4.7 Article

A functional taxonomy of caching schemes: Towards guided designs in information-centric networks

期刊

COMPUTER NETWORKS
卷 165, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.comnet.2019.106937

关键词

Cache designs; Cache valuation; Guided designs; Information-Centric Networking (ICN); ICN caching taxonomy; ICN performance evaluation

资金

  1. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) [RGPIN-2017-06902, RGPIN-2019-05667]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Information Centric Networking (ICN) is a developing paradigm, poised to transform the Internet's architecture. At its core, ICN focuses on efficient content dissemination and retrieval, regardless of storage location and physical representation of content. Thus, content caching schemes play a pivotal role in providing fast, reliable, and scalable content distribution and delivery. Given the multitude of caching schemes that have evolved over the past few years, recent developments have been often hampered by a fixed set of design primitives. In this paper, we present a functional-based taxonomy of ICN caching schemes, detailing each functional component, and depicting the functional mandates of these schemes to aid in contrasting their operations. The goal of this survey is to guide the design and development of ICN protocols, building on insights from caching schemes and their inherent tradeoffs. We present a comprehensive benchmark for future caching schemes, coupled with a quantitative as well as qualitative analysis of leading caching schemes, encompassing cross-scheme performance metrics. We highlight the impact of ICN caching schemes in the development of the Internet of Things (IoT) and Vehicular Ad-Hoc Networks (VANETs). This work concludes by presenting insights for future developments in ICN, with a dedicated discussion on guided development for researchers in this domain; building on the aforementioned taxonomy, as well as quantitative and qualitative analyses. (C) 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据