Enabling Network Identifier (NI) in Information Centric Networks to Support Optimized Forwarding
draft-azgin-icnrg-ni-00

ICN Research Group                                              A. Azgin
Internet-Draft                                              R. Ravindran
Intended status: Informational                       Huawei Technologies
Expires: May 4, 2017                                    October 31, 2016

  Enabling Network Identifier (NI) in Information Centric Networks to
                      Support Optimized Forwarding
                        draft-azgin-icnrg-ni-00

Abstract

   The objective of this proposal is to introduce the notion of network
   identifier (NI) in the ICN architecture.  This is in addition to the
   existing names (i.e., content identifiers, CIs, or application
   identifiers, AIs, in general) that are currently used for both naming
   and routing/forwarding purposes.  Network identifiers are needed
   considering the requirements on future networking architectures such
   as: (i) to support persistent names (or persistently named objects)
   and large-scale and high-speed mobility of any network entity (i.e,
   devices, services, and content), (ii) to accommodate different types
   of Internet of Things (IoT) services, many of which require low-
   latency performance, and enabling edge computing to support service
   virtualization, which will require support for large scale migration
   and replication of named resources, and (iii) to scale the ICN
   architecture to future Internet scale considering the exponentially
   increasing named entities.  These considerations also require
   enabling a network based name resolution service for efficient and
   scalable routing.

   In the current draft, we begin by highlighting the issues associated
   with ICN networking when utilizing only the AIs, which include
   persistently named content, services, and devices.  Next we discuss
   the function NI serves, and provide a discussion on the two current
   NI-based proposals, along with their scope and functionalities.  This
   is with the objective of having a single NI construct for ICN that is
   flexible enough to adapt to different networking contexts.

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].

Azgin & Ravindran          Expires May 4, 2017                  [Page 1]
Internet-Draft                   ICN-NI                     October 2016

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 http://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."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on May 4, 2017.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2016 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
   (http://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.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Application Identifier (AI) vs. Network Identifier (NI) in
       ICN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  NI based ICN Forwarding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.1.  Label based ICN forwarding  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.2.  Link-object based ICN forwarding  . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     3.3.  Link Object vs. Forwarding Label  . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   4.  Name Resolution System Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   5.  Differences with respect to Existing IP-based Proposals . . .  10
   6.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     6.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     6.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   Appendix A.  Additional Stuff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13

Azgin & Ravindran          Expires May 4, 2017                  [Page 2]
Internet-Draft                   ICN-NI                     October 2016

1.  Introduction

   Information centric networking (ICN) is proposed as a future Internet
   architecture to evolve the current host-centric design of Internet
   towards a content-oriented one, where the named object becomes the
   principle entity in networking.  In doing so, contents, services, and
   devices become disentangled from location allowing for efficient use
   of the distributed in-network caches and compute resources with more
   flexible and dynamic packet forwarding techniques.  ICN is expected
   to offer a scalable and secure networking solution to address many
   challenges of the current IP architecture.  Towards this, we propose
   to formalize the notion of network identifier (NI) in ICN protocol,
   that is separate from content name or application identifier (CI/AI,
   or simply AI) used to both name resources and route user requests.

2.  Application Identifier (AI) vs. Network Identifier (NI) in ICN

   AI represent the names of service, content, or devices assigned by
   the application providers or device manufacturers, and which can be
   validated through appropriate security mechanisms.  ICN should
   provide flexibility in accommodating a broad set of identifiers,
   within which the two well-known classes include hierarchical and flat
   identifiers.  While a hierarchical identifier provides contextual
   richness for the names, a flat identifier offers a fixed predictable
   overhead and variable security properties within a given context.
   Today, this identifier set is already in the order of billions (with
   hundreds of millions top-level domain names [VRSGN], and billions of
   second-level domain names).  As tens of billions of devices are
   expected to join the network, this identifier set will be further
   augmented with the corresponding data objects significantly expanding
   its size.  To decouple applications from the underlying network
   dynamics, identifiers are expected to be persistent within the scope
   of the application and its deployment.

