Skip to main content

ICN Baseline Scenarios and Evaluation Methodology
draft-pentikousis-icn-scenarios-03

The information below is for an old version of the document.
Document Type
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Expired".
Authors Kostas Pentikousis , Börje Ohlman , Daniel Corujo , Gennaro Boggia , Gareth Tyson , Elwyn B. Davies , Dorothy Gellert , Priya Mahadevan, Spiros Spirou, Antonella Molinaro
Last updated 2013-06-18
Replaced by draft-irtf-icnrg-evaluation-methodology, draft-irtf-icnrg-evaluation-methodology
RFC stream (None)
Formats
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date (None)
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
draft-pentikousis-icn-scenarios-03
ICNRG                                                K. Pentikousis, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                       Huawei Technologies
Intended Status: Informational                                 B. Ohlman
Expires: December 20, 2013                                      Ericsson
                                                               D. Corujo
                                                  Universidade de Aveiro
                                                               G. Boggia
                                                     Politecnico di Bari
                                                                G. Tyson
                                        Queen Mary, University of London
                                                               E. Davies
                                                  Trinity College Dublin
                                                              D. Gellert
                                                            InterDigital
                                                            P. Mahadevan
                                                                    PARC
                                                               S. Spyrou
                                                        Intracom Telecom
                                                             A. Molinaro
                                                                   UNIRC
                                                           June 18, 2013

           ICN Baseline Scenarios and Evaluation Methodology
                   draft-pentikousis-icn-scenarios-03

Abstract

   This document aims at establishing a common understanding about
   potential experimental setups where different information-centric
   networking (ICN) approaches can be tested and compared against each
   other while showcasing their advantages.  Towards this end, we review
   the ICN literature and document scenarios which have been considered
   in previous performance evaluation studies.  The scenarios presented
   aim to exercise a variety of aspects that an ICN solution can
   address. On the one hand, we consider general aspects, such as,
   network efficiency, reduced complexity, increased scalability and
   reliability, mobility support, multicast and caching performance,
   real-time communication efficacy, energy consumption frugality, and
   disruption and delay tolerance. On the other hand, we focus on 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
 

Pentikousis, et al.    Expires December 20, 2013                [Page 1]
INTERNET DRAFT           ICN Baseline Scenarios            June 18, 2013

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

Copyright and License Notice

   Copyright (c) 2013 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Toward ICN Baseline Scenarios  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     2.1.  Social Networking  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
     2.2.  Real-time Communication  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
     2.3.  Mobile Networking  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
     2.4.  Infrastructure Sharing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     2.5.  Content Dissemination  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
     2.6.  Vehicular Networking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     2.7.  Network Interaction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     2.8.  Energy Efficiency  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     2.9.  Delay- and Disruption-Tolerance  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
     2.10.  Internet of Things  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
     2.11.  Smart City  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
 

Pentikousis, et al.    Expires December 20, 2013                [Page 2]
INTERNET DRAFT           ICN Baseline Scenarios            June 18, 2013

     2.12.  Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
   3.  Evaluation Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
     3.1.  ICN Simulators and Testbeds  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
       3.1.1.  CCN and NDN  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
       3.1.2.  Publish/Subscribe Internet Architecture  . . . . . . . 27
       3.1.3.  NetInf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
       3.1.4.  Large-scale Testing  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
     3.2.  Topology Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
     3.3.  Traffic Load . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
     3.4.  Choosing Relevant Metrics  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
       3.4.1.  Traffic Metrics  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
       3.4.2.  System Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
     3.5.  Resource Equivalence and Tradeoffs . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
     3.6.  Technology Evolution Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
   4.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
   5.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
   6.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
   7.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

1.  Introduction

   Information-centric networking (ICN) marks a fundamental shift in
   communications and networking.  In contrast with the omnipresent and
   very successful host-centric paradigm, which is based on perpetual
   connectivity and the end-to-end principle, ICN changes the focal
   point of the network architecture from the end host to "named
   information" (or content, or data).  In this paradigm, connectivity
   may well be intermittent.  End-host and in-network storage can be
   capitalized upon transparently, as bits in the network and on storage
   devices have exactly the same value.  Mobility and multiaccess are
   the norm.  Any-, multi-, and broadcasting are supported by default,
   and energy efficiency is a 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 development phase that ICN is going through and the
   plethora of approaches to tackle the hardest problems make this a
   very active and growing research area but, on the downside, it also
   makes it more difficult to compare different proposals on an equal
   footing. This document aims to address this by establishing a common
   understanding about potential experimental setups where different ICN
   approaches can be tested and compared against each other while
   showcasing their advantages.
 

Pentikousis, et al.    Expires December 20, 2013                [Page 3]
INTERNET DRAFT           ICN Baseline Scenarios            June 18, 2013

   Ahlgren et al. note [SoA] that describing ICN architectures is akin
   to shooting a moving target.  We find that comparing these different
   approaches is often even more tricky.  It is not uncommon that
   researchers devise different performance evaluation scenarios,
   typically with good reason, in order to highlight the advantages of
   their approach.  This should be expected to some degree at this early
   stage of development.  Nevertheless, we argue that certain scenarios
   seem to emerge where ICN architectures could showcase their
   superiority over current systems, in general, and against each other,
   in particular. In Section 2 we review several scenarios from the
   published ICN literature and use them as a 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.  For example, this revision adds scenarios stemming from
   recent work exploring "Vehicular Networking" in ICN.

   Section 3 of this document is a first outline of the key elements
   that should be considered in an ICN evaluation.

2.  Toward 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.  There are two goals for this section. First,
   to provide a set of use cases and applications that highlight
   opportunities for testing different ICN proposals. Second, to
   identify key attributes of a common set of techniques that can be
   instrumental in evaluating ICN. As such, the overall aim is that each
   scenario is 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,
   topologies, specifications of traffic mixes and traffic loads.  These
   specifications (or configurations) should preferably come as sets
   that describe extremes as well as "typical" usage scenarios.

2.1.  Social Networking

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

 

Pentikousis, et al.    Expires December 20, 2013                [Page 4]
INTERNET DRAFT           ICN Baseline Scenarios            June 18, 2013

   Mathieu et al. [ICN-SN], for instance, illustrate how an Internet
   Service Provider (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 network.

   Along similar lines, Kim et al. [VPC] present an ICN-based social
   networking platform in which a user shares content with her/his
   family and friends without the need for centralized content server;
   see also section 2.4, below, and [CBIS].  Based on the CCN naming
   scheme, [VPC] takes a user name to represent a set of devices that
   belong to the person.  Other users in this in-network, serverless
   social sharing scenario can access the user's content not via a
   device name/address but with the user's name.  In [VPC], signature
   verification does not require any centralized authentication server. 
   Kim and Lee [VPC2] present a proof-of-concept evaluation in which
   users with ordinary smartphones can browse a list of members or
   content using a name, and download the content selected from the
   list.

   In short, 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 in a hub-and-
   spoke fashion.

   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  network topology (redrawn in Fig. 1 for convenience) that has
   certain interesting characteristics, they do not explicitly address
   social networking in their evaluation scenario.  Nonetheless,
   similarities are easy to spot: "followers" (such as C0, C1, ..., and
   Cz in Fig. 1) obtain content put "on the network" (I1, ..., Im, and
   B1, B2) by a single user (e.g. Px) relying solely on network
   primitives.

   In summary, the social networking scenario aims to exercise each ICN
   architecture in terms of network efficiency, multicast support,
   caching performance and its reliance on centralized mechanisms (or
   lack thereof).

 

Pentikousis, et al.    Expires December 20, 2013                [Page 5]
INTERNET DRAFT           ICN Baseline Scenarios            June 18, 2013

   \--/
   |C0| 
   /--\     +--+     +--+     +--+               +--+ 
       *=== |I0| === |I1| ... |In|               |P0|
   \--/     +--+     +--+     +--+               +--+ 
   |C1|                           \             / o
   /--\                            +--+     +--+  o
    o                              |B1| === |B2|  o
    o              o o o o         +--+     +--+  o
    o                             /             \ o  
    o       +--+     +--+     +--+                +--+ 
    o  *=== |Ik| === |Il| ... |Im|                |Px|
   \--/     +--+     +--+     +--+                +--+ 
   |Cz|
   /--\

   Figure 1.  Dumbbell with linear daisy chains  

2.2.  Real-time Communication

   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 support ranging from whiteboards to augmented
   reality.  Real-time communications have been studied and deployed 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.  Some
   would argue that network primitives which are excellent for
   information dissemination are not well-suited for conversational
   services.

   Notably,  Jacobson et al. [VoCCN] presented an early evaluation where
   the performance of a VoIP (voice over IP) call using 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 experimental setup presented is quite rudimentary, while
   the evaluation considered a single voice call only.  This scenario
   does, nonetheless, illustrate that quality telephony services are
   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
 

Pentikousis, et al.    Expires December 20, 2013                [Page 6]
INTERNET DRAFT           ICN Baseline Scenarios            June 18, 2013

   ICN approach should demonstrate capabilities beyond feasibility.  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, discovery
   of speakers 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. 
   This type of work points to benefits both in the data path and the
   control path of a modern network infrastructure.

   Real-time communication also brings up the issue of named data
   granularity for dynamically generated content.  For instance, today
   in many cases A/V data is generated in real-time and distributed
   immediately.  One possibility is to apply a single name to the entire
   content, but this could result in significant distribution delays. 
   Alternatively, distributing the content in smaller "chunks" which are
   named individually may be a better option with respect to real-time
   distribution but raises naming scalability concerns.

   We observe that, all in all, the ICN research community has hitherto
   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.  Arguably, more work is needed in this
   direction.

   In short, scenarios in this category should illustrate not only
   feasibility but reduced complexity, increased scalability,
   reliability, and capacity to meet stringent QoS/QoE requirements when
   compared to established host-centric solutions. Primarily, this
   scenario aims to therefore exercise each ICN architecture in terms of
   its ability to satisfy real-time QoS requirements and improved user
   experience.

2.3.  Mobile Networking

   IP mobility management relies on 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 a continuous network presence for hosts [SCES].  An
   implicit assumption in host-centric mobility management is therefore
   that the mobile node aims to connect to a particular peer, as well as
   to maintain global reachability and service continuity [EEMN]. 
   However, with ICN new ideas about mobility management should come to
   the fore capitalizing on the different nature of the paradigm. For
 

Pentikousis, et al.    Expires December 20, 2013                [Page 7]
INTERNET DRAFT           ICN Baseline Scenarios            June 18, 2013

   example, one could exploit the ability of nodes to better express
   their intended use of the network, i.e., the retrieval of a small
   subset of the global data corpus as discussed in [MOBSURV].

   Dannewitz et al. [N-Scen], illustrate a scenario where a multiaccess
   end-host can retrieve email securely using a combination of cellular
   and wireless local area network (WLAN) 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., her mailbox)
   and does point to reduced 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).  Similar considerations hold for a
   vehicular environment, as we discuss in subsection 2.6.

   Overall, mobile networking scenarios have not been developed in
   detail, let alone evaluated at a large scale.  Further, the majority
   of scenarios discussed so far have related to information consumer,
   rather than source, mobility.  We expect that in the coming period
   more papers will address this topic.  Earlier work [mNetInf] argues
   that for mobile and multiaccess networking scenarios we need to go
   beyond the current mobility management mechanisms in order to
   capitalize on the core ICN features.  They present a testbed setup
   (redrawn in Fig. 2) which can serve as the basis for other ICN
   evaluations.  Lindgren [HybICN] explores this scenario further using
   simulation for an urban setting and reports sizable gains in terms of
   reduction of object retrieval times and core network capacity use.

