给NACK还是不给NACK？以信息为中心的网络中的负面认知
To NACK or not to NACK? Negative Acknowledgments in Information-Centric Networking
摘要：
以信息为中心的网络（ICN）是一种互联网络范例，它提供了当前基于IP \nobreakdash的Internet架构的替代方案。ICN最显著的特点是它强调信息（内容）而不是通信端点。ICN中的一个重要的开放问题是网络层的否定应答（NACK）对于通知下游节点关于转发失败或对不正确或不存在的信息的请求是否有用。在良性设置中，NACK对ICN架构（如CCNx和NDN）是有益的，因为它们会刷新路由器中的状态并通知消费者。在安全性方面，NACK似乎很有用，因为它们可以帮助减轻所谓的兴趣泛滥攻击。然而，正如我们在本文中所展示的，网络层NACK也有一些令人不快的安全隐患。我们认为几种类型的NACK和讨论他们的安全设计要求和影响。我们还证明，提供安全的NACK触发生产者绑定洪水攻击的威胁。虽然我们讨论了一些潜在的对策，这些攻击，本文的主要结论是，最好避免网络层的NACK，至少出于安全原因。
英文摘要：
Information-Centric Networking (ICN) is an internetworking paradigm that offers an alternative to the current IP\nobreakdash-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.
机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来，可能存在错误，请以论文正文为准。
