ICN Baseline Scenarios
draft-pentikousis-icn-scenarios-00

ICNRG                                                     K. Pentikousis
Internet-Draft                                                    Huawei
Intended Status: Informational                                 B. Ohlman
Expires: May 10, 2013                                           Ericsson
                                                        November 6, 2012

                        ICN Baseline Scenarios 
                   draft-pentikousis-icn-scenarios-00

Abstract

   This document presents scenarios for information-centric networking
   (ICN) which can be used to establish a common understanding about
   potential experimental setups where different approaches can be
   tested and compared against each other.  The scenarios are primarily
   based on published literature, that is, they have all been considered
   in one or more performance evaluation studies, which are already
   available to the community.  The scenarios selected for inclusion in
   this first draft aim to exercise a variety of aspects that an ICN
   solution can address.  They include a) general aspects, such as,
   network efficiency, mobility support, multicast and caching
   performance, real-time communication efficacy, disruption and delay
   tolerance; and b) ICN-specific aspects, such as, information security
   and trust, persistence, availability, provenance, and location
   independence.

Status of this Memo

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

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as
   Internet-Drafts.

   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."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
 

Pentikousis & Ohlman      Expires May 10, 2013                  [Page 1]
INTERNET DRAFT           ICN Baseline Scenarios         November 6, 2012

   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html

Copyright and License Notice

   Copyright (c) 2012 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.

Table of Contents

   1  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2
   2  ICN Baseline Scenarios  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     2.1  Social Networking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
     2.2  Real-time A/V Communications  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     2.3  Mobile Networking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     2.4  Infrastructure Sharing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     2.5  Content Dissemination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     2.6  Energy Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     2.7  Delay and Disruption Tolerance  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   3  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   4  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   5  Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
   6  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

1  Introduction

   Information-centric networking (ICN) marks a fundamental shift in
   communications and networking.  In contrast with the omnipresent, and
   very successful we may add, host-centric paradigm, based on perpetual
   connectivity and the end-to-end principle, ICN changes the focal
   point of the network architecture from the "end host" to
   "information" (or content, or data).  In this paradigm, connectivity
   can be intermittent in general; end-host and in-network storage can
   be capitalized upon transparently as bits in the network and on some
   storage device have exactly the same value; mobility, multicasting
   and multiaccess are supported by default; and energy efficiency is a
 

Pentikousis & Ohlman      Expires May 10, 2013                  [Page 2]
INTERNET DRAFT           ICN Baseline Scenarios         November 6, 2012

   design consideration from the beginning.  

   Although interest in ICN is growing rapidly, ongoing work on
   different architectures, such as, for example, NetInf [NetInf], CCN
   and NDN [CCN], the publish-subscribe Internet (PSI) architecture
   [PSI], and the data-oriented architecture [DONA] is far from being
   completed.  The increasing interest and the plethora of ICN
   approaches make this a very active research area but, on the
   downside, it makes it more difficult to compare different proposals
   on an equal ground.

   It is not uncommon that different researchers select different
   performance evaluation scenarios in order to highlight the advantages
   of their approach.  This is reasonable and should be expected to some
   degree.  As Ahlgren et al. note [SoA], describing these architectures
   is akin to shooting a moving target.  We find that comparing these
   different approaches is often even more tricky.  Nevertheless,
   certain scenarios seem to emerge where said ICN architectures could
   showcase their superiority over current systems, in general, and
   against each other, in particular.

   This document collects several scenarios from the published ICN
   literature and aims to use them as foundation for the baseline
   scenarios to be considered by the IRTF Information-Centric Networking
   Research Group (ICNRG) in its future work.  The list of scenarios can
   obviously change, as input from the research group is received.

