Hari Balakrishnan
Sylvia Ratnasamy
Scott Shenker
Ion Stoica
ABSTRACT
Currently the Internet has only one level of name resolution, DNS, which converts user-level domain names into IP addresses. In this paper we borrow liberally from the literature to argue that there should be three levels of name resolution: from user-level descriptors to service identifiers; from service identifiers to endpoint identifiers; and from endpoint identifiers to IP addresses. These additional levels of naming and resolution (1) allow services and data to be first class Internet objects (in that they can be directly and persistently named), (2) seamlessly accommodate mobility and multi-homing and (3) integrate middleboxes (such as NATs and firewalls) into the Internet architecture. We further argue that flat names are a natural choice for the service and endpoint identifiers. Hence, this architecture requires scalable resolution of flat names, a capability that distributed hash tables (DHTs) can provide.
- D. G. Andersen. Mayday: Distributed filtering for Internet Services. In 4th USENIX Symposium on Internet Technologies and Systems, Seattle, WA, March 2003.]] Google Scholar
Digital Library
- T. Anderson, T. Roscoe, and D. Wetherall. Preventing Internet denial-of-service with capabilities. In 2nd ACM Hotnets Workshop, Cambridge, MA, Nov. 2003.]]Google Scholar
- H. Balakrishnan, M. F. Kaashoek, D. Karger, and R. Morris. Looking up data in P2P systems. Communications of the ACM, 46(2):43--48, Feb. 2003.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- G. Ballintijn, M. van Steen, and A. S. Tanenbaum. Scalable user-friendly resource names. IEEE Internet Computing, 5(5):20--27, 2001.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. Braden, T. Faber, and M. Handley. From protocol stack to protocol heap -- role-based architecture. In 1st ACM Hotnets Workshop, Princeton, NJ, Oct. 2002.]]Google Scholar
- K. L. Calvert, J. Griffioen, and S. Wen. Lightweight network support for scalable end-to-end services. In ACM SIGCOMM, Pittsburgh, PA, Aug. 2002.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- I. Castineyra, N. Chiappa, and M. Steenstrup. The Nimrod routing architecture, August 1996. RFC 1992.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. Clark, R. Braden, A. Falk, and V. Pingali. FARA: Reorganizing the addressing architecture. In ACM SIGCOMM Workshop on Future Directions in Network Architecture, Karlsruhe, Germany, Aug. 2003.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. Clark, K. Sollins, J. Wroclawski, and T. Faber. Addressing reality: An architectural response to demands on the evolving Internet. In ACM SIGCOMM Workshop on Future Directions in Network Architecture, Karlsruhe, Germany, Aug. 2003.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. D. Clark and D. L. Tennenhouse. Architectural considerations for a new generation of protocols. In ACM SIGCOMM, Philadelphia, PA, August 1990.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- L. Daigle, D. van Gulik, R. Iannella, and P. Faltstrom. URN namespace definition mechanisms, June 1999. RFC 2611.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. Deering and R. Hinden. Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6), Dec. 1998. RFC 2460.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Eriksson, M. Faloutsos, and S. Krishnamurthy. PeerNet: Pushing peer-to-peer down the stack. In 2nd Intl. Workshop on Peer-to-Peer Systems, Berkeley, CA, March 2003.]]Google ScholarCross Ref
- B. Ford. Unmanaged Internet Protocol: taming the edge network management crisis. In 2nd ACM Hotnets Workshop, Cambridge, MA, Nov. 2003.]]Google Scholar
- B. Ford, P. Srisuresh, and D. Kegel. Peer-to-peer (P2P) communication across middleboxes, October 2003. Internet draft draft-ford-midcom-p2p-01.txt (Work in progress).]]Google Scholar
- P. Francis. A near-term architecture for deploying PIP. IEEE Network, 7(6):30--27, 1993.]]Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. Francis. Addressing in Internetwork Protocols. PhD thesis, University College London, UK, 1994.]]Google Scholar
- P. Francis and R. Gummadi. IPNL: A NAT-extended Internet architecture. In ACM SIGCOMM, San Diego, CA, Aug. 2001.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- B. Gleeson, A. Lin, J. Heinanen, G. Armitage, and A. Malis. A framework for IP based virtual private networks, Feb. 2000. RFC 2764.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Gritter and D. R. Cheriton. TRIAD: A new next-generation Internet architecture. http://www-dsg.stanford.edu/triad/, July 2000.]]Google Scholar