   NI provides a binding for the AI to the network, at a location and in
   a topology relevant manner.  NI is managed by the network provider to
   name the routers, point of attachments, servers and end devices.  In
   addition to ICN names, in an overlay deployment, NI could assume
   names of the underlay network as well, such as IP or Ethernet
   addresses.  The growth of the NI space is proportional to the rate of
   growth of domain topology, the total number of AS, and the end points
   (if they are managed by the network), hence, being much slower than
   the rate of growth of the named resources in the AI space.  Hence if
   the objective is to limit the size of the forwarding table and scale
   control plane, it is desirable to route requests on NIs, with the
   mapping between AI and NI is achieved in a scalable manner using a
   network based name resolution system.

Azgin & Ravindran          Expires May 4, 2017                  [Page 3]
Internet-Draft                   ICN-NI                     October 2016

   Content-centric design used by ICN allows end hosts to make requests
   using any type of name supported by the applications, including
   hierarchical (human-readable or hash-based) identifiers (as
   considered by CCN, NDN[CCN] for both the client application use and
   the network use-for routing-), or fixed flat identifiers (as
   considered by MobilityFirst[MFRST] in the network for routing).  We
   refer to an ICN architecture that supports any application naming
   format (i.e., human-readable or flat) within the network for routing
   as a non-restricted ICN architecture (as in CCN/NDN), whereas an ICN
   architecture with a fixed naming format for routing within the
   network as a restricted ICN architecture (as in MobilityFirst).

   As packet forwarding in ICN utilizes names or identifiers (associated
   with contents, hosts, or services) which are typically managed by
   applications, thereby of persistent nature, using such names in
   packet forwarding introduces the following list challenges in regards
   to routing scalability and forwarding efficiency [NAMES].

   o  Using AI for Routing/Forwarding: Overloading an identifier as a
      locator can lead to unstable routing control and forwarding plane
      operations, particularly when replication and mobility of content
      or end points are taken into consideration.  Applications
      typically construct names and replicate contents or services to
      optimize their delivery without any consideration towards network
      scalability or efficiency.  Hence name aggregation does not help
      with scaling the routing and forwarding as originally imagined,
      and the cost of this would be quite significant in real world
      scenarios, as discussed in [NCMP].  Furthermore, it is also
      observed in [QCMP] that, in certain scenarios (such as content
      mobility), name-based forwarding approaches can operate more
      efficiently, if used in conjunction with address-assisted schemes
      such as DNS or anchor point based approaches like Mobile IP
      [RFC3220].  Additionally, when names are used for network
      reachability, more practical problems such as name-suffix hole may
      arise, as the content requests are forwarded towards non-existent
      caches [MDHT].

   o  Routing/Forwarding Scalability: Routing scalability is typically
      achieved by designing NIs with aggregate-able property, which is
      the case for the current IP architecture.  However, having such
      feature in a non-restricted ICN architecture would lead to
      relinquishing the persistency of the names, along with its
      security binding such as trust, as the names would involve a
      topological component for scalability, which can also suggest
      resources to be renamed depending on, for instance, network or
      business specs or characteristics.  When content names or
      application identifiers use a hierarchical identifier format, we
      observe scalability problems in control and data plane operations

Azgin & Ravindran          Expires May 4, 2017                  [Page 4]
Internet-Draft                   ICN-NI                     October 2016

      [SFWD].  Such problems are caused by various factors.  For
      instance, the explosive growth observed in namespaces can lead to
      a similar growth in routing/forwarding information base or table
      sizes [AFWD][SPIT][WPIT], even when namespace aggregation is
      enabled, to significantly limit the forwarding efficiency and
      forwarding capacity.  If ICN routing with hierarchical naming is
      the accepted form of naming, name-aggregation is highly unlikely
      to achieve any practical scalability.  This is because, naming
      ontology and assignment typically consider application objectives
      of contextualizing names, service and content placement and
      replication to better suit the consumers' needs without
      considering any network objectives on control and data plane
      efficiency and scalability.

