Skip to main content

Deployment Considerations for Information-Centric Networking (ICN)

The information below is for an old version of the document that is already published as an RFC.
Document Type
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 8763.
Authors Akbar Rahman , Dirk Trossen , Dirk Kutscher , Ravi Ravindran
Last updated 2020-04-16 (Latest revision 2019-09-03)
Replaces draft-rahman-icnrg-deployment-guidelines
RFC stream Internet Research Task Force (IRTF)
IETF conflict review conflict-review-irtf-icnrg-deployment-guidelines, conflict-review-irtf-icnrg-deployment-guidelines, conflict-review-irtf-icnrg-deployment-guidelines, conflict-review-irtf-icnrg-deployment-guidelines, conflict-review-irtf-icnrg-deployment-guidelines, conflict-review-irtf-icnrg-deployment-guidelines
Additional resources Mailing list discussion
Stream IRTF state Published RFC
Consensus boilerplate Yes
Document shepherd David R. Oran
Shepherd write-up Show Last changed 2019-09-06
IESG IESG state RFC 8763 (Informational)
Telechat date (None)
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to David Oran <>
IANA IANA review state IANA OK - No Actions Needed
IANA action state No IANA Actions
RFC Editor RFC Editor state AUTH48-DONE
ICNRG                                                          A. Rahman
Internet-Draft                          InterDigital Communications, LLC
Intended status: Informational                                D. Trossen
Expires: March 6, 2020                          InterDigital Europe, Ltd
                                                             D. Kutscher
                               University of Applied Sciences Emden/Leer
                                                            R. Ravindran
                                                       September 3, 2019

   Deployment Considerations for Information-Centric Networking (ICN)


   Information-Centric Networking (ICN) is now reaching technological
   maturity after many years of fundamental research and
   experimentation.  This document provides a number of deployment
   considerations in the interest of helping the ICN community move
   forward to the next step of live deployments.  First, the major
   deployment configurations for ICN are described including the key
   overlay and underlay approaches.  Then proposed deployment migration
   paths are outlined to address major practical issues such as network
   and application migration.  Next, selected ICN trial experiences are
   summarized.  Finally, protocol areas that require further
   standardization are identified to facilitate future interoperable ICN
   deployments.  This document is a product of the Information-Centric
   Networking Research Group (ICNRG).

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

   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 March 6, 2020.

Rahman, et al.            Expires March 6, 2020                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft      Deployment Considerations for ICN     September 2019

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2019 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
   ( 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.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Acronyms List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   4.  Deployment Configurations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.1.  Clean-slate ICN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.2.  ICN-as-an-Overlay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.3.  ICN-as-an-Underlay  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       4.3.1.  Edge Network  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       4.3.2.  Core Network  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     4.4.  ICN-as-a-Slice  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     4.5.  Composite-ICN Approach  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   5.  Deployment Migration Paths  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     5.1.  Application and Service Migration . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
     5.2.  Content Delivery Network Migration  . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     5.3.  Edge Network Migration  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     5.4.  Core Network Migration  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   6.  Deployment Trial Experiences  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     6.1.  ICN-as-an-Overlay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
       6.1.1.  FP7 PURSUIT Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
       6.1.2.  FP7 SAIL Trial  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
       6.1.3.  NDN Testbed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
       6.1.4.  ICN2020 Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
       6.1.5.  UMOBILE Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
     6.2.  ICN-as-an-Underlay  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
       6.2.1.  H2020 POINT and RIFE Efforts  . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
       6.2.2.  H2020 FLAME Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
       6.2.3.  CableLabs Content Delivery System . . . . . . . . . .  18
       6.2.4.  NDN IoT Trials  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
       6.2.5.  NREN ICN Testbed  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
       6.2.6.  Doctor Testbed  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     6.3.  Composite-ICN Approach  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20

Rahman, et al.            Expires March 6, 2020                 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft      Deployment Considerations for ICN     September 2019

     6.4.  Summary of Deployment Trials  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
   7.  Deployment Issues Requiring Further Standardization . . . . .  21
     7.1.  Protocols for Application and Service Migration . . . . .  21
     7.2.  Protocols for Content Delivery Network Migration  . . . .  21
     7.3.  Protocols for Edge and Core Network Migration . . . . . .  22
     7.4.  Summary of ICN Protocol Gaps and Potential Protocol
           Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
   8.  Conclusion  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
   9.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
   10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
   11. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
   12. Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  26
   Appendix A.  Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  35
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  37

1.  Introduction

   The ICNRG charter identifies deployment guidelines as an important
   topic area for the ICN community.  Specifically, the charter states
   that defining concrete migration paths for ICN deployments which
   avoid forklift upgrades, and defining practical ICN interworking
   configurations with the existing Internet paradigm, are key topic
   areas that require further investigation [ICNRGCharter].  Also, it is
   well understood that results and conclusions from any mid to large-
   scale ICN experiments in the live Internet will also provide useful
   guidance for deployments.

   So far, outside of some preliminary investigations such as
   [I-D.paik-icn-deployment-considerations], there has not been much
   progress on this topic.  This document attempts to fill some of these
   gaps by defining clear deployment configurations for ICN, and
   associated migration pathways for these configurations.  Also,
   selected deployment trial experiences of ICN technology are
   summarized.  Recommendations are also made for potential future IETF
   standardization of key protocol functionality that will facilitate
   interoperable ICN deployments going forward.

   The major configurations of possible ICN deployments are identified
   in this document as (1) Clean-slate ICN replacement of existing
   Internet infrastructure; (2) ICN-as-an-Overlay; (3) ICN-as-an-
   Underlay; (4) ICN-as-a-Slice; and (5) Composite-ICN.  Existing ICN
   trial systems primarily fall under the ICN-as-an-Overlay, ICN-as-an-
   Underlay and Composite-ICN configurations.  Each of these deployment
   configurations have their respective strengths and weaknesses.  This
   document will aim to provide guidance for current and future members
   of the ICN community when they consider deployment of ICN

Rahman, et al.            Expires March 6, 2020                 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft      Deployment Considerations for ICN     September 2019

   This document represents the consensus of the Information-Centric
   Networking Research Group (ICNRG).  It has been reviewed extensively
   by the Research Group (RG) members active in the specific areas of
   work covered by the document.

2.  Terminology

   This document assumes readers are, in general, familiar with the
   terms and concepts that are defined in [RFC7927] and
   [I-D.irtf-icnrg-terminology].  In addition, this document defines the
   following terminology:

      Deployment - In the context of this document, deployment refers to
      the final stage of the process of setting up an ICN network that
      is (1) ready for useful work (e.g., transmission of end user video
      and text) in a live environment, and (2) integrated and
      interoperable with the Internet.  We consider the Internet in its
      widest sense where it encompasses various access networks (e.g.,
      WiFi, Mobile radio network), service edge networks (e.g., for edge
      computing), transport networks, CDNs, core networks (e.g., Mobile
      core network), and back-end processing networks (e.g., Data
      Centres).  However, throughout the document we typically limit the
      discussion to edge networks, core networks and CDNs for

      Information-Centric Networking (ICN) - A data-centric network
      architecture where accessing data by name is the essential network
      primitive.  See [I-D.irtf-icnrg-terminology] for further

      Network Functions Virtualization (NFV): A networking approach
      where network functions (e.g., firewalls, load balancers) are
      modularized as software logic that can run on general purpose
      hardware, and thus are specifically decoupled from the previous
      generation of proprietary and dedicated hardware.  See
      [I-D.irtf-nfvrg-gaps-network-virtualization] for further

      Software-Defined Networking (SDN) - A networking approach where
      the control and data plane for switches are separated, allowing
      for realizing capabilities such as traffic isolation and
      programmable forwarding actions.  See [RFC7426] for further

Rahman, et al.            Expires March 6, 2020                 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft      Deployment Considerations for ICN     September 2019

3.  Acronyms List

      API - Application Programming Interface

      BIER - Bit Indexed Explicit Replication

      BoF - Birds of a Feather (session)

      CCN - Content Centric Networking

      CCNx - Content Centric Networking

      CDN - Content Distribution Network

      CoAP - Constrained Application Protocol

      DASH - Dynamic Adaptive Streaming over HTTP

      DiffServ - Differentiated Services

      DoS - Denial of Service

      DTN - Delay Tolerant Networking

      ETSI - European Telecommunication Standards Institute

      EU - European Union

      FP7 - 7th Framework Programme for Research and Technological

      HLS - HTTP Live Streaming

      HTTP - Hyper Text Transfer Protocol

      HTTPS- Hyper Text Transfer Protocol Secure

      H2020- Horizon 2020 (research program)

      ICN - Information-Centric Networking

      ICNRG- Information-Centric Networking Research Group

      IETF - Internet Engineering Task Force

      IntServ - Integrated Services

      IoT - Internet of Things

Rahman, et al.            Expires March 6, 2020                 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft      Deployment Considerations for ICN     September 2019

      IP - Internet Protocol

      IPv4 - Internet Protocol Version 4

      IPv6 - Internet Protocol Version 6

      IPTV - Internet Protocol Television

      ISIS - Intermediate System to Intermediate System

      ISP - Internet Service Provider

      k - kilo (1000)

