Advertisement

A Feasibility Evaluation on Name-Based Routing

  • Haesung Hwang
  • Shingo Ata
  • Masayuki Murata
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5843)

Abstract

The IPv4 addressing scheme has been the standard for Internet communication since it was established in the 1960s. However, the enormous increase in Internet traffic usage has been leading in the past to issues such as increased complexity of routing protocols, explosion in routing table entries, provider-dependent addressing, and security problem, demonstrating the need for a redesign in advanced router technologies. The past proposals have limitations when it comes to establishing the foundations of future-generation networks, which require more sophisticated routing protocols, like content-based routing. Furthermore, those previous approaches were not conceived to fully utilize the advantages of TCAM, which is a type of memory capable of performing high-speed lookups that is already implemented in high-end routers. In this paper, we show that routing based on domain names is already a feasible technology on the Network Layer and we evaluate the necessary network and hardware resources needed to implement name-based routing strategies. We present a routing scheme and propose three methods for equally balancing the routing information in the TCAM of multiple routers. The results show that this routing scheme is scalable and that the required number of routers is two orders of magnitude smaller than the number of currently existing routers.

Keywords

Domain name routing Future-generation network Network/hardware resource Routing protocol Ternary Content Addressable Memory (TCAM) 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
  2. 2.
    Inoue, K., Akashi, D., Koibuchi, M., Kawashima, H., Nishi, H.: Semantic Router using Data Stream to Enrich Services. In: 3rd International Conference on Future Internet Technologies (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ratnasamy, S., Francis, P., Handley, M., Karp, R., Schenker, S.: A Scalable Content-Addressable Network. In: ACM Special Interest Group on Data Communication, pp. 161–172 (2001)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Oran, D.: Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP). IETF Network Working Group, work in progress (2008), http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-farinacci-lisp-10
  5. 5.
    FIND (Future InterNet Design), http://www.nets-find.net/
  6. 6.
    FP7 (Seventh Framework Programme), http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/home_en.html
  7. 7.
    AKARI: Architecture Design Project that Illuminates the Path to the New Generation Network, http://akari-project.nict.go.jp
  8. 8.
    Renesas Technology Corporation: Network Address Search Engine (9 M/18 M-bit Full Ternary CAM), http://documentation.renesas.com/eng/products/others/rej03h0001_r8a20211bg.pdf
  9. 9.
    Gritter, M., Cheriton, D.R.: An Architecture for Content Routing Support in the Internet. In: 3rd USENIX Symposium on Internet Technologies and Systems, pp. 37–48 (2001)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shue, C.A., Gupta, M.: Packet Forwarding: Name-based Vs. Prefix-based. In: 10th IEEE Global Internet Symposium, pp. 73–78 (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Garcés-Erice, L., Biersack, E.W., Felber, P.A., Ross, K.W., Urvoy-keller, G.: Hierarchical Peer-to-Peer Systems. In: Euro-Par., pp. 643–657 (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kersch, P., Szabo, R., Kis, Z.L., Erdei, M., Kovács, B.: Self Organizing Ambient Control Space: An Ambient Network Architecture for Dynamic Network Interconnection. In: 1st ACM workshop on Dynamic Interconnection of Networks, pp. 17–21 (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lian, J., Naik, S., Agnew, G.B.: Optimal Solution of Total Routing Table Size for Hierarchical Networks. In: 9th IEEE Symposium on Computers and Communications, pp. 834–839 (2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
  15. 15.
    Li, L., Alderson, D., Willinger, W., Doyle, J.: A First-Principles Approach to Understanding the Internet’s Router-level Topology. In: ACM Special Interest Group on Data Communication, pp. 3–14 (2004)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hawkinson, J., Bates, T.: RFC 1930: Guidelines for Creation, Selection, and Registration of an Autonomous System, AS (1996)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rekhter, Y., Li, T.: RFC 1771: A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4) (1995)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lu, G.H., Jain, S., Chen, S., Zhang, Z.L.: Virtual Id Routing: A Scalable Routing Framework with Support for Mobility and Routing Efficiency. In: ACM International Workshop on Mobility in the Evolving Internet Architecture, pp. 79–84 (2008)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mockapetris, P.: RFC 1035: Domain names - Implementation and Specification (1987)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Internet Systems Consortium, https://www.isc.org
  21. 21.
    Yook, S.H., Jeong, H., Barabási, A.L.: Modeling the Internet’s Large-scale Topology. In: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, pp. 13382–13386 (2002)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lakhina, A., Byers, J.W., Crovella, M., Matta, I.: On the Geographic Location of Internet Resources. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications 21(6), 934–948 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Govindan, R., Tangmunarunkit, H.: Heuristics for Internet Map Discovery. In: 19th IEEE INFOCOM (2000)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Haesung Hwang
    • 1
  • Shingo Ata
    • 2
  • Masayuki Murata
    • 1
  1. 1.Graduate School of Information Science and TechnologyOsaka UniversityOsakaJapan
  2. 2.Graduate School of EngineeringOsaka City UniversityOsakaJapan

Personalised recommendations