   o  Handling Mobility, Migration, and Replication: The impact of
      namespace expansion on routing/forwarding performance is typically
      exacerbated with content mobility, or the use of multi-homing and
      resource replication due to diminished aggregate-ability [NCMP].
      The authors in [QCMP] concludes that, as more than 20% of end
      hosts make more than 10 network address transitions every day,
      thereby suggesting that mobility should be considered as the norm
      rather than the exception.  Furthermore, to achieve location
      independent routing based on AIs, each mobility event associated
      with a device or a popular content may trigger updates on up to
      14% of Internet routers.

   For the above reasons, restructuring the identifier to directly or
   indirectly contain a globally routable component becomes an important
   requirement, especially, to handle mobility at the network layer for
   architectures that do not restrict names or identifiers to any
   specific format.  We can refer to such operation as the Application
   and Network identifier split (where the NI represents the globally
   routable component, and the AI represents the persistent name/
   identifier) which enables splitting of the namespace to support
   routable, persistent, and human-friendly names or identifiers.  In
   such a framework, names would be divided accordingly, i.e., based on
   application binding (offering persistent names) vs. advertised
   network entities (in routing plane) to provide a more scalable
   routing architecture.  For instance, a persistent name or identifier
   /Provider/Type/Name, which would be used to create secure content
   objects, can be published by multiple content distributors, where it
   would be mapped to different NIs, such as /Distributor/Region/Zone/
   Storage, to resolve content names or identifiers to specific
   infrastructure entities.  The fundamental requirements with this form
   of splitting is no different than that of MobilityFirst [MFRST] or
   LISP [RFC6830], which is the requirement of a network based name
   resolution system to map the two namespaces.

Azgin & Ravindran          Expires May 4, 2017                  [Page 5]
Internet-Draft                   ICN-NI                     October 2016

   So far, various approaches have been proposed to support the use of
   NI in ICN-based networking architectures, depending on how this
   information is structured and where it is placed within the Interest
   (which may also determine the structuring of Data packets).  Next, we
   discuss these solutions by specifically focusing on label-based ICN
   forwarding [FWLDR][FWLRP][MAAS] and ICN-based Map-and-Encap
   [MPNCP][SNAMP]  to provide a general guidance on the use of NI in
   information centric networks.

3.  NI based ICN Forwarding

   AI based routing is a feasible solution within certain contexts such
   as: (i) when resources are static and routing is limited to local
   area networks or local domains, such as access networks within the
   scalability considerations of the control and forwarding plane; (ii)
   in ad hoc situations where AI can be combined with suitable suffix
   filters to seek content of interest for the applications.

   On the other hand, the use of NI becomes important in the following
   situations: (i) when the Interest packet goes outside the local
   domain, where routing on AI is optionally supported (i.e., routing
   scalability and efficiency seeks precedence); (ii) when the Interest
   enters a local domain, and the domain has specific knowledge of an NI
   associated with the resource inside its domain.

   With the above considerations, with respect to end-to-end networking,
   NI is not a mandatory feature, but an optional one.  However, as
   significant amount of user traffic fetches resources outside the
   requesting host's local domain, it becomes crucial to provide
   architectural support for NI in an ICN protocol.  So far, two
   solutions for NI in ICN, overall with the same objectives but serving
   different purposes, have been proposed.  These include the
   forwarding-label proposal [FWLDR] and the Link Object described in
   [SNAMP].  We next summarize these proposals and discuss their
   differences.