      L2 - Layer 2

      LTE - Long Term Evolution (or 4th generation cellular system)

      MANO - Management and Orchestration

      MEC - Mobile Edge Computing

      Mbps - Megabits per second

      M2M - Machine-to-Machine

      NAP - Network Attachment Point

      NDN - Named Data Networking

      NETCONF - Network Configuration Protocol

      NetInf - Network of Information

      NFD - Named Data Networking Forwarding Daemon

      NFV - Network Functions Virtualization

      NICT - National Institute of Information and Communications
      Technology of Japan

      NR - New Radio (access network for 5G)

      OAM - Operations and Maintenance

      ONAP - Open Network Automation Platform

      OSPF - Open Shortest Path First

Rahman, et al.            Expires March 6, 2020                 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft      Deployment Considerations for ICN     September 2019

      PoC - Proof of Concept (demo)

      POINT- IP Over ICN - the better IP (project)

      qMp - Quick Mesh Project

      QoS - Quality of Service

      RAM - Random Access Memory

      RAN - Radio Access Network

      REST - Representational State Transfer (architecture)

      RESTCONF - Representational State Transfer Configuration

      RIFE - Architecture for an Internet For Everybody (project)

      RIP - Routing Information Protocol

      ROM - Read Only Memory

      RSVP - Resource Reservation Protocol

      RTP - Real-time Transport Protocol

      SDN - Software-Defined Networking

      SFC - Service Function Chaining

      SLA - Service Level Agreement

      TCL - Transport Convergence Layer

      TCP - Transmission Control Protocol

      UDP - User Datagram Protocol

      UMOBILE - Universal Mobile-centric and Opportunistic
      Communications Architecture

      US - United States

      USA - United States of America

      VoD - Video on Demand

Rahman, et al.            Expires March 6, 2020                 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft      Deployment Considerations for ICN     September 2019

      VPN - Virtual Private Network

      WG - Working Group

      YANG - Yet Another Next Generation (data modeling language)

      5G - Fifth Generation (cellular network)

      6LoWPAN - IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks

4.  Deployment Configurations

   In this section, we present various deployment options for ICN.
   These are presented as "configurations" that allow for studying these
   options further.  While this document will outline experiences with
   various of these configurations (in Section 6), we will not provide
   an in-depth technical or commercial evaluation for any of them - for
   this we refer to existing literature in this space such as [Tateson].

4.1.  Clean-slate ICN

   ICN has often been described as a "clean-slate" approach with the
   goal to renew or replace the complete IP infrastructure of the
   Internet.  As such, existing routing hardware as well as ancillary
   services such as existing applications which are typically tied
   directly to the TCP/IP protocol stack are not taken for granted.  For
   instance, a Clean-slate ICN deployment would see existing IP routers
   being replaced by ICN-specific forwarding and routing elements, such
   as NFD [NFD], CCN routers [Jacobson] or PURSUIT forwarding nodes

   While such clean-slate replacement could be seen as exclusive for ICN
   deployments, some ICN approaches (e.g., [POINT]) also rely on the
   deployment of general infrastructure upgrades, in this case SDN
   switches.  Different proposals have been made for various ICN
   approaches to enable the operation over an SDN transport

4.2.  ICN-as-an-Overlay

   Similarly to other significant changes to the Internet routing
   fabric, particularly the transition from IPv4 to IPv6 or the
   introduction of IP multicast, this deployment configuration foresees
   the creation of an ICN overlay.  Note that this overlay approach is
   sometimes, informally, also referred to as a tunneling approach.  The
   overlay approach can be implemented directly such as ICN-over-UDP as
   described in [CCNx_UDP].  Alternatively, the overlay can be
   accomplished via ICN-in-L2-in-IP as in [IEEE_Communications] which

Rahman, et al.            Expires March 6, 2020                 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft      Deployment Considerations for ICN     September 2019

   describes a recursive layering process.  Another approach used in the
   Network of Information (NetInf) is to define a convergence layer to
   map NetInf semantics to HTTP [I-D.kutscher-icnrg-netinf-proto].
   Finally, [Overlay_ICN] describes an incremental approach to deploying
   an ICN architecture particularly well-suited to SDN based networks by
   also segregating ICN user and control plane traffic.

   Regardless of the flavor, however, the overlay approach results in
   islands of ICN deployments over existing IP-based infrastructure.
   Furthermore, these ICN islands are typically connected to each other
   via ICN/IP tunnels.  In certain scenarios this requires
   interoperability between existing IP routing protocols (e.g., OSPF,
   RIP, ISIS) and ICN based ones.  ICN-as-an-Overlay can be deployed
   over the IP infrastructure in either edge or core networks.  This
   overlay approach is thus very attractive for ICN experimentation and
   testing as it allows rapid and easy deployment of ICN over existing
   IP networks.

4.3.  ICN-as-an-Underlay

   Proposals such as [POINT] and [White] outline the deployment option
   of using an ICN underlay that would integrate with existing
   (external) IP-based networks by deploying application layer gateways
   at appropriate locations.  The main reasons for such a configuration
   option is the introduction of ICN technology in given islands (e.g.,
   inside a CDN or edge IoT network) to reap the benefits of native ICN
   in terms of underlying multicast delivery, mobility support, fast
   indirection due to location independence, in-network computing and
   possibly more.  The underlay approach thus results in islands of
   native ICN deployments which are connected to the rest of the
   Internet through protocol conversion gateways or proxies.  Routing
   domains are strictly separated.  Outside of the ICN island, normal IP
   routing protocols apply.  Within the ICN island, ICN based routing
   schemes apply.  The gateways transfer the semantic content of the
   messages (i.e., IP packet payload) between the two routing domains.

4.3.1.  Edge Network

   Native ICN networks may be located at the edge of the network where
   the introduction of new network architectures and protocols is easier
   in so-called greenfield deployments.  In this context ICN is an
   attractive option for scenarios such as IoT [I-D.irtf-icnrg-icniot].
   The integration with the current IP protocol suite takes place at an
   application gateway/proxy at the edge network boundary, e.g.,
   translating incoming CoAP request/response transactions [RFC7252]
   into ICN message exchanges or vice versa.

Rahman, et al.            Expires March 6, 2020                 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft      Deployment Considerations for ICN     September 2019

   The work in [VSER] positions ICN as an edge service gateway driven by
   a generalized ICN based service orchestration system with its own
   compute and network virtualization controllers to manage an ICN
   infrastructure.  The platform also offers service discovery
   capabilities to enable user applications to discover appropriate ICN
   service gateways.  To exemplify a use case scenario, the [VSER]
   platform shows the realization of a multi-party audio/video
   conferencing service over such a edge cloud deployment of ICN routers
   realized over commodity hardware platforms.  This platform has also
   been extended to offer seamless mobility and mobility as a service
   [VSER-Mob] features.

4.3.2.  Core Network

   In this sub-option, a core network would utilize edge-based protocol
   mapping onto the native ICN underlay.  For instance, [POINT] proposes
   to map HTTP transactions, or some other IP based transactions such as
   CoAP, directly onto an ICN-based message exchange.  This mapping is
   realized at the NAP, such as realized in access points or customer
   premise equipment, which in turn provides a standard IP interface to
   existing user devices.  The NAPs thus provides the apparent
   perception of an IP-based core network towards any external peering

   The work in [White] proposes a similar deployment configuration.
   There, the goal is to use ICN for content distribution within CDN
   server farms.  Specifically, the protocol mapping is realized at the
   ingress of the server farm where the HTTP-based retrieval request is
   served, while the response is delivered through a suitable egress
   node translation.

4.4.  ICN-as-a-Slice

   The objective of Network slicing [NGMN-5G] is to multiplex a general
   pool of compute, storage and bandwidth resources among multiple
   service networks with exclusive SLA requirements on transport and
   compute level QoS and security.  This is enabled through NFV and SDN
   technology functions that enables functional decomposition hence
   modularity, independent scalability of control and/or the user-plane
   functions, agility and service driven programmability.  Network
   slicing is often associated with 5G but is clearly not limited to
   such systems.  However, from a 5G perspective, the definition of
   slicing includes access network enabling dynamic slicing the spectrum
   resources among various services hence naturally extending itself to
   end points and also cloud resources across multiple domains, to offer
   end-to-end guarantees.  These slices once instantiated could include
   a mix of connectivity services like LTE-as-a-service or OTT services
   like VoD or other IoT services through composition of a group of

Rahman, et al.            Expires March 6, 2020                [Page 10]
Internet-Draft      Deployment Considerations for ICN     September 2019

   virtual and/or physical network functions at control, user and
   service plane level.  Such a framework can also be used to realize
   ICN slices with its own control and forwarding plane over which one
   or more end-user services can be delivered [NGMN-Network-Slicing].