2  ICN Baseline Scenarios

   This section presents a number of scenarios grouped into several
   categories.  Note that certain evaluation scenarios span across these
   categories, so the boundaries between them should not be considered
   rigid and inflexible.  The goal is that each scenario should be
   described at a sufficient level of detail so that it can serve as the
   base for comparative evaluations of different approaches.  This will
   need to include reference configurations, specifications of traffic
   mixes and traffic loads.  These specifications/configurations should
   preferably come as sets that describe extremes as well as "typical"
   usage scenarios.

2.1  Social Networking

   Social networking applications proliferated over the past decade
   based on overlay content dissemination systems that require large
   infrastructure investments to rollout and maintain.  Content
   dissemination is at the heart of the ICN paradigm and, therefore, we
 

Pentikousis & Ohlman      Expires May 10, 2013                  [Page 3]
INTERNET DRAFT           ICN Baseline Scenarios         November 6, 2012

   would expect that they are a "natural fit" for showcasing the
   superiority of ICN over traditional client-server TCP/IP-based
   systems.

   Mathieu et al. [ICN-SN], for instance, illustrate how an ISP can
   capitalize on CCN to deploy a short-message service akin to Twitter
   at a fraction of the complexity of today's systems.  Their key
   observation is that such a service can be seen as a combination of
   multicast delivery and caching.  That is, a single user addresses a
   large number of recipients, some of which receive the new message
   immediately as they are online at that instant, while others receive
   the message whenever they connect to the networks.

   Earlier work by Arianfar et al. [CCR] considers a similar pull-based
   content retrieval scenario using a different architecture, pointing
   to significant performance advantages.  Although the authors consider
   a different network topology and do not explicitly say that their
   evaluation scenario is addressing social networking, the similarities
   are easy to spot: "followers" obtain content put "on the network" by
   a single user relying solely on network primitives.  That is, in both
   evaluations there is no need for a classic client-server architecture
   (let alone a cloud-based infrastructure) to intermediate between
   content providers and consumers.

   This scenario aims to exercise each ICN architecture in terms of
   network efficiency, multicast support, and caching performance.

2.2  Real-time A/V Communications

   Real-time audio and video (A/V) communications include an array of
   services ranging from one-to-one voice calls to multi-party multi-
   media conferences with video and whiteboard support to augmented
   reality.  Real-time communications have been studied (and deployed
   widely) in the context of packet- and circuit-switched networks for
   decades.  The stringent quality of service requirements that this
   type of communication imposes on network infrastructure is well-
   known.  However, the ICN community has, so far, only scratched the
   surface of this area with respect to illustrating the benefits of
   adopting an information-centric approach as opposed to a host-centric
   one.

   Notably,  Jacobson et al. [VoCCN] presented an early evaluation where
   the performance of a VoIP call over an information-centric approach
   was compared with that of an off-the-shelf VoIP implementation using
   RTP/UTP.  The results indicated that despite the extra cost of adding
   security support in the former case, performance was virtually
   identical in the two cases evaluated in a testbed.  However, the
 

Pentikousis & Ohlman      Expires May 10, 2013                  [Page 4]
INTERNET DRAFT           ICN Baseline Scenarios         November 6, 2012

   experimental setup was was quite rudimentary and the evaluation
   considered a single voice call only.  This scenario does illustrate
   that VoIP is feasible with at least one ICN approach, but it would
   need to be further enhanced to include more comprehensive metrics as
   well as standardized call arrival patterns, for example, following
   well-established methodologies from the quality of service/experience
   (QoS/QoE) evaluation toolbox.

   Given the wide-spread deployment of real-time A/V communications, an
   ICN approach should show not only feasibility but highlight that
   complexity is significantly reduced when compared to a classic IP-
   based A/V application.  For example, with respect to multimedia
   conferencing, Zhu et al. [ACT] describe the design of a distributed
   audio conference tool based on NDN.  The design includes ICN-based
   conference discovery, speakers discovery and voice data distribution.
   The reported evaluation results point to gains in scalability and
   security.  Moreover, Chen et al. [G-COPSS] explore the feasibility of
   implementing a Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game
   (MMORPG) based on CCNx and show that stringent temporal requirements
   can be met while scalability is significantly improved when compared
   to an IP client-server system.