3.1.  Label based ICN forwarding

   Label-based ICN forwarding provides NI capability by encoding a
   network address along with (optional) security binding attributes
   within an Interest packet to guide it towards a content source (which
   can be the Producer, a content repository or a cache).  We refer to
   this label as the forwarding label [FWLDR], which can be offered as
   part of an ICN network service (such as a name resolution service
   with ICN APIs to register and resolve names).  For the forwarding
   label, we have the following important considerations: (i) forwarding
   label, if present in the Interest packet, takes precedence (over AI)
   for routing, (ii) forwarding label is mutable in the sense that it

Azgin & Ravindran          Expires May 4, 2017                  [Page 6]
Internet-Draft                   ICN-NI                     October 2016

   can be swapped or removed by intermediate network elements in the
   network based on routing considerations within its domain.  Here,
   forwarding labels are not limited to only the ICN names, but, in an
   overlay mode, they can also represent names from other transport
   layers as well, for instance, an IP address or a MAC address.

   Forwarding label consists of multiple components, with the NI
   representing the locator information.  Forwarding label is embedded
   within the Interest message at the edge router or the end point
   within certain trust considerations, if the namespace supports the
   use of an NI to reach a specific destination.  For security reasons,
   edge routers can validate the label based on the trust context or
   ignore any label inserted by an ICN forwarder at the end hosts, by
   removing the inserted label if the forwarding on labels is not
   supported, or by swapping it with a new one depending on the feedback
   from the name resolution system.  Such an approach requires no trust
   relationship among different domains, as each domain is capable of
   resolving content namespace to a target domain, and swapping the
   received label with one to which its resolves.

   Forwarding label support for a namespace can be offered at a global
   scale (i.e., supported by all the domains) or a local scale
   (supported by a subset of the existing domains).  For instance, some
   autonomous systems can prioritize forwarding solely based on the
   content names (or offer limited support for label-based forwarding on
   specific namespaces).  In such case, forwarding labels can include
   additional service tag (or information on the associated service, for
   which the use of forwarding label might be supported in certain
   domains, such as towards mobility service) for routing packets on the
   supported domains.  In doing so, we can strategically forward
   requests over domains that support such service to provide more
   deterministic service guarantees.

   If forwarding label use is supported (or permitted) within a domain,
   by default, forwarding label is given preference over content
   identifiers for packet forwarding.  In such case, to maximize the
   forwarding efficiency, additional mapping tables can be implemented
   at the edge or border ICN routers for quick longest-prefix matching
   (LPM) lookup on content names to determine a (or the) matching
   forwarding label(s), which can then be used by the router to perform
   LPM lookup on the FIB.  As forwarding label typically represents a
   target domain or router, a single LPM lookup on the FIB may suffice
   to find the outgoing interface for the received Interest.  This state
   can also be software-defined based on application requirements using
   an SDN based control plane.

Azgin & Ravindran          Expires May 4, 2017                  [Page 7]
Internet-Draft                   ICN-NI                     October 2016

3.2.  Link-object based ICN forwarding

   ICN-based Map-and-Encap utilizes link objects, which include
   information on how to retrieve content objects.  For instance, link
   objects can represent domains that host the content object, or
   direction towards which the requests need to be forwarded to find a
   matching content object.  Link objects consist of two optional
   headers: (i) a link header, which includes the potential directives
   that can be used for forwarding and is signed by the Producer to
   validate its authenticity during forwarding, and (ii) a delegation
   header, which is used to represent the link choice utilized by the
   previous forwarder.  Since delegations may change at consecutive hops
   depending on the view of forwarders' network state and forwarding
   strategy, delegation header represents a variable component that can
   be altered during packet forwarding.

   The role of link objects is mainly for guidance, to provide global
   routing support on locally defined or routable content identifiers.
   Hence, if link objects are implemented, they are consulted by the ICN
   enabled routers only when forwarding lookup on content identifiers
   returns no match on the forwarding information base.

