## 5 Enhancing QoS and QoE in ICN
### Name Resolution and Routing
[80] introduced a fuzzy-based congestion-aware routing method to address congestion from flooding attacks in ICN. Their approach builds on the OSPF algorithm, evaluating paths using satisfaction ratio and packet loss metrics. These metrics, along with trust values indicating link reliability during high traffic, are shared across the network via link state packet vectors, enabling the selection of secure, congestion-free routes that improve QoS. [PERSON] and [PERSON] [81] proposed a QoS-aware architecture for multimedia applications in wireless ICN. Their architecture unifies QoS management across path selection, transmission policies, resource reservation, source selection, and bandwidth allocation to optimize performance in decentralized settings. Another QoS-aware forwarding strategy was proposed by [PERSON] et al. [82]. This framework utilizes a cooperative forwarding approach where routers share data names and interfaces to estimate optimal paths toward cached versions of the requested data in NDN. [PERSON] and [PERSON] [83] proposed a flat naming scheme for CCN instead of the standard hierarchical naming scheme. By utilizing multiple keywords, the flat naming scheme simplifies content retrieval for users, making it more intuitive and user-friendly. Unlike traditional hierarchical naming schemes that require precise hierarchical addresses, the flat naming scheme reduces the burden on content requesters by offering a more flexible and accessible way to identify and retrieve content, thus enhancing QoE in CCN. Table 3 lists various ICN frameworks that utilize new name resolution and routing strategies to enhance QoS and QoE metrics. Comparative Analysis of Name Resolution and Routing-Based Solutions  
To compare the strategies listed in Table 3, we can divide them into the following subgroups: (i) name-based forwarding, (ii) name-resolution architecture, (iii) FIB management, and (iv) cooperative forwarding schemes. Name-based forwarding techniques select interfaces or paths that promise improved QoS or QoE metrics, e.g., better bandwidth, lower delay, or reduced loss. Their advantage lies in their direct integration with ICN's fundamental name-based forwarding, allowing for fine-grained control at each hop. However, they often rely on accurate and timely QoS parameter estimation, which can introduce overhead through probing or information exchange. Also, per-hop optimizations might not always guarantee end-to-end QoS, and these strategies need to balance exploration of better paths with exploitation of known good ones. The second category focuses on name resolution architectures, which are crucial for scalability and efficient content discovery, especially in ICN with flat naming. These solutions improve network performance by providing a structured way to map content names to network locations, reducing the need for extensive flooding and potentially offering deterministic resolution latency. Note that the scalability of the name resolution system depends heavily on its design (e.g., DHT-based vs. hierarchical), and issues such as single points of failure or challenges in maintaining mapping consistency need to be addressed. Forwarding Information Base (FIB) management solutions proactively discover content availability and maintain accurate FIBs. By making routers more aware of content locations, these strategies can reduce network congestion and improve response times.