   In short, scenarios in this category should illustrate not only
   feasibility but increased scalability, reliability, and capacity to
   meet stringent QoS/QoE requirements when compared to established
   host-centric solutions.

2.3  Mobile Networking

   IP mobility management relies on mobility anchors to provide
   ubiquitous connectivity to end-hosts as well as moving networks. 
   This is a natural choice for a host-centric paradigm that requires
   end-to-end connectivity and continuous network presence [SCES].  An
   implicit assumption in host-centric mobility management frameworks is
   that the mobile node aims at connecting to a particular peer, not at
   retrieving information [EEMN].  However, with ICN new ideas about
   mobility management should come to the forefront, which capitalize on
   the different nature of the paradigm.

   For example, Dannewitz et al. [N-Scen], consider a scenario where a
   multiaccess end-host can retrieve email securely using a combination
   of cellular and wireless local area network connectivity.  This
   scenario borrows elements from previous work, e.g. [DTI], and
   develops them further with respect to multiaccess.  Unfortunately,
   Dannewitz et al. [N-Scen] do not present any results demonstrating
   that an ICN approach is indeed better.  That said, the scenario is
   interesting as it considers content specific to a single user (i.e.
 

Pentikousis & Ohlman      Expires May 10, 2013                  [Page 5]
INTERNET DRAFT           ICN Baseline Scenarios         November 6, 2012

   her mailbox) and does point to a decrease in complexity.  It is also
   compatible with recent work in the Distributed Mobility Management
   (DMM) Working Group within the IETF.  Finally, Xylomenos et al.
   [PSIMob] as well as [EEMN] argue that an information-centric
   architecture can avoid the complexity of having to manage tunnels to
   maintain end-to-end connectivity as is the case with mobile anchor-
   based protocols such as Mobile IP (and its variants).

   Overall, mobile networking scenarios have not been developed in
   detail, let alone evaluated in a wide scale.  We expect that in the
   coming period more papers will address this topic, each perhaps
   proposing its own evaluation scenario.  The scenarios in mobile
   networking will be naturally coupled with those discussed in the
   previous sections as more users access social networking and A/V
   applications through mobile devices.

   Mobile networking scenarios should aim to exercise service continuity
   for those applications that require it, decrease complexity and
   control signaling for the network infrastructure, as well as increase
   wireless capacity utilization by taking advantage of the broadcast
   nature of the medium.  

2.4  Infrastructure Sharing

   A key idea in ICN is that the network should secure information
   objects per se, not the communications channel that they are
   delivered over.  This means that hosts attached to an information-
   centric network can share resources in an unprecedented scale,
   especially when compared to what is possible in an IP network.  All
   devices with network access and storage capacity can contribute their
   resources increasing the value of an information-centric network
   (perhaps) much faster than Metcalfe's law.

   For example, Jacobson et al. [CBIS] argue that in ICN the "where and
   how" to obtain information are new degrees of freedom.  They
   illustrate this with a scenario involving a photo sharing application
   which takes advantage of whichever access network connectivity is
   available at the moment (WLAN, Bluetooth, and even SMS) without
   requiring a centralized infrastructure to synchronize between
   numerous devices.  It is important to highlight that since the focus
   of the communication changes, keep-alives in this scenario are simply
   unnecessary, as devices participating in the testbed network
   contribute resources in order to maintain user content consistency,
   not link state information as is the case in the host-centric
   paradigm.  This means that the notion of "infrastructure" may be
   completely different in the future. 

 

Pentikousis & Ohlman      Expires May 10, 2013                  [Page 6]
INTERNET DRAFT           ICN Baseline Scenarios         November 6, 2012

   Carofiglio et al., for instance, present early work on an analytical
   framework that attempts to capture the storage/bandwidth tradeoff and
   can be used as a basis for a network planning tool [SHARE].  In
   addition, Chai et al. [CL4M] explore the benefits of ubiquitous
   caching throughout an information-centric network and argue that
   "caching less can actually achieve more."  These two papers indicate
   that there is a lot of work to be done in the area of how to use
   optimally all resources that end hosts bring into the network.