   The benefits from capitalizing on the broadcast nature of wireless
   access technologies has yet to be explored to its full potential in
   the ICN literature, including the possible gains in terms of energy
   efficiency [COMCOM]. Obvioulsy, ICN architectures must avoid
   broadcast storms. Early work in this area considers distributed
   packet suppression techniques which exploit delayed transmissions and
   overhearing; examples can be found in [MobiA] and [WDays] for ICN-
   based mobile ad-hoc networks (MANETs), and in [WAK] and [ACMV] for
   vehicular scenarios.

   One would expect that mobile networking scenarios will be naturally
   coupled with those discussed in the previous sections, as more users
   access social networking and multimedia applications through mobile
   devices.  Further, the constraints of real-time A/V applications
 

Pentikousis, et al.    Expires December 20, 2013                [Page 8]
INTERNET DRAFT           ICN Baseline Scenarios            June 18, 2013

   create interesting challenges in handling mobility, particularly in
   terms of maintaining service continuity. This scenario therefore
   spans across most of the others considered in this document with the
   likely need for some level of integration, particularly considering
   the well-documented increases in mobile traffic. Mobility is also
   considered in subsection 2.9.

   +-----------+      +-----------+
   | Network 0 |      | Network C |
   |           |      |           |
   | +--+      | ==== |    +--+   |
   | |I2|      |      |    |P1|   |
   | +--+      |      |    +--+   |
   |     \--/  |      |           |
   +-----|C0|--+      |           |
   |     /--\  |      |           |
   | +--+      |      |           |
   | |I3|      |      |      +--+ |
   | +--+      | ==== |      |P2| |
   |           |      |      +--+ |
   | Network 1 |      |           |
   +-----------+      +-----------+

   Figure 2.  Overlapping wireless multiaccess

   To summarize, mobile networking scenarios should aim to provide
   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. Beyond this, mobile networking
   scenarios should form a cross-scenario platform that can highlight
   how other scenarios can still maintain their respective performance
   metrics during periods of high mobility.

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 on 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" of obtaining information are new degrees of freedom.  They
 

Pentikousis, et al.    Expires December 20, 2013                [Page 9]
INTERNET DRAFT           ICN Baseline Scenarios            June 18, 2013

   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. 

   Carofiglio et al. [SHARE], for instance, also present early work on
   an analytical framework that attempts to capture the
   storage/bandwidth tradeoffs that ICN enables and can be used as
   foundation for a network planning tool.  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 papers also sit alongside a variety of other
   studies that look at various scenarios such as caching HTTP-like
   traffic [L9] and BitTorrent-like traffic [BTCACHE].  We observe that
   much more work is needed in order to understand better how to use
   optimally all resources available in an information-centric network. 
   In real-world deployments, policy and commercial considerations are
   also likely to affect the use of particular resources and more work
   is expected in this direction as well.

   In conclusion, scenarios in this category, would cover the
   communication/computation/storage tradeoffs that an ICN deployment
   must consider. This would exercise features relating to network
   planning, perhaps capitalizing on user-provided resources, as well as
   operational and economical aspects to illustrate the superiority of
   ICN over other approaches. An obvious baseline to compare against in
   this regard is existing 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.  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.

   Decentralized content dissemination with on-the-fly aggregation of
   information sources was envisaged in [N-Scen], where information
 

Pentikousis, et al.    Expires December 20, 2013               [Page 10]
INTERNET DRAFT           ICN Baseline Scenarios            June 18, 2013

   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 can
   all be obtained from different sources.  Using the topology depicted
   in Fig. 1 as an example, an application at C1 may end up obtaining,
   say, the video content from I1, but the user-selected subtitles from
   Px.  Semantics and content negotiation, on behalf of the user, were
   also considered, e.g., for the case of popular tunes which may be
   available in different encoding formats.  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.

   A case in point for content dissemination are vehicular ad-hoc
   networks (VANETs), as an ICN approach may address their needs for
   information dissemination between vehicles better than today's
   solutions, as discussed in the following subsection.  The critical
   part of information dissemination in a VANET scenario revolves around
   "where" and "when".  For instance, one may be interested in traffic
   conditions 2 km ahead while having no interest in similar information
   about the area around the path origin.  VANET scenarios may provide
   fertile ground for showcasing the ICN advantage with respect to
   content dissemination especially when compared with current host-
   centric approaches.  That said, information integrity and filtering
   are challenges that must be addressed. As mentioned earlier, content
   dissemination scenarios in VANETs have a particular affinity to the
   mobility scenarios discussed earlier.

   Content dissemination scenarios, in general, have a large overlap
   with those described in the previous sections and are explored in
   several papers, such as [DONA] [PSI] [PSIMob] [NetInf] [CCN] [CBIS]
   [CCR], just to name a few.  In addition, Chai et al. [CURLING]
   present a hop-by-hop hierarchical content resolution approach, which
   employs receiver-driven multicast over multiple domains, advocating
   another content dissemination approach.  Yet, largely, work in this
   area did not address the issue of access authorization in detail. 
   Often the distributed content is mostly assumed to be freely
   accessible by any consumer. Distribution of paid-for or otherwise
   restricted content on a public ICN network requires more attention in
   the future.  Fotiou et al. [ACDICN] consider a scheme to this effect
   but it still requires access to an authorization server to verify the
   user's status after they have obtained the (encrypted) content.  This
   may effectively negate the advantage of obtaining the content from
   any node, especially in a disruption-prone or mobile network.   

   In summary, scenarios in this category aim to exercise primarily
   scalability, cost and performance attributes of content
   dissemination. Particularly, they should highlight the ability of an
 

Pentikousis, et al.    Expires December 20, 2013               [Page 11]
INTERNET DRAFT           ICN Baseline Scenarios            June 18, 2013

   ICN to scale to billions of objects, while not exceeding the cost of
   existing content dissemination solutions (i.e., CDNs) and, ideally,
   increasing performance. These should be shown in a holistic manner,
   improving content dissemination for both information consumers and
   publishers of all sizes. We expect that in particular for content
   dissemination both extreme as well as typical scenarios can be
   specified drawing data from current CDN deployments.

2.6.  Vehicular Networking

   Users "on wheels" are interested in road safety, traffic efficiency,
   and infotainment applications that can be supported through vehicle-
   to-vehicle (V2V) and vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I) wireless
   communications. These applications exhibit unique features in terms
   of traffic generation patterns, delivery requirements, spatial and
   temporal scope, which pose great challenges to traditional networking
   solutions. VANETs, by their nature, are characterized by fast-
   changing topology, intermittent connectivity, high node mobility, but
   also the possibility to combine information from different sources as
   each vehicle does not care about "who" delivers the named data
   objects.

   ICN is an attractive candidate solution for vehicular networking, as
   it has several advantages. First, ICN fits well to the nature of
   typical vehicular applications that are location- and time-dependent
   (e.g., road traveler information, collision warning, point-of-
   interest advertisements) and usually target vehicles in a given area,
   regardless of their identity or IP address. These applications are
   likely to benefit from in-network and decentralized data caching and
   replication mechanisms.  Second, content caching is particularly
   beneficial for intermittent on-the-road connectivity and can speed up
   data retrieval through content replication in several nodes. Caching
   can usually be implemented at relatively low cost in vehicles as the
   energy demands of the ICN device are likely to be a negligible
   fraction of the total vehicle energy consumption, thus allowing for
   sophisticated processing, continuous communication and adequate
   storage in the vehicle. Finally, ICN natively supports asynchronous
   data exchange between end-nodes. By using (and redistributing) cached
   named information objects, a mobile node can serve as a link between
   disconnected areas. In short, ICN can enable communication even under
   intermittent network connectivity, which is typical of vehicular
   environments with sparse roadside infrastructure and fast moving
   nodes.

   The advantages of ICN in vehicular networks were preliminarily
   discussed in [EWC] and [DMND], and additionally investigated in
   [NOMEN][WAK][DIVA][DIVA2][ACMV][CRoWN]. For example, Bai and
 

Pentikousis, et al.    Expires December 20, 2013               [Page 12]
INTERNET DRAFT           ICN Baseline Scenarios            June 18, 2013

   Krishnamachari [EWC] take advantage of the localized and dynamic
   nature of a VANET to explore how a road congestion notification
   application can be implemented. Wang et al. [DMND] consider data
   collection where Road-Site Units (RSUs) collect information from
   vehicles by broadcasting NDN-like INTEREST packets. The proposed
   architecture is evaluated using simulation in a grid topology, and is
   compared against a host-centric alternative based on Mobile IP
   indicating high efficiency even at high speeds. That said, the
   authors point out that as this work is a preliminary exploration of
   ICN in vehicular environments, many issues remain to be evaluated,
   such as the scalability to large numbers of vehicles and the impact
   of vehicles forwarding Interests and relaying data for other
   vehicles.

   As mentioned in the previous section, due to the short sojourn time
   between a vehicle and the RSU and the short time of sustained
   connectivity between vehicles, VANET may be a good showcase for the
   ICN advantages with respect to content dissemination. In [NOMEN] Wang
   et al. analyze the advantages of hierarchical naming for vehicular
   traffic information dissemination. Arnould et al. [DIVA] apply ICN
   principles to safety information dissemination between vehicles with
   multiple radio interfaces. In [DIVA2], TalebiFard and Leung use
   network coding techniques to improve content dissemination over
   multiple ICN paths. Amadeo et al. [ACMV][[CRoWN] propose an
   application-independent ICN framework for content retrieval and
   distribution where the role of providers can be indifferently played
   by vehicles and RSUs. ICN forwarding is extended through path-state
   information carried in Interest and Data packets, stored in a new
   data structure kept by vehicular nodes, and exploited also to cope
   with node mobility.

   Typical scenarios for testing content distribution in VANETs may be
   highways with vehicles moving in straight lines and with or without
   RSUs along the road. With a ICN/NDN approach in mind, for example,
   RSUs may send Interests to collect data from vehicles [DMND], or
   vehicles may send Interests to collect data from other peers [WAK] or
   from the RSUs [ACMV]. Fig. 2 could apply to content dissemination in
   VANET scenarios where C0 represents a vehicle which can obtain named
   information objects via multiple wireless peers and/or RSUs (I2 and
   I3 in the figure). Also grid topologies can be considered in a urban
   scenario with RSUs at the crossroads or co-located with traffic
   lights as in [CRoWN].

   To summarize, VANET scenarios aim to exercise ICN deployment from
   various perspectives, including scalability, caching, transport, and
   mobility issues. There is a need for further investigation (i) in
   more challenging scenarios (e.g., disconnected segments); (ii) when
   considering both consumer and provider mobility; (iii) designing
 

Pentikousis, et al.    Expires December 20, 2013               [Page 13]
INTERNET DRAFT           ICN Baseline Scenarios            June 18, 2013

   smart caching techniques accounting for node mobility patterns,
   spatial- and time- relevance and popularity of content, and also
   social relationships between users/cars; (iv) identification of new
   applications (beyond data dissemination and traffic monitoring) that
   could benefit of the ICN paradigm in vehicular networks (e.g., mobile
   cloud, social networking).

