Maintaining CCNx or NDN flow balance with highly variable data object sizes
draft-oran-icnrg-flowbalance-01

• Status
• IESG evaluation record
• IESG writeups
• Email expansions
• History

• Versions
• 00
• 01

ICNRG                                                            D. Oran
Internet-Draft                       Network Systems Research and Design
Intended status: Experimental                            August 10, 2019
Expires: February 11, 2020

 Maintaining CCNx or NDN flow balance with highly variable data object
                                 sizes
                    draft-oran-icnrg-flowbalance-01

Abstract

   Deeply embedded in some ICN architectures, especially Named Data
   Networking (NDN) and Content-Centric Networking (CCNx) is the notion
   of flow balance.  This captures the idea that there is a one-to-one
   correspondence between requests for data, carried in Interest
   messages, and the responses with the requested data object, carried
   in Data messages.  This has a number of highly beneficial properties
   for flow and congestion control in networks, as well as some
   desirable security properties.  For example, neither legitimate users
   nor attackers are able to inject large amounts of un-requested data
   into the network.

   Existing congestion control approaches however cannot deal
   effectively with a widely varying MTU of ICN data messages, since the
   protocols allow a dynamic range of 1-64K bytes.  Since Interest
   messages are used to allocate the reverse link bandwidth for
   returning Data, there is large uncertainty in how to allocate that
   bandwidth.  Unfortunately, current congestion control schemes in CCNx
   and NDN only count Interest messages and have no idea how much data
   is involved that could congest the inverse link.  This document
   proposes a method to maintain flow balance by accommodating the wide
   dynamic range in Data message MTU.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

D. Oran                 Expires February 11, 2020               [Page 1]
Internet-Draft          Maintaining Flow Balance             August 2019

   This Internet-Draft will expire on February 11, 2020.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Method to enhance congestion control with signaled size
       information in Interest Messages  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.1.  How to predict the size of returning Data messages  . . .   5
     3.2.  Handling `too big' cases  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.3.  Handling `too small' cases  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.4.  Interactions with Interest Aggregation  . . . . . . . . .   8
     3.5.  Operation when some Interests lack the expected data size
           option and some have it . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   4.  Dealing with malicious actors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   5.  Mapping to CCNx and NDN packet encodings  . . . . . . . . . .  12
     5.1.  Packet encoding for CCNx  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     5.2.  Packet encoding for NDN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   8.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     8.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     8.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15

1.  Introduction

   Deeply embedded in some ICN architectures, especially Named Data
   Networking (NDN [NDN]) and Content-Centric Networking (CCNx
   [RFC8569],[RFC8609]) is the notion of _flow balance_. This captures
   the idea that there is a one-to-one correspondence between requests