   The 5G next generation architecture [fiveG-23501] provides the
   flexibility to deploy the ICN-as-a-Slice over either the edge (RAN),
   Mobile core network, or the ICN-as-a-Slice may be deployed end-to-
   end.  Further discussions on extending the architecture presented in
   [fiveG-23501] and the corresponding procedures in [fiveG-23502] to
   support ICN has been provided in [I-D.ravi-icnrg-5gc-icn].  The draft
   elaborates on two possible approaches to enable ICN.  First, as an
   edge service using the local data network (LDN) feature in 5G using
   UPF classification functions to fast handover to the ICN forwarder;
   the other is as a native deployment using the non-IP PDU support that
   would allow new network layer PDU to be handed over to ICN UPFs
   collocated with the gNB functions, without invoking any IP functions.
   While the former deployment would still rely on 3GPP based mobility
   functions, the later would allow mobility to be handled natively by
   ICN.  However both these deployment modes should benefit from other
   ICN features such as in-network caching and computing.  Associated
   with this ICN user plan enablement, control plane extensions are also
   proposed leveraging 5GC's interface to other application functions
   (AF) to allow new network service level programmability.  Such a
   generalized network slicing framework should be able to offer service
   slices over both IP and ICN.  Coupled with the view of ICN functions
   as being "chained service functions" [RFC7665], an ICN deployment
   within such a slice could also be realized within the emerging
   control plane that is targeted for adoption in future (e.g., 5G
   mobile) network deployments.  Finally, it should be noted that ICN is
   not creating the network slice, but instead that the slice is created
   to run an 5G-ICN instance [Ravindran].

   At the level of the specific technologies involved, such as ONAP
   [ONAP] that can be used to orchestrate slices, the 5G-ICN slice
   requires compatibility for instance at the level of the forwarding/
   data plane depending on if it is realized as an overlay or using
   programmable data planes.  With SDN emerging for new network
   deployments, some ICN approaches will need to integrate with SDN as a
   data plane forwarding function, as briefly discussed in Section 4.1.
   Further cross domain ICN slices can also be realized using frameworks
   such as [ONAP].

4.5.  Composite-ICN Approach

   Some deployments do not clearly correspond to any of the previously
   defined basic configurations of (1) Clean-slate ICN; (2) ICN-as-an-
   Overlay; (3) ICN-as-an-Underlay; and (4) ICN-as-a-Slice.  Or, a

Rahman, et al.            Expires March 6, 2020                [Page 11]
Internet-Draft      Deployment Considerations for ICN     September 2019

   deployment may contain a composite mixture of the properties of these
   basic configurations.  For example, the Hybrid ICN [H-ICN_1] approach
   carries ICN names in existing IPv6 headers and does not have distinct
   gateways or tunnels connecting ICN islands, or any other distinct
   feature identified in the previous basic configurations.  So we
   categorize Hybrid ICN, and other approaches that do not clearly
   correspond to one of the other basic configurations, as a Composite-
   ICN approach.

5.  Deployment Migration Paths

   We now focus on the various migration paths that will have importance
   to the various stakeholders that are usually involved in the
   deployment of ICN networks.  We can identify these stakeholders as:

   o  Application providers

   o  ISPs and service providers, both as core as well as access network
      providers, and also ICN network providers

   o  CDN providers (due to the strong relation of the ICN proposition
      to content delivery)

   o  End device manufacturers and users

   Our focus is on technological aspects of such migration.  Economic or
   regulatory aspects, such as studied in [Tateson], [Techno_Economic]
   and [Internet_Pricing] are left out of our discussion.

5.1.  Application and Service Migration

   The Internet supports a multitude of applications and services using
   the many protocols defined over the packet level IP service.  HTTP
   provides one convergence point for these services with many Web
   development frameworks based on the semantics provided by it.  In
   recent years, even services such as video delivery have been
   migrating from the traditional RTP-over-UDP delivery to the various
   HTTP-level streaming solutions, such as DASH [DASH] and others.
   Nonetheless, many non-HTTP services exist, all of which need
   consideration when migrating from the IP-based Internet to an ICN-
   based one.

   The underlay deployment configuration option presented in Section 4.3
   aims at providing some level of compatibility to the existing
   ecosystem through a proxy based message flow mapping mechanism (e.g.,
   mapping of existing HTTP/TCP/IP message flows to HTTP/ICN message
   flows).  A related approach of mapping TCP/IP to TCP/ICN message
   flows is described in [Moiseenko].  Another approach described in

Rahman, et al.            Expires March 6, 2020                [Page 12]
Internet-Draft      Deployment Considerations for ICN     September 2019

   [Marchal] uses HTTP/NDN gateways and focuses in particular on the
   right strategy to map HTTP to NDN to guarantee a high level of
   compatibility with HTTP while enabling an efficient caching of Data
   in the ICN island.  The choice of approach is a design decision based
   on how to configure the protocol stack.  For example, the approach
   described in [Moiseenko] carries the TCP layer into the ICN underlay.
   While the [Marchal] approach terminates both HTTP and TCP at the edge
   of the ICN underlay and maps these functionalities onto existing ICN

   Alternatively, ICN as an overlay (Section 4.2), as well as ICN-as-
   a-Slice (Section 4.4), allow for the introduction of the full
   capabilities of ICN through new application/service interfaces as
   well as operations in the network.  With that, these approaches of
   deployment are likely to aim at introducing new application/services
   capitalizing on those ICN capabilities, such as in-network multicast
   and/or caching.

   Finally, [I-D.irtf-icnrg-icn-lte-4g] outlines a dual-stack end user
   device approach that is applicable for all deployment configurations.
   Specifically, it introduces middleware layers (called the TCL) in the
   device that will dynamically adapt existing applications to either an
   underlying ICN protocol stack or standard IP protocol stack.  This
   involves end device signalling with the network to determine which
   protocol stack instance and associated middleware adaptation layers
   to utilize for a given application transaction.

5.2.  Content Delivery Network Migration

   A significant number of services and applications are devoted to
   content delivery in some form, either as video delivery, social media
   platforms, and many others.  CDNs are deployed to assist these
   services through localizing the content requests and therefore
   reducing latency and possibly increase utilization of available
   bandwidth as well as reducing the load on origin servers.  Similar to
   the previous sub-section, the underlay deployment configuration
   presented in Section 4.3 aim at providing a migration path for
   existing CDNs.  This is also highlighted in a BIER use case document
   [I-D.ietf-bier-multicast-http-response], specifically with potential
   benefits in terms of utilizing multicast in the delivery of content
   but also reducing load on origin as well as delegation server.  We
   return to this benefit in the trial experiences in Section 6.

5.3.  Edge Network Migration

   Edge networks often see the deployment of novel network level
   technology, e.g., in the space of IoT.  Such IoT deployments have for
   many years relied, and often still do, on proprietary protocols for

Rahman, et al.            Expires March 6, 2020                [Page 13]
Internet-Draft      Deployment Considerations for ICN     September 2019

   reasons such as increased efficiency, lack of standardization
   incentives and others.  Utilizing the underlay deployment
   configuration in Section 4.3.1, application gateways/proxies can
   integrate such edge deployments into IP-based services, e.g.,
   utilizing CoAP [RFC7252] based M2M platforms such as oneM2M [oneM2M]
   or others.

   Another area of increased edge network innovation is that of mobile
   (access) networks, particularly in the context of the 5G Mobile
   networks.  With the proliferation of network softwarization (using
   technologies like service orchestration frameworks leveraging NFV and
   SDN concepts) access networks and other network segments, the ICN-as-
   a-Slice deployment configuration in Section 4.4 provides a suitable
   migration path for integration non-IP-based edge networks into the
   overall system through virtue of realizing the relevant (ICN)
   protocols in an access network slice.

   With the advent of SDN and NFV capabilities, so-called campus or
   site-specific deployments could see the introduction of ICN islands
   at the edge for scenarios such as gaming or AR/VR-based deployments
   for, e.g., smart cities or theme parks.

5.4.  Core Network Migration

   Migrating core networks of the Internet or Mobile networks requires
   not only significant infrastructure renewal but also the fulfillment
   of the key performance requirements, particularly in terms of
   throughput.  For those parts of the core network that would migrate
   to an SDN-based optical transport the ICN-as-a-Slice deployment
   configuration in Section 4.4 would allow the introduction of native
   ICN solutions within slices.  This would allow for isolating the ICN
   traffic while addressing the specific ICN performance benefits, such
   as in-network multicast or caching, and constraints, such as the need
   for specific network elements within such isolated slices.  For ICN
   solutions that natively work on top of SDN, the underlay deployment
   configuration in Section 4.3.2 provides an additional migration path,
   preserving the IP-based services and applications at the edge of the
   network, while realizing the core network routing through an ICN
   solution (possibly itself realized in a slice of the SDN transport

6.  Deployment Trial Experiences

   In this section, we will outline trial experiences, often conducted
   within collaborative project efforts.  Our focus here is on the
   realization of the various deployment configurations identified in
   Section 4, and we therefore categorize the trial experiences
   according to these deployment configurations.  While a large body of

Rahman, et al.            Expires March 6, 2020                [Page 14]
Internet-Draft      Deployment Considerations for ICN     September 2019

   work exists at the simulation or emulation level, we specifically
   exclude these studies from our analysis to retain the focus on real
   life experiences.

