Incentive-compatible caching and peering in data-oriented networks

Several new, data-oriented internetworking architectures have been proposed recently. However, the practical deployability of such designs is an open question. In this paper, we consider data-oriented network designs in the light of the policy and incentive structures of the present internetworking economy. A main observation of our work is that none of the present proposals is both policy-compliant and incentive-compatible with the current internetworking market, which makes their deployment very challenging if not impossible. This difficulty stems from the unfounded implicit assumption that data-oriented routing policies directly reflect the underlying packet-level inter-domain policies. We find that to enable the more effective network utilization promised by data-oriented networking, essential caching incentives need to exist, and that data-oriented peering needs be considered separately from peering for packet forwarding.

[1]  Jeff Parker Recommendations for Interoperable IP Networks using Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) , 2004, RFC.

[2]  Lixin Gao,et al.  The extent of AS path inflation by routing policies , 2002, Global Telecommunications Conference, 2002. GLOBECOM '02. IEEE.

[3]  Jeff Parker,et al.  Recommendations for Interoperable Networks using Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) , 2004, RFC.

[4]  X.. Yang,et al.  NIRA: A New Inter-Domain Routing Architecture , 2007, IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking.

[5]  Ion Stoica,et al.  ROFL: routing on flat labels , 2006, SIGCOMM '06.

[6]  Joan Feigenbaum,et al.  Incentive-compatible interdomain routing , 2006, EC '06.

[7]  Steven McCanne,et al.  Towards an evolvable internet architecture , 2005, SIGCOMM '05.

[8]  Radia J. Perlman,et al.  Routing Architecture , 1993, Digit. Tech. J..

[9]  Walter Willinger,et al.  To Peer or Not to Peer: Modeling the Evolution of the Internet's AS-Level Topology , 2006, Proceedings IEEE INFOCOM 2006. 25TH IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications.

[10]  Kirk Lougheed,et al.  Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) , 2021, IP Routing Protocols.

[11]  Susan Hares,et al.  A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4) , 1994, RFC.

[12]  Lixin Gao,et al.  On inferring autonomous system relationships in the Internet , 2000, Globecom '00 - IEEE. Global Telecommunications Conference. Conference Record (Cat. No.00CH37137).

[13]  D. Clark,et al.  Complexity of Internet Interconnections: Technology, Incentives and Implications for Policy , 2007 .

[14]  Deborah Estrin,et al.  The impact of routing policy on Internet paths , 2001, Proceedings IEEE INFOCOM 2001. Conference on Computer Communications. Twentieth Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Society (Cat. No.01CH37213).

[15]  David R. Cheriton,et al.  An Architecture for Content Routing Support in the Internet , 2001, USITS.

[16]  Scott Shenker,et al.  A data-oriented (and beyond) network architecture , 2007, SIGCOMM 2007.

[17]  Krishna P. Gummadi,et al.  Canon in G major: designing DHTs with hierarchical structure , 2004, 24th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems, 2004. Proceedings..

[18]  John Day,et al.  Patterns in Network Architecture - A Return to Fundamentals , 2007 .

[19]  G. Huston,et al.  Interconnection, Peering and Settlements , 2003 .

[20]  Amin Vahdat,et al.  Detour: informed Internet routing and transport , 1999, IEEE Micro.

[21]  Christophe Diot,et al.  Deployment issues for the IP multicast service and architecture , 2000, IEEE Netw..

[22]  W. Norton,et al.  Internet Service Providers and Peering , 2001 .

[23]  Alex C. Snoeren,et al.  Decoupling policy from mechanism in Internet routing , 2004, Comput. Commun. Rev..

[24]  J. Moy,et al.  Open Shortest Path First version 2 , 1998 .