Information-Centric Networking (ICN) is an internetworking paradigm that offers an alternative to the current IP-based Internet architecture. ICN's most distinguishing feature is its emphasis on information (content) instead of communication endpoints. One important open issue in ICN is whether negative acknowledgments (NACKs) at the network layer are useful for notifying downstream nodes about forwarding failures, or requests for incorrect or non-existent information. In benign settings, NACKs are beneficial for ICN architectures, such as CCNx and NDN, since they flush state in routers and notify consumers. In terms of security, NACKs seem useful as they can help mitigating so-called Interest Flooding attacks. However, as we show in this paper, network-layer NACKs also have some unpleasant security implications. We consider several types of NACKs and discuss their security design requirements and implications. We also demonstrate that providing secure NACKs triggers the threat of producer-bound flooding attacks. Although we discuss some potential countermeasures to these attacks, the main conclusion of this paper is that network-layer NACKs are best avoided, at least for security reasons.
Sender-initiated reliable multicast protocols based on the use of positive acknowledgments (ACKs) can suffer performance degradation as the number of receivers increases. This degradation is due to the fact that the sender must bear much of the complexity associated with reliable data transfer (e.g., maintaining state information and timers for each of the receivers and responding to receivers' ACKs). A potential solution to this problem is to shift the burden of providing reliable data transfer to the receivers-thus resulting in receiver-initiated multicast error control protocols based on the use of negative acknowledgments (NAKs). We determine the maximum throughputs for generic sender-initiated and receiver-initiated protocols for two classes of applications: (1) one-many applications where one participant sends data to a set of receivers and (2) many-many applications where all participants simultaneously send and receive data to from each other. We show that a receiver-initiated error control protocol which requires receivers to transmit NAKs point-to-point to the sender provides higher throughput than a sender-initiated counterpart for both classes of applications. We further demonstrate that, in the case of a one many application, replacing point-to-point transfer of NAKs with multicasting of NAKs coupled with a random backoff procedure provides a substantial additional increase in the throughput of a receiver-initiated error control protocol over a sender-initiated protocol. We also find, however, that such a modification leads to a throughput degradation in the case of many-many applications. In this paper, we evaluate the performance of flow control schemes for reliable multicast under several retransmission approaches in terms of scalability. The schemes examined are a window-based flow control scheme for ACK-based retransmission approaches and a rate-based flow control scheme for NAK-based retransmission approaches. Our simulation results show that the NAK-based flow control scheme has better scalability and higher throughput than the ACK-based flow control scheme, and the delay incurred by a NAK-suppression mechanism does not affect the performance of multicast flow control. In a multicasting system content is multicast from a sender to a plurality of receivers over a data network. Each receiver independently determines whether it is missing elements or packets of the content. Receivers having missing content each initiate a random timer. The receiver having the shortest random interval unicasts a negative acknowledgement to the sender, which immediately multicasts the negative acknowledgement to the other receivers. All other receivers having the same missing packet thereupon suppress their own negative acknowledgements as to that packet. A repair transmission is then multicast by the sender to all receivers. The random intervals have upper and lower bounds according to the round trip transmission time and the size of the largest missing data element.