Deployment Configurations for Information-Centric Networks (ICN)
draft-rahman-icnrg-deployment-guidelines-00
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 "Replaced".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Akbar Rahman , Dirk Trossen , Dirk Kutscher | ||
| Last updated | 2017-03-11 | ||
| Replaced by | draft-irtf-icnrg-deployment-guidelines, RFC 8763 | ||
| 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-rahman-icnrg-deployment-guidelines-00
ICNRG A. Rahman
Internet-Draft D. Trossen
Intended status: Informational InterDigital
Expires: September 12, 2017 D. Kutscher
Huawei
March 11, 2017
Deployment Configurations for Information-Centric Networks (ICN)
draft-rahman-icnrg-deployment-guidelines-00
Abstract
This document provides technical deployment guidelines for the ICN
community. First, the possible deployment configurations for ICN are
described including overlay and underlay approaches. Then proposed
deployment migration paths for these configurations are outlined to
address the major issues facing ICN such as application migration,
and core and edge network migration. Next, selected ICN trial
experiences are summarized. Finally, recommendations are given for
protocol areas that require further standardization to facilitate
future ICN interoperable deployments.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 12, 2017.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 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
Rahman, et al. Expires September 12, 2017 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Deployment Configurations for ICN March 2017
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Deployment Configurations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Wholesale Replacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. ICN-as-an-Overlay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.3. ICN-as-an-Underlay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3.1. HTTP/IP-over-ICN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3.2. Native ICN with Application Gateways . . . . . . . . 5
3.4. ICN-as-a-Slice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Deployment Migration Paths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. Application and Service Migration . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4.2. Content Delivery Network Migration . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.3. Edge Network Migration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.4. Core Network Migration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5. Deployment Trial Experiences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.1. FP7 Pursuit Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.2. H2020 POINT and RIFE Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
5.3. H2020 FLAME Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5.4. FP7 SAIL Trial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.5. NDN Testbed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.6. CableLabs Content Delivery System . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
6. Deployment Issues Requiring Further Standardization . . . . . 11
6.1. Protocols for Application and Service Migration . . . . . 11
6.2. Protocols for Content Delivery Network Migration . . . . 11
6.3. Protocols for Edge and Core Network Migration . . . . . . 12
6.4. Summary of ICN Protocol Gaps and Potential IETF Efforts . 12
7. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
11. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1. Introduction
The ICNRG charter identifies deployment guidelines as an important
topic area for the ICN community. Specifically, the charter states
that defining concrete migration paths for ICN deployments which
avoid forklift upgrades, and defining practical ICN interworking
Rahman, