Maintaining CCNx or NDN flow balance with highly variable data object sizes
draft-oran-icnrg-flowbalance-06
|
| Document |
Type |
|
Active Internet-Draft (individual)
|
|
Author |
|
David Oran
|
|
Last updated |
|
2021-10-25
|
|
Stream |
|
(None)
|
|
Intended RFC status |
|
(None)
|
|
Formats |
|
plain text
html
xml
htmlized
pdfized
bibtex
|
|
Additional Resources |
|
|
| Stream |
Stream state |
|
(No stream defined) |
|
Consensus Boilerplate |
|
Unknown
|
|
RFC Editor Note |
|
(None)
|
| IESG |
IESG state |
|
I-D Exists
|
|
Telechat date |
|
|
|
Responsible AD |
|
(None)
|
|
Send notices to |
|
(None)
|
ICNRG D. Oran
Internet-Draft Network Systems Research and Design
Intended status: Experimental 25 October 2021
Expires: 28 April 2022
Maintaining CCNx or NDN flow balance with highly variable data object
sizes
draft-oran-icnrg-flowbalance-06
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 have a difficult time
dealing effectively with a widely varying MTU of ICN data messages,
because 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, most 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 size.
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."
Oran Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Maintaining Flow Balance October 2021
This Internet-Draft will expire on 28 April 2022.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 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.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Method to enhance congestion control with signaled size
information in Interest Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.1. How to predict the size of returning Data messages . . . 6
3.2. Handling 'too big' cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3. Handling 'too small' cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.4. Interactions with Interest Aggregation . . . . . . . . . 9
3.5. Operation when some Interests lack the expected data size
option and some have it . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4. Dealing with malicious actors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. Mapping to CCNx and NDN packet encodings . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.1. Packet encoding for CCNx . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.2. Packet encoding for NDN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Oran Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Maintaining Flow Balance October 2021
1. Introduction
Deeply embedded in some ICN architectures, especially Named Data
Networking ([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
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.
This approach leads to a desire to make the size of the objects
carried in Data messages small and near constant, because flow
balance can then be kept using simple bookkeeping of how many
Interest messages are outstanding. While simple, constraining Data
messages to be quite small - usually on the order of a link Maximum
Transmission Unit (MTU) - has some constraints and deleterious
effects, among which are:
* Such small data objects are inconvenient for many applications;
their natural data object sizes can be considerably larger than a
link MTU.
* Applications with truly small data objects (e.g. voice packets in
an Internet telephony applications) have no way to communicate
that to the network, causing resources to still be allocated for
MTU-sized data objects
* When chunking a larger data object into multiple Data messages,
each message has to be individually cryptographically hashed and
signed, increasing both computational overhead and overall message
header size. The signature can be elided when Manifests are used
(by signing the Manifest instead), but the overhead of hashing
multiple small messages rather than fewer larger ones remains.
Oran Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Maintaining Flow Balance October 2021
One approach which helps with the last of these is to employ
fragmentation for Data messages larger than the Path MTU (PMTU).
Such messages are carved into smaller pieces for transmission over
the link(s). There are three flavors of fragmentation: end-to-end,
hop-by-hop with reassembly at every hop, and hop-by-hop with cut-
through of individual fragments. A number of ICN protocol
architectures incorporate fragmentation and schemes have been
proposed for both NDN and CCNx, for example in [Ghali2013].
Fragmentation alone does not ameliorate the flow balance problem
however, since from a resource allocation standpoint both memory and
link bandwidth must be set aside for maximum-sized data objects to
avoid congestion collapse under overload.
The design space considered in this document does not however extend
to arbitrarily large objects (e.g. 100's of kilobytes or larger). As
the dynamic range of data object sizes gets very large, finding the
right tradeoff between handling a large number of small data objects
versus a single very large data object when allocating link and
buffer resources becomes intractable. Further, the semantics of
Interest-Data exchanges means that any error in the exchange results
in a re-issue of an Interest for the entire Data object. Very large
data objects represent a performance problem because the cost of
retransmission when Interests are retransmitted (or re-issued)
becomes unsustainably high. Therefore, the method we propose deals
with a dynamic range of object sizes from very small (a fraction of a
link MTU) to moderately large - about 64 kilobytes or equivalently
about 40 Ethernet packets, and assumes an associated fragmentation
scheme to handle link MTUs that cannot carry the Data message in a
single link-layer packet.
The approach described in the rest of this document maintains flow
balance under the conditions outlined above by allocating resources
accurately based on expected Data message size, rather than employing
simple interest counting.
2. Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Oran Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Maintaining Flow Balance October 2021
3. Method to enhance congestion control with signaled size information
in Interest Messages
Before diving into the specifics of the design, it is useful to
consider how congestion control works in NDN/CCNx. Unlike the IP
protocol family, which relies on end-to-end congestion control (e.g.
TCP[RFC0793], DCCP[RFC4340], SCTP[RFC4960],
QUIC[I-D.ietf-quic-transport]), CCNx and NDN employ hop-by-hop
congestion control. There is per-Interest/Data state at every hop of
the path and therefore for each outstanding Interest, bandwidth for
data returning on the inverse path can be allocated. In many current
designs, this allocation is done using simple Interest counting - by
queueing and subsequently forwarding one Interest message from a
downstream node, implicitly this provides a guarantee (either hard or
soft) that there is sufficient bandwidth on the inverse direction of
the link to send back one Data message. A number of congestion
control schemes have been developed that operate in this fashion, for
example [Wang2013],[Mahdian2016],[Song2018],[Carofiglio2012]. Other
schemes, like [Schneider2016] neither count nor police interests, but
instead monitor queues using AQM (active queue management) to mark or
drop returning Data packets that have experienced congestion. It is
worth noting that every congestion control algorithm has an explicit
fairness goal and associated objective function (usually either
[minmaxfairness] or [proportionalfairness]). If your fairness is to
be based on resource usage, pure interest counting doesn't do the
trick, since a consumer asking for large thing can saturate a link
and shift loss to consumers asking for small things.
In order to deal with a larger dynamic range of Data message size,
some means is required to allocate link bandwidth for Data messages
in bytes with an upper bound larger than a Path MTU and a lower bound
lower than a single link MTU. Since resources are allocated for
returning Data based on arriving Interests, this information must be
available in Interest messages.
Therefore, one key idea is the inclusion of an _expected data size_
TLV in each Interest message. This allows each forwarder on the path
taken by the Interest to more accurately allocate bandwidth on the
inverse path for the returning Data message. Also, by including the
expected data size, large objects will have a corresponding weight in
resource allocation, maintaining link and forwarder buffering
fairness. The simpler Interest counting scheme was nominally "fair"
on a per-exchange basis within the variations of data that fit in a
single PMTU packet because all Interests produced similar amounts of
data in return. In the absence of such a field, it is not feasible
to allow a large dynamic range in object size. While schemes like
[Schneider2016] would not employ the expected data size to allocate
reverse link bandwidth, they can still benefit from the information
Oran Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Maintaining Flow Balance October 2021
to affect the AQM congestion marking algorithm, preferentially
marking data packets that exceed the expected data size from the
corresponding Interest.
It is natural to ask whether the additional complexity introduced
into an ICN forwarder, and the additional computational cost for the
congestion control operations is worthwhile. For congestion control
schemes like [Schneider2016] the additional overhead is not trivial,
since no Interest counting is happening. However, if a congestion
control is _already_ counting Interests, the additional overhead is
minimal, only reading one extra TLV from the Interest and
incrementing the outstanding data amount for the corresponding queue
by that number rather than a constant of 1. The overhead on
returning data is simply reducing the amount by the actual Data
message size, rather than by 1.
3.1. How to predict the size of returning Data messages
This of course raises the question "How does the requester know how
big the corresponding Data message coming back will be?". For a
number of important applications, the size is known a priori due to
the characteristics of the application. Here are some examples:
* For many sensor and other Internet-of-Things applications, the
data is instrument readings which have fixed known size.
* In video streaming, the data is output of a video encoder which
produces variable sized frames. This information is typically
made available ahead of time to the streaming clients in the form
of a _Manifest_ (e.g [DASH], FLIC [I-D.irtf-icnrg-flic]), which
contains the names of the corresponding segments (or individual
frames) of video and audio and their sizes.
* Internet telephony applications use vocoders that typically employ
fixed-size audio frames. Therefore, their size is known either a
priori, or via an initialization exchange at the start of an audio
session.
The more complex cases arise where the data size is not known at the
time the Interest must be sent. Much of the nuance of the proposed
scheme is in how mismatches between the expected data size and the
actual Data message returned are handled. The consumer can either
under- or over-estimate the data size. In the former case, the
under-estimate can lead to congestion and possible loss of data. In
the latter case, bandwidth that could have been used by data objects
requested by other consumers might be wasted. We first consider
"honest" mis-estimates due to imperfect knowledge by the ICN
application; later we consider malicious applications that are using
Oran Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Maintaining Flow Balance October 2021
the machinery to mount some form of attack. We also consider the
effects of Interest aggregation if the aggregated Interests have
differing expected data sizes. Also, it should be obvious that if
the Data message arrives, the application learns its actual size,
which may or may not be useful in adjusting the expected data size
estimate for future Interests.
In all cases, the expected data size from the Interest can be
incorporated in the corresponding Pending Interest Table (PIT) entry
of each CCNx/NDN forwarder on the path and hence when a (possibly
fragmented) Data object comes back, its total size is known and can
be compared to the expected size in the PIT for a mismatch. Aside:
In the case of fragmentation, we assume a fragmentation scheme in
which the total Data message size can be known as soon as any one
fragment is received (a reasonable assumption for most any well-
designed fragmentation method, such as that in [Ghali2013]).
3.2. Handling 'too big' cases
If the returning Data message is larger than the expected data size,
the extra data could result in either unfair bandwidth allocation or
possibly data loss under congestion conditions. When this is
detected, the forwarder has three choices:
1. It could forward the Data message anyway, which is safe under
non-congestion conditions, but unfair and possibly unstable when
the output link is congested
2. It could forward the data when un-congested (e.g. by assessing
output queue depth) but drop it when congested
3. It could always drop the data, as a way of "punishing" the
requester for the mis-estimate.
Either of the latter two strategies is acceptable from a congestion
control point of view. However, it is not a good idea to simply drop
the Data message with no feedback to the issuer of the Interest
because the application has no way to learn the actual data size and
retry. Further, recovery would be delayed until the failing Interest
timed out. Therefore, an additional element needed in protocol
semantics is the incorporation of a "Data too big" error message
(achieved via the use of an "Interest Return" packet in CCNx).
Upon dropping data as above, the CCNx/NDN forwarder converts the
normal Data message into an Interest Return packet containing the
existing [RFC8609] T_MTU_TOO_LARGE error code and the actual size of
the Data message instead of the original content. It propagates that
back toward the client identically to how the original Data message
Oran Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Maintaining Flow Balance October 2021
would have been handled. Subsequent nodes upon receiving the
T_MTU_TOO_LARGE error treat identically to other Interest Return
errors. When the Interest Return eventually arrives back to the
issuer of the Interest, the user MAY reissue the Interest with the
correct expected data size.
One detail to note is that an Interest Return carrying
T_MTU_TOO_LARGE must be deterministically smaller than the expected
data size in all cases. This is clearly the case for large data
objects, but there is a corner case with small data objects. There
has to be a minimum expected data size that a client can specify in
their Interests, and that minimum cannot be smaller than the size of
a T_MTU_TOO_LARGE Interest Return packet.
3.3. Handling 'too small' cases
Next we consider the case where the returning data is smaller than
the expected data size. While this case does not result in
congestion, it can cause resources to be inefficiently allocated
because not all of the set-aside bandwidth for the returning data
object gets used. The simplest and most straightforward way to deal
with this case is to essentially ignore it. The motivation for not
worrying about the smaller data mismatch is that in many situations
that employ usage-based resource measurement (and possibly charging),
it is trivial to just account for the usage according to the larger
expected data size rather than actual returned data size. Properly
adjusting congestion control parameters to somehow penalize users for
over-estimating their resource usage requires fairly heavyweight
machinery, which in most cases is not warranted. If desired, any of
the following mechanisms could be considered:
* Attempt to identify future Interests for the same object or
closely related objects and allocate resources based on some
retained state about the actual size of prior objects
* Police consumer behavior and decrease the expected data size in
one or more future Interests to compensate
* For small objects, do more optimistic resource allocation on the
links on the presumption that there will be some "slack" due to
clients overestimating data object size.
Oran Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Maintaining Flow Balance October 2021
3.4. Interactions with Interest Aggregation
One protocol detail of CCNx/NDN that needs to be dealt with is
Interest Aggregation. Interest Aggregation, while a powerful feature
for maintaining flow balance when multiple consumers send Interests
for the same Named object, introduces subtle complications. Whenever
a second or subsequent Interest arrives at a forwarder with an active
PIT entry it is possible that those Interests carry different
parameters, for example hop limit, payload, etc. It is therefore
necessary to specify the exact behavior of the forwarder for each of
the parameters that might differ. In the case of the expected data
size parameter defined here, the value is associated with the ingress
face on which the Interest creating the PIT entry arrived, as opposed
to being global to the PIT entry as a whole. Interest aggregation
interacts with expected data size if Interests from different clients
contain different values of the expected data size. As above in
Section 3.3, the simplest solution to this problem is to ignore it,
as most error cases are benign. However, there is one problematic
error case where one client provides an accurate expected data size,
but another who issued the Interest first underestimates, causing
both to receive a T_MTU_TOO_LARGE error. This introduces a denial of
service vulnerability, which we discuss below together with the other
malicious actor cases.
There are two cases to consider:
1. The arriving Interest carries an expected data size smaller than
any of the values associated with the PIT entry.
2. The arriving Interest carries an expected data size larger than
any of the values associated with the PIT entry.
For Case (1) the Interest can be safely aggregated since the upstream
links will have sufficient bandwidth allocated based on the larger
expected data size (assuming the original Interest's expected data
size was itself sufficiently large to accommodate the actual size of
the returning Data). On the other hand, should the incoming face
have bandwidth allocated based on the larger existing Interest's
expected data size, or on the smaller value in the arriving interest?
Here there are two possible approaches:
a. Allocate based on the data size already in the PIT. In this case
the consumer sending the earlier Interest can cause over-
allocation of link bandwidth for other incoming faces, but there
will not be a T_MTU_TOO_LARGE error generated for that Interest
Oran Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Maintaining Flow Balance October 2021
b. Allocate based on the value in the arriving Interest. If the
returning Data is in fact larger, generate a T_MTU_TOO_LARGE
Interest Return on that ingress face, while successfully
returning the Data message on any faces that do not exhibit a too
small expected data size
It is RECOMMENDED that the second policy be followed. The reasons
behind this recommendation are as follows:
1. The link can be congested quite quickly after the queuing
decision is made, especially if the data has a long link-
occupancy time, so this is a safer alternative.
2. The cost of returning the error is only one link RTT, since the
consumer (or downstream forwarder) can immediately re-issue the
Interest with the correct size and perhaps pick up the cached
object from the upstream forwarder's Content Store.
3. Being optimistic and returning the data interacts with the
behavior of aggregate resource control and resource accounting,
which in turn raises the messy issue of whether to "charge" the
consumer for the actual bandwidth used or only for the requested
bandwidth in the expected data.
4. The rabbit hole goes deeper if you add differential QoS to the
equation or consumers "playing games" and intentionally
underestimating so their interests get satisfied when links
aren't congested. This makes handling malicious actors
(Section 4) more difficult.
For Case (2) above, the Interest MUST be forwarded rather than
aggregated to prevent a consumer from mounting a denial of service
attack by sending intentionally too small expected data size (see
Section 4 for additional detail on this and other attacks). As above
for Case (1) it is RECOMMENDED that policy (b) above be followed.
3.5. Operation when some Interests lack the expected data size option
and some have it
Since the expected data size is an optional hop-by-hop packet field,
forwarders need to be prepared to handle an arbitrary mix of packets
containing or lacking this option. There are two general things to
address.
First, we assume that any forwarder supporting expected data size is
running a more sophisticated congestion control algorithm that one
employing simple interest counting. The link bandwidth resource
allocation is therefore based directly, or indirectly, on the
Oran Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Maintaining Flow Balance October 2021
expected Data size in bytes. Therefore, the forwarder has to assign
a value to use in the resource allocation for the reverse link. This
specification does not mandate any particular approach or a default
value to use. However, in the absence on other guidance, it makes
sense to do one of two things:
1. Pick a default based on the link MTU of the face on which the
Interest arrived and use that for all Interests lacking an
expected data size. This is likely to be most compatible with
simple interest counting which would rate limit all incoming
interests equally.
2. Configure some values for given Name prefixes that have known
sizes. This may be appropriate for dedicated forwarders
supporting single use cases, such as:
* A forwarder handling IoT sensors sending very small Data
messages
* A forwarder handling real-time video with large average Data
packets that exceed link MTU and are routinely fragmented
* A forwarder doing voice trunking where the vocoders produce
moderate sized packets, still much smaller than the link MTU
The second area to address is what to do if an interest lacking an
expected Data size is responded to by a Data message whose size
exceeds the default discussed above. It would be inappropriate to
issue a T_MTU_TOO_LARGE error, since the consumer is unlikely to
understand or deal correctly with that new error case. Instead, it
is RECOMMENDED that the forwarder:
* Ignore the mismatch if the reverse link is not congested and
return the requested Data message anyway.
* If the reverse link is congested, issue an Interest Return with
the T_NO_RESOURCES error code
This specification does not define or recommend any particular
algorithm for assessing the congestion state of the link(s) to carry
the Data message downstream to the requesting consumers. It is
assumed that a reasonable algorithm is in use, because otherwise even
basic Interest counting forms of congestion control would not be
effective.
Oran Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Maintaining Flow Balance October 2021
4. Dealing with malicious actors
First we note that various known attacks in CCNx or NDN can also be
mounted by users employing this method. Attacks that involve
interest flooding, cache pollution, cache poisoning, etc. are neither
worsened nor ameliorated by the introduction of the congestion
control capabilities described here. However, there are two new
vulnerabilities that need to be dealt with. These two new
vulnerabilities involve intentional mis-estimation of data size.
The first is a consumer who intentionally over-estimates data size
with the goal of preventing other users from using the bandwidth.
This is at most a minor additional concern given the discussion of
how to handle over-estimation by honest clients in Section 3.2. If
one of the amelioration techniques described there is used, the case
of malicious over-estimation is also dealt with adequately.
The second is a user who intentionally under-estimates the data size
with the goal having its Interest processed while the other
aggregated interests are not processed, thereby causing
T_MTU_TOO_LARGE errors and denying service to the other users with
overlapping requests. There are a number of possible mitigation
techniques for this attack vector, ranging in complexity. We outline
two below; there may be others as or more effective with acceptable
complexity and overhead:
* (Simplest) A user sending Interests resulting in a T_MTU_TOO_LARGE
error is treated similarly to users mounting interest flooding
attacks; the a router aggregating Interests with differing
expected data sizes rate limits the face(s) exhibiting these
errors, thus decreasing the ability of a user to issue enough mis-
estimated Interests to collide and generate Interest aggregation.
* An ICN forwarder aggregating Interests remembers in the PIT entry
not only the expected data size of the Interest it forwarded, but
the maximum of the expected data size of the other Interests it
aggregated. If a T_MTU_TOO_LARGE error comes back, instead of
propagating it, the forwarder MAY treat this as a transient error,
drop the Interest Return, and re-forward the Interest using the
maximum expected data size in the PIT (assuming it is is bigger).
This recovers from the error, but the attacker can still cause an
extra round trip to the producer or to an upstream forwarder with
a copy of the data in its Content Store.
Oran Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Maintaining Flow Balance October 2021
5. Mapping to CCNx and NDN packet encodings
The only actual protocol needed is a TLV in Interest messages that
states the size in bytes of the expected Data Message coming back,
and in the Interest Return on a "too big" error to carry the actual
data size. In the case of CCNx, this covers the encapsulated Data
Object, but not the hop-by-hop headers.
5.1. Packet encoding for CCNx
For CCNx[RFC8569] there is a new hop-by-hop header TLV, and a new
value of the Interest Return "Return Type".
Expected Data Size (for Interest messages), or Actual Data Size (for
Interest Return messages) TLV
+============+===========+================================+
| Abbrev | Name | Description |
+============+===========+================================+
| T_DATASIZE | Data Size | Expected (Section 3) or Actual |
| | | (Section 3.2) Data Size |
+------------+-----------+--------------------------------+
Table 1: Data Size TLV
5.2. Packet encoding for NDN
TBD based on [NDNTLV]. Suggestions from the NDN team greatly
appreciated.
6. IANA Considerations
Please Add the T_DATASIZE TLV to the Hop-by-Hop TLV types registry of
RFC8609, with fixed length of 2, and data type numeric
Expected/Actual Data Size TLV encoding. The range has an upper bound
of 64K bytes, since that is the largest MTU supported by CCNx.
1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| T_DATASIZE | 2 |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| Expected/Actual Data Size |
+---------------+---------------+
Figure 1: Expected/Actual Datazize using RFC8609 encoding
Oran Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Maintaining Flow Balance October 2021
7. Security Considerations
Section 4 addresses the major security considerations for this
specification.
8. Acknowledgements
Klaus Schneider and Ken Calvert have contributed a number of useful
comments which have substantially improved the document.
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.
[RFC8569] Mosko, M., Solis, I., and C. Wood, "Content-Centric
Networking (CCNx) Semantics", RFC 8569,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8569, July 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8569>.
