



ICNRG                                                            D. Oran
Internet-Draft                       Network Systems Research and Design
Intended status: Experimental                          23 September 2025
Expires: 27 March 2026


 Maintaining CCNx or NDN flow balance with highly variable data object
                                 sizes
                    draft-oran-icnrg-flowbalance-14

Abstract

   Deeply embedded in some ICN architectures, especially Named Data
   Networking (NDN) and Content-Centric Networking (CCNx) is the notion
   of flow balance.  This captures the idea that there is a one-to-one
   correspondence between requests for data, carried in Interest
   messages, and the responses with the requested data object, carried
   in Data messages.  This has a number of highly beneficial properties
   for flow and congestion control in networks, as well as some
   desirable security properties.  For example, neither legitimate users
   nor attackers are able to inject large amounts of un-requested data
   into the network.

   Existing congestion control approaches however have a difficult time
   dealing effectively with a widely varying MTU of ICN data messages,
   because the protocols allow a dynamic range of 1-64K bytes.  Since
   Interest messages are used to allocate the reverse link bandwidth for
   returning Data, there is large uncertainty in how to allocate that
   bandwidth.  Unfortunately, most current congestion control schemes in
   CCNx and NDN only count Interest messages and have no idea how much
   data is involved that could congest the inverse link.  This document
   proposes a method to maintain flow balance by accommodating the wide
   dynamic range in Data message size.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."



Oran                      Expires 27 March 2026                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft          Maintaining Flow Balance          September 2025


   This Internet-Draft will expire on 27 March 2026.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2025 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
   license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
   and restrictions with respect to this document.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Method to enhance congestion control with signaled size
           information in Interest Messages  . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.1.  How to predict the size of returning Data messages  . . .   5
     3.2.  Handling 'too big' cases  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.3.  Handling 'too small' cases  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.4.  Interactions with Interest Aggregation  . . . . . . . . .   8
     3.5.  Operation when some Interests lack the expected data size
           option and some have it . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   4.  Dealing with malicious actors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   5.  Mapping to CCNx and NDN packet encodings  . . . . . . . . . .  12
     5.1.  Packet encoding for CCNx  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     5.2.  Packet encoding for NDN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   6.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   7.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   8.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   9.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     9.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     9.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15

1.  Introduction

   Deeply embedded in some ICN architectures, especially Named Data
   Networking ([NDN]) and Content-Centric Networking (CCNx
   [RFC8569],[RFC8609]) is the notion of _flow balance_. This captures
   the idea that there is a one-to-one correspondence between requests
   for data, carried in Interest messages, and the responses with the
   requested data object, carried in Data messages.  This has a number
   of highly beneficial properties for flow and congestion control in
   networks, as well as some desirable security properties.  For
   example, neither legitimate users nor attackers are able to inject



Oran                      Expires 27 March 2026                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft          Maintaining Flow Balance          September 2025


   large amounts of un-requested data into the network.

   This approach leads to a desire to make the size of the objects
   carried in Data messages small and near constant, because flow
   balance can then be kept using simple bookkeeping of how many
   Interest messages are outstanding.  While simple, constraining Data
   messages to be quite small - usually on the order of a link Maximum
   Transmission Unit (MTU) - has some constraints and deleterious
   effects, among which are:

   *  Such small data objects are inconvenient for many applications;
      their natural data object sizes can be considerably larger than a
      link MTU.

   *  Applications with truly small data objects (e.g. voice packets in
      an Internet telephony applications) have no way to communicate
      that to the network, causing resources to still be allocated for
      MTU-sized data objects

   *  When chunking a larger data object into multiple Data messages,
      each message has to be individually cryptographically hashed and
      signed, increasing both computational overhead and overall message
      header size.  The signature can be elided when Manifests are used
      (by signing the Manifest instead), but the overhead of hashing
      multiple small messages rather than fewer larger ones remains.

   One approach which helps with the last of these is to employ
   fragmentation for Data messages larger than the Path MTU (PMTU).
   Such messages are carved into smaller pieces for transmission over
   the link(s).  There are three flavors of fragmentation: end-to-end,
   hop-by-hop with reassembly at every hop, and hop-by-hop with cut-
   through of individual fragments.  A number of ICN protocol
   architectures incorporate fragmentation and schemes have been
   proposed for both NDN and CCNx, for example in [Ghali2013].
   Fragmentation alone does not ameliorate the flow balance problem
   however, since from a resource allocation standpoint both memory and
   link bandwidth must be set aside for maximum-sized data objects to
   avoid congestion collapse under overload.

