End-to-End Networks Vs Named Data Network: A Critical Evaluation
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.11113/jt.v72.3943Keywords:
Named data network, end-to-end network, performance measurement, throughputAbstract
Named data networking or information centric networking is the newest networking paradigm that gives foremost place to the contents in identification and dissemination. On the other hand, the end to end networking paradigm on which the Internet is currently built on places heavy emphasis on devices that make the architecture. The current Internet suffers from many shortcomings due to the misplaced emphasis. In order to overcome some of these deficiencies, researchers and developers have come up with patches and work around that have made the Internet more complex than it ought to be. Named data networking is a clean slate approach in building a network architecture overcoming all the current deficiencies and make it future safe. Several researchers have carried out comparative studies between named data networking and end to end networking. But these studies concentrate only on the features and capabilities of the networking paradigms. This is the first attempt at quantifying the performance the networking architectures experimentally. The authors in this paper present the results of the comparative study carried out experimentally in a simulated environment based on the final throughput. The results have been presented in a graphical form for easy visualization of results.
References
Ghodsi, A., Shenker, S., Koponen, T., Singla, A., Raghavan, B., & Wilcox, J. 2011. Information-centric Networking: Seeing the Forest for the Trees. 10th ACM Workshop on Hot Topics in Networks, Cambridge, MA, USA. 1–6.
Ahlgren, B., Dannewitz, C., Imbrenda, C., Kutscher, D., & Ohlman, B. 2012. A Survey of Information-Centric Networking. IEEE Communications Magazine. 50(7): 26–36.
Melazzi, N. B., & Chiariglione, L. 2013. The Potential of Information Centric Networking in Two Illustrative Use Scenarios: Mobile Video Delivery and Network Management In Disaster Situations. IEEE Communication Society Multimedia Communications Technical Committee E-Letter. 8(4): 25–28.
Blumenthal, MS., & Clark, DD. 2001. Rethinking the Design of the Internet: The End-To-End Arguments Vs. The Brave New World. ACM Transactions on Internet Technology. 1(1): 70–109.
Paul, S., Pan, J., & Jain, R. 2011. Architectures for the Future Networks and the Next Generation Internet: A Survey. Computer Communications 34: 2–42.
Jain, R. 2006. Internet 3.0: Ten Problems with Current Internet Architecture and Solutions for The Next Generation. Military Communications Conference (MILCOM 2006). Washington, DC. 1–9.
Oehlmann, F. 2013. Content-centric networking. Future Internet and Innovative Internet Technologies & Mobile Communication Seminars. Munich, Germany. 43–49.
Kutscher, D., Flinck, H., & Karl, H. 2010. Information-centric Networking–A Position Paper. 6th GI/ITG KuVS Workshop on Future Internet. Hannover, Germany. 1–2.
Siris, V. A., Ververidis, C. N., Polyzos, G. C., & Liolis, K. P. 2012. Information-Centric Networking (ICN) Architectures For Integration of Satellite Into the Future Internet. First IEEE AESS European Conference on Satellite Telecommunications (ESTEL). Rome, Italy. 1–6.
Vaishnavi, V. K., & Kuechler, W. L. 2008. Design Science Research Methods and Patterns: Improving and Innovating Information and Communication Technology. New York: Auerbach.
Eker, I., & Kara, T. Behaviour of a Water Supply System: A Modelling and Simulation Study of Activities With Some Experiments.
Landsiedel, O., Wehrle, K., Titzer, BL., & Palsberg, J. 2005. Enabling Detailed Modeling and Analysis of Sensor Networks. Praxis der Informationsverarbeitung und Kommunikation. 28(2): 101–106.
Siraj, S., Gupta, AJ., & Badgujar, R. 2012. Network Simulation Tools Survey. International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer and Communication Engineering. 1(4): 201–210.
Rampfl, S. 2013. Network Simulation and Its Limitations. Seminars on Future Internet, Innovative Internet Technologies and Mobile Communications and Autonomous Communication Networks. Munich, Germany. 57–63.
Saeed, T., Gill, H., Fei, Q., Zhang, Z., & Loo, BT. 2011. An open-source and Declarative Approach Towards Teaching Large-scale Networked Systems Programming. ACM SIGCOMM Education Workshop, Toronto, Canada, 2011. 1–5.
Henderson, T. R., Roy, S., Floyd S., & Riley, G. F. 2006. ns3 Project Goals. Workshop on ns-2: the IP Network Simulator (WNS2'06). Pisa, Italy. 1–8.
Khan, AR., Bilal, SM., & Othman, M. 2012. A Performance Comparison of Open Source Network Simulators for Wireless Networks. IEEE International Conference on Control System, Computing and Engineering. Penang, Malaysia. 34–38.
Chhimwal, P., Rai, DS., & Rawat, D. 2013. Comparison Between Different Wireless Sensor Simulation Tools. IOSR Journal of Electronics and Communication Engineering. 5(2): 54–60.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright of articles that appear in Jurnal Teknologi belongs exclusively to Penerbit Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (Penerbit UTM Press). This copyright covers the rights to reproduce the article, including reprints, electronic reproductions, or any other reproductions of similar nature.