- A. Gupta, B. Liskov, and R. Rodrigues. Efficient routing for peer-to-peer overlays. In 1st USENIX/ACM Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI '04), San Francisco, CA, March 2004.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- I. Gupta, K. Birman, P. Linka, A. Demers, and R. van Renesse. Building an efficient and stable P2P DHT through increased memory and background overhead. In 2nd Intl. Workshop on Peer-to-Peer Systems, Berkeley, CA, Feb. 2003.]]Google ScholarCross Ref
- International DOI Foundation. http://www.doi.org/.]]Google Scholar
- J. Kubiatowicz et al. Oceanstore: An architecture for global-scale persistent storage. In 9th ASPLOS, Cambridge, MA, November 2000.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. D. Keromytis, V. Misra, and D. Rubenstein. SOS: Secure overlay services. In ACM SIGCOMM, Pittsburgh, PA, Aug. 2002.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- E. Lear and R. Droms. What's in a name: Thoughts from the NSRG, September 2003. draft-irtf-nsrg-report-10, IETF draft (Work in Progress).]]Google Scholar
- C. Lynn. Endpoint Identifier Destination Option. Internet Draft, IETF, Nov. 1995. (expired).]]Google Scholar
- D. Mazières, M. Kaminsky, M. F. Kaashoek, and E. Witchel. Separating key management from file system security. In 17th ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles, pages 124--139, Kiawah Island, SC, Dec. 1999.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Mislove and P. Druschel. Providing administrative control and autonomy in peer-to-peer overlays. In 3rd Intl. Workshop on Peer-to-Peer Systems, San Diego, CA, February 2004.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. Mockapetris. Domain Names -- Implementation and Specification, November 1987. RFC 1035.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- K. Moore. Things that NATs break. http://www.cs.utk.edu/~moore/opinions/what-nats-break.html, as of June 2004.]]Google Scholar
- R. Moskowitz and P. Nikander. Host identity protocol architecture, September 2003. draft-moskowitz-hip-arch-05, IETF draft (Work in Progress).]]Google Scholar
- R. Moskowitz, P. Nikander, P. Jokela, and T. Henderson. Host identity protocol, October 2003. draft-moskowitz-hip-08, IETF draft (Work in Progress).]]Google Scholar
- A. Myles, D. Johnson, and C. Perkins. A mobile host protocol supporting route optimization and authentication. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, 13(5), June 1995.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. Nikander, J. Ylitalo, and J. Wall. Integrating security, mobility, and multi-homing in a HIP way. In Network and Distributed Systems Security Symposium (NDSS '03), pages 87--99, San Diego, CA, February 2003.]]Google Scholar
- M. O'Donnell. Open network handles implemented in DNS, Sep. 2002. Internet Draft, draft-odonnell-onhs-imp-dns-00.txt.]]Google Scholar
- M. O'Donnell. A proposal to separate Internet handles from names. http://people.cs.uchicago.edu/~odonnell/Citizen/Network_Identifiers/, February 2003. submitted for publication.]]Google Scholar
- S. W. O'Malley and L. L. Peterson. A dynamic network architecture. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems, 10(2):110--143, May 1992.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- V. Ramasubramanian and E. G. Sirer. Beehive: O(1) lookup performance for power-law query distributions in peer-to-peer overlays. In 1st USENIX/ACM Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI '04), San Francisco, CA, March 2004.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. Ratnasamy, P. Francis, M. Handley, R. Karp, and S. Shenker. A scalable content-addressable network. In ACM SIGCOMM, pages 161--172, San Diego, CA, August 2001.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- T. Roscoe, S. Hand, R. Isaacs, R. Mortier, and P. Jardetzky. Predicate routing: Enabling controlled networking. In 1st ACM Hotnets Workshop, Princeton, NJ, Oct. 2002.]]Google Scholar
- A. Rowstron and P. Druschel. Pastry: Scalable, distributed object location and routing for large-scale peer-to-peer systems. In 18th IFIP/ACM International Conference on Distributed Systems Platforms (Middleware), November 2001.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Rowstron and P. Druschel. Storage management and caching in PAST, a large-scale, persistent peer-to-peer storage utility. In 18th ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles, Banff, Canada, October 2001.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Saltzer. On the naming and binding of network destinations. In P. Ravasio et al., editor, Local Computer Networks, pages 311--317. North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam, 1982. Reprinted as RFC 1498, Aug 1993.]]Google ScholarDigital Library