6.1.  ICN-as-an-Overlay

6.1.1.  FP7 PURSUIT Efforts

   Although the FP7 PURSUIT [IEEE_Communications] efforts were generally
   positioned as a Clean-slate ICN replacement of IP (Section 4.1), the
   project realized its experimental test bed as an L2 VPN-based overlay
   between several European, US as well as Asian sites, following the
   overlay deployment configuration presented in Section 4.2.  Software-
   based forwarders were utilized for the ICN message exchange, while
   native ICN applications, e.g., for video transmissions, were
   showcased.  At the height of the project efforts, about 70+ nodes
   were active in the (overlay) network with presentations given at
   several conferences as well as to the ICNRG.

6.1.2.  FP7 SAIL Trial

   The Network of Information (NetInf) is the approach to ICN developed
   by the EU FP7 SAIL project [SAIL].  NetInf provides both name-based
   forwarding with CCNx-like semantics and name resolution (for
   indirection and late-binding).  The NetInf architecture supports
   different deployment options through its convergence layer such as
   using UDP, HTTP, and even DTN underlays.  In its first prototypes and
   trials, NetInf was deployed mostly in an HTTP embedding and in a UDP
   overlay following the overlay deployment configuration in
   Section 4.2.  Reference [SAIL_Prototyping] describes several trials
   including a stadium environment and a multi-site testbed, leveraging
   NetInf's Routing Hint approach for routing scalability

6.1.3.  NDN Testbed

   The Named Data Networking (NDN) is one of the research projects of
   the National Science Foundation (NSF) of the USA as part of the
   Future Internet Architecture (FIA) Program.  The original NDN
   proposal was positioned as a Clean-slate ICN replacement of IP
   (Section 4.1).  However, in several trials, NDN generally follows the
   overlay deployment configuration of Section 4.2 to connect
   institutions over the public Internet across several continents.  The
   use cases covered in the trials include real-time video-conferencing,
   geo-locating, and interfacing to consumer applications.  Typical
   trials involve up to 100 NDN enabled nodes [NDN-testbed] [Jangam].

Rahman, et al.            Expires March 6, 2020                [Page 15]
Internet-Draft      Deployment Considerations for ICN     September 2019

6.1.4.  ICN2020 Efforts

   ICN2020 is an ICN related project of the EU H2020 research program
   and NICT [ICN2020-overview].  ICN2020 has a specific focus to advance
   ICN towards real-world deployments through applications such as video
   delivery, interactive videos and social networks.  The federated
   testbed spans the USA, Europe and Japan.  Both NDN and CCN approaches
   are within the scope of the project.

   ICN2020 has released a set of interim public technical reports
   [ICN2020].  The report [ICN2020-Experiments] contains a detailed
   description of the progress made in both local testbeds as well as
   federated testbeds.  The plan for the federated testbed includes
   integrating the NDN testbed, the CUTEi testbed [RFC7945] [CUTEi] and
   the GEANT testbed [GEANT] to create an overlay deployment
   configuration of Section 4.2 over the public Internet.  The total
   network contains 37 nodes.  Since video was an important application
   typical throughput was measured in certain scenarios and found to be
   in the order of 70 Mbps per node.

6.1.5.  UMOBILE Efforts

   UMOBILE is another of the ICN research projects under the H2020
   research program [UMOBILE-overview].  The UMOBILE architecture
   integrates the principles of DTN and ICN in a common framework to
   support edge computing and mobile opportunistic wireless environments
   (e.g., post-disaster scenarios and remote areas).  The UMOBILE
   architecture [UMOBILE-2] was developed on top of the NDN framework by
   following the overlay deployment configuration of Section 4.2.
   UMOBILE aims to extend Internet functionally by combining ICN and DTN

   One of the key aspects of UMOBILE was the extension of the NDN
   framework to locate network services (e.g., mobility management,
   intermittent connectivity support) and user services (e.g., pervasive
   content management) as close as possible to the end-users to optimize
   bandwidth utilization and resource management.  Another aspect was
   the evolution of the NDN framework to operate in challenging wireless
   networks, namely in emergency scenarios [UMOBILE-3] and environments
   with intermittent connectivity.  To achieve this, the NDN framework
   was leveraged with a new messaging application called Oi!
   [UMOBILE-4] [UMOBILE-5] that supports intermittent wireless
   networking.  UMOBILE also implements a new data-centric wireless
   routing protocol, DABBER [UMOBILE-6] [I-D.mendes-icnrg-dabber], which
   was designed based on data reachability metrics that take into
   consideration availability of adjacent wireless nodes and different
   data sources.  The contextual-awareness of the wireless network

Rahman, et al.            Expires March 6, 2020                [Page 16]
Internet-Draft      Deployment Considerations for ICN     September 2019

   operation is obtained via a machine learning agent running within the
   wireless nodes [UMOBILE-7].

   The consortium has completed several ICN deployment trails.  In a
   post disaster scenario trial [UMOBILE-8], a special DTN face was
   created to provide reachability to remote areas where there is no
   typical Internet connection.  Another trail was the ICN deployment
   over the "" community network in the Barcelona region.  This
   trial focused on the evaluation of ICN edge computing platform,
   called PiCasso [UMOBILE-9].  In this trial, ten (10) raspberry Pis
   were deployed across Barcelona to create an ICN overlay network on
   top of the existing IP routing protocol (e.g., qMp routing).  This
   trial showed that ICN can play a key role in improving data delivery
   QoS as well as reducing the traffic in intermittent connectivity
   environments (e.g., wireless community network).  A third trial in
   Italy was focused on displaying the capability of the UMOBILE
   architecture to reach disconnected areas and assist responsible
   authorities in emergencies, corresponding to an infrastructure
   scenario.  The demonstration encompassed seven (7) end-user devices,
   one (1) access-point, and one (1) gateway.

6.2.  ICN-as-an-Underlay

6.2.1.  H2020 POINT and RIFE Efforts

   POINT and RIFE are two more ICN related research projects of the
   H2020 research program.  The efforts in the H2020 POINT+RIFE projects
   follow the underlay deployment configuration in Section 4.3.2, edge-
   based NAPs provide the IP/HTTP-level protocol mapping onto ICN
   protocol exchanges, while the SDN underlay (or the VPN-based L2
   underlay) is used as a transport network.

   The multicast as well as service endpoint surrogate benefits in HTTP-
   based scenarios, such as for HTTP-level streaming video delivery,
   have been demonstrated in the deployed POINT test bed with 80+ nodes
   being utilized.  Demonstrations of this capability have been given to
   the ICNRG, and public demonstrations were also provided at events
   [MWC_Demo].  The trial has also been accepted by the ETSI MEC group
   as a public proof-of-concept demonstration.

   While the afore-mentioned demonstrations all use the overlay
   deployment, H2020 also has performed ICN underlay trials.  One such
   trial involved commercial end users located in the Primetel network
   in Cyprus with the use case centered on IPTV and HLS video
   dissemination.  Another trial was performed over the ""
   community network in the Barcelona region, where the solution was
   deployed in 40 households, providing general Internet connectivity to
   the residents.  Standard IPTV STBs as well as HLS video players were

Rahman, et al.            Expires March 6, 2020                [Page 17]
Internet-Draft      Deployment Considerations for ICN     September 2019

   utilized in accordance with the aim of this deployment configuration,
   namely to provide application and service migration.

6.2.2.  H2020 FLAME Efforts

   The H2020 FLAME efforts concentrate on providing an experimental
   ground for the aforementioned POINT/RIFE solution in initially two
   city-scale locations, namely in Bristol and Barcelona.  This trial
   followed the underlay deployment configuration in Section 4.3.2 as
   per POINT/RIFE approach.  Experiments were conducted with the city/
   university joint venture Bristol-is-Open (BIO), to ensure the
   readiness of the city-scale SDN transport network for such
   experiments.  Another trial was for the ETSI MEC PoC.  This trial
   showcased operational benefits provided by the ICN underlay for the
   scenario of a location-based game.  These benefits aim at reduced
   network utilization through improved video delivery performance
   (multicast of all captured videos to the service surrogates deployed
   in the city at six locations) as well as reduced latency through the
   playout of the video originating from the local NAP, collocated with
   the WiFi AP instead of a remote server, i.e., the playout latency was
   bounded by the maximum single hop latency.

   Twenty three (23) large-scale media service experiments are planned
   as part of the H2020 FLAME efforts in the area of Future Media
   Internet (FMI).  The platform, which includes the ICN capabilities
   integrated with NFV and SDN capabilities of the infrastructure.  The
   ultimate goal of these platform efforts is the full integration of
   ICN into the overall media function platform for the provisioning of
   advanced (media-centric) Internet services.