2.7.  Network Interaction

   As ICN shifts the focus from nodes to information objects, the
   interaction between networks evolves to capitalize on data location
   independence, efficient and scalable in-network named object
   availability and multi-access functionality.  These interactions
   become critical in evaluating the technical and economic impact of
   ICN architectural choices, as noted in [ArgICN].  Additional
   challenges are presented by the emergence of new types of networks,
   such as Small Cell Networks (SCN), Heterogeneous Networks (HetNet)
   and virtual/overlay networks.  Beyond simply adding diversity in
   deployment options, these networks have the potential to alter the
   incentives among existing, and future, we may add, network players,
   as noted in [EconICN].

   Moreover, such networks enable more numerous inter-network
   relationships where exchange of information may be conditioned on a
   set of multilateral policies.  For example, shared SCNs are emerging
   as a cost-effective way to address coverage of complex environments
   such as sports stadiums, large office buildings, malls, etc. [OptSC]
   [FEMTO].  Such networks are likely to be a complex mix of different
   cellular and WLAN access technologies (such as HSPA, LTE, and Wi-Fi)
   as well as ownership models.  It is reasonable to assume that access
   to content generated in such networks may depend on contextual
   information such as the subscription type, timing, and location of
   both the owner and requestor of the content.  The availability of
   such contextual information across diverse networks can lead to
   network inefficiencies and data management issues that can benefit
   from an information-centric approach.

   Jacobson et al. [CCN] include interactions between networks in their
   overall system design, and mention both "an edge-driven, bottom-up
   incentive structure" and techniques based on evolutions of existing
   mechanisms both for ICN router discovery by the end-user and for
   interconnecting between autonomous systems (AS).  For example, a BGP
   extension for domain-level content prefix advertisement can be used
   to enable efficient interconnection between AS's.  Liu et al. [MLDHT]
   proposed to address the "suffix-hole" issue found in prefix-based
   name aggregation through the use of a combination of bloom-filter
   based aggregation and multi-level DHT.
 

Pentikousis, et al.    Expires December 20, 2013               [Page 14]
INTERNET DRAFT           ICN Baseline Scenarios            June 18, 2013

   Name aggregation has been discussed for a flat naming design as well
   in [NCOA], which also notes that based on estimations in [DONA] flat
   naming may not require aggregation.  This is a point that calls for
   further study.  Scenarios evaluating name aggregation, or lack
   thereof, should take into account the amount of state (e.g. size of
   routing tables) maintained in edge routers as well as network
   efficiency (e.g. amount of traffic generated).

   DiBenedetto et al. [RP-NDN] study policy knobs made available by NDN
   to network operators.  New policies, which are not feasible in the
   current Internet are described, including a "cache sharing peers"
   policy, where two peers have an incentive to share content cached in,
   but not originating from, their respective network.  The simple
   example used in the investigation considers several networks and
   associated transit costs, as shown in Fig. 3. (based on Fig. 1 of
   [RP-NDN]).  Agyapong and Sirbu [EconICN] further establish that ICN
   approaches should incorporate features that foster (new) business
   relationships.  For example, publishers should be able to indicate
   their willingness to partake in the caching market, proper reporting
   should be enabled to avoid fraud, and content should be made
   cacheable as much as possible to increase cache hit ratios.

                 +---------------+
     +---------->| Popular Video |
     |           +---------------+
     |             ^           ^
     |             |           |
     |           +-+-+ $0/MB +-+-+
     |           | A +-------+ B |
     |           ++--+       +-+-+
     |            | ^         ^ |
     |      $8/MB | |         | | $10/MB
     |            v |         | v
   +-+-+  $0/MB  +--+---------+--+
   | D +---------+       C       |
   +---+         +---------------+

   Figure 3.  Relationships and transit costs between networks A to D

   Ahlgren et al. [SAIL-B3] enable network interactions in the NetInf
   architecture using a name resolution service at domain edge routers,
   and a BGP-like routing system in the NetInf Default Free Zone.
   Business models and incentives are studied in [SAIL-A7] and [SAIL-
   A8], including scenarios where the access network provider (or a
   virtual CDN) guarantees QoS to end users using ICN.  Fig. 4
   illustrates a typical scenario topology from this work which involves
   an interconnectivity provider.

 

Pentikousis, et al.    Expires December 20, 2013               [Page 15]
INTERNET DRAFT           ICN Baseline Scenarios            June 18, 2013

   +----------+     +-----------------+     +------+
   | Content  |     | Access Network/ |     | End  |
   | Provider +---->|  ICN Provider   +---->| User |
   +----------+     +-+-------------+-+     +------+
                      |             |
                      |             |
                      v             v
   +-------------------+     +----------------+       +------+
   | Interconnectivity |     | Access Network |       | End  |
   |     Provider      +---->|     Provider   +------>| User |
   +-------------------+     +----------------+       +------+

   Figure 4.  Setup and operating costs of network entities

   Jokela et al. [LIPSIN] propose a two-layer approach where additional
   rendezvous systems and topology formation functions are placed
   logically above multiple networks and enable advertising and routing
   content between them.  Visala et al. [LANES] further describe an ICN
   architecture based on similar principles; notably, it relies on a
   hierarchical DHT-based rendezvous interconnect.  Rajahalme et al.
   [PSIRP1] describe a rendezvous system using both a BGP-like routing
   protocol at the edge and a DHT-based overlay at the core.  Their
   evaluation model is centered around policy-compliant path stretch,
   latency introduced by overlay routing, caching efficacy, and overlay
   routing node load distribution.

   Rajahalme et al. [ICCP] point out that ICN architectural changes may
   conflict with the current tier-based peering model.  For example,
   changes leading to shorter paths between ISPs are likely to meet
   resistance from Tier-1 ISPs.  Rajahalme [IDMcast] shows how
   incentives can help shape the design of specific ICN aspects, and in
   [IDArch] he presents a modeling approach to exploit these incentives,
   which includes a network model describing the relationship between AS
   based on data inferred from the current Internet, a traffic model
   taking into account business factors for each AS, and a routing model
   integrating the valley-free model and policy-compliance.  A typical
   scenario topology is illustrated in Fig. 5, redrawn here based on
   Fig. 1 of [ICCP].  Note that it relates well with the topology
   illustrated in Fig. 1 of this document.

   To sum up, the evaluation of ICN architectures across multiple
   network types should include a combination of technical and economic
   aspects, capturing their various interactions.  These scenarios aim
   to illustrate scalability, efficiency and manageability, as well as
   traditional and novel network policies.   Moreover, scenarios in this
   category should specifically address how different actors have proper
   incentives, not only in a pure ICN realm, but also during the
   migration phase towards this final state.
 

Pentikousis, et al.    Expires December 20, 2013               [Page 16]
INTERNET DRAFT           ICN Baseline Scenarios            June 18, 2013

                        +-----+
                  ------+  J  +------
                  |     +--+--+     |
                  |        *        |
               +--+--+     *     +--+--+
               |  H  +-----------+  I  | 
             **+-----+ **  *  ** +-----+*** 
            *            * * *             *
            *            * * *             *
         +--+--+        ++-+-++         +--+--+
         |  E  +--------+  F  +---------+  G  +   
       **+-----+***     +-----+       **+-----+**  
      *            *                 *           *
      *            *                 *           *
   +--+--+      +--+--+           +--+--+     +--+--+
   |  A  |      |  B  +-----------+  C  |     |  D  |
   +-----+      +--+--+           +--+--+     +----++
                   |                 |         ^^  | route
             data  |            data |    data ||  | to
                   v                 v         ||  v data
                +----+            +----+      +++--+
                |User|            |User|      |Data|
                +----+            +----+      +----+

   Legend:
   +***+  Transit link
   +---+  Peering link
   +--->  Data delivery or route to data

   Figure 5.  Tier-based set of interconnections between AS A to J

2.8.  Energy Efficiency

   As mentioned earlier, energy efficiency can be tackled by different
   ICN approaches in ways that it cannot in a host-centric paradigm.  We
   already mentioned that in ICN perpetual (always-on) connectivity is
   not necessary, therefore mechanisms that capitalize on powering down
   network interfaces are easier to accommodate.  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.

   A simple example of a potential energy-saving operation is caching.
   If a data object can be retrieved from within a network, rather than
   from a distant origin server, clearly, large amounts of energy
   expenditure can be saved by avoiding several further hops.
   Alternatively, approaches that aim to simplify routers [PURSUIT]
 

Pentikousis, et al.    Expires December 20, 2013               [Page 17]
INTERNET DRAFT           ICN Baseline Scenarios            June 18, 2013

   could also reduce energy consumption by pushing routing decisions
   into more energy-efficient data centers.

   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. 

2.9.  Delay- and Disruption-Tolerance

   Delay- and Disruption-Tolerant Networking (DTN) [DTN] [DTNICN]
   originated as a means to extend the Internet to interplanetary
   communications.  However, it was subsequently found to be an
   appropriate architecture for many terrestrial situations as well. 
   Typically, this was where delays were greater than protocols such as
   TCP could handle, and where disruptions to communications were the
   norm rather than occasional annoyances (e.g. where an end-to-end path
   does not necessarily exist when communication is initiated).  DTN has
   now been applied to many situations, including opportunistic content
   sharing, handling infrastructural issues during emergency situations
   (e.g., earthquakes) and providing connectivity to remote rural areas
   without existing Internet provision and little or no communications
   or power infrastructure.

   The DTN architecture [RFC4838] is based on a "store, carry and
   forward" paradigm that has been applied extensively to situations
   where data is carried between network nodes by a "data mule", which
   carries bundles of data stored in some convenient storage medium
   (e.g., a USB memory stick).  With the advent of sensor and peer-to-
   peer (P2P) networks between mobile nodes, DTN is becoming a more
   commonplace type of networking than originally envisioned.  Since ICN
   also does not rely on the familiar end-to-end communications
   paradigm, there are, thus, clear synergies [DTN].  First, both
   approaches rely on in-network storage.  Second, both approaches
   espouse late binding of names to locations and, third, both
   approaches treat data as a long-term component that can exist in the
   network for extended periods of time.

   Through these similarities, it becomes possible to identify many DTN
   principles that are already in existence within ICN architectures. 
   For example, ICN nodes will often retain publications locally, making
   them accessible later on, much as DTN bundles are handled. 
   Consequently, these synergies suggest strong potential for marrying
   the two technologies.  This, for instance, could include building new
   integrated Information-Centric Delay Tolerant Network (ICDTN)
   protocols or, alternatively, building ICN schemes over existing DTN
   protocols (or vice versa).
 

Pentikousis, et al.    Expires December 20, 2013               [Page 18]
INTERNET DRAFT           ICN Baseline Scenarios            June 18, 2013

   The above similarities suggest that integration of the two principles
   would be certainly feasible. Beyond this, there are also a number of
   direct benefits identifiable. Through caching and replication, ICN
   offers strong information resilience, whilst, through store-and-
   forward, DTN offers strong connectivity resilience. As such, both
   architectures could benefit greatly from each other. Initial steps
   have already been taken in the DTN community to integrate ICN
   principles, e.g., the Bundle Protocol Query Block [BPQ] has been
   added to the DTN Bundle Protocol [RFC5050]. Whilst, similarly,
   initial steps have also been taken in the ICN community, such as
   [SLINKY]. In fact, the SAIL project has recently developed a
   prototype implementation of NetInf running over the DTN Bundle
   Protocol.

