It¹s much easier to do this with
>>>> single-destination delivery - one example of a full-worked scheme is
>>>>the
>>>> LISP mapping service for IP.
>>>>
>>>> DaveO.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 9, 2015, at 2:30 AM, Andrea Detti <[e-mail]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 01/08/2015 06:00 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
>>>>>> PARC will be releasing the next version of our working documents
>>>>>> shortly, before the icnrg meeting.  We have for a while supported an
>>>>>> Interest carrying a Payload field that can carry extended
>>>>>>information
>>>>>> that is not part of the name.  Intermediate nodes do not process the
>>>>>> payload.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If the payload can make a difference to a dynamic content publisher,
>>>>>> then the requester must put a marker of the payload in the name ‹
>>>>>>i.e.
>>>>>> put the hash of the payload a a name component, or use a nonce.
>>>>>>This
>>>>>> will allow proper multiplexing of different payloads in the name.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I see that this is a way to indicate to the router which is the part
>>>>> of the name that is relevant for the PIT/FIB purposes. And it sounds
>>>>> good to me, since it speeds up the lookup processes.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, let me pose a more general question: is it really "ICN
>>>>> mandatory" to use a component of the object name to forward?
>>>>>
>>>>> What we would lose, if we used the object name only for PIT and
>>>>> caching operations and (optionally) another "routing info" field
>>>>> completely decoupled from the name for FIB forwarding purposes?
>>>>>
>>>>> If we do not lose so much, why do not open an ICN 1.01 phase (2.0 was
>>>>> too ambitious ;-))  in which we recognize that routing by object name
>>>>> creates scalability problem in the large area, and so in these cases
>>>>> ICN can be helped by a plain old by routing by locator (aka routing
>>>>> info, routing hint, label, forwarding alias, etc.)?
>>>>>
>>>>> If this was obvious, probably it is now the right time to define such
>>>>> a TLV. Simirarily to KeyLocator we could define a ContentLocator that
>>>>> specifies a (or more) routable Name where it it is possible to found
>>>>> the object.
>>>>>
>>>>> I know that I am rediscovering the wheel since many other excellent
>>>>> projects/researchers before have predicted that, e.g.
>>>>>
>>>>> SAIL project 2010 ­ ³Routing hints²
>>>>>
>>>>> S. Shenker, 2011 - Naming in content-oriented Architectures: ³Šthe
>>>>> fetch-terms enable the routing system to more easily find the object²
>>>>>
>>>>> 
>>>>>http://www.icsi.berkeley.edu/pubs/networking/ICSI_namingincontentorien
>>>>>te
>>>>> d11.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> Presentation of D. Oran, 2011 - NDN and IP Routing: Can it scale? ­
>>>>> ³ŠUse a translation lookup to convert from content name to routing
>>>>> label(s)²
>>>>>
>>>>> 
>>>>>http://tools.ietf.org/group/irtf/trac/raw-attachment/wiki/icnrg/IRTF%2
>>>>>0-
>>>>> %20CCN%20And%20IP%20Routing%20-%202.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> Hermans et. al,  2012 - Global source mobility in the content-centric
>>>>> networking architecture- ³Separate namespaces for identifier and
>>>>> locators².
>>>>> http://user.it.uu.se/~frehe489/publications/hermans12global.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> L. Zhang, 2013 - Scaling NDN Routing: Old Tale, New Design,
>>>>> ³Application names are used for caching and signature verification,
>>>>> while the forwarding alias, which reflects the service provider of
>>>>>the
>>>>> content producer, serves as a hint to routers about where the packet
>>>>> may be forwarded²
>>>>>
>>>>> 
>>>>>http://named-data.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/ndn-tr-4-scaling-ndn-
>>>>>ro
>>>>> uting.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> N. Solis (PARC developer of CCNx 1.0), presentation at CCNxCon 2013 ­
>>>>> Ordered-Element Naming (OEN), ³I presented a matching system with
>>>>>order
>>>>> of preference based on labels (which included hashes of content)²
>>>>> http://www.ccnx.org/events/ccnxcon-2013/
>>>>>
>>>>>       
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Andrea
>>>>>> It is not mandatory that applications do this ‹ some data might
>>>>>> rightly belong in the name.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Using this method relieves the forwarding plane from having to
>>>>>> process and store in the PIT large names that make no difference in
>>>>>> routing.  It also means that the potentially large payload does not
>>>>>> need to be echoed back to the client in the response name.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The previous PARC spec is at
>>>>>> http://www.ccnx.org/pubs/ccnx-mosko-tlvmessages-02.html
>>>>>> .  It will be updated in the next day or so and we will send an
>>>>>>email
>>>>>> to the list.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Marc
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jan 8, 2015, at 8:19 AM, Mark Stapp
>>>>>> <[e-mail]>
>>>>>>    wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 1/8/15 4:24 AM, Andrea Detti wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dear Mark,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I found rather interesting this question
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Is it really necessary to continue to force all of the
>>>>>>>>information
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> Interests into the Name?  Wouldn't it be clearer to use the Name
>>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>> for publisher/routing info, object name info, and segment/sequence
>>>>>>>> number?"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> and wonder ICN community think about that. Especially with respect
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> the routing info.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That specific question has been open for quite a long time - not
>>>>>>> really in the routing context however. One position has been that
>>>>>>> Interests carry "only" a name, and therefore all
>>>>>>>application-specific
>>>>>>> data must be in the name. Now in fact Interests have been permitted
>>>>>>> to carry several additional "meta" items - such as
>>>>>>>filters/selectors
>>>>>>> (another open topic) and timeout values. Another position asks
>>>>>>> whether there are types of application-specific data that could
>>>>>>>also
>>>>>>> be carried outside the Interest name. We've asked whether REST-ful
>>>>>>> application state transfer might be one example.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I see a scalability problem with the ICN routing plane,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> yes, of course - that's a very long-standing problem.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> especially when
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> objects are multi-sourced (same object on my PC and on my phone)
>>>>>>>>and
>>>>>>>> objects are provided by mobile devices.  This framework could be
>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>> norm in the future.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> that's ... certainly an assertion I've heard before, but "could be"
>>>>>>> is about as strong as it gets. there are a lot of questions about
>>>>>>> whether encapsulation mechanisms, or "name resolution" mechanisms,
>>>>>>>or
>>>>>>> some other mechanisms will be needed to deal with the expected name
>>>>>>> scale, whether or not there will be any significant of peer-to-peer
>>>>>>> communication. personally, I think it's highly unlikely that my
>>>>>>>phone
>>>>>>> will "publish" anything directly, but that's just another
>>>>>>>speculation
>>>>>>> really.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> at the moment, I'd be happy if there could be progress on even the
>>>>>>> most basic aspects of messaging - such as what names look like,
>>>>>>> something that seems truly fundamental.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Mark
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> icnrg mailing list
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/icnrg
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> icnrg mailing list
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/icnrg
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> icnrg mailing list
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/icnrg
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> icnrg mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/icnrg
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>icnrg mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/icnrg