6.2.3.  CableLabs Content Delivery System

   The Cablelabs ICN work reported in [White] proposes an underlay
   deployment configuration based on Section 4.3.2.  The use case is ICN
   for content distribution within complex CDN server farms to leverage
   ICN's superior in-network caching properties.  This "island of ICN"
   based CDN is then used to service standard HTTP/IP-based content
   retrieval request coming from the general Internet.  This approach
   acknowledges that whole scale replacement (see Section 4.1) of
   existing HTTP/IP end user applications and related Web infrastructure
   is a difficult proposition.  [White] is clear that the architecture
   proposed had not yet been tested experimentally but that
   implementations were in process and expected in the 3-5 year time

Rahman, et al.            Expires March 6, 2020                [Page 18]
Internet-Draft      Deployment Considerations for ICN     September 2019

6.2.4.  NDN IoT Trials

   [Baccelli] summarizes the trial of an NDN system adapted specifically
   for a wireless IoT scenario.  The trial was run with 60 nodes
   distributed over several multi-story buildings in a university campus
   environment.  The NDN protocols were optimized to run directly over
   6LoWPAN wireless link layers.  The performance of the NDN based IoT
   system was then compared to an equivalent system running standard IP
   based IoT protocols.  It was found that the NDN based IoT system was
   superior in several respects including in terms of energy
   consumption, and for RAM and ROM footprints [Baccelli]
   [Anastasiades].  For example, the binary file size reductions for NDN
   protocol stack versus standard IP based IoT protocol stack on given
   devices were up to 60% less for ROM size and up to 80% less for RAM

6.2.5.  NREN ICN Testbed

   The National Research and Education Network (NREN) ICN Testbed is a
   project sponsored by Cisco, Internet2, and the US Research and
   Education community.  Participants include universities and US
   federal government entities that connect via a nation-wide VPN-based
   L2 underlay.  The testbed uses the CCN approach and is based on the
   [CICN] open source software.  There are approximately 15 nodes spread
   across the USA which connect to the testbed.  The project's current
   focus is to advance data-intensive science and network research by
   improving data movement, searchability, and accessibility.

6.2.6.  Doctor Testbed

   The Doctor project is a French research project meaning "Deployment
   and Securisation of new Functionalities in Virtualized Networking
   Environments".  The project aims to run NDN over virtualized NFV
   infrastructure [Doctor] (based on Docker technology) and focuses on
   the NFV MANO aspects to build an operational NDN network focusing on
   important performance criteria such as security, performance and

   The data-plane relies on a HTTP/NDN gateway [Marchal] that processes
   HTTP traffic and transports it in an optimized way over NDN to
   benefit from the properties of the NDN-island (i.e., by mapping HTTP
   semantics to NDN semantics within the NDN-island).  The testbed
   carries real Web traffic of users, and has been currently evaluated
   with the top-1000 most popular Web sites.  The users only need to set
   the gateway as the Web proxy.  The control-plane relies on a central
   manager which uses machine learning based detection methods [Mai-1]
   from the date gathered by distributed probes and applies orchestrated
   counter-measures against NDN attacks [Nguyen-1] [Nguyen-2] [Mai-2] or

Rahman, et al.            Expires March 6, 2020                [Page 19]
Internet-Draft      Deployment Considerations for ICN     September 2019

   performance issues.  A remediation can be, for example, the scale-up
   of a bottleneck component, or the deployment of a security function
   like a firewall or a signature verification module.  Test results
   thus far have indicated that key attacks can be detected accurately.
   For example, content poisioning attacks can be detected at up to over
   95% accuracy (with less than 0.01% false positives) [Nguyen-3].

6.3.  Composite-ICN Approach

   Hybrid ICN [H-ICN_1] [H-ICN_2] is an approach where the ICN names are
   mapped to IPv6 addresses, and other ICN information is carried as
   payload inside the IP packet.  This allows standard (ICN-unaware) IP
   routers to forward packets based on IPv6 info, but enables ICN-aware
   routers to apply ICN semantics.  The intent is to enable rapid hybrid
   deployments and seamless interconnection of IP and Hybrid ICN
   domains.  Hybrid ICN uses [CICN] open source software.  Initial tests
   have been done with 150 clients consuming DASH videos which showed
   good scalability properties at the Server Side using the Hybrid ICN
   transport [H-ICN_3] [H-ICN_2].

6.4.  Summary of Deployment Trials

   In summary, there have been significant trials over the years with
   all the major ICN protocol flavors (e.g., CCN, NDN, POINT) using both
   the ICN-as-an-Overlay and ICN-as-an-Underlay deployment
   configurations.  The major limitations of the trials include the fact
   that only a limited number of applications have been tested.
   However, the tested applications include both native ICN and existing
   IP based applications (e.g., video-conferencing and IPTV).  Another
   limitation of the trials is that all of them involve less than 1k

   The ICN-as-a-Slice configuration has just started being trialled by
   Huawei and China Unicom to demonstrate ICN features of security,
   mobility and bandwidth efficiency over a wired infrastructure using
   video conferencing as the application scenario [Chakraborti], also
   this prototype has been extended to demonstrate this over a 5G-NR

   The Clean-slate ICN approach has obviously never been trialled as
   complete replacement of Internet infrastructure (e.g., existing
   applications, TCP/IP protocol stack, IP routers, etc.) is no longer
   considered a viable alternative.

   Finally, Hybrid ICN is a Composite-ICN approach that offers an
   interesting alternative as it allows ICN semantics to be embedded in
   standard IPv6 packets so the packets can be routed through either IP
   routers or Hybrid ICN routers.  Note that some other trials such as

Rahman, et al.            Expires March 6, 2020                [Page 20]
Internet-Draft      Deployment Considerations for ICN     September 2019

   the Doctor testbed (Section 6.2.6) could also be characterized as a
   Composite-ICN approach because it contains both ICN gateways (as in
   ICN-as-an-Underlay) and virtualized infrastructure (as in ICN-as-
   a-Slice).  However, for the Doctor testbed we have chosen to
   characterize it as an ICN-as-an-Underlay configuration because that
   is a dominant characteristic.

7.  Deployment Issues Requiring Further Standardization

   The ICN Research Challenges [RFC7927] describes key ICN principles
   and technical research topics.  As the title suggests, [RFC7927] is
   research oriented without a specific focus on deployment or
   standardization issues.  This section addresses this open area by
   identifying key protocol functionality that that may be relevant for
   further standardization effort in IETF.  The focus is specifically on
   identifying protocols that will facilitate future interoperable ICN
   deployments correlating to the scenarios identified in the deployment
   migration paths in Section 5.  The identified list of potential
   protocol functionality is not exhaustive.

7.1.  Protocols for Application and Service Migration

   End user applications and services need a standardized approach to
   trigger ICN transactions.  For example, in Internet and Web
   applications today, there are established socket APIs, communication
   paradigms such as REST, common libraries, and best practices.  We see
   a need to study application requirements in an ICN environment
   further and, at the same time, develop new APIs and best practices
   that can take advantage of ICN communication characteristics.

7.2.  Protocols for Content Delivery Network Migration

   A key issue in CDNs is to quickly find a location of a copy of the
   object requested by an end user.  In ICN, a Named Data Object (NDO)
   is typically defined by its name.  [RFC6920] defines a mechanism that
   is suitable for static naming of ICN data objects.  Other ways of
   encoding and representing ICN names have been described in
   [I-D.irtf-icnrg-ccnxmessages] and [I-D.irtf-icnrg-ccnxsemantics].
   Naming dynamically generated data requires different approaches
   (e.g., hash digest based names would normally not work), and there is
   lack of established conventions and standards.

   Another CDN issue for ICN is related to multicast distribution of
   content.  Existing CDNs have started using multicast mechanisms for
   certain cases such as for broadcast streaming TV.  However, as
   discussed in Section 6.2.1, certain ICN approaches provide
   substantial improvements over IP multicast, such as the implicit
   support for multicast retrieval of content in all ICN flavours.

Rahman, et al.            Expires March 6, 2020                [Page 21]
Internet-Draft      Deployment Considerations for ICN     September 2019

   Caching is an implicit feature in many ICN architectures that can
   improve performance and availability in several scenarios.  The ICN
   in-network caching can augment managed CDN and improve its
   performance.  The details of the interplay between ICN caching and
   managed CDN need further consideration.

7.3.  Protocols for Edge and Core Network Migration

   ICN provides the potential to redesign current edge and core network
   computing approaches.  Leveraging ICN's inherent security and its
   ability to make name data and dynamic computation results available
   independent of location, can enable a light-weight insertion of
   traffic into the network without relying on redirection of DNS
   requests.  For this, proxies that translate from commonly used
   protocols in the general Internet to ICN message exchanges in the ICN
   domain could be used for the migration of application and services
   within deployments at the network edge but also in core networks.
   This is similar to existing approaches for IoT scenarios where a
   proxy translates CoAP request/responses to other message formats.
   For example, [RFC8075] specifies proxy mapping between CoAP and HTTP
   protocols.  Also, [RFC8613] is an example of how to pass end-to-end
   encrypted content between HTTP and COAP by an application layer
   security mechanism.  Further work is required to identify if an
   [RFC8613]-like approach, or some other approach, is suitable to
   preserve ICN message security through future protocol translation
   functions of gateways/proxies.

   Interaction and interoperability between existing IP routing
   protocols (e.g., OSPF, RIP, ISIS) and ICN routing approaches(e.g.,
   NFD, CCN routers) are expected especially in the overlay approach.
   Another important topic is the integration of ICN into networks that
   support virtualized infrastructure in the form of NFV/SDN and most
   likely utilizing SFC as a key protocol.  Further work is required to
   validate this idea and document best practices.

   There are several existing approaches to supporting QoS in IP
   networks including DiffServ, IntServ and RSVP.  Some initial ideas
   for QoS support in ICN networks are outlined in
   [I-D.moiseenko-icnrg-flowclass] which proposes a flow classification
   based approach to enable functions such ICN rate control and cache
   control.  Also [I-D.anilj-icnrg-icn-qos] proposes how to use DiffServ
   DSCP codes to support QoS for ICN based data path delivery.  Further
   work is required to identify the best approaches for support of QoS
   in ICN networks.