   The design space considered in this document does not however extend
   to arbitrarily large objects (e.g. 100's of kilobytes or larger).  As
   the dynamic range of data object sizes gets very large, finding the
   right tradeoff between handling a large number of small data objects
   versus a single very large data object when allocating link and
   buffer resources becomes intractable.  Further, the semantics of
   Interest-Data exchanges means that any error in the exchange results
   in a re-issue of an Interest for the entire Data object.  Very large
   data objects represent a performance problem because the cost of



Oran                      Expires 27 March 2026                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft          Maintaining Flow Balance          September 2025


   retransmission when Interests are retransmitted (or re-issued)
   becomes unsustainably high.  Therefore, the method we propose deals
   with a dynamic range of object sizes from very small (a fraction of a
   link MTU) to moderately large - about 64 kilobytes or equivalently
   about 40 Ethernet packets, and assumes an associated fragmentation
   scheme to handle link MTUs that cannot carry the Data message in a
   single link-layer packet.

   The approach described in the rest of this document maintains flow
   balance under the conditions outlined above by allocating resources
   accurately based on expected Data message size, rather than employing
   simple interest counting.

2.  Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

3.  Method to enhance congestion control with signaled size information
    in Interest Messages

   Before diving into the specifics of the design, it is useful to
   consider how congestion control works in NDN/CCNx.  Unlike the IP
   protocol family, which relies on end-to-end congestion control (e.g.
   TCP[RFC0793], DCCP[RFC4340], SCTP[RFC4960],
   QUIC[I-D.ietf-quic-transport]), CCNx and NDN employ hop-by-hop
   congestion control.  There is per-Interest/Data state at every hop of
   the path and therefore for each outstanding Interest, bandwidth for
   data returning on the inverse path can be allocated.  In many current
   designs, this allocation is done using simple Interest counting - by
   queueing and subsequently forwarding one Interest message from a
   downstream node, implicitly this provides a guarantee (either hard or
   soft) that there is sufficient bandwidth on the inverse direction of
   the link to send back one Data message.  A number of congestion
   control schemes have been developed that operate in this fashion, for
   example [Wang2013],[Mahdian2016],[Song2018],[Carofiglio2012].  Other
   schemes, like [Schneider2016] neither count nor police interests, but
   instead monitor queues using AQM (active queue management) to mark or
   drop returning Data packets that have experienced congestion.  It is
   worth noting that every congestion control algorithm has an explicit
   fairness goal and associated objective function (usually either
   [minmaxfairness] or [proportionalfairness]).  If your fairness is to
   be based on resource usage, pure interest counting doesn't do the
   trick, since a consumer asking for large thing can saturate a link
   and shift loss to consumers asking for small things.





Oran                      Expires 27 March 2026                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft          Maintaining Flow Balance          September 2025


   In order to deal with a larger dynamic range of Data message size,
   some means is required to allocate link bandwidth for Data messages
   in bytes with an upper bound larger than a Path MTU and a lower bound
   lower than a single link MTU.  Since resources are allocated for
   returning Data based on arriving Interests, this information must be
   available in Interest messages.

   Therefore, one key idea is the inclusion of an _expected data size_
   TLV in each Interest message.  This allows each forwarder on the path
   taken by the Interest to more accurately allocate bandwidth on the
   inverse path for the returning Data message.  Also, by including the
   expected data size, large objects will have a corresponding weight in
   resource allocation, maintaining link and forwarder buffering
   fairness.  The simpler Interest counting scheme was nominally "fair"
   on a per-exchange basis within the variations of data that fit in a
   single PMTU packet because all Interests produced similar amounts of
   data in return.  In the absence of such a field, it is not feasible
   to allow a large dynamic range in object size.  While schemes like
   [Schneider2016] would not employ the expected data size to allocate
   reverse link bandwidth, they can still benefit from the information
   to affect the AQM congestion marking algorithm, preferentially
   marking data packets that exceed the expected data size from the
   corresponding Interest.