   Scenarios in this category, therefore, would cover the
   communication/computation/storage tradeoffs that an ICN network
   deployment must consider, including network planning, perhaps
   capitalizing on user-provided resources, as well as operational and
   economical aspects to illustrate the superiority of ICN over other
   approaches, including federations of IP-based Content Distribution
   Networks (CDNs).

2.5  Content Dissemination

   Content dissemination has attracted more attention than other aspects
   of ICN, perhaps due to a misunderstanding of what the first "C" in
   CCN stands for.  Decentralized content dissemination with on-the-fly
   aggregation of information sources was envisaged in [N-Scen] where
   information objects can be dynamically assembled based on
   hierarchically structured subcomponents.  For example, a video stream
   could be associated with different audio streams and subtitle sets,
   which all can be obtained from different sources.  Semantics and
   content negotiation, on behalf of the user was also considered, e.g.
   for the case of popular tunes.  Effectively this scenario has the
   information consumer issuing independent requests for content based
   on information identifiers, and stitching the pieces together
   irrespective of "where" or "how" they were obtained.

   Content dissemination scenarios have a large overlap with the
   scenarios described above [DONA, PSI, PSI-Mob, NetInf, CCN, CBIS,
   CCR], just to name a few.  In addition, Chai et al. present a hop-by-
   hop hierarchical content resolution approach [CURLING], which employs
   receiver-driven multicast over multiple domains, advocating another
   content dissemination approach.

   Scenarios in this category abound in the literature, including stored
   and streaming A/V distribution, file distribution, mirroring and bulk
   transfers, SVN-type of services, as well as traffic aggregation.  We
   expect that in particular for content dissemination both extreme as
   well as typical scenarios can be specified drawing data from current
   CDN deployments.

 

Pentikousis & Ohlman      Expires May 10, 2013                  [Page 7]
INTERNET DRAFT           ICN Baseline Scenarios         November 6, 2012

2.6  Energy Efficiency

   As mentioned earlier, energy efficiency can be tackled by ICN in ways
   that it cannot in a host-centric paradigm.  For example, the work by
   Guan et al. [EECCN] indicates that CCN may be much more energy-
   efficient than traditional CDNs for delivering popular content given
   the current networking equipment energy consumption levels.  

   Evaluating energy efficiency does not require the definition of new
   scenarios, but does require the establishment of clear guidelines so
   that different ICN approaches can be compared not only in terms of
   scalability, for example, but also in terms to power consumption. 

2.7  Delay and Disruption Tolerance

   Delay Tolerant Networking (DTN) [DTN] was originally designed for
   special use cases, such as interstellar networking, use of data
   mules, and so on.  With the advent of sensor networks and peer-to-
   peer (P2P) networking between mobile nodes, DTN is becoming a more
   commonplace type of networking.  ICN does not build on the familiar
   communication abstraction of end-to-end connectivity between a set of
   nodes.  This makes it possible to include DTN support in ICN
   natively.  Thus it is of interest to evaluate to which extent
   different ICN technologies can support DTN scenarios.

   Important aspects to be evaluated with respect to delay and
   disruption tolerance include, but are not limited to, name
   resolution, routing and forwarding in disconnected parts of the
   network; support for unidirectional links; number of round trips
   needed to complete a data transfer, and so on.

3  Security Considerations

   TBD

4  IANA Considerations

   This document presents no IANA considerations.

5  Acknowledgments

   TBD

 

Pentikousis & Ohlman      Expires May 10, 2013                  [Page 8]
INTERNET DRAFT           ICN Baseline Scenarios         November 6, 2012

6  Informative References

   [NetInf]   Ahlgren, B. et al., "Design considerations for a network
              of information", Proc. CoNEXT Re-Arch Workshop. ACM, 2008.