   OAM is a crucial area that has not yet been fully addressed by the
   ICN research community, but which is obviously critical for future
   deployments of ICN.  Potential areas that need investigation include

Rahman, et al.            Expires March 6, 2020                [Page 22]
Internet-Draft      Deployment Considerations for ICN     September 2019

   whether the YANG data modelling approach and associated NETCONF/
   RESTCONF protocols need any specific updates for ICN support.
   Another open area is how to measure and benchmark performance of ICN
   networks comparable to the sophisticated techniques that exist for
   standard IP networks, virtualized networks and data centers.  It
   should be noted that some initial progress has been made in the area
   of ICN network path traceroute facility with approaches such as
   CCNinfo [I-D.irtf-icnrg-ccninfo] [Contrace].

7.4.  Summary of ICN Protocol Gaps and Potential Protocol Efforts

   Without claiming completeness, Table 1 maps the open ICN issues
   identified in this document to potential protocol efforts that could
   address some aspects of the gap.

   | ICN Gap      | Potential Protocol Effort                          |
   | 1-Support of | HTTP/CoAP support of ICN semantics                 |
   | REST APIs    |                                                    |
   |              |                                                    |
   | 2-Naming     | Dynamic naming of ICN data objects                 |
   |              |                                                    |
   | 3-Routing    | Interactions between IP and ICN routing protocols  |
   |              |                                                    |
   | 4-Multicast  | Multicast enhancements for ICN                     |
   | distribution |                                                    |
   |              |                                                    |
   | 5-In-network | ICN Cache placement and sharing                    |
   | caching      |                                                    |
   |              |                                                    |
   | 6-NFV/SDN    | Integration of ICN with NFV/SDN and including      |
   | support      | possible impacts to SFC                            |
   |              |                                                    |
   | 7-ICN        | Mapping of HTTP and other protocols onto ICN       |
   | mapping      | message exchanges (and vice-versa) while           |
   |              | preserving ICN message security                    |
   |              |                                                    |
   | 8-QoS        | Support of ICN QoS via mechanisms such as DiffServ |
   | support      | and flow classification                            |
   |              |                                                    |
   | 9-OAM        | YANG models, NETCONF/RESTCONF protocols,           |
   | support      | and network performance measurements               |
   |              |                                                    |

        Table 1: Mapping of ICN Gaps to Potential Protocol Efforts

Rahman, et al.            Expires March 6, 2020                [Page 23]
Internet-Draft      Deployment Considerations for ICN     September 2019

8.  Conclusion

   This document provides high level deployment considerations for
   current and future members of the ICN community.  Specifically, the
   major configurations of possible ICN deployments are identified as
   (1) Clean-slate ICN replacement of existing Internet infrastructure;
   (2) ICN-as-an-Overlay; (3) ICN-as-an-Underlay; (4) ICN-as-a-Slice;
   and (5) Composite-ICN.  Existing ICN trial systems primarily fall
   under the ICN-as-an-Overlay, ICN-as-an-Underlay and Composite-ICN

   In terms of deployment migration paths, ICN-as-an-Underlay offers a
   clear migration path for CDN, edge or core networks to go to an ICN
   paradigm (e.g., for an IoT deployment) while leaving the critical
   mass of existing end user applications untouched.  ICN-as-an-Overlay
   is the easiest configuration to deploy rapidly as it leaves the
   underlying IP infrastructure essentially untouched.  However, its
   applicability for general deployment must be considered on a case by
   case basis (e.g., can it support all required user applications).
   ICN-as-a-Slice is an attractive deployment option for up coming 5G
   systems (i.e., for 5G radio and core networks) which will naturally
   support network slicing, but this still has to be validated through
   more trial experiences.  Composite-ICN, by its nature, can combine
   some of the best characteristics of the other configurations, but its
   applicability for general deployment must again be considered on a
   case by case basis (e.g., can enough IP routers be upgraded to
   support Composite-ICN functionality to provide sufficient performance

   There has been significant trial experience with all the major ICN
   protocol flavors (e.g., CCN, NDN, POINT).  However, only a limited
   number of applications have been tested so far, and the maximum
   number of users in any given trial has been less than 1k users.  It
   is recommended that future ICN deployments scale their users
   gradually and closely monitor network performance as they go above 1k
   users.  A logical approach would be to increase the number of users
   in a slowly increasing linear manner and monitor network performance
   and stability especially at every multiple of 1k users.

   Finally, this document describes a set of technical features in ICN
   that warrant potential future IETF specification work.  This will aid
   initial and incremental deployments to proceed in an interoperable
   manner.  The fundamental details of the potential protocol
   specification effort, however, are best left for future study by the
   appropriate IETF WGs and/or BoFs.  The ICNRG can aid this process in
   the near and mid-term by continuing to examine key system issues like
   QoS mechanisms, flexible naming schemes and OAM support for ICN.

Rahman, et al.            Expires March 6, 2020                [Page 24]
Internet-Draft      Deployment Considerations for ICN     September 2019

9.  IANA Considerations

   This document requests no IANA actions.

10.  Security Considerations

   ICN was purposefully designed from the start to have certain
   intrinsic security properties.  The most well known of which are
   authentication of delivered content and (optional) encryption of the
   content.  [RFC7945] has an extensive discussion of various aspects of
   ICN security including many which are relevant to deployments.
   Specifically, [RFC7945] points out that ICN access control, privacy,
   security of in-network caches, and protection against various network
   attacks (e.g., DoS) have not yet been fully developed due to the lack
   of a sufficient mass of deployments.  [RFC7945] also points out
   relevant advances occurring in the ICN research community that hold
   promise to address each of the identified security gaps.  Lastly,
   [RFC7945] points out that as secure communications in the existing
   Internet (e.g., HTTPS) becomes the norm, that major gaps in ICN
   security will inevitably slow down the adoption of ICN.

   In addition to the security findings of [RFC7945], this document has
   highlighted that all anticipated ICN deployment configurations will
   involve co-existence with existing Internet infrastructure and
   applications.  Thus even the basic authentication and encryption
   properties of ICN content will need to account for interworking with
   non-ICN content to preserve end-to-end security.  For example, in the
   edge network underlay deployment configuration described in
   Section 4.3.1, the gateway/proxy that translates HTTP or CoAP
   request/responses into ICN message exchanges will need to support a
   security model to preserve end-to-end security.  One alternative
   would be to consider an approach similiar to [RFC8613] which is used
   to pass end-to-end encrypted content between HTTP and COAP by an
   application layer security mechanism.  Further investigation is
   required to see if this approach is suitable to preserve ICN message
   security through future protocol translation functions (e.g., ICN to
   HTTP, or COAP to ICN) of gateways/proxies.

   Finally, the Doctor project discussed in Section 6.2.6 is an example
   of an early deployment that is looking at specific attacks against
   ICN infrastructure.  In this case, looking at Interest Flooding
   Attacks [Nguyen-2] and Content Poisoning Attacks [Nguyen-1] [Mai-2]
   [Nguyen-3] and evaluation of potential counter-measures based on MANO
   orchestrated actions on the virtualized infrastructure [Mai-1] .

Rahman, et al.            Expires March 6, 2020                [Page 25]
Internet-Draft      Deployment Considerations for ICN     September 2019

11.  Acknowledgments

   The authors want to thank Alex Afanasyev, Hitoshi Asaeda, Giovanna
   Carofiglio, Xavier de Foy, Guillaume Doyen, Hannu Flinck, Anil
   Jangam, Michael Kowal, Adisorn Lertsinsrubtavee, Paulo Mendes, Luca
   Muscariello, Thomas Schmidt, Jan Seedorf, Eve Schooler, Samar
   Shailendra, Milan Stolic, Prakash Suthar, Atsushi Mayutan, and Lixia
   Zhang for their very useful reviews and comments to the document.

   Special thanks to Dave Oran (ICNRG co-chair) and Marie-Jose Montpetit
   for their extensive and thoughtful reviews of the document.  Their
   reviews helped to immeasurably improve the document quality.

12.  Informative References

              Anastasiades, C., "Information-centric communication in
              mobile and wireless networks", PhD Dissertation, 2016,

              Baccelli, E. and et al., "Information Centric Networking
              in the IoT: Experiments with NDN in the Wild", ACM
              20164, Paris, France, 2014,

   [C_FLOW]   Suh, J. and et al., "C_FLOW: Content-Oriented Networking
              over OpenFlow", Open Networking Summit, April, 2012,

              PARC, "CCNx Over UDP", 2015,

              Chakraborti, A. and et al., "Design and Evaluation of a
              Multi-source Multi-destination Real-time Application on
              Content Centric Network", IEEE, HoT ICN, 2018 , 2018.

   [CICN]     CICN, "Community Information-Centric Networking (CICN)",
              2017, <>.