   It is natural to ask whether the additional complexity introduced
   into an ICN forwarder, and the additional computational cost for the
   congestion control operations is worthwhile.  For congestion control
   schemes like [Schneider2016] the additional overhead is not trivial,
   since no Interest counting is happening.  However, if a congestion
   control is _already_ counting Interests, the additional overhead is
   minimal, only reading one extra TLV from the Interest and
   incrementing the outstanding data amount for the corresponding queue
   by that number rather than a constant of 1.  The overhead on
   returning data is simply reducing the amount by the actual Data
   message size, rather than by 1.

3.1.  How to predict the size of returning Data messages

   This of course raises the question "How does the requester know how
   big the corresponding Data message coming back will be?".  For a
   number of important applications, the size is known a priori due to
   the characteristics of the application.  Here are some examples:

   *  For many sensor and other Internet-of-Things applications, the
      data is instrument readings which have fixed known size.






Oran                      Expires 27 March 2026                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft          Maintaining Flow Balance          September 2025


   *  In video streaming, the data is output of a video encoder which
      produces variable sized frames.  This information is typically
      made available ahead of time to the streaming clients in the form
      of a _Manifest_ (e.g [DASH], FLIC [I-D.irtf-icnrg-flic]), which
      contains the names of the corresponding segments (or individual
      frames) of video and audio and their sizes.

   *  Internet telephony applications use vocoders that typically employ
      fixed-size audio frames.  Therefore, their size is known either a
      priori, or via an initialization exchange at the start of an audio
      session.

   The more complex cases arise where the data size is not known at the
   time the Interest must be sent.  Much of the nuance of the proposed
   scheme is in how mismatches between the expected data size and the
   actual Data message returned are handled.  The consumer can either
   under- or over-estimate the data size.  In the former case, the
   under-estimate can lead to congestion and possible loss of data.  In
   the latter case, bandwidth that could have been used by data objects
   requested by other consumers might be wasted.  We first consider
   "honest" mis-estimates due to imperfect knowledge by the ICN
   application; later we consider malicious applications that are using
   the machinery to mount some form of attack.  We also consider the
   effects of Interest aggregation if the aggregated Interests have
   differing expected data sizes.  Also, it should be obvious that if
   the Data message arrives, the application learns its actual size,
   which may or may not be useful in adjusting the expected data size
   estimate for future Interests.

   In all cases, the expected data size from the Interest can be
   incorporated in the corresponding Pending Interest Table (PIT) entry
   of each CCNx/NDN forwarder on the path and hence when a (possibly
   fragmented) Data object comes back, its total size is known and can
   be compared to the expected size in the PIT for a mismatch.  Aside:
   In the case of fragmentation, we assume a fragmentation scheme in
   which the total Data message size can be known as soon as any one
   fragment is received (a reasonable assumption for most any well-
   designed fragmentation method, such as that in [Ghali2013]).

3.2.  Handling 'too big' cases

   If the returning Data message is larger than the expected data size,
   the extra data could result in either unfair bandwidth allocation or
   possibly data loss under congestion conditions.  When this is
   detected, the forwarder has three choices:






Oran                      Expires 27 March 2026                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft          Maintaining Flow Balance          September 2025


   1.  It could forward the Data message anyway, which is safe under
       non-congestion conditions, but unfair and possibly unstable when
       the output link is congested

   2.  It could forward the data when un-congested (e.g. by assessing
       output queue depth) but drop it when congested

   3.  It could always drop the data, as a way of "punishing" the
       requester for the mis-estimate.

   Either of the latter two strategies is acceptable from a congestion
   control point of view.  However, it is not a good idea to simply drop
   the Data message with no feedback to the issuer of the Interest
   because the application has no way to learn the actual data size and
   retry.  Further, recovery would be delayed until the failing Interest
   timed out.  Therefore, an additional element needed in protocol
   semantics is the incorporation of a "Data too big" error message
   (achieved via the use of an "Interest Return" packet in CCNx).

   Upon dropping data as above, the CCNx/NDN forwarder converts the
   normal Data message into an Interest Return packet containing the
   existing [RFC8609] T_MTU_TOO_LARGE error code and the actual size of
   the Data message instead of the original content.  It propagates that
   back toward the client identically to how the original Data message
   would have been handled.  Subsequent nodes upon receiving the
   T_MTU_TOO_LARGE error treat identically to other Interest Return
   errors.  When the Interest Return eventually arrives back to the
   issuer of the Interest, the user MAY reissue the Interest with the
   correct expected data size.

