沒什麼卵用的 ICN 論文

雖然沒什麼卵用，但仍是要寫，否則怎麼畢業。

看資料的時候，從 Information-Centric Networking: Seeing the Forest for the Trees 跳到了 Finding a needle in Haystack: Facebook’s photo storage

譯文（http://www.importnew.com/3292.html）

 

作科研，導師也不懂，糊里糊塗過了一年。沮喪太多，也是本身不努力。

按理說，NDN 也是大牛提出來的，緩存對訪問的提高效果有巨大的侷限性這事兒，大牛不該該不知道啊。哎……某些科研真的就是大牛挖坑，渣渣灌水吧。

Anyway，跳轉閱讀到了經典論文，仍是開心的。粘幾句 Information-Centric Networking: Seeing the Forest for the Trees裏形象生動說出我新生的神吐槽吧（本身真的是弱爆了，想吐槽都說不明白）。

Because there is no common framework, the focus is often on low-level mechanisms. As a result, many of the papers accentuate the differences between their design and others2 , leaving it as an exercise for the reader to construct the ICN forest out of these individually-proposed trees.

 

Changing the overall network architecture in order to tame the exponentially growing world of content with the logarithmic sword of caching seems a classical example of taking a knife to a gunfight: it may make for a great story, but it won’t end well.

 

So we end this paper by posing two fundamental questions: what benefits do we think ICN designs offer, and are ICN designs the best way to achieve those benefits? The field has focused on the former (though somewhat uncritically, as suggested by our discussion of caching), but we think addressing the latter is equally important.