Rahman, et al.            Expires March 6, 2020                [Page 26]
Internet-Draft      Deployment Considerations for ICN     September 2019

   [CONET]    Veltri, L. and et al., "CONET Project: Supporting
              Information-Centric Functionality in Software Defined
              Networks", Workshop on Software Defined Networks, , 2012,

              Asaeda, H. and et al., "Contrace: A Tool for Measuring and
              Tracing Content-Centric Networks", IEEE Communications
              Magazine, Vol.53, No.3 , 2015.

   [CUTEi]    Asaeda, H. and N. Choi, "Container-Based Unified Testbed
              for Information Centric Networking", IEEE Network, Vol.28,
              No.6 , 2014.

   [DASH]     DASH, "DASH Industry Forum", 2017, <>.

   [Doctor]   Doctor, "Deployment and Securisation of new
              Functionalities in Virtualized Networking Environments
              (Doctor)", 2017,

              3gpp-23.501, "Technical Specification Group Services and
              System Aspects; System Architecture for the 5G System
              (Rel.15)", 3GPP , 2017.

              3gpp-23.502, "Technical Specification Group Services and
              System Aspects; Procedures for the 5G System (Rel.15)",
              3GPP , 2017.

   [GEANT]    GEANT, "GEANT Overview", 2016, <>.

   [H-ICN_1]  Cisco, "Hybrid ICN: Cisco Announces Important Steps toward
              Adoption of Information-Centric Networking", 2017,

   [H-ICN_2]  Cisco, "Mobile Video Delivery with Hybrid ICN: IP-
              Integrated ICN Solution for 5G", 2017,

Rahman, et al.            Expires March 6, 2020                [Page 27]
Internet-Draft      Deployment Considerations for ICN     September 2019

   [H-ICN_3]  Muscariello, L. and et al., "Hybrid Information-Centric
              Networking: ICN inside the Internet Protocol", 2018,

   [H-ICN_4]  Sardara, M. and et al., "(h)ICN Socket Library for HTTP:
              Leveraging (h)ICN socket library for carrying HTTP
              messages", 2018, <

              Jangam, A., suthar, P., and M. Stolic, "Supporting QoS
              aware Data Delivery in Information Centric Networks",
              draft-anilj-icnrg-icn-qos-00 (work in progress), July

              Trossen, D., Rahman, A., Wang, C., and T. Eckert,
              "Applicability of BIER Multicast Overlay for Adaptive
              Streaming Services", draft-ietf-bier-multicast-http-
              response-01 (work in progress), June 2019.

              Asaeda, H., Ooka, A., and X. Shao, "CCNinfo: Discovering
              Content and Network Information in Content-Centric
              Networks", draft-irtf-icnrg-ccninfo-02 (work in progress),
              July 2019.

              Mosko, M., Solis, I., and C. Wood, "CCNx Messages in TLV
              Format", draft-irtf-icnrg-ccnxmessages-09 (work in
              progress), January 2019.

              Mosko, M., Solis, I., and C. Wood, "CCNx Semantics",
              draft-irtf-icnrg-ccnxsemantics-10 (work in progress),
              January 2019.

              suthar, P., Stolic, M., Jangam, A., Trossen, D., and R.
              Ravindran, "Native Deployment of ICN in LTE, 4G Mobile
              Networks", draft-irtf-icnrg-icn-lte-4g-03 (work in
              progress), March 2019.

Rahman, et al.            Expires March 6, 2020                [Page 28]
Internet-Draft      Deployment Considerations for ICN     September 2019

              Ravindran, R., Zhang, Y., Grieco, L., Lindgren, A., Burke,
              J., Ahlgren, B., and A. Azgin, "Design Considerations for
              Applying ICN to IoT", draft-irtf-icnrg-icniot-03 (work in
              progress), May 2019.

              Wissingh, B., Wood, C., Afanasyev, A., Zhang, L., Oran,
              D., and C. Tschudin, "Information-Centric Networking
              (ICN): CCN and NDN Terminology", draft-irtf-icnrg-
              terminology-04 (work in progress), June 2019.

              Bernardos, C., Rahman, A., Zuniga, J., Contreras, L.,
              Aranda, P., and P. Lynch, "Network Virtualization Research
              Challenges", draft-irtf-nfvrg-gaps-network-
              virtualization-10 (work in progress), September 2018.

              Kutscher, D., Farrell, S., and E. Davies, "The NetInf
              Protocol", draft-kutscher-icnrg-netinf-proto-01 (work in
              progress), February 2013.

              Mendes, P., Sofia, R., Tsaoussidis, V., Diamantopoulos,
              S., Sarros, C., Borrego, C., and J. Borrell, "Information-
              centric Routing for Opportunistic Wireless Networks",
              draft-mendes-icnrg-dabber-02 (work in progress), February

              Moiseenko, I. and D. Oran, "Flow Classification in
              Information Centric Networking", draft-moiseenko-icnrg-
              flowclass-04 (work in progress), July 2019.

              Paik, E., Yun, W., Kwon, T., and h.
    , "Deployment Considerations for
              Information-Centric Networking", draft-paik-icn-
              deployment-considerations-00 (work in progress), July

              Ravindran, R., suthar, P., Trossen, D., Wang, C., and G.
              White, "Enabling ICN in 3GPP's 5G NextGen Core
              Architecture", draft-ravi-icnrg-5gc-icn-04 (work in
              progress), May 2019.

Rahman, et al.            Expires March 6, 2020                [Page 29]
Internet-Draft      Deployment Considerations for ICN     September 2019

   [ICN2020]  ICN2020, "ICN2020 Deliverables", 2017,

              ICN2020, "Deliverable D4.1: 1st yearly report on Testbed
              and Experiments (WP4)", 2017,

              ICN2020, "ICN2020 Project Overview", 2016,

              NDN, "Information-Centric Networking Research Group
              Charter", 2013,

              Trossen, D. and G. Parisis, "Designing and Realizing an
              Information-Centric Internet", Information-Centric
              Networking, IEEE Communications Magazine Special Issue,

              Trossen, D. and G. Biczok, "Not Paying the Truck Driver:
              Differentiated Pricing for the Future Internet", ReArch
              Workshop in conjunction with ACM Context, December, 2010.

              Jacobson, V. and et al., "Networking Named Content",
              Proceedings of ACM Context, , 2009.

   [Jangam]   Jangam, A. and et al., "Porting and Simulation of Named-
              data Link State Routing Protocol into ndnSIM", ACM
              DIVANet'17, Miami Beach, USA, 2017,

   [Mai-1]    Mai, H. and et al., "Implementation of Content Poisoning
              Attack Detection and Reaction in Virtualized NDN
              Networks", 21st Conference on Innovation in Clouds,
              Internet and Networks, ICIN 2018 (demo paper) IEEE, 2018,

Rahman, et al.            Expires March 6, 2020                [Page 30]
Internet-Draft      Deployment Considerations for ICN     September 2019

   [Mai-2]    Mai, H. and et al., "Towards a Security Monitoring Plane
              for Named Data Networking: Application to Content
              Poisoning Attack", Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE/IFIP
              Symposium on Network Operations and Management (NOMS)
              IEEE, 2018.

   [Marchal]  Marchal, X. and et al., "Leveraging NFV for the Deployment
              of NDN: Application to HTTP Traffic Transport",
              Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE/IFIP Symposium on Network
              Operations and Management (NOMS), 2018,

              Moiseenko, I. and D. Oran, "TCP/ICN : Carrying TCP over
              Content Centric and Named Data Networks", 2016,

              InterDigital, "InterDigital Demo at Mobile World Congress
              (MWC)", 2016, <

              NDN Testbed, "Named Data Networking (NDN) Testbed", 2010,

   [NFD]      NDN, "NFD - Named Data Networking Forwarding Daemon",
              2017, <>.

   [NGMN-5G]  NGMN, "NGMN 5G White Paper", 2015,

              NGMN, "NGMN Description of Network Slicing Concept", 2016,

              Nguyen, T. and et al., "Content Poisoning in Named Data
              Networking: Comprehensive Characterization of real
              Deployment", Proceedings of the 15th IEEE/IFIP
              International Symposium on Integrated Network Management,

Rahman, et al.            Expires March 6, 2020                [Page 31]
Internet-Draft      Deployment Considerations for ICN     September 2019

              Nguyen, T., Cogranne, R., and G. Doyen, "An Optimal
              Statistical Test for Robust Detection against Interest
              Flooding Attacks in CCN", Proceedings of the 14th IEEE/
              IFIP International Symposium on Integrated Network
              Management, 2015.

              Nguyen, T. and et al., "A Security Monitoring Plane for
              Named Data Networking Deployment", IEEE Communications
              Magazine, Nov 2018.

   [ONAP]     ONAP, "Open Network Automation Platform", 2017,

   [oneM2M]   OneM2M, "oneM2M Service Layer Standards for M2M and IoT",
              2017, <>.

              Shailendra, S. and et al., "A Novel Overlay Architecture
              for F Networking", 2016, <

   [POINT]    Trossen, D. and et al., "POINT: IP Over ICN - The Better
              IP?", European Conference on Networks and Communications
              (EuCNC), , 2015.

              Ravindran, R. and et al., "5G-ICN : Delivering ICN
              Services over 5G using Network Slicing", IEEE
              Communication Magazine, May, 2016,

   [Reed]     Reed, M. and et al., "Stateless Multicast Switching in
              Software Defined Networks", ICC 2016, Kuala Lumpur,
              Malaysia, 2016.