   One detail to note is that an Interest Return carrying
   T_MTU_TOO_LARGE must be deterministically smaller than the expected
   data size in all cases.  This is clearly the case for large data
   objects, but there is a corner case with small data objects.  There
   has to be a minimum expected data size that a client can specify in
   their Interests, and that minimum cannot be smaller than the size of
   a T_MTU_TOO_LARGE Interest Return packet.

3.3.  Handling 'too small' cases

   Next we consider the case where the returning data is smaller than
   the expected data size.  While this case does not result in
   congestion, it can cause resources to be inefficiently allocated
   because not all of the set-aside bandwidth for the returning data
   object gets used.  The simplest and most straightforward way to deal
   with this case is to essentially ignore it.  The motivation for not
   worrying about the smaller data mismatch is that in many situations
   that employ usage-based resource measurement (and possibly charging),



Oran                      Expires 27 March 2026                 [Page 7]

Internet-Draft          Maintaining Flow Balance          September 2025


   it is trivial to just account for the usage according to the larger
   expected data size rather than actual returned data size.  Properly
   adjusting congestion control parameters to somehow penalize users for
   over-estimating their resource usage requires fairly heavyweight
   machinery, which in most cases is not warranted.  If desired, any of
   the following mechanisms could be considered:

   *  Attempt to identify future Interests for the same object or
      closely related objects and allocate resources based on some
      retained state about the actual size of prior objects

   *  Police consumer behavior and decrease the expected data size in
      one or more future Interests to compensate

   *  For small objects, do more optimistic resource allocation on the
      links on the presumption that there will be some "slack" due to
      clients overestimating data object size.

3.4.  Interactions with Interest Aggregation

   One protocol detail of CCNx/NDN that needs to be dealt with is
   Interest Aggregation.  Interest Aggregation, while a powerful feature
   for maintaining flow balance when multiple consumers send Interests
   for the same Named object, introduces subtle complications.  Whenever
   a second or subsequent Interest arrives at a forwarder with an active
   PIT entry it is possible that those Interests carry different
   parameters, for example hop limit, payload, etc.  It is therefore
   necessary to specify the exact behavior of the forwarder for each of
   the parameters that might differ.  In the case of the expected data
   size parameter defined here, the value is associated with the ingress
   face on which the Interest creating the PIT entry arrived, as opposed
   to being global to the PIT entry as a whole.  Interest aggregation
   interacts with expected data size if Interests from different clients
   contain different values of the expected data size.  As above in
   Section 3.3, the simplest solution to this problem is to ignore it,
   as most error cases are benign.  However, there is one problematic
   error case where one client provides an accurate expected data size,
   but another who issued the Interest first underestimates, causing
   both to receive a T_MTU_TOO_LARGE error.  This introduces a denial of
   service vulnerability, which we discuss below together with the other
   malicious actor cases.

   There are two cases to consider:

   1.  The arriving Interest carries an expected data size smaller than
       any of the values associated with the PIT entry.





Oran                      Expires 27 March 2026                 [Page 8]

Internet-Draft          Maintaining Flow Balance          September 2025


   2.  The arriving Interest carries an expected data size larger than
       any of the values associated with the PIT entry.

   For Case (1) the Interest can be safely aggregated since the upstream
   links will have sufficient bandwidth allocated based on the larger
   expected data size (assuming the original Interest's expected data
   size was itself sufficiently large to accommodate the actual size of
   the returning Data).  On the other hand, should the incoming face
   have bandwidth allocated based on the larger existing Interest's
   expected data size, or on the smaller value in the arriving interest?
   Here there are two possible approaches:

   a.  Allocate based on the data size already in the PIT.  In this case
       the consumer sending the earlier Interest can cause over-
       allocation of link bandwidth for other incoming faces, but there
       will not be a T_MTU_TOO_LARGE error generated for that Interest

   b.  Allocate based on the value in the arriving Interest.  If the
       returning Data is in fact larger, generate a T_MTU_TOO_LARGE
       Interest Return on that ingress face, while successfully
       returning the Data message on any faces that do not exhibit a too
       small expected data size

   It is RECOMMENDED that the second policy be followed.  The reasons
   behind this recommendation are as follows:

   1.  The link can be congested quite quickly after the queuing
       decision is made, especially if the data has a long link-
       occupancy time, so this is a safer alternative.