   A key baseline scenario in this context is opportunistic content
   sharing.  This occurs when mobile nodes create opportunistic links
   between each other to share content of interest.  For example, this
   might occur on an underground train, in which people pass news items
   between their mobile phones.  Equally, content generated on the
   phones (e.g. tweets [TWIMIGHT]) could be stored for later forwarding
   (or even forwarded amongst interested passengers on the train).
   Another key example of what is essentially the same scenario is use
   in emergency and disaster situations where the local infrastructure
   has either been destroyed or is otherwise inaccessible to first
   responders.  Being able to exchange and cache information without the
   need for any installed infrastructure could greatly improve the
   effectiveness of emergency responders.  These kind of scenarios bode
   well with those introduced earlier in Section 2.4 about (re)defining
   what "infrastructure" may mean in practice in an information-centric
   network.

   Especially in the context of the scenarios discussed above, it is of
   clear interest to evaluate different ICN approaches with respect both
   to their delay- and disruption-tolerance, i.e., how effective is the
   approach when used in a delay tolerant network situation; and to
   their active support for operations in a DTN environment.  Important
   aspects to be evaluated in support of this application 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; long-term
   content availability (or resilience); efficiency in the face of
   disruption, and so on.

   To assist in this evaluation, within the DTN community, a number of
   important contact traces have emerged as de-facto evaluative tools.
   They include Haggle's INFOCOM traces and MIT's Reality Mining.
   Typically, these are used with the Opportunistic Network Environment
   (ONE) simulator [ONE] to evaluate the above types of metrics.  Based
 

Pentikousis, et al.    Expires December 20, 2013               [Page 19]
INTERNET DRAFT           ICN Baseline Scenarios            June 18, 2013

   on this, and with proper extensions, a strong platform for evaluating
   the delay and disruption tolerance properties of different ICN
   approaches could be developed.

   In summary, the key evaluative metric that DTN scenarios aim to
   exercise is resilience. This, on the one hand, includes connectivity
   resilience as offered currently in the DTN community (via store-and-
   forward) as well as information resilience that can be offered
   through ICN's use of caching and replication.

2.10.  Internet of Things

   Advances in electronics miniaturization combined with low-power
   wireless access technologies (e.g., ZigBee, NFC, Bluetooth and
   others) have enabled the coupling of interconnected digital services
   with everyday objects.  As devices with sensors and actuators connect
   into the network, they become "smart objects" and form the foundation
   for the so-called Internet of Things (IoT).  IoT is expected to
   increase significantly the amount of content carried by the network
   due to machine-to-machine (M2M) communication as well as novel user
   interaction possibilities.

   Yet, the full potential of IoT does not lie on simple remote access
   to smart object data.  Instead, it is the intersection of Internet
   services with the physical world that will bring about the most
   dramatic changes.  Burke [IoTEx], for instance, makes a very good
   case for creating everyday experiences using interconnected things
   through participatory sensing applications.  In this case, inherent
   ICN capabilities for data discovery, caching, and trusted
   communication are leveraged to obtain sensor information and enable
   content exchange between mobile users, repositories, and
   applications.

   Kutscher and Farrell [IWMT] discuss the benefits that ICN can provide
   in these environments in terms of naming, caching, and optimized
   transport.  The Named Information URI scheme (ni) [RFC6920] could be
   used for globally unique smart object identification, although an
   actual implementation report is not currently available.  Access to
   information generated by smart objects can be of varied nature and
   often vital for the correct operation of large systems.  As such,
   supporting timestamping, security, scalability, and flexibility need
   to be taken into account.

   Ghodsi et al. [NCOA] examine hierarchical and self-certifying naming
   schemes and point out that ensuring reliable and secure content
   naming and retrieval may pose stringent requirements (e.g., the
   necessity for employing PKI), which can be too demanding for low-
 

Pentikousis, et al.    Expires December 20, 2013               [Page 20]
INTERNET DRAFT           ICN Baseline Scenarios            June 18, 2013

   powered nodes, such as sensors.  That said, earlier work by Heidemann
   et al. [nWSN] shows that, for dense sensor network deployments,
   disassociating sensor naming from network topology and using named
   content at the lowest level of communication in combination with in-
   network processing of sensor data is feasible in practice and can be
   more efficient than employing a host-centric binding between node
   locator and the content existing therein.

   Burke et al. [NDNl] describe the implementation of a lighting control
   building automation system where the security, naming and device
   discovery NDN mechanisms are leveraged to provide configuration,
   installation and management of residential and industrial lighting
   control systems.  The goal is an inherently resilient system, where
   even smartphones can be used for control. Naming reflects fixtures
   with evolved identification and node reaching capabilities thus
   simplifying bootstrapping, discovery, and user interaction with
   nodes.  The authors report that this ICN-based system requires less
   maintenance and troubleshooting than typical IP-based alternatives.

   IoT exposes ICN concepts to a stringent set of requirements which are
   exacerbated by the amount of nodes, as well as by the type and volume
   of information that must be handled.  A way to address this is
   proposed in [IoTScope], which tackles the problem of mapping named
   information to an object, diverting from the currently typical
   centralized discovery of services and leveraging the intrinsic ICN
   scalability capabilities for naming.  It extends the base [PURSUIT]
   design with hierarchically-based scopes, facilitating lookup, access,
   and modifications of only the part of the object information that the
   user is interested in.  Another important aspect is how to
   efficiently address resolution and location of the information
   objects, particularly when large numbers of nodes are connected, as
   in IoT deployments.  In [ICN-DHT], Katsaros et al. propose a
   Distributed Hash Table (DHT) which is compared with DONA [DONA]. 
   Their results show how topological routing information has a positive
   impact on resolution, at the expense of memory and processing
   overhead.

   The use of ICN mechanisms is IoT scenarios faces the most dynamic and
   heterogeneous type of challenges, when taking into consideration the
   requirements and objectives of such integration. The disparity in
   technologies (not only in access technologies, but also in terms of
   end-node diversity such as sensors, actuators and their
   characteristics) as well as in the information that is generated and
   consumed in such scenarios, will undoubtedly bring about many of the
   considerations presented in the previous sections. For instance, IoT
   shares similarities with the constraints and requirements applicable
   to vehicular networking.  Here, a central problem is the deployment
   of mechanisms that can use opportunistic connectivity in unreliable
 

Pentikousis, et al.    Expires December 20, 2013               [Page 21]
INTERNET DRAFT           ICN Baseline Scenarios            June 18, 2013

   networking environments (as in the vehicular and DTN scenarios).

   However, one important concern in IoT scenarios, also motivated by
   this strongly heterogeneous environment, is how content dissemination
   will be affected by the different semantics of the disparate
   information and content being shared. In fact, this is already a
   difficult problem that goes beyond the scope of ICN [SEMANT]. With
   the ability of the network nodes to cache forwarded information to
   improve future requests, a challenge arises regarding whether the ICN
   fabric should be involved in any kind of procedure (e.g., tagging)
   that facilitates the relationship or the interpretation of the
   different sources of information.

   Another issue lies with the need for having energy-efficiency
   mechanisms related to the networking capabilities of IoT
   infrastructures. Often, the devices in IoT deployments have limited
   battery capabilities, and thus need low power consumption schemes
   working at multiple levels. In principle, energy efficiency gains
   should be observed from the inherent in-network caching capability.
   However, this might not be the most usual case in IoT scenarios,
   where the information (particularly from sensors, or controlling
   actuators) is more akin to real-time traffic, thus reducing the scale
   of potential savings due to ubiquitous in-network caching.

   ICN approaches, therefore, should be evaluated with respect to their
   capacity to handle the content produced and consumed by extremely
   large numbers of diverse devices.  IoT scenarios aim to exercise ICN
   deployment from different aspects, including ICN node design
   requirements, efficient naming, transport, and caching of time-
   restricted data. Scalability is particularly important in this regard
   as the successful deployment of IoT principles could expand both
   device and content numbers dramatically beyond all current
   expectations.

2.11.  Smart City

   The rapid increase in urbanization sets the stage for the most
   compelling and challenging environments for networking.  By 2050 the
   global population will reach nine billion people, 75% of which will
   dwell in urban areas.  In order to cope with this influx, many cities
   around the world have started their transformation toward the Smart
   City vision.  Smart cities will be based on the following innovation
   axes: smart mobility, smart environment, smart people, smart living,
   and smart governance.  In development terms, the core goal of a smart
   city is to become a business-competitive and attractive environment,
   while serving citizen well being [CPG].

 

Pentikousis, et al.    Expires December 20, 2013               [Page 22]
INTERNET DRAFT           ICN Baseline Scenarios            June 18, 2013

   In a smart city, ICT plays a leading role and acts as the glue
   bringing together all actors, services, resources (and their
   interrelationships), that the urban environment is willing to host
   and provide [MVM].  ICN appears particularly suitable for these
   scenarios.  Domains of interest include intelligent transportation
   systems, energy networks, health care, A/V communications, peer-to-
   peer and collaborative platforms for citizens, social inclusion,
   active participation in public life, e-government, safety and
   security, sensor networks. Clearly, this scenario has close ties to
   the vision of IoT, discussed in the previous subsection, as well as
   vehicular networking.

   Nevertheless, the road to build a real information-centric digital
   ecosystem will be long and more coordinated effort is required to
   drive innovation in this domain.  We argue that smart city needs and
   ICN technologies can trigger a virtuous innovation cycle toward
   future ICT platforms.  Recent concrete ICN-based contributions have
   been formulated for home energy management [iHEMS], geo-localized
   services [ACC], smart city services [IB], and traffic information
   dissemination in vehicular scenarios [WAK].  Some of the proposed
   ICN-based solutions are implemented in real testbeds while others are
   evaluated through simulation.

   Zhang et al. [iHEMS] propose a secure publish-subscribe architecture
   for handling the communication requirements of Home Energy Management
   Systems (HEMS).  The objective is to safely and effectively collect
   measurement and status information from household elements, aggregate
   and analyze the data, and ultimately enable intelligent control
   decisions for actuation.  They consider a simple experimental test-
   bed for their proof-of-concept evaluation, exploiting open source
   code for the ICN implementation, and emulating some node
   functionality in order to facilitate system operation.

   A different scenario is considered in [ACC], where DHTs are employed 
   for distributed, scalable, and geographically-aware service lookup in
   a smart city.  Also in this case, the ICN application is validated by
   considering a small-scale testbed: a small number of nodes are
   realized with simple embedded PCs or specific hardware boards (e.g.,
   for some sensor nodes); other nodes realizing the network connecting
   the principal actors of the tests are emulated with workstations. 
   The proposal in [IB] draws from a smart city scenario (mainly
   oriented towards waste collection management) comprising sensors and
   moving vehicles, as well as a cloud computing system that supports
   data retrieval and storage operations.  The main aspects of this
   proposal are analyzed via simulation using open source code which is
   publicly available.  Some software applications are designed on real
   systems (e.g., PCs and smartphones).

 

Pentikousis, et al.    Expires December 20, 2013               [Page 23]
INTERNET DRAFT           ICN Baseline Scenarios            June 18, 2013

   To sum up, smart city scenarios aim to exercise several ICN aspects
   in an urban environment.  In particular, they can be useful to (i)
   analyze the capacity of using ICN for managing extremely large data
   sets; (ii) study ICN performance in terms of scalability in
   distributed services; (iii) verify the feasibility of ICN in a very
   complex application like vehicular communication systems; and (iv)
   examine the possible drawbacks related to privacy and security issues
   in complex networked environments.

