There appear to be two different stories in there.
The slashdot link points to this article on
a way to try to make large downloads more efficient. In short, when you say you
want a file, this sort of network sees "Hmmm... I am in Europe, the server is in
New York... is there a closer copy of the file which I can get more quickly for
my user?"
To understand why Content Centric Networking is so
different, you have to start by looking at today’s Internet, which was designed
back in the days when there were only a handful of machines that needed to talk
to each other, and the network was used mainly for short bursts of
point-to-point communication. In this established scheme, every piece of content
has a name, but to find it you have to know in advance where it’s stored—which
means the whole system is built around host identifiers and file hierarchies
like
www.xconomy.com/san-francisco/2012/08/07/the-next-internet/.
The fundamental idea behind Content Centric Networking is that
to retrieve a piece of data, you should only have to care about what you
want, not where it’s stored. Rather than transmitting a request for a
specific file on a specific server, a CCN-based browser or device would simply
broadcast its interest in that file, and the nearest machine with an authentic
copy would respond. File names in a CCN world look superficially similar to URLs
(for example, /parc.com/van/can/417.vcf/v3/s0/Ox3fdc96a4…) but the data in a
name is used to establish the file’s authenticity and provenance, not to
indicate location.
The idea appears to have an early GPL'd
implementation which can be found over
here.
However, the other article, the Jumptap one, seems to be quite different.
It's an interview with the CEO of a small advertising company (called Jumptap)
who seems to be worrying that Apple, Microsoft, Google and Amazon might each
create their own 'walled gardens' in mobile (much like the Apple iStore). With
each of these sections disjoint, using different app stores, different
protocols, and each controlled by different corporates with no reason to work
together... this will make things difficult for both the consumer and a small
and very neutral advertising business like his own.
He’s
talking about the idea that Apple, Google, Amazon, and Microsoft (say) will each
have proprietary ecosystems, complete with their own hardware and rules. For
instance, an ad campaign running on Amazon’s Kindle Fire might not be able to do
the same kinds of tracking as a campaign on Microsoft devices. That could impact
the quality and relevance of ads and services that people see on their mobile
devices. Granted, no one is that excited about seeing ads, but if they’re
relevant to where you are or what you’re looking to do, then they become an
important part of the mobile experience. And Bell is saying a major obstacle to
that future is the big guys each having their own rules.
I'm
not sure what these two stories have to do with each other, but I think that the
second one is the one that the original poster was trying to highlight (it was
first in his post). [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