   2.  The cost of returning the error is only one link RTT, since the
       consumer (or downstream forwarder) can immediately re-issue the
       Interest with the correct size and perhaps pick up the cached
       object from the upstream forwarder's Content Store.

   3.  Being optimistic and returning the data interacts with the
       behavior of aggregate resource control and resource accounting,
       which in turn raises the messy issue of whether to "charge" the
       consumer for the actual bandwidth used or only for the requested
       bandwidth in the expected data.

   4.  The rabbit hole goes deeper if you add differential QoS to the
       equation or consumers "playing games" and intentionally
       underestimating so their interests get satisfied when links
       aren't congested.  This makes handling malicious actors
       (Section 4) more difficult.





Oran                      Expires 27 March 2026                 [Page 9]

Internet-Draft          Maintaining Flow Balance          September 2025


   For Case (2) above, the Interest MUST be forwarded rather than
   aggregated to prevent a consumer from mounting a denial of service
   attack by sending intentionally too small expected data size (see
   Section 4 for additional detail on this and other attacks).  As above
   for Case (1) it is RECOMMENDED that policy (b) above be followed.

3.5.  Operation when some Interests lack the expected data size option
      and some have it

   Since the expected data size is an optional hop-by-hop packet field,
   forwarders need to be prepared to handle an arbitrary mix of packets
   containing or lacking this option.  There are two general things to
   address.

   First, we assume that any forwarder supporting expected data size is
   running a more sophisticated congestion control algorithm that one
   employing simple interest counting.  The link bandwidth resource
   allocation is therefore based directly, or indirectly, on the
   expected Data size in bytes.  Therefore, the forwarder has to assign
   a value to use in the resource allocation for the reverse link.  This
   specification does not mandate any particular approach or a default
   value to use.  However, in the absence on other guidance, it makes
   sense to do one of two things:

   1.  Pick a default based on the link MTU of the face on which the
       Interest arrived and use that for all Interests lacking an
       expected data size.  This is likely to be most compatible with
       simple interest counting which would rate limit all incoming
       interests equally.

   2.  Configure some values for given Name prefixes that have known
       sizes.  This may be appropriate for dedicated forwarders
       supporting single use cases, such as:

       *  A forwarder handling IoT sensors sending very small Data
          messages

       *  A forwarder handling real-time video with large average Data
          packets that exceed link MTU and are routinely fragmented

       *  A forwarder doing voice trunking where the vocoders produce
          moderate sized packets, still much smaller than the link MTU









Oran                      Expires 27 March 2026                [Page 10]

Internet-Draft          Maintaining Flow Balance          September 2025


   The second area to address is what to do if an interest lacking an
   expected Data size is responded to by a Data message whose size
   exceeds the default discussed above.  It would be inappropriate to
   issue a T_MTU_TOO_LARGE error, since the consumer is unlikely to
   understand or deal correctly with that new error case.  Instead, it
   is RECOMMENDED that the forwarder:

   *  Ignore the mismatch if the reverse link is not congested and
      return the requested Data message anyway.

   *  If the reverse link is congested, issue an Interest Return with
      the T_NO_RESOURCES error code

   This specification does not define or recommend any particular
   algorithm for assessing the congestion state of the link(s) to carry
   the Data message downstream to the requesting consumers.  It is
   assumed that a reasonable algorithm is in use, because otherwise even
   basic Interest counting forms of congestion control would not be
   effective.

4.  Dealing with malicious actors

   First we note that various known attacks in CCNx or NDN can also be
   mounted by users employing this method.  Attacks that involve
   interest flooding, cache pollution, cache poisoning, etc. are neither
   worsened nor ameliorated by the introduction of the congestion
   control capabilities described here.  However, there are two new
   vulnerabilities that need to be dealt with.  These two new
   vulnerabilities involve intentional mis-estimation of data size.

   The first is a consumer who intentionally over-estimates data size
   with the goal of preventing other users from using the bandwidth.
   This is at most a minor additional concern given the discussion of
   how to handle over-estimation by honest clients in Section 3.2.  If
   one of the amelioration techniques described there is used, the case
   of malicious over-estimation is also dealt with adequately.