3.3.  Link Object vs. Forwarding Label

   Next we list the major differences between a link object and a
   forwarding label.

   o  Link objects are set by the end host's forwarding daemon with
      certain level of trust associated to it, restricting the link
      component to be immutable during forwarding.  Forwarding labels
      are set by the ICN edge routers or the end-host applications, with
      the ability of network based management during Interest
      forwarding, allowing each domain to perform packet forwarding
      according to its administrative and service policies.

   o  Forwarding label allows the use of trust association to bind AI to
      the NI depending on the context associated with its use, whereas
      for the link objects, trust relationship is established by
      default.

   o  Another difference is related to the processing of forwarding
      label and link objects at the ICN routers.  Link object is
      processed only if the router cannot find a matching FIB entry for
      the content identifier.  On the other hand, forwarding label is
      processed before a content identifier, if its use is enabled.

   o  Forwarding label can be enabled as part of a service, limiting its
      use to the supported namespaces and requiring its use whenever

Azgin & Ravindran          Expires May 4, 2017                  [Page 8]
Internet-Draft                   ICN-NI                     October 2016

      supported.  Link object is more of an application driven component
      and network service agnostic, allowing the network to decide on
      its use.

   o  Forwarding label can be considered as an enabler for faster packet
      processing at the ICN routers and optimized routing to a content
      source, whereas link object can be considered as a hint towards
      where to find the content.  Since it is processed after FIB lookup
      on the content identifier fails, it typically leads to lower
      computational and bandwidth efficiency.

   o  As a link object can encode multiple routing hints, it can direct
      a request towards multiple identifier locations, giving an ICN
      router the option to choose any one of them based on the router's
      forwarding strategy.  This selection is shared between consecutive
      hosts, but not enforced, which may lead to non-optimal forwarding
      paths.  Forwarding label, on the other hand, is enforced
      consistently at consecutive hops within a domain whenever its use
      is supported.

4.  Name Resolution System Considerations

   To manage the AI to NI mapping, we need a name resolution system
   (NRS).  In addition to exposing APIs to application to register its
   name to the NRS, it should also scale and work efficiently
   considering the scale of named resources that need to be published,
   resolved, removed, and updated at high frequency, for instance,
   corresponding to high-speed mobility scenarios.

   The following are the design choices for the NRS:

   o  Hierarchical System: Here, AI to NI mapping is managed by the
      application providers, but similar to DNS, the service has to sync
      its name reachability information with high level name resolvers.
      NDNS is an example of such a system [NDNS].  This design is
      typically suitable in cases when resources are static, rather than
      for highly dynamic systems such as ICN, where replication and
      mobility will be the norm.  Also, such system has to scale to
      resolve information objects in contrast to host resolution, which
      represents the current use.

   o  Integrated/Flat System: Here, resolution service is integrated
      within the ICN infrastructure, where the router contributes a part
      of its compute and storage resources to enable this service.  This
      integration allows multiple ways of designing a generic name
      resolution service, similar to the designs for Global Name
      Resolution Service (GNRS) in MobilityFirst [GNS] [ASPC] [GNRS].

Azgin & Ravindran          Expires May 4, 2017                  [Page 9]
Internet-Draft                   ICN-NI                     October 2016

   o  Distributed System: Compared to the flat system, this type of
      architecture preserves the contextual nature of DNS, by using the
      context in the name to identify a home controller, where
      respective AI to NI mapping can be resolved.  At the same time,
      such a system removes the need for home controllers to sync up
      with high level resolvers.  For instance, /company/content-id
      would be mapped with a resolver named /company/resolver-id.

5.  Differences with respect to Existing IP-based Proposals

   To address persistent identity, routing scalability, multihoming, and
   mobility limitations of the current IP, various incremental solutions
   have been proposed, among which identifier/locator split emerged as
   the key solution to address these challenges [RFC4984].  Here, we
   specifically focus on three of these solutions: (i) Host Identity
   Protocol (HIP) [HIP], (ii) Identifier-Locator Network Protocol (ILNP)
   [ILNP], and Locator/Identifier Seperation Protocol (LISP) [RFC6830].
   HIP and ILNP achieve ID/locator separation and binding at the host
   level whereas LISP achieves that at the network level (i.e., at the
   network edge using service routers).