   [RFC6920]  Farrell, S., Kutscher, D., Dannewitz, C., Ohlman, B.,
              Keranen, A., and P. Hallam-Baker, "Naming Things with
              Hashes", RFC 6920, DOI 10.17487/RFC6920, April 2013,

   [RFC7252]  Shelby, Z., Hartke, K., and C. Bormann, "The Constrained
              Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7252,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7252, June 2014,

Rahman, et al.            Expires March 6, 2020                [Page 32]
Internet-Draft      Deployment Considerations for ICN     September 2019

   [RFC7426]  Haleplidis, E., Ed., Pentikousis, K., Ed., Denazis, S.,
              Hadi Salim, J., Meyer, D., and O. Koufopavlou, "Software-
              Defined Networking (SDN): Layers and Architecture
              Terminology", RFC 7426, DOI 10.17487/RFC7426, January
              2015, <>.

   [RFC7665]  Halpern, J., Ed. and C. Pignataro, Ed., "Service Function
              Chaining (SFC) Architecture", RFC 7665,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7665, October 2015,

   [RFC7927]  Kutscher, D., Ed., Eum, S., Pentikousis, K., Psaras, I.,
              Corujo, D., Saucez, D., Schmidt, T., and M. Waehlisch,
              "Information-Centric Networking (ICN) Research
              Challenges", RFC 7927, DOI 10.17487/RFC7927, July 2016,

   [RFC7945]  Pentikousis, K., Ed., Ohlman, B., Davies, E., Spirou, S.,
              and G. Boggia, "Information-Centric Networking: Evaluation
              and Security Considerations", RFC 7945,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7945, September 2016,

   [RFC8075]  Castellani, A., Loreto, S., Rahman, A., Fossati, T., and
              E. Dijk, "Guidelines for Mapping Implementations: HTTP to
              the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 8075,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8075, February 2017,

   [RFC8613]  Selander, G., Mattsson, J., Palombini, F., and L. Seitz,
              "Object Security for Constrained RESTful Environments
              (OSCORE)", RFC 8613, DOI 10.17487/RFC8613, July 2019,

   [SAIL]     SAIL, "Scalable and Adaptive Internet Solutions (SAIL)",
              2013, <>.

              FP7, "SAIL Content Delivery and Operations", 2013,

              FP7, "SAIL Prototyping and Evaluation", 2013,

Rahman, et al.            Expires March 6, 2020                [Page 33]
Internet-Draft      Deployment Considerations for ICN     September 2019

   [Tateson]  Tateson, J. and et al., "Final Evaluation Report on
              Deployment Incentives and Business Models", 2010,

              Trossen, D. and A. Kostopolous, "Techno-Economics Aspects
              of Information-Centric Networking", Journal for
              Information Policy, Volume 2, 2012.

              Sarros, C. and et al., "Connecting the Edges: A Universal,
              Mobile-Centric, and Opportunistic Communications
              Architecture", IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 56,
              February 2018.

              Tavares, M., Aponte, O., and P. Mendes, "Named-data
              Emergency Network Services", Proc. of ACM MOBISYS, Munich,
              Germany, June 2018.

              Lopes, L. and et al., "Oi! - Opportunistic Data
              Transmission Based on Wi-Fi Direct", Proc. of IEEE
              INFOCOM, San Francisco, USA, April 2016.

              Dynerowicz, S. and P. Mendes, "Named-Data Networking in
              Opportunistic Networks", Proc. of ACM ICN, Berlin,
              Germany, September 2017.

              Mendes, P. and et al., "Information-centric Routing for
              Opportunistic Wireless Networks", Proc. of ACM ICN,
              Boston, USA, September 2018.

              Sofia, R., "The UMOBILE Contextual Manager Service.
              Technical Report. Technical Report Senception 001, 2018
              (base for UMOBILE deliverable D4.5 - Report on Data
              Collection and Inference Models", 2018.

              Sarros, C. and et al., "ICN-based edge service deployment
              in challenged networks", Proceedings of the 4th ACM
              Conference on Information-Centric Networking (ICN '17).
              ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2017 .

Rahman, et al.            Expires March 6, 2020                [Page 34]
Internet-Draft      Deployment Considerations for ICN     September 2019

              Lertsinsrubtavee, A. and et al., "Information-Centric
              Multi-Access Edge Computing Platform for Community Mesh
              Networks", Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGCAS Conference on
              Computing and Sustainable Societies (COMPASS '18). ACM,
              New York, NY, USA, 2018 .

              UMOBILE, "Universal Mobile-centric and Opportunistic
              Communications Architecture (UMOBILE)", 2018,

   [VSER]     Ravindran, R. and et al., "Towards software defined ICN
              based edge-cloud services",
              CloudNetworking(CloudNet), IEEE Internation Conference on,
              IEEE Internation Conference on CloudNetworking(CloudNet),

              Azgin, A. and et al., "Seamless Mobility as a Service in
              Information-centric Networks", ACM ICN Sigcomm, IC5G
              Workshop, 2016.

   [White]    White, G. and G. Rutz, "Content Delivery with Content
              Centric Networking, CableLabs White Paper", 2016,

Appendix A.  Change Log

   [Note to RFC Editor: Please remove this section before publication.]

   Changes from draft-irtf-rev-06 to draft-irtf-rev-07:

   o  Added reference to OSCORE (RFC 8613) which is a way of passing
      end-to-end encrypted content between HTTP and COAP without
      invalidating encryption.  Thus it can be a potential model for
      HTTP to ICN, or COAP to ICN, to consider in the future.

   o  Updated affiliation information for author Ravi Ravindran.

   Changes from draft-irtf-rev-05 to draft-irtf-rev-06:

   o  Various updates to ensure that draft complies with RFC 5743
      (Definition of an Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) Document
      Stream) section 2.1.

Rahman, et al.            Expires March 6, 2020                [Page 35]
Internet-Draft      Deployment Considerations for ICN     September 2019

   Changes from draft-irtf-rev-04 to draft-irtf-rev-05:

   o  Addressed detailed review comments from Marie-Jose Montpetit.

   Changes from draft-irtf-rev-03 to draft-irtf-rev-04:

   o  Added text from Paulo Mendes and Adisorn Lertsinsrubtavee on
      UMOBILE Trial Experiences.

   o  Incorporated off-line editorial comments from Hitoshi Asaeda and
      Anil Jangam.

   Changes from draft-irtf-rev-02 to draft-irtf-rev-03:

   o  Editorial update of description and references of Doctor testbed
      as per comments from Guillaume Doyen.

   o  Ran IETF spell checker tool and corrected various spelling errors.

   Changes from draft-irtf-rev-01 to draft-irtf-rev-02:

   o  Updated description of Doctor testbed as per comments from
      Guillaume Doyen.  Also referenced Doctor testbed from the Security
      Considerations section.

   o  Added "Composite-ICN" configuration to cover the Hybrid ICN and
      similar configurations which do not clearly fit in one of the
      other basic configurations.

   o  Updated description of the ICN-as-a-Slice configuration to clarify
      that it may also apply to non-5G systems.

   Changes from draft-irtf-rev-00 to draft-irtf-rev-01:

   o  Added text from Michael Kowal describing NREN ICN Testbed.

   o  Added text from Guillaume Doyen describing Doctor Project.

   o  Updated text on Hybrid ICN based on input from Luca Muscariello.

   Changes from draft-rahman-rev-05 to draft-irtf-rev-00:

   o  Changed draft status from individual draft-rahman-icnrg-
      deployment-guidelines-05 to RG adopted draft-irtf-icnrg-

   Changes from rev-04 to rev-05:

Rahman, et al.            Expires March 6, 2020                [Page 36]
Internet-Draft      Deployment Considerations for ICN     September 2019

   o  Added this Change Log in Appendix A.

   o  Removed references to Hybrid ICN from section 3.2 (ICN-as-an-
      Overlay definition).  Instead, consolidated all Hybrid ICN info in
      the Deployment Trial Experiences under a new subsection 5.3 (Other

   o  Updated ICN2020 description in Section 5.1.4 with text received
      from Mayutan Arumaithurai and Hitoshi Asaeda.

   o  Clarified in ICN-as-a-Slice description (section 3.4) that it may
      be deployed on either the Edge (RAN) or Core Network, or the ICN-
      as-a-Slice may be deployed end-to-end through the entire Mobile

   o  Added several new references in various sections.

   o  Various minor editorial updates.

Authors' Addresses

   Akbar Rahman
   InterDigital Communications, LLC
   1000 Sherbrooke Street West, 10th floor
   Montreal  H3A 3G4


   Dirk Trossen
   InterDigital Europe, Ltd
   64 Great Eastern Street, 1st Floor
   London  EC2A 3QR
   United Kingdom


Rahman, et al.            Expires March 6, 2020                [Page 37]
Internet-Draft      Deployment Considerations for ICN     September 2019

   Dirk Kutscher
   University of Applied Sciences Emden/Leer
   Constantiapl. 4
   Emden  26723


   Ravi Ravindran
   Future Technologies
   2330 Central Expressway
   Santa Clara  95050


Rahman, et al.            Expires March 6, 2020                [Page 38]