   The second is a user who intentionally under-estimates the data size
   with the goal having its Interest processed while the other
   aggregated interests are not processed, thereby causing
   T_MTU_TOO_LARGE errors and denying service to the other users with
   overlapping requests.  There are a number of possible mitigation
   techniques for this attack vector, ranging in complexity.  We outline
   two below; there may be others as or more effective with acceptable
   complexity and overhead:






Oran                      Expires 27 March 2026                [Page 11]

Internet-Draft          Maintaining Flow Balance          September 2025


   *  (Simplest) A user sending Interests resulting in a T_MTU_TOO_LARGE
      error is treated similarly to users mounting interest flooding
      attacks; the a router aggregating Interests with differing
      expected data sizes rate limits the face(s) exhibiting these
      errors, thus decreasing the ability of a user to issue enough mis-
      estimated Interests to collide and generate Interest aggregation.

   *  An ICN forwarder aggregating Interests remembers in the PIT entry
      not only the expected data size of the Interest it forwarded, but
      the maximum of the expected data size of the other Interests it
      aggregated.  If a T_MTU_TOO_LARGE error comes back, instead of
      propagating it, the forwarder MAY treat this as a transient error,
      drop the Interest Return, and re-forward the Interest using the
      maximum expected data size in the PIT (assuming it is is bigger).
      This recovers from the error, but the attacker can still cause an
      extra round trip to the producer or to an upstream forwarder with
      a copy of the data in its Content Store.

5.  Mapping to CCNx and NDN packet encodings

   The only actual protocol needed is a TLV in Interest messages that
   states the size in bytes of the expected Data Message coming back,
   and in the Interest Return on a "too big" error to carry the actual
   data size.  In the case of CCNx, this covers the encapsulated Data
   Object, but not the hop-by-hop headers.

5.1.  Packet encoding for CCNx

   For CCNx[RFC8569] there is a new hop-by-hop header TLV, and a new
   value of the Interest Return "Return Type".

   Expected Data Size (for Interest messages), or Actual Data Size (for
   Interest Return messages) TLV

        +============+===========+================================+
        |   Abbrev   |    Name   |          Description           |
        +============+===========+================================+
        | T_DATASIZE | Data Size | Expected (Section 3) or Actual |
        |            |           |    (Section 3.2) Data Size     |
        +------------+-----------+--------------------------------+

                           Table 1: Data Size TLV

5.2.  Packet encoding for NDN

   TBD based on [NDNTLV].  Suggestions from the NDN team greatly
   appreciated.




Oran                      Expires 27 March 2026                [Page 12]

Internet-Draft          Maintaining Flow Balance          September 2025


6.  IANA Considerations

   Please Add the T_DATASIZE TLV to the Hop-by-Hop TLV types registry of
   RFC8609, with fixed length of 2, and data type numeric

   Expected/Actual Data Size TLV encoding.  The range has an upper bound
   of 64K bytes, since that is the largest MTU supported by CCNx.

                        1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
   |             T_DATASIZE        |               2               |
   +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
   |   Expected/Actual Data Size   |
   +---------------+---------------+

         Figure 1: Expected/Actual Datazize using RFC8609 encoding

7.  Security Considerations

   Section 4 addresses the major security considerations for this
   specification.

8.  Acknowledgements

   Klaus Schneider and Ken Calvert have contributed a number of useful
   comments which have substantially improved the document.

9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC8569]  Mosko, M., Solis, I., and C. Wood, "Content-Centric
              Networking (CCNx) Semantics", RFC 8569,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8569, July 2019,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8569>.

   [RFC8609]  Mosko, M., Solis, I., and C. Wood, "Content-Centric
              Networking (CCNx) Messages in TLV Format", RFC 8609,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8609, July 2019,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8609>.

9.2.  Informative References



Oran                      Expires 27 March 2026                [Page 13]

Internet-Draft          Maintaining Flow Balance          September 2025


   [Carofiglio2012]
              Carofiglio, G., Gallo, M., and L. Muscariello, "Joint hop-
              by-hop and receiver-driven interest control protocol for
              content-centric networks, in ICN Workshop at SIGcomm
              2012", DOI 10.1145/2377677.2377772, 2102,
              <http://conferences.sigcomm.org/sigcomm/2012/paper/icn/
              p37.pdf>.