   [CCN]      Jacobson, V. et al., "Networking Named Content", Proc.
              CoNEXT. ACM, 2009.

   [PSI]      Trossen, D. and Parisis, G., "Designing and realizing an
              information-centric internet", IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 50,
              no. 7, July 2012.

   [DONA]     Koponen, T. et al., "A Data-Oriented (and Beyond) Network
              Architecture", Proc. SIGCOMM. ACM, 2007.

   [SoA]      Ahlgren, B. et al., "A survey of information-centric
              networking", IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 50, no. 7, July 2012.

   [ICN-SN]   Mathieu, B. et al., "Information-centric networking: a
              natural design for social network applications", IEEE
              Commun. Mag., vol. 50, no. 7, July 2012.

   [CCR]      Arianfar, S. et al., "On content-centric router design and
              implications", Proc. CoNEXT Re-Arch Workshop. ACM, 2010.

   [VoCCN]    Jacobson, V. et al., "VoCCN: Voice-over Content-Centric
              Networks", Proc. CoNEXT Re-Arch Workshop. ACM, 2009.

   [ACT]      Zhu, Z. et al., "ACT: Audio Conference Tool Over Named
              Data Networking", Proc. SIGCOMM ICN Workshop. ACM, 2011.

   [G-COPSS]  Chen, J. et al., "G-COPSS: A Content Centric Communication
              Infrastructure for Gaming Applications", Proc. ICDCS.
              IEEE, 2012.

   [SCES]     Allman, M. et al., "Enabling an Energy-Efficient Future
              Internet through Selectively Connected End Systems", Proc.
              HotNets-VI. ACM, 2007.

   [EEMN]     Pentikousis, K., "In Search of Energy-Efficient Mobile
              Networking", IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2010.

   [N-Scen]   Dannewitz, C. et al., "Scenarios and research issues for a
              Network of Information", Proc. MobiMedia. ICST, 2012.

   [DTI]      Ott, J. and Kutscher, D., "Drive-thru Internet: IEEE
              802.11b for 'automobile' users", Proc. INFOCOM. IEEE,
              2004.
 

Pentikousis & Ohlman      Expires May 10, 2013                  [Page 9]
INTERNET DRAFT           ICN Baseline Scenarios         November 6, 2012

   [PSIMob]   Xylomenos, G. et al., "Caching and Mobility Support in a
              Publish-Subscribe Internet Architecture", IEEE Commun.
              Mag., vol. 50, no. 7, July 2012.

   [CBIS]     Jacobson, V. et al., "Custodian-Based Information
              Sharing", IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 50, no. 7, July 2012. 

   [SHARE]    Carofiglio, G. et al., "Bandwidth and storage sharing
              performance in information centric networking", Proc.
              SIGCOMM ICN Workshop. ACM, 2011.

   [CL4M]     Chai, W. K. et al., "Cache 'Less for More' in Information-
              centric Networks", Proc. Networking. IFIP, 2012.

   [CURLING]  Chai, W. K. et al., "CURLING: Content-Ubiquitous
              Resolution and Delivery Infrastructure for Next-Generation
              Services", IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 49, no. 3, Mar. 2011.

   [EECCN]    Guan, K.  et al., "On the Energy Efficiency of Content
              Delivery Architectures ", Proc. ICC Workshops. IEEE, 2011.

   [DTN]      Fall, K., "A delay-tolerant network architecture for
              challenged internets", Proc. SIGCOMM. ACM, 2003.

Authors' Addresses

   Kostas Pentikousis
   Huawei Technologies
   Carnotstrasse 4
   10587 Berlin
   Germany

   Email: k.pentikousis@huawei.com

   Borje Ohlman
   Ericsson Research
   S-16480 Stockholm
   Sweden

   Email: Borje.Ohlman@ericsson.com

Pentikousis & Ohlman      Expires May 10, 2013                 [Page 10]