   In HIP, public cryptographic keys are used as host identifiers, which
   provide the binding to higher layer protocols instead of IP addresses
   [RFC7401].  ILNP divides IP namespace into two distinct namespaces of
   identifiers and locators, each of which carrying distinct semantics
   with identifier representing the non-topological name for the host
   and locator representing the topologically bound name for the network
   [RFC6740].  LISP is a map-and-encap type protocol, which achieves id/
   locator separation by defining (i) endpoint identifiers, which are
   used for routing at the access network and which represent the IP
   address for the host, and (ii) routing locators, which are used for
   routing at the core and which represent the IP address for the egress
   routers.

   These protocols fundamentally differ from ICN's objective to define a
   new network layer, where name based routing, location independent
   caching, mobility, multihoming, and multi-path routing are the
   integral features.  More specifically, this draft proposes to enable
   AI/NI binding as a network service to allow efficient routing of user
   requests depending on the application context.

6.  References

6.1.  Normative References

Azgin & Ravindran          Expires May 4, 2017                 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft                   ICN-NI                     October 2016

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

6.2.  Informative References

   [AFWD]     Yi, C., Afanasyev, A., Wang, L., Zhang, B., and L. Zhang,
              "Adaptive Forwarding in Named Data Networking", ACM CCR,
              Jul 2012.

   [ASPC]     Sharma, A., Tie, X., Uppal, H., Venkataramani, A.,
              Westbrook, D., and A. Yadav, "A Global Name Service for a
              Highly Mobile Internetwork", ACM SIGGCOM, 2014.

   [CCN]      Jacobson, V., Smetters, D., Thornton, J., Plass, M.,
              Briggs, N., and R. Braynard, "Networking Named Content",
              ACM CoNEXT, 2009.

   [FWLDR]    Ravindran, R., Chakraborti, A., and A. Azgin, "Forwarding
              Label Support in CCN Protocol", draft-ravi-ccn-forwarding-
              label-02, March, 2016.

   [FWLRP]    Azgin, A., Ravindran, R., and G. Wang, "A Scalable
              Mobility-Centric Architecture for Named Data Networking",
              IEEE ICCCN Scene Workshop, 2014.

   [GNRS]     Hu, Y., Yates, R., and D. Raychaudhuri, "A Hierarchically
              Aggregated In-Network Global Name Resolution Service for
              the Mobile Internet".

   [GNS]      Venkataramani, A., Sharma, A., Tie, X., Uppal, H.,
              Westbrook, D., Kurose, J., and D. Raychaudhuri, "Design
              Requirements for a Global Name Service for a Mobility-
              Centric, Trustworthy Internetwork", IEEE COMSNETS, 2013.

   [HIP]      Nikander, P., Gurtov, A., and T. Henderson, "Host identity
              protocol (HIP): Connectivity, mobility, multi-homing,
              security, and privacy over IPv4 and IPv6 networks", IEEE
              Communications Surveys and Tutorials, pp: 186-204, 2010.

   [ILNP]     Atkinson, R., "An Overview of the Identifier-Locator
              Network Protocol (ILNP)", Technical Report, University
              College London, 2005.

   [MAAS]     Azgin, A., Ravindran, R., Chakraborti, A., and G. Wang,
              "Seamless Producer Mobility as a Service in Information
              Centric Networks", ACM ICN IC5G Workshop, 2016.

Azgin & Ravindran          Expires May 4, 2017                 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft                   ICN-NI                     October 2016

   [MDHT]     Liu, H., Foy, X., and D. Zhang, "A Multi-level DHT routing
              Framework with Aggregation", ACM SIGCOMM ICN Workshop,
              2012.

