1 / 15

On inter-domain name resolution for information-centric networks

On inter-domain name resolution for information-centric networks. K . V. Katsaros, N . Fotiou, X . Vasilakos, C . N. Ververidis, C . Tsilopoulos, G . Xylomenos, and G . C. Polyzos AUEB. Outline. Name resolution in ICN Related work An enhanced DHT-based NRS

jariah
Download Presentation

On inter-domain name resolution for information-centric networks

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. On inter-domain name resolution for information-centric networks K.V. Katsaros, N. Fotiou, X. Vasilakos, C.N.Ververidis, C. Tsilopoulos, G. Xylomenos, and G. C. Polyzos AUEB

  2. Outline • Name resolution in ICN • Related work • An enhanced DHT-based NRS • Performance evaluation & results • Conclusions

  3. Name resolution in ICN • ICN has many requirements from name resolution • Operation over a flat identifier namespace • Scalability • Ability to efficiently handle 1015 names • Fault tolerance and fault isolation • No centralized architecture • Low signaling overhead • Low latency (low response time) • Efficient routing and load distribution • Routing policy compliance

  4. Related work • DHTs (Chord, Pastry) • Logarithmic number of hops required • Not compliant with routing policies • MDHT and (old) PSIRP approach • Multilevel DHT with aggregation at higher levels • Questionable scalability and routing compliance • DONA • Hierarchical aggregation of information • Requests are propagated upwards • Strictly follows customer-provider relationships

  5. An enhanced DHT-based NRS • H-Pastry: hierarchical DHT taking into account • Administrative domain boundaries • Inter-domain routing policies • H-Pastry results in • Reduced path stretch (similar to regular Pastry) • By 55% (Chord) and 47% (Crescendo) • Confined traffic within administrative boundaries • 27% less inter-domain hops (Pastry) • 55% shorter intra-domain paths (Pastry) • Reduced valley-free policy violations per path • By 56% (Chord), 31% (Pastry) and 36% (Crescendo)

  6. An enhanced DHT-based NRS • Outline of the H-Pastry based NRS

  7. Performance evaluation & results • Evaluation dimensions • Load: memory, signaling, processing overhead • Routing performance • Particular attention paid to the effects of • Underlying network structure on performance • Popularity characteristics of content on caching • Evaluation Setup: Topology • Scaled-down but realistic topology • 400 domains, 6-levels, peering and multihoming • Number of RV points: 4400

  8. Performance evaluation & results • Evaluation Setup: Workload • Original workload generated by GlobeTraff • See our paper in IFIP NTMS 2012 • Focus on signaling to locate & start transmission • Data plane traffic mix translated to control plane • Νumber of items for each traffic type • Data volume / median item size per traffic type • Modeled popularity & temporal evolution • 25GB of total traffic • ~2.5M subscriptions for ~1M objects

  9. Performance evaluation & results • Routing stretch in inter-domain hops • Ratio of DHT-NRS / DONA hops • Infinite Cache Size (ICS), m is the DONA median • Caching performance • Works for popular items • 34% worse than DONA

  10. Performance evaluation & results • State: item entries per node • DHT-NRS considerably better than DONA • Note the log scale for the x-axis! • DHT-NRS achieves better state distribution

  11. Performance evaluation & results • State distribution across hierarchy levels • Roughly 50% of access networks at level 2 • DHT-NRS achieves a better state distribution • DONA is penalized by topology structure

  12. Performance evaluation & results • Lookup signaling overhead • Includes terminated + forwarded messages • DONA works better for most of the nodes • In DHT-NRS messages cross more nodes

  13. Performance evaluation & results • Lookup overhead distribution across hierarchy levels • DONA is problematic at level 1 (as expected) • DHT-NRS is also hit at the topmost level • Subscribe/Notify messages often go through level 1

  14. Performance evaluation & results • Advertisement/registration signaling overhead • Inter-domain hop transmissions per registration • DHT-NRS requires 6.34 transmissions (at 0%m) • DONA requires 35.56 transmissions • Excessive inter-domain traffic load for DONA • (Limited) flooding method for registrations • Multihoming plays a critical role • Registrations sent to multiple higher levels • 56.75% of all domains are multi-homed • 2.4 providers on average for them

  15. Conclusions • Routing efficiency • Caching in DHT-NRS cannot compete with DONA • Stretch values range from 1.95 to 2.84 • Memory and lookup processing overhead • DHT-NRS considerably better • DONA has a highly skewed distribution • Registration processing overhead • DONA is almost 6 times worse than DHT-NRS • The problem with DONA is mainly localized • Large-scale centralized solutions (e.g. cloud)?

More Related