[RFC8609] Mosko, M., Solis, I., and C. Wood, "Content-Centric
Networking (CCNx) Messages in TLV Format", RFC 8609,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8609, July 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8609>.
9.2. Informative References
[Carofiglio2012]
Carofiglio, G., Gallo, M., and L. Muscariello, "Joint hop-
by-hop and receiver-driven interest control protocol for
content-centric networks, in ICN Workshop at SIGcomm
2012", DOI 10.1145/2377677.2377772, 2102,
<http://conferences.sigcomm.org/sigcomm/2012/paper/icn/
p37.pdf>.
[DASH] "Dynamic Adaptive Streaming over HTTP", various,
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Dynamic_Adaptive_Streaming_over_HTTP>.
Oran Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Maintaining Flow Balance October 2021
[Ghali2013]
Ghali, C., Narayanan, A., Oran, D., Tsudik, G., and C.
Wood, "Secure Fragmentation for Content-Centric Networks,
in IEEE 14th International Symposium on Network Computing
and Applications", DOI 10.1109/nca.2015.34, 2015,
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/NCA.2015.34>.
[I-D.ietf-quic-transport]
Iyengar, J. and M. Thomson, "QUIC: A UDP-Based Multiplexed
and Secure Transport", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-ietf-quic-transport-27, 21 February 2020,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-quic-
transport-27>.
[I-D.irtf-icnrg-flic]
Tschudin, C., Wood, C., Mosko, M., and D. Oran, "File-Like
ICN Collections (FLIC)", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-irtf-icnrg-flic-02, 4 November 2019,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-irtf-icnrg-
flic-02>.
[Mahdian2016]
Mahdian, M., Arianfar, S., Gibson, J., and D. Oran,
"MIRCC: Multipath-aware ICN Rate-based Congestion Control,
in Proceedings of the 3rd ACM Conference on Information-
Centric Networking", DOI 10.1145/2984356.2984365, 2016,
<http://conferences2.sigcomm.org/acm-icn/2016/proceedings/
p1-mahdian.pdf>.
[minmaxfairness]
"Max-min Fairness", various,
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max-min_fairness>.
[NDN] "Named Data Networking", various,
<https://named-data.net/project/execsummary/>.
[NDNTLV] "NDN Packet Format Specification.", 2016,
<http://named-data.net/doc/ndn-tlv/>.
[proportionalfairness]
"Proportionally Fair", various,
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportionally_fair>.
[RFC0793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7,
RFC 793, DOI 10.17487/RFC0793, September 1981,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc793>.
Oran Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Maintaining Flow Balance October 2021
[RFC4340] Kohler, E., Handley, M., and S. Floyd, "Datagram
Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP)", RFC 4340,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4340, March 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4340>.
[RFC4960] Stewart, R., Ed., "Stream Control Transmission Protocol",
RFC 4960, DOI 10.17487/RFC4960, September 2007,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4960>.
[Schneider2016]
Schneider, K., Yi, C., Zhang, B., and L. Zhang, "A
Practical Congestion Control Scheme for Named Data
Networking, in Proceedings of the 2016 conference on 3rd
ACM Conference on Information-Centric Networking - ACM-ICN
'16", DOI 10.1145/2984356.2984369, 2016,
<http://conferences2.sigcomm.org/acm-icn/2016/proceedings/
p21-schneider.pdf>.
[Song2018] Song, J., Lee, M., and T. Kwon, "SMIC: Subflow-level
Multi-path Interest Control for Information Centric
Networking, in 5th ACM Conference on Information-Centric
Networking", DOI 10.1145/3267955.3267971, 2018,
<https://conferences.sigcomm.org/acm-icn/2018/proceedings/
icn18-final62.pdf>.
[Wang2013] Wang, Y., Rozhnova, N., Narayanan, A., Oran, D., and I.
Rhee, "An Improved Hop-by-hop Interest Shaper for
Congestion Control in Named Data Networking, in ACM
SIGCOMM Workshop on Information-Centric Networking",
DOI 10.1145/2534169.2491233, 2013,
<http://conferences.sigcomm.org/sigcomm/2013/papers/icn/
p55.pdf>.
Author's Address
Dave Oran
Network Systems Research and Design
4 Shady Hill Square
Cambridge, MA 02138
United States of America
Email: daveoran@orandom.net
Oran Expires 28 April 2022 [Page 16]