   [MFRST]    Venkataramani, A., Kurose, J., Raychaudhuri, D., Nagaraja,
              K., Mao, M., and S. Banerjee, "MobilityFirst: A Mobility-
              centric and Trustworthy Internet Architecture", ACM
              SIGCOMM CCR, 2014.

   [MPNCP]    Afanasyev, A., Yi, C., Wang, L., Zhang, B., and L. Zhang,
              "Map-and-Encap for Scaling NDN Routing", NDN Technical
              Report, ndn-004-02, 2015.

   [NAMES]    Baid, A., Vu, T., and D. Raychaudhuri, "Comparing
              Alternative Approaches for Networking of Named Objects in
              the Future Internet", IEEE INFOCOM NOMEN Workshop, 2012.

   [NCMP]     Adhatarao, S., Chen, J., Arumaithurai, M., Fu, X., and K.
              Ramakrishnan, "Comparison of Naming Schema in ICN", IEEE
              LANMAN, 2016.

   [NDNS]     Afanasyev, A., "Addressing Operational Challenges in Named
              Data Networking Through NDNS Distributed Database", 2013.

   [QCMP]     Gao, Z., Venkataramani, A., Kurose, J., and S. Heimlicher,
              "Towards a Quantitative Comparison of Location-Independent
              Network Architectures", ACM SIGCOMM, 2014.

   [RFC2629]  Rose, M., "Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML", RFC 2629,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2629, June 1999,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2629>.

   [RFC3220]  Perkins, C., "IP Mobility Support for IPv4", RFC 3220,
              2002.

   [RFC3552]  Rescorla, E. and B. Korver, "Guidelines for Writing RFC
              Text on Security Considerations", BCP 72, RFC 3552,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3552, July 2003,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3552>.

   [RFC4984]  Meyer, D., Zhang, L., and K. Fall, "Report from the IAB
              Workshop on Routing and Addressing", RFC 4984, 2007.

   [RFC5226]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.

Azgin & Ravindran          Expires May 4, 2017                 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft                   ICN-NI                     October 2016

   [RFC6740]  Atkinson, R. and S. Bhatti, "Identifier-Locator Network
              Protocol (ILNP) Architectural Description", RFC 6740,
              2012.

   [RFC6830]  Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The
              Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830, 2013.

   [RFC7401]  Moskowitz, R., Heer, T., Jokela, P., and T. Henderson,
              "Host Identity Protocol Version 2 (HIPv2)", RFC 7401,
              2015.

   [SFWD]     Yuan, H., Song, T., and P. Crowley, "Scalable NDN
              Forwarding: Concepts, Issues and Principles", IEEE ICCCN,
              2012.

   [SNAMP]    Afanasyev, A., Yi, C., Wang, L., Zhang, B., and L. Zhang,
              "SNAMP: Secure Namespace Mapping to Scale NDN Forwarding",
              IEEE Global Internet Symposium, 2015.

   [SPIT]     Yuan, H. and P. Crowley, "Scalable Pending Interest
              Table Design: From Principles to Practice", IEEE INFOCOM,
              2014.

   [VRSGN]    "Verisign Domain Name Industry Brief", July 2016.

   [WPIT]     Varvello, M., Perino, D., and L. Linguaglossa, "On the
              Design and Implementation of a Wire-speed Pending Interest
              Table", IEEE INFOCOM NOMEN Workshop, 2013.

Appendix A.  Additional Stuff

   This becomes an Appendix.

Authors' Addresses

   Aytac Azgin
   Huawei Technologies
   Santa Clara, CA  95050
   USA

   Email: aytac.azgin@huawei.com

Azgin & Ravindran          Expires May 4, 2017                 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft                   ICN-NI                     October 2016

   Ravishankar Ravindran
   Huawei Technologies
   Santa Clara, CA  95050
   USA

   Email: ravi.ravindran@huawei.com

Azgin & Ravindran          Expires May 4, 2017                 [Page 14]