- B. Schwartz, A. W. Jackson, W. T. Strayer, W. Zhou, R. D. Rockwell, and C. Partridge. Smart packets: applying active networks to network management. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems, 18(1):67--88, Feb. 2000.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. F. Shoch. Inter-network naming, addressing, and routing. In 17th IEEE Computer Society Conference (COMPCON '78), pages 72--79, Washington, DC, September 1978.]]Google Scholar
- A. C. Snoeren. A Session-Based Architecture for Internet Mobility. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, December 2002.]]Google Scholar
- A. C. Snoeren and H. Balakrishnan. An end-to-end approach to host mobility. In Proc. ACM MOBICOM, pages 155--166, 2000.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. C. Snoeren, H. Balakrishnan, and M. F. Kaashoek. Reconsidering Internet mobility. In 8th ACM Workshop on Hot Topics in Operating Systems, Elmau, Germany, May 2001.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- K. Sollins. Architectural principles of uniform resource name resolution, January 1998. RFC 2276.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- K. Sollins and L. Masinter. Functional requirements for Uniform Resource Names, December 1994. RFC 1737.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- P. Srisuresh and K. Egevang. Traditional IP network address translator (Traditional NAT), January 2001. RFC 3022.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- I. Stoica, D. Adkins, S. Zhuang, S. Shenker, and S. Surana. Internet indirection infrastructure. In ACM SIGCOMM, Pittsburgh, PA, Aug. 2002.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- I. Stoica, R. Morris, D. Liben-Nowell, D. Karger, M. F. Kaashoek, F. Dabek, and H. Balakrishnan. Chord: A scalable peer-to-peer lookup protocol for Internet applications. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, 11(1):17--32, Feb. 2003.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. L. Tennenhouse, J. M. Smith, D. Sincoskie, D. J. Wetherall, and G. J. Minden. A Survey of Active Network Research. IEEE Communications Magazine, 35(1):80--86, 1997.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- C. Tschudin and R. Gold. Network Pointers. In 1st ACM Hotnets Workshop, Princeton, NJ, October 2002.]]Google Scholar
- R. van Renesse and L. Zhou. P6P: A peer-to-peer approach to Internet infrastructure. In 3rd Intl. Workshop on Peer-to-Peer Systems, San Diego, CA, Mar. 2004.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. van Steen, F. J. Hauck, P. Homburg, and A. S. Tanenbaum. Locating objects in wide-area systems. IEEE Communications Magazine, 36(1):104--109, January 1998.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Walfish, H. Balakrishnan, and S. Shenker. Untangling the Web from DNS. In 1st USENIX/ACM Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI '04), San Francisco, CA, March 2004.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Walfish, J. Stribling, M. Krohn, H. Balakrishnan, R. Morris, and S. Shenker. Middleboxes no longer considered harmful. Technical Report TR/954, MIT CSAIL, June 2004.]]Google Scholar
- B. Y. Zhao, L. Huang, J. Stribling, S. C. Rhea, A. D. Joseph, and J. D. Kubiatowicz. Tapestry: A global-scale overlay for rapid service deployment. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, 22(1):41--53, January 2004.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- L. Zhou, R. van Renesse, and M. Marsh. Implementing IPv6 as a peer-to-peer overlay network. In Workshop on Reliable Peer-to-Peer Distributed Systems, 21st IEEE Symposium on Reliable Distributed Systems (SRDS '02), Suita, Japan, Oct. 2002.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- A layered naming architecture for the internet
Recommendations
A data-oriented (and beyond) network architecture
SIGCOMM '07: Proceedings of the 2007 conference on Applications, technologies, architectures, and protocols for computer communicationsThe Internet has evolved greatly from its original incarnation. For instance, the vast majority of current Internet usage is data retrieval and service access, whereas the architecture was designed around host-to-host applications such as telnet and ...
A layered naming architecture for the internet
Currently the Internet has only one level of name resolution, DNS, which converts user-level domain names into IP addresses. In this paper we borrow liberally from the literature to argue that there should be three levels of name resolution: from user-...
A data-oriented (and beyond) network architecture
The Internet has evolved greatly from its original incarnation. For instance, the vast majority of current Internet usage is data retrieval and service access, whereas the architecture was designed around host-to-host applications such as telnet and ...
Comments