2.12.  Summary

   We conclude Section 2 with a brief summary of the evaluation aspects
   we have seen across a range of scenarios.

   The scalability of different mechanisms in an ICN architecture stands
   out as an important concern (cf. subsections 2.1-2, 2.5-7, 2.10-11,)
   as does network, resource and energy efficiency (cf. subsections 2.1,
   2.3-4, 2.7-8).  Operational aspects such as network planing,
   manageability, reduced complexity and overhead (cf. subsection 2.2-4,
   2.7, 2.10) should not be neglected especially as ICN architectures
   are evaluated with respect to their potential for deployment in the
   real world. Accordingly, further research in economic aspects as well
   as in the communication, computation, and storage tradeoffs entailed
   in each ICN architecture is needed.

   With respect to purely technical requirements, support for multicast,
   mobility, and caching lie at the core of many scenarios (cf.
   subsections 2.1, 2.3, 2.5-6).  We have also seen that being able to
   address stringent QoS requirements and increase reliability and
   resilience should also be evaluated following well-established
   methods (cf. subsections 2.2, 2.9-10).

   Finally, we note that new applications that significantly improve the
   end user experience and forge a migration path from today's host-
   centric paradigm could be the key to a sustained and increasing
   deployment of the ICN paradigm in the real world (cf. subsections
   2.2-3, 2.6, 2.10-11).

3.  Evaluation Methodology

   As we have seen in the previous section, different ICN approaches
   have been evaluated in the peer-reviewed literature using a mixture
   of theoretical analysis, simulation and emulation techniques, and
   empirical (testbed) measurements.  These are all popular methods for
   evaluating network protocols, architectures, and services in the
   networking community.  Typically, researchers follow a specific
 

Pentikousis, et al.    Expires December 20, 2013               [Page 24]
INTERNET DRAFT           ICN Baseline Scenarios            June 18, 2013

   methodology based on the goal of their experiment, e.g., whether they
   want to evaluate scalability, quantify resource utilization, analyze
   economic incentives, and so on, as we have discussed earlier.  In
   addition, though, we observe that ease and convenience of setting up
   and running experiments can sometimes be a factor in published
   evaluations.

   It is worth pointing out that for well-established protocols, such as
   TCP, performance evaluation using actual network deployments has the
   benefit of realistic workloads and reflects the environment where the
   service or protocol will be deployed.  However, results obtained in
   this environment are often difficult to replicate independently.
   Beyond this, the difficulty of deploying future Internet
   architectures and then engaging sufficient users to make such
   evaluation realistic is often prohibitive.

   Moreover, for ICN in particular, it is not yet clear what qualifies
   as a "realistic workload".  As such, trace-based analysis of ICN is
   in its infancy, and more work is needed towards defining
   characteristic workloads for ICN evaluation studies. Accordingly, the
   experimental process itself as well as the evaluation methodology are
   being actively researched for ICN architectures.   Numerous factors
   affect the experimental results, including the topology selected, the
   background traffic that an application is being subjected to, network
   conditions such as available link capacities, link delays, and loss-
   rate characteristics throughout the selected topology; failure and
   disruption patterns; node mobility; as well as other aspects such as
   the diversity of devices used, and so on, as we explain in the
   remainder of this section.

   Apart from the technical evaluation of the functionality of an ICN
   architecture, its future success will be largely driven by its
   deployability and economic viability.  Thus any evaluation will also
   have to include an assessment of its incremental deployability in the
   existing network environment together with a view of how the
   technical functions will incentivize deployers to invest in the
   capabilities that allow the architecture to spread across the
   network.

   In this section, we present various techniques and considerations for
   evaluating different ICN architectures. At this stage, we do not
   intend to develop a complete methodology or a benchmarking tool.
   Instead, this document proposes key guidelines alongside suggested
   data sets and high-level approaches that we expect to be of interest
   to the ICN community as a whole. Through this, researchers and
   practitioners alike would be able to compare and contrast different
   ICN designs against each other, and identify the respective strengths
   and weaknesses. 
 

Pentikousis, et al.    Expires December 20, 2013               [Page 25]
INTERNET DRAFT           ICN Baseline Scenarios            June 18, 2013

3.1.  ICN Simulators and Testbeds

   Since ICN is still an emerging area, the community is still in the
   process of developing effective evaluation environments, including
   simulators, emulators, and testbeds.  To date, none of the available
   evaluation methodologies can be seen as the one and only community
   reference evaluation tool.  Furthermore, no single environment
   supports all well-known ICN approaches.  Simulators and emulators
   should be able to capture, faithfully, all features and operations of
   the respective ICN architecture(s).  It is also essential that these
   tools and environments come with adequate logging facilities so that
   one can use them for in-depth analysis as well as debugging. 
   Additional requirements include the ability to support mid- to large-
   scale experiments, the ability to quickly and correctly set various
   configurations and parameters, as well as to support the playback of
   traffic traces captured on a real testbed or network. Obviously, this
   does not even begin to touch upon the need for strong validation of
   any evaluated implementations.

   The rest of this subsection summarizes the ICN simulators and
   testbeds currently available to the community.

3.1.1.  CCN and NDN

   The CCN project has open-sourced a software reference implementation
   of the architecture and protocol called CCNx (www.ccnx.org). CCNx is
   available for deployment on various operating systems and includes C
   and Java libraries that can be used to build CCN applications. CCN-
   lite (www.ccn-lite.net) is a lightweight implementation of the CCN
   protocol, supports most of the key features of CCNx, and is
   interoperable with CCNx. The core CCNx logic has been implemented in
   about 1000 lines of code and is ideal for classroom work and course
   projects as well as for quickly experimenting with CCNx extensions.  

   ndnSIM [ndnSIM] is a module that can be plugged into the ns-3
   simulator and supports the core features of CCN.  One can use ndnSIM
   to experiment with various CCN applications and services as well as
   components developed for CCN such as routing protocols, caching and
   forwarding strategies.  The code for ns-3 and ndnSIM is openly
   available to the community and can be used as the basis for
   implementing ICN protocols or applications.  For more details see
   http://www.nsnam.org and http://www.ndnsim.net.

   ccnSim [ccnSim] is another CCN-specific simulator that was specially
   designed to handle forwarding of a large number of CCN-chunks. 
   ccnSim is written in C++ for the OMNeT++ simulation framework
   (www.omnetpp.org).  Interested readers could consider also the
 

Pentikousis, et al.    Expires December 20, 2013               [Page 26]
INTERNET DRAFT           ICN Baseline Scenarios            June 18, 2013

   Content Centric Networking Packet Level Simulator [CCNPL]. Finally,
   CCN-Joker [CCNj] is an application-layer platform that can be used to
   build a CCN overlay. CCN-Joker emulates in user-space all basic
   aspects of a CCN node (e.g., handling of Interest and Data packets,
   cache sizing, replacement policies), including both flow and
   congestion control. The code is open source and is suitable for both
   emulation-based analyses and real experiments.

   An example of a testbed that supports CCN is the Open Network Lab
   (see https://onl.wustl.edu/).  The ONL testbed currently comprises 18
   extensible gigabit routers and over a 100 computers representing
   clients and is freely available to the public for running CCN
   experiments.  Nodes in ONL are preloaded with CCNx software.  ONL
   provides a graphical user interface for easy configuration and
   testbed set up as per the experiment requirements, and also serves as
   a control mechanism, allowing access to various control variables and
   traffic counters.  It is also possible to run and evaluate CCN over
   popular testbeds such as PlanetLab (www.planet-lab.org), Emulab
   (www.emulab.net), and Deter (www.isi.deterlab.net) by directly
   running the CCNx open-source code on PlanetLab and Deter nodes,
   respectively.

   NEPI, the Network Experimentation Programming Interface,
   (http://nepi.inria.fr) is a tool developed for controlling and
   managing large-scale network experiments. NEPI provides an experiment
   description language to design network experiments, describing
   topology, applications, and a controller to automatically deploy
   those experiments on target experimentation environments, such as
   PlanetLab. The controller is also capable of collecting result and
   log files during the experiment execution. NEPI also allows to
   specify node selection filters while designing the experiment,
   thereby supporting automatic discovery and provisioning of testbed
   nodes during experiment deployment, without the user having to hand-
   pick them. It is simple and efficient to use NEPI to evaluate CCNx on
   large-scale testbeds such as PlanetLab.

3.1.2.  Publish/Subscribe Internet Architecture

   The PSIRP project has open-sourced its Blackhawk publish-subscribe
   (Pub/Sub) implementation for FreeBSD; more details are available
   online at http://www.psirp.org/downloads.html.  Despite being limited
   to one operating system, the code base also provides a virtual image
   to allow its deployment on other environments through virtualization.
    The code distribution features a kernel module, a file system and
   scope daemon, as well as a set of tools, test applications and
   scripts. This work was extended as part of the PURSUIT project,
   resulting in the development of the Blackadder prototype for Linux
 

Pentikousis, et al.    Expires December 20, 2013               [Page 27]
INTERNET DRAFT           ICN Baseline Scenarios            June 18, 2013

   and FreeBSD. It currently runs on a testbed across Europe and America
   (MIT) comprising over 25 nodes. Moreover, the ICN simulation
   environment [ICN-Sim] allows the simulation of new techniques for
   topology management following the Publish-Subscribe paradigm and the
   PSIRP approach. The simulator is based on the OMNET++ simulator and
   the INET/MANET frameworks. It is currently publicly available at
   http://sourceforge.net/projects/icnsim. A design characteristic of
   this platform is the separation between the network and topology
   management policies. An interface is used to provide this
   functionality and policies can be imported and applied in the network
   as topology manager applications running on top of this interface. 

3.1.3.  NetInf

   The EU FP7 4WARD and SAIL projects have made a set of open-source
   implementations available; see http://www.netinf.org/open-source for
   more details.  Of note, two software packages are available.  The
   first one is a set of tools for NetInf implementing different aspects
   of the protocol (e.g., NetInf URI format, HTTP and UDP convergence
   layer) using different programming languages.  The Java
   implementation provides a local caching proxy and client.  The second
   one, is a OpenNetInf prototype from the 4WARD project.  Besides a
   rich set of NetInf mechanisms implemented, it also provides a browser
   plug-in and video streaming software. The SAIL project developed a
   hybrid host-centric and information-centric network architecture
   called the Global Information Network (GIN). The prototype for this
   can be downloaded from http://gin.ngnet.it.

3.1.4.  Large-scale Testing

   An important consideration in the evaluation of any kind of future
   Internet mechanism, lies in the characteristics of that evaluation
   itself. Often, central to the assessment of the features provided by
   a novel mechanism, lies the consideration of how it improves over 
   already existing technologies, and by "how much." With the disruptive
   nature of clean-slate approaches generating new and different
   technological requirements, it is complex to provide meaningful
   results for a network layer framework, in comparison with what is
   deployed in the current Internet. Thus, despite the availability of
   ICN implementations and simulators, the need for large-scale
   environments supporting experimental evaluation of novel research is
   of prime importance to the advancement of ICN deployment.