   [DASH]     "Dynamic Adaptive Streaming over HTTP", various,
              <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
              Dynamic_Adaptive_Streaming_over_HTTP>.

   [Ghali2013]
              Ghali, C., Narayanan, A., Oran, D., Tsudik, G., and C.
              Wood, "Secure Fragmentation for Content-Centric Networks,
              in IEEE 14th International Symposium on Network Computing
              and Applications", DOI 10.1109/nca.2015.34, 2015,
              <http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/NCA.2015.34>.

   [I-D.ietf-quic-transport]
              Iyengar, J. and M. Thomson, "QUIC: A UDP-Based Multiplexed
              and Secure Transport", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
              draft-ietf-quic-transport-34, 14 January 2021,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-quic-
              transport-34>.

   [I-D.irtf-icnrg-flic]
              Tschudin, C., Wood, C. A., Mosko, M., and D. R. Oran,
              "File-Like ICN Collections (FLIC)", Work in Progress,
              Internet-Draft, draft-irtf-icnrg-flic-07, 3 March 2025,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-irtf-icnrg-
              flic-07>.

   [Mahdian2016]
              Mahdian, M., Arianfar, S., Gibson, J., and D. Oran,
              "MIRCC: Multipath-aware ICN Rate-based Congestion Control,
              in Proceedings of the 3rd ACM Conference on Information-
              Centric Networking", DOI 10.1145/2984356.2984365, 2016,
              <http://conferences2.sigcomm.org/acm-icn/2016/proceedings/
              p1-mahdian.pdf>.

   [minmaxfairness]
              "Max-min Fairness", various,
              <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max-min_fairness>.

   [NDN]      "Named Data Networking", various,
              <https://named-data.net/project/execsummary/>.




Oran                      Expires 27 March 2026                [Page 14]

Internet-Draft          Maintaining Flow Balance          September 2025


   [NDNTLV]   "NDN Packet Format Specification.", 2016,
              <http://named-data.net/doc/ndn-tlv/>.

   [proportionalfairness]
              "Proportionally Fair", various,
              <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportionally_fair>.

   [RFC0793]  Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", RFC 793,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC0793, September 1981,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc793>.

   [RFC4340]  Kohler, E., Handley, M., and S. Floyd, "Datagram
              Congestion Control Protocol (DCCP)", RFC 4340,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC4340, March 2006,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4340>.

   [RFC4960]  Stewart, R., Ed., "Stream Control Transmission Protocol",
              RFC 4960, DOI 10.17487/RFC4960, September 2007,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4960>.

   [Schneider2016]
              Schneider, K., Yi, C., Zhang, B., and L. Zhang, "A
              Practical Congestion Control Scheme for Named Data
              Networking, in Proceedings of the 2016 conference on 3rd
              ACM Conference on Information-Centric Networking - ACM-ICN
              '16", DOI 10.1145/2984356.2984369, 2016,
              <http://conferences2.sigcomm.org/acm-icn/2016/proceedings/
              p21-schneider.pdf>.

   [Song2018] Song, J., Lee, M., and T. Kwon, "SMIC: Subflow-level
              Multi-path Interest Control for Information Centric
              Networking, in 5th ACM Conference on Information-Centric
              Networking", DOI 10.1145/3267955.3267971, 2018,
              <https://conferences.sigcomm.org/acm-icn/2018/proceedings/
              icn18-final62.pdf>.

   [Wang2013] Wang, Y., Rozhnova, N., Narayanan, A., Oran, D., and I.
              Rhee, "An Improved Hop-by-hop Interest Shaper for
              Congestion Control in Named Data Networking, in ACM
              SIGCOMM Workshop on Information-Centric Networking",
              DOI 10.1145/2534169.2491233, 2013,
              <http://conferences.sigcomm.org/sigcomm/2013/papers/icn/
              p55.pdf>.

Author's Address






Oran                      Expires 27 March 2026                [Page 15]

Internet-Draft          Maintaining Flow Balance          September 2025


   Dave Oran
   Network Systems Research and Design
   4 Shady Hill Square
   Cambridge, MA 02138
   United States of America
   Email: daveoran@orandom.net













































Oran                      Expires 27 March 2026                [Page 16]
