Performance comparison of content-oriented networking alternatives: A tree versus A distributed hash table

  • Jaeyoung Choi
  • , Jinyoung Han
  • , Eunsang Cho
  • , Hyunchul Kim
  • , Taekyoung Kwon
  • , Yanghee Choi

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contributionpeer-review

5 Scopus citations

Abstract

While the Internet was designed with host-oriented networking applications, recent Internet statistics show that content-oriented traffic has become more and more dominant. Even though content-oriented networking, which tries to resolve this discordance, has received increasing attention, there have been few comprehensive and quantitative studies on how to realize a content-oriented networking architecture. In this paper, we focus on the design alternatives of the content-oriented networking architecture and evaluate their performance: (i) how to locate contents, (ii) how to cache contents, and (iii) how to deliver contents. There are two major infrastructure alternatives in substantiating these mechanisms: a tree and a distributed hash table (DHT). We carry out comprehensive simulation experiments to compare these alternatives in terms of content transfer latency, cache effectiveness, and failure resilience.

Original languageEnglish
Title of host publication2009 IEEE 34th Conference on Local Computer Networks, LCN 2009
Pages253-256
Number of pages4
DOIs
StatePublished - 2009
Externally publishedYes
Event2009 IEEE 34th Conference on Local Computer Networks, LCN 2009 - Zurich, Switzerland
Duration: 20 Oct 200923 Oct 2009

Publication series

NameProceedings - Conference on Local Computer Networks, LCN

Conference

Conference2009 IEEE 34th Conference on Local Computer Networks, LCN 2009
Country/TerritorySwitzerland
CityZurich
Period20/10/0923/10/09

Keywords

  • Contents caching
  • Name resolution
  • Network architecture and design
  • Performance evaluation
  • Route-by-name paradigm

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Performance comparison of content-oriented networking alternatives: A tree versus A distributed hash table'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this