   In this regard, initiatives such as the Future Internet Research and
   Experimentation Initiative (www.ict-fire.eu), enable researchers to
   test new protocols and architectures in real conditions over
 

Pentikousis, et al.    Expires December 20, 2013               [Page 28]
INTERNET DRAFT           ICN Baseline Scenarios            June 18, 2013

   production networks (e.g., through virtualization and software-
   defined networking mechanisms), simplifying the validation of future
   evolutions and reducing the gap between research and deployment.
   Similarly, Future Internet Design (www.nets-find.net) is a long-term
   initiative along the same direction in the US. GENI (www.geni.net)
   also offers experimentation infrastructure as does PlanetLab
   (www.planet-lab.org), which likely offers the largest testbed
   available today. Those wishing to perform smaller, more controlled
   experiments can also consider the Emulab testbed (www.emulab.net),
   which allows various topologies to be configured.

   Finally, the AKARI program (see http://akari-project.nict.go.jp/) is
   an Architecture Design Project from the National Institute of
   Information and Communications Technology (NICT) of Japan. AKARI
   fosters the development of a new network architecture and design to
   support future technologies. As with the other initiatives, it
   addresses a number of research questions, considering novel
   approaches on optical and wireless networks, transport,
   identifier/locator split, security, routing with quality of service,
   virtualization, among others.

3.2.  Topology Selection

   Section 2 introduced several topologies that have been used in ICN
   studies so far but, to date and to the best of our understanding,
   there is no single topology that can be used to easily evaluate all
   aspects of the ICN paradigm.  There is rough consensus that the
   classic dumbbell topology cannot serve well future evaluations of ICN
   approaches.  Therefore, one should consider a range of topologies,
   each of which would stress different aspects, as outlined earlier in
   this document. Current Internet traces are also available to assist
   in this, e.g. see http://www.caida.org/data/active/internet-topology-
   data-kit and
   http://www.cs.washington.edu/research/networking/rocketfuel.

   Depending on what is the focus of the evaluation, intra-domain
   topologies alone may be appropriate. However, those interested, for
   example, in quantifying transit costs will require inter-domain
   traces (note that the above CAIDA traces offer this). Scalability is
   an important consideration in this choice of this with CAIDA's ITDK
   traces recording millions of routers across thousands of domains.
   Beyond these traces there is a wide range of synthetic topologies,
   such as the Barabasi-Albert model [BA] and the Watts-Strogatz small-
   world topology [WATTS]. These synthetic traces allow experiments to
   be performed whilst controlling various key parameters (e.g. degree).
   Through this, different aspects can be investigated, such as
   inspecting resilience properties. For some research, this may be more
 

Pentikousis, et al.    Expires December 20, 2013               [Page 29]
INTERNET DRAFT           ICN Baseline Scenarios            June 18, 2013

   appropriate as, practically speaking, there are no assurances that a
   future ICN will share the same topology with today's networks.

   Besides defining the evaluation topology as a graph G = (V,E), where
   V is the set of vertices (nodes) and E is the set of edges (links),
   one should also clearly define and list the respective matrices that
   correspond to the network, storage and computation capacities
   available at each node as well as the delay characteristics of each
   link, so that the results obtained can be easily replicated in other
   studies.  Recent work by Hussain and Chen [Montage], although
   currently addressing host-centric networks, could also be leveraged
   and be extended by the ICN community. Measurement information can
   also be taken from existing platforms such as iPlane
   (http://iplane.cs.washington.edu), which can be used to provide
   configuration parameters such as access link capacity and delay.
   Alternatively, synthetic models such as [DELAY] can be used to
   configure such topologies.

   Finally, the dynamic aspects of a topology, such as node and content
   mobility, disruption patterns, packet loss rates as well as link and
   node failure rates, to name a few, should also be carefully
   considered.  As mentioned in subsection 2.9, for example, contact
   traces from the DTN community could also be used in ICN evaluations.

3.3.  Traffic Load 

   As we are still lacking ICN-specific traffic workloads we can
   currently only extrapolate from today's workloads.  In this
   subsection we provide a first draft of a set of common guidelines, in
   the form of what we will refer to as a content catalog for different
   scenarios.  This catalog, which is based on previously published
   work, could be used to evaluate different ICN proposals, for example,
   on routing, congestion control, and performance, and can be
   considered as other kinds of ICN contributions emerge.

   We take scenarios from today's Web, file sharing (BitTorrent-like)
   and User Generated Content (UGC) platforms (e.g., YouTube), as well
   as Video on Demand (VoD) services.  Publicly available traces for
   these include those available from web sites such as
   http://mikel.tlm.unavarra.es/~mikel/bt_pam2004,
   http://multiprobe.ewi.tudelft.nl/multiprobe.html,
   http://an.kaist.ac.kr/traces/IMC2007.html, and
   http://traces.cs.umass.edu/index.php/Network/Network.

   The content catalog for each type of traffic can be characterized by
   a specific set of parameters: the cardinality of the estimated
   content catalog, the average size of the exchanged contents (either
 

Pentikousis, et al.    Expires December 20, 2013               [Page 30]
INTERNET DRAFT           ICN Baseline Scenarios            June 18, 2013

   chunks or entire named information objects), and the statistical
   distribution that best reflect the popularity of objects and their
   request frequency.  Table I summarizes the content catalog.  With
   this shared point of reference, the use of the same set of parameters
   (depending on the scenario of interest) among researchers will be
   eased, and different proposals could be compared on a common base.

   Table I. Content catalog

   Traffic | Catalog |  Mean Object Size  |  Popularity Distribution
    Load   |  Size   |  [L4][L5][L7][L8]  |  [L3][L5][L6][L11][L12]
           | [L1][L2]|  [L9][L10]         |
           | [L3][L5]|                    |
   ====================================================================
   Web     |  10^12  | Chunk: 1-10 kB     | Zipf, 0.64 <= alpha <= 0.83 
   --------------------------------------------------------------------
   File    | 5x10^6  | Chunk: 250-4096 kB | Zipf, 0.75 <= alpha<= 0.82
   sharing |         | Object: ~800 MB    |
   --------------------------------------------------------------------
   UGC     |  10^8   | Object: ~10 MB     | Zipf, alpha >= 2
   --------------------------------------------------------------------
   VoD     |  10^4   | Object: ~100 MB    | Zipf, 0.65 <= alpha <= 1
   ====================================================================

   * UGC = User Generated Content ** VoD = Video on Demand 

   Several studies in the past years have stated that Zipf's law is the
   discrete distribution that best represents the request frequency in a
   number of application scenarios, ranging from the Web to VoD
   services.  The key aspect of this distribution is that the frequency
   of a content request is inversely proportional to the rank of the
   content itself, i.e., the smaller the rank, the higher the request
   frequency.  If we denote with M the content catalog cardinality and
   with 1 <= i <= M the rank of the i-th most popular content, we can
   express the probability of requesting the content with rank "i" as:

   P(X=i) = ( 1/i^(alpha) ) / C, with C = SUM(1 / j^(alpha)), alpha > 0

   where the sum is obtained considering all values of j, 1 <= j <= M.

   Further, a variation of the Zipf distribution, termed the Mandelbrot-
   Zipf distribution, has been suggested by [P2PMod] to better model
   environments where nodes can locally store previously requested
   content. For example, it was observed that peer-to-peer file sharing
   applications typically exhibited a 'fetch-at-most-once' style of
   behavior. This is because peers tend to persistently store the files
   they download, a behavior that may also be prevalent in ICN.

 

Pentikousis, et al.    Expires December 20, 2013               [Page 31]
INTERNET DRAFT           ICN Baseline Scenarios            June 18, 2013

3.4.  Choosing Relevant Metrics

   ICN is a networking concept that spun out of the desire to align the
   operation model of a network with the model of its typical use. For
   TCP/IP networks, this means to change the mechanisms of data access
   and transport from a host-to-host model to a user-to-information
   model. The premise is that the effort invested in changing models
   will be offset, or even surpassed, by the potential of a "better"
   network. However, such a claim can be validated only if it is
   quantified.

   Quantification of network performance requires a set of standard
   metrics. These metrics should be broad enough so they can be applied
   equally to host-centric and information-centric (or other) networks.
   This will allow reasoning about a certain ICN approach in relation to
   an earlier version of the same approach, to another ICN approach or
   to the incumbent host-centric approach. It will therefore be less
   difficult to gauge optimization and research direction. On the other
   hand, the metrics should be targeted to network performance only and
   should avoid unnecessary expansion into the physical and application
   layers. Similarly, at this point, it is more important to capture as
   metrics only the main figures of merit and to leave more esoteric and
   less frequent cases for the future.  

   To arrive at a set of relevant metrics we could survey the various
   ICN approaches and their design requirements (as metrics should
   normally correspond to requirements). Furthermore, as we want our
   metrics to be applicable to host-centric networks as well, we should
   also look at the capabilities and design requirements of IP networks.
   Standard metrics already exist for IP networks and it would certainly
   be beneficial to take them into account. 

   Depending on the type of evaluation and the focal area of interest,
   e.g. name resolution vs. routing efficiency vs. congestion control
   and fair sharing of resources vs. QoS for A/V communications, the
   metrics that are of prime importance may vary.  That said, we should
   in general consider two broad categories: traffic-related metrics and
   system metrics.

3.4.1.  Traffic Metrics

   At their core, host-centric and information-centric networking
   function as data transport services. Information of interest to a
   user resides in one or more storage points connected to the network
   and, on the user's request, the network transports this information
   to the user for consumption. We could therefore do worse than to
   quantify the data transport performance of the network in terms of
 

Pentikousis, et al.    Expires December 20, 2013               [Page 32]
INTERNET DRAFT           ICN Baseline Scenarios            June 18, 2013

   Quality of Service (QoS) metrics.

   The IETF has been working for more than a decade on devising metrics
   and methods for measuring the performance of IP networks. The work
   has been carried out largely within the IPPM WG, guided by a relevant
   framework [RFC2330]. IPPM metrics include delay, delay variation,
   loss, reordering, and duplication. While the IPPM work is certainly
   based on packet-switched IP networks, it is conceivable that it can
   be modified and extended to cover ICN networks as well. However, more
   study is necessary to turn this claim into a certainty. Many experts
   have toiled for a long time on devising and refining the IPPM metrics
   and methods, so it would be an advantage to use IPPM on measuring ICN
   performance. In addition, IPPM works already for host-centric
   networks, so comparison with information-centric networks would
   entail only the ICN extension of the IPPM framework. Finally, an
   important benefit of measuring the transport performance of a network
   at it's output, using QoS metrics such as IPPM, is that it can be
   done mostly without any dependence to applications.

   Another option for measuring transport performance would be to use
   Quality of Service metrics, not at the output of the network like
   with IPPM, but at the input to the application. So for an application
   like live video streaming the relevant metrics would be startup
   latency, playout lag and playout continuity. The benefit of this
   approach is that it abstracts away all details of the underlying
   transport network, so it can be readily applied to compare between
   networks of different concepts (host-centric, information-centric, or
   other). As implied earlier, the drawback of the approach is its
   dependence on the application, so it is likely that different (types
   of) applications will require different metrics. It might be possible
   to identify standard metrics for each type of application, but the
   situation is not as clear as with IPPM metrics and further
   investigation is necessary.

   At a higher level of abstraction, we could measure the network's
   transport performance at the application output. This entails
   measuring the quality of the transported and reconstructed
   information as perceived by the user during consumption. In such an
   instance we would use Quality of Experience (QoE) metrics, which are
   by definition dependent on the application. For example, the
   standardized methods for obtaining a Mean Opinion Score (MOS) for
   VoIP (e.g., ITU-T P.800) is quite different from those for IPTV
   (e.g., PEVQ). These methods are notoriously hard to implement, as
   they involve real users in a controlled environment. Such constraints
   can be relaxed or dropped by using methods that model human
   perception under certain environments, but these methods are
   typically intrusive. The most important drawback of measuring network
   performance at the output of the application is that only one part of
 

Pentikousis, et al.    Expires December 20, 2013               [Page 33]
INTERNET DRAFT           ICN Baseline Scenarios            June 18, 2013

   each measurement is related to network performance. The rest is
   related to application performance, e.g., video coding, or even
   device capabilities, both of which are irrelevant to our purposes
   here and are generally hard to separate. We therefore see the use of
   QoE metrics in measuring ICN performance as a poor choice. 

3.4.2.  System Metrics

   Overall system metrics that need to be considered include
   reliability, scalability, energy efficiency, and delay/disconnection
   tolerance.  In deployments where ICN is addressing specific
   scenarios, relevant system metrics could be derived from current
   experience.  For example, in IoT scenarios, which were discussed
   earlier in subsection 2.10, it is reasonable to consider the current
   generation of sensor nodes, sources of information, and even
   measurement gateways (e.g., for smart metering at homes) or
   smartphones.  In this case, ICN operation ought to be evaluated with
   respect not only to overall scalability and network efficiency, but
   also the impact on the nodes themselves.  Karnouskos et al.
   [SensReqs] provide a comprehensive set of sensor and IoT-related
   requirements, for example, which include aspects such as resource
   utilization, service life-cycle management and device management.

   Additionally, various specific metrics are also critical in
   constrained environments, such as CPU processing requirements,
   signaling overhead, and memory allocation for caching procedures in
   addition to power consumption and battery lifetime. Also, in nodes
   acting as gateways, which typically not only act as a point of
   service to a large number of nodes, but also have to satisfy the
   information requests from remote entities; they need to consider
   scalability-related metrics, such as frequency and processing of
   successfully satisfied information requests.

3.5.  Resource Equivalence and Tradeoffs

   As we have seen above, every ICN network is built from a set of
   resources, which include link capacities, different types of memory
   structures and repositories used for storing named information
   objects and chunks temporarily (i.e. caching) or persistently, as
   well as name resolution and other lookup services.  Complexity and
   processing needs in terms of forwarding decisions, management (e.g.
   need for manual configuration, explicit garbage collection, and so
   on), and routing (i.e. amount of state needed, need for manual
   configuration of routing tables, support for mobility, etc.) set the
   stage for a range of engineering tradeoffs.

 

Pentikousis, et al.    Expires December 20, 2013               [Page 34]
INTERNET DRAFT           ICN Baseline Scenarios            June 18, 2013

   In order to be able to compare different ICN approaches it would be
   beneficial to be able to define equivalence in terms of different
   resources which today are considered incomparable.  For example,
   would provisioning an additional 5 Mb/s link capacity lead to better
   performance than adding 100 GB of in-network storage?  Within this
   context one would consider resource equivalence (and the associated
   tradeoffs) for example for cache hit ratios per GB of cache,
   forwarding decision times, CPU cycles per forwarding decision, and so
   on.

3.6.  Technology Evolution Assumptions

   TBD

4.  Security Considerations

   TBD

5.  IANA Considerations

   This document presents no IANA considerations.

6.  Acknowledgments

   This document has benefited from comments and proposed text provided
   by the following members of the IRTF Information-Centric Networking
   Research Group (ICNRG): Marica Amadeo, Claudia Campolo, Luigi Alfredo
   Grieco, Myeong-Wuk Jang, Ren Jing, Will Liu, and Jianping Wang. 

7.  Informative References

   [RFC4838]  Cerf, V., Burleigh, S., Hooke, A., Torgerson, L., Durst,
              R., Scott, K., Fall, K., and H. Weiss, "Delay-Tolerant
              Networking Architecture", RFC 4838, April 2007.

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

   [RFC2330]  Paxson, V., Almes, G., Mahdavi, J., and M. Mathis,
              "Framework for IP Performance Metrics", RFC 2330, May
              1998.

 

Pentikousis, et al.    Expires December 20, 2013               [Page 35]
INTERNET DRAFT           ICN Baseline Scenarios            June 18, 2013

   [RFC5050]  Scott, K. and S. Burleigh, "Bundle Protocol
              Specification", RFC 5050, November 2007.

   [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 G. Parisis, "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.

   [VPC]      Kim, J. et al., "Content Centric Network-based Virtual
              Private Community", Proc. ICCE.  IEEE, 2011.

   [VPC2]     Kim, D. and J. Lee, "CCN-based virtual private community
              for extended home media service", IEEE Trans. Consumer
              Electronics, vol. 57, no. 2, May 2011.

   [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.

 

Pentikousis, et al.    Expires December 20, 2013               [Page 36]
INTERNET DRAFT           ICN Baseline Scenarios            June 18, 2013

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

   [MOBSURV]  Tyson, G. et al., "A Survey of Mobility in Information-
              Centric Networks: Challenges and Research Directions",
              Proc. MobiHoc Workshop on Emerging Name-Oriented Mobile
              Networking Design. ACM, 2012.

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

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

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

   [mNetInf]  Pentikousis, K. and T. Rautio, "A Multiaccess Network of
              Information", Proc. WoWMoM.  IEEE, 2010.

   [HybICN]   Lindgren, A., "Efficient content distribution in an
              information-centric hybrid mobile networks", Proc. CCNC. 
              IEEE, 2011.

   [MobiA]    Meisel, M. et al., "Ad Hoc Networking via Named Data",
              Proc. MobiArch. ACM 2010.

   [WDays]    Oh, S. Y. et al., "Content Centric Networking in Tactical
              and Emergency MANETs", Proc. Wireless Days. IFIP, 2010.

   [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.

   [BTCACHE]  Tyson, G. et al., "A Trace-Driven Analysis of Caching in
              Content-Centric Networks", Proc. ICCCN. IEEE, 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.
 

Pentikousis, et al.    Expires December 20, 2013               [Page 37]
INTERNET DRAFT           ICN Baseline Scenarios            June 18, 2013

   [DMND]     J. Wang, et al., "DMND: collecting data from mobiles using
              named data", Proc. VNV. IEEE, 2010.

   [NOMEN]    L. Wang, et al., "Data Naming in Vehicle-to-Vehicle
              Communications", Proc. INFOCOM NOMEN workshop. IEEE,
              2012.

   [WAK]      L. Wang, et al., "Rapid Traffic Information Dissemination
              Using Named Data", Proc. MobiHoc NoM workshop. ACM, 2012.

   [DIVA]     G. Arnould, et al., "A Self-Organizing Content Centric
              Network Model for Hybrid Vehicular Ad-Hoc Networks". Proc.
              DIVANet. ACM, 2011.

   [DIVA2]    P. TalebiFard and V.C.M. Leung, "A Content Centric
              Approach to Dissemination of Information in Vehicular
              Networks". Proc. DIVANet. ACM,  2012.

   [ACMV]     M. Amadeo, et al., "Content-Centric Networking: is that a
              Solution for Upcoming Vehicular Networks?", Proc. VANET.
              ACM, 2012.

   [CRoWN]    M. Amadeo, et al., "CRoWN: Content-Centric Networking in
              Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks", IEEE Communications Letters,
              vol. 16, no. 9, Sept. 2012. 

   [COMCOM]   M. Amadeo, et al., "E-CHANET: Routing, Forwarding and
              Transport in Information-Centric Multihop Wireless
              Networks", Computer Communications. Elsevier, Jan. 2013 on
              line.

   [ArgICN]   Trossen, D. et al., "Arguments for an information centric
              internetworking architecture", ACM SIGCOMM CCR, 40:26-33,
              Apr. 2010.

   [EconICN]  Agyapong, P. and M. Sirbu, "Economic Incentives in
              Information Centric Networking: Implications for Protocol
              Design and Public Policy", IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 50, no.
              12, Dec. 2012.

   [OptSC]    Paolini, M. Optimizing the Small-Cell Business ROI, 
              SmallCell Americas 2012, available online at
              www.smallcellsamericas.com/files/
              monica_paolini_senza_fili_consulting.pdf

   [FEMTO]    Rioridan, R. Using FemtoCloud technology to deliver
              femtocell-as-a-service, SmallCell Americas 2012, available
              online at www.smallcellsamericas.com/files/
 

Pentikousis, et al.    Expires December 20, 2013               [Page 38]
INTERNET DRAFT           ICN Baseline Scenarios            June 18, 2013

              1110rob_riordan_femto_america_2012.pdf

   [MLDHT]    Liu H. et al., "A multi-level DHT routing framework with
              aggregation", Proc. SIGCOMM ICN Workshop.  ACM, 2012.

   [RP-NDN]   DiBenedetto S. et al., "Routing policies in named data
              networking", Proc. SIGCOMM ICN Workshop.  ACM, 2011.

   [LIPSIN]   Jokela P. et al., "LIPSIN: line speed publish/subscribe
              inter-networking", Proc. of ACM SIG-COMM 2009.

   [LANES]    Visala K. et al., "LANES: An Inter-Domain Data-Oriented
              Routing Architecture", Proc. CoNEXT Re-Arch Workshop. 
              ACM, 2009.

   [PSIRP1]   Rajahalme, J. et al., "Inter-Domain Rendezvous Service
              Architecture", PSIRP Technical Report TR09-003, Dec. 2009.

   [ICCP]     Rajahalme J. et al., "Incentive-Compatible Caching and
              Peering in DataOriented Networks", Proc. CoNEXT Re-Arch
              Workshop.  ACM, 2008.

   [IDMcast]  Rajahalme, J., "Incentive-informed Inter-domain
              Multicast", Proc. Global Internet Symposium 2010.

   [IDArch]   Rajahalme J., "Inter-domain incentives and Internet
              architecture", PhD. Dissertation, Aalto University, Aug.
              2012.

   [SAIL-B3]  SAIL, "Final NetInf Architecture", SAIL Project
              Deliverable D-B.3 , Jan. 2013.

   [SAIL-A7]  SAIL, "New business models and business dynamics of the
              future networks", SAIL Project Deliverable D-A.7, Aug.
              2011.

   [SAIL-A8]  SAIL, "Evaluation of business models", SAIL Project
              Deliverable D-A.8, Jan. 2013

   [EWC]      Bai, F. and B. Krishnamachari, "Exploiting the wisdom of
              the crowd: localized, distributed information-centric
              VANETs", IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 48, no. 5, May 2010.

   [DMND]     Wang, J., R. Wakikawa, and L. Zhang, "DMND: Collecting
              data from mobiles using Named Data", Proc. Vehicular
              Networking Conference (VNC). IEEE, 2010.

   [EECCN]    Guan, K.  et al., "On the Energy Efficiency of Content
 

Pentikousis, et al.    Expires December 20, 2013               [Page 39]
INTERNET DRAFT           ICN Baseline Scenarios            June 18, 2013

              Delivery Architectures", Proc. ICC Workshops.  IEEE, 2011.

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

   [DTNICN]   G. Tyson, J. Bigham and E. Bodanese, "Towards an
              Information-Centric Delay-Tolerant Network", Proc. IEEE
              INFOCOM NOMEN 2013, Turin, Italy.

   [SLINKY]   V. Kawadia, N. Riga, J. Opper, and D. Sampath, "Slinky: An
              adaptive protocol for content access in disruption-
              tolerant ad hoc networks", in Proc. MobiHoc Workshop on
              Tactical Mobile Ad Hoc Networking, 2011.

   [BPQ]      S. Farrell, A. Lynch, D. Kutscher, and A. Lindgren,
              "Bundle protocol query extension block", draft-irtf-dtnrg-
              bpq-00 (work in progress), May 2012.

   [TWIMIGHT] Hossmann, Theus, et al. "Twitter in disaster mode: smart
              probing for opportunistic peers", Proc. of the third ACM
              international workshop on Mobile Opportunistic Networks.
              ACM, 2012.

   [ONE]      The Opportunistic Network Environment simulator. 
              Available at http://www.netlab.tkk.fi/tutkimus/dtn/theone

   [IoTEx]    Burke, J., "Authoring Place-based Experiences with an
              Internet of Things: Tussles of Expressive, Operational,
              and Participatory Goals", Proc. Interconnecting Smart
              Objects with the Internet Workshop.  IAB, 2011.

   [IWMT]     Kutscher, D. and S. Farrell, "Towards an Information-
              Centric Internet with more Things", Proc. Interconnecting
              Smart Objects with the Internet Workshop.  IAB, 2011.

   [RFC6920]  Farrell, S. et al., "Naming Things with Hashes", RFC 6920,
              April 2013.

   [NCOA]     Ghodsi, A. et al., "Naming in Content-oriented
              Architectures", Proc. SIGCOMM ICN Workshop.  ACM, 2011.

   [nWSN]     Heidemann, J. et al., "Building efficient wireless sensor
              networks with low-level naming", Proc. SOSP.  ACM, 2001.

   [NDNl]     Burke, J. et al., "Authenticated Lighting Control Using
              Named Data Networking", NDN Technical Report NDN-0011,
              Oct. 2012.

 

Pentikousis, et al.    Expires December 20, 2013               [Page 40]
INTERNET DRAFT           ICN Baseline Scenarios            June 18, 2013

   [IoTScope] Marias, G.F. et al., "Efficient information lookup for the
              Internet of Things", Proc. WoWMoM.  IEEE, 2012.

   [PURSUIT]  Fotiou, N. et al., "Developing Information Networking
              Further: From PSIRP to PURSUIT", Proc. BROADNETS.  ICST,
              2010.

   [ICN-DHT]  Katsaros, K. et al., "On inter-domain name resolution for
              information-centric networks", Proc. Networking. 
              Springer, 2012.

   [SEMANT]   Sheth, A. et al., "Semantic Sensor Web," Internet
              Computing, IEEE , vol.12, no.4, pp.78,83, July-Aug. 2008

   [CPG]      Cianci, I. et al., "Content Centric Services in Smart
              Cities", Proc. NGMAST.  IEEE, 2012.

   [MVM]      Hernndez-Muoz, J.M. et al., "Smart cities at the forefront
              of the future Internet", The Future Internet.  Springer,
              2011.

   [iHEMS]    Zhang, J. et al., "iHEMS: An Information-Centric Approach
              to Secure Home Energy Management", Proc. SmartGridComm. 
              IEEE, 2012.

   [ACC]      Andreini, F. et al., "A scalable architecture for geo-
              localized service access in smart cities", Proc. Future
              Network and Mobile Summit.  IEEE, 2011.

   [ndnSIM] Afanasyev, A. et al., ndnSIM: NDN simulator for NS-3 NDN
              Technical Report NDN-0005, Revision 2, October 2012.

   [IB]       Idowu, S. and N. Bari, "A Development Framework for Smart
              City Services, Integrating Smart City Service Components",
              Master Thesis.  Lulea University of Technology, 2012.

   [ccnSim]   Rossini, G. and D. Rossi, "Large scale simulation of CCN
              networks", Proc. Algotel 2012 , La Grande Motte, France,
              May 2012.

   [CCNj]     Cianci, I. et al. "CCN - Java Opensource Kit EmulatoR for
              Wireless Ad Hoc Networks", Proc. 7th ACM Int. Conf. on
              Future Internet Technologies, Seoul, Korea, Sept., 2012.

   [CCNPL]    Muscariello, L., "Content centric networking packet level
              simulator", available online at
              http://perso.rd.francetelecom.fr/muscariello/sim.html

 

Pentikousis, et al.    Expires December 20, 2013               [Page 41]
INTERNET DRAFT           ICN Baseline Scenarios            June 18, 2013

   [ICN-Sim]  N. Vastardis et al., "Simulation Tools Enabling Research
              on Information-centric Networks", Proc. ICC FutureNet
              Workshop. IEEE, 2012.

   [BA]       Barabasi, A. and R. Albert, "Emergence of scaling in
              random networks", Science, vol. 286, no. 5439, pp. 509-
              512, 1999.

   [WATTS]    Watts, D. J. and S. H. Strogatz, "Collective dynamics of
              small-world networks", Nature, vol. 393, no. 6684, pp. 40-
              "10, 1998.

   [Montage]  Hussain, A. and J. Chen, "Montage Topology Manager: Tools
              for Constructing and Sharing Representative Internet
              Topologies", DETER Technical Report, ISI-TR-684, Aug.
              2012.

   [DELAY]    Kaune, S. et al., "Modelling the Internet Delay Space
              Based on Geographical Locations", Proc. Euromicro, Weimar,
              Germany, 2009.

   [P2PMod]   Saleh, O., and M. Hefeeda, "Modeling and caching of peer-
              to-peer traffic", Proc. ICNP. IEEE, 2006.

   [L1]       http://googleblog.blogspot.it/2008/07/we-knew-web-was-
              big.html

   [L2]       C. Zhang, P. Dhungel, and K. Di Wu., "Unraveling the
              BitTorrent ecosystem", IEEE Transactions on Parallel and
              Distributed Systems, pp. 1164-1177, 2010.

   [L3]       M. Cha, H. Kwak, P. Rodriguez, Y.-Y. Ahn, and S. Moon, "I
              tube, you tube, everybody tubes: analyzing the world's
              largest user generated content video system", Proc. ACM
              SIGCOMM conference on Internet measurement (IMC), San
              Diego (CA), USA, Oct. 2007.

   [L4]       J. Zhou, Y. Li, K. Adhikari, and Z.-L. Zhang, "Counting
              YouTube videos via random prefix sampling", In Proc. of
              IMC'11, Berlin, Germany, Nov. 2011.

   [L5]       C. Fricker, P. Robert, J. Roberts, and N. Sbihim, "Impact
              of traffic mix on caching performance in a content-centric
              network", In Proc. of IEEE NOMEN 2012, Workshop on
              Emerging Design Choices in Name-Oriented Networking,
              Orlando, USA, Mar. 2012.

   [L6]       H. Yu, D. Zheng, B. Y. Zhao, and W. Zheng, "Understanding
 

Pentikousis, et al.    Expires December 20, 2013               [Page 42]
INTERNET DRAFT           ICN Baseline Scenarios            June 18, 2013

              user behavior in large-scale video-on-demand systems", In
              SIGOPS Oper. Syst. Rev., Vol. 40, pp. 333-344, April 2006.

   [L7]       P. Marciniak, N. Liogkas, A. Legout, and E. Kohler, "Small
              is not always beautiful",  In Proc. of IPTPS,
              International Workshop of Peer-to-Peer Systems, Tampa Bay,
              Florida (FL), USA, Feb. 2008.

   [L8]       A. Bellissimo, B. Levine, and P. Shenoy, "Exploring the
              use of BitTorrent as the basis for a large trace
              repository", University of Massachusetts, Tech. Rep.,
              2004.

   [L9]       I. Psaras, R. G. Clegg, R. Landa, W. K. Chai, and G.
              Pavlou, "Modelling and Evaluation of CCN-Caching Trees",
              In Proc. of the 10th international IFIP conference on
              Networking, Valencia, Spain, May 2011.

   [L10]      G. Carofiglio, M. Gallo, L. Muscariello, and D. Perino,
              "Modeling Data Transfer in Content-Centric Networking", In
              Proc. of  ITC, San Francisco, USA, Sep. 2011.

   [L11]      L. Breslau, P. Cao, L. Fan, G. Phillips, and S. Shenker,
              "Web caching and zipf-like distributions: evidence and
              implications", In Proc. of INFOCOM '99, New York (NY),
              USA,  Mar. 1999.

   [L12]      Mahanti, A., C. Williamson, and D. Eager., "Traffic
              analysis of a web proxy caching hierarchy", IEEE Network, 
              Vol.14, No.3, pp.16-23, May/June 2000.

   [SensReqs] Karnouskos, S.  et al., "Requirement considerations for
              ubiquitous integration of cooperating objects", Proc.
              NTMS. IFIP, 2011. 

   [802.11p]  "Information technology - Telecommunications and
              information exchange between systems - Local and
              metropolitan area networks - Specific requirements - Part
              11: Wireless LAN Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical
              Layer (PHY) specifications Amendment 6: Wireless Access in
              Vehicular Environments", IEEE Standard 802.11p, 2010

   [ACDICN]   Fotiou, N. et al., "Access control enforcement delegation
              for information-centric networking architectures", Proc.
              SIGCOMM ICN Workshop. ACM, 2012.

 

Pentikousis, et al.    Expires December 20, 2013               [Page 43]
INTERNET DRAFT           ICN Baseline Scenarios            June 18, 2013

Authors' Addresses

   Kostas Pentikousis (editor)
   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

   Daniel Corujo
   Instituto de Telecomunicacoes
   Campus Universitario de Santiago
   P-3810-193 Aveiro
   Portugal

   Email: dcorujo@av.it.pt

   Gennaro Boggia
   Dep. of Electrical and Information Engineering
   Politecnico di Bari
   Via Orabona 4
   70125 Bari
   Italy

   Email: g.boggia@poliba.it

   Gareth Tyson
   School and Electronic Engineering and Computer Science
   Queen Mary, University of London
   United Kingdom

   Email: gareth.tyson@eecs.qmul.ac.uk

 

Pentikousis, et al.    Expires December 20, 2013               [Page 44]
INTERNET DRAFT           ICN Baseline Scenarios            June 18, 2013

   Elwyn Davies
   Trinity College Dublin/Folly Consulting Ltd
   Dublin, 2
   Ireland

   Email: davieseb@scss.tcd.ie

   Dorothy Gellert
   InterDigital Communications, LLC
   781 Third Avenue
   King Of Prussia, PA  19406-1409
   USA

   Email:  dorothy.gellert@interdigital.com

   Priya Mahadevan
   Palo Alto Research Center
   3333 Coyote Hill Rd
   Palo Alto, CA 94304
   USA

   Email: Priya.Mahadevan@parc.com

   Spiros Spyrou
   Intracom Telecom
   19.7 km Markopoulou Ave.
   19002 Peania, Athens
   Greece

   Email: spis@intracom.com

   Antonella Molinaro
   Dep. of Information, Infrastructures, and Sustainable 
   Energy Engineering
   Universita' Mediterranea di Reggio Calabria
   Via Graziella 1
   89100 Reggio Calabria
   Italy

   Email: antonella.molinaro@unirc.it

Pentikousis, et al.    Expires December 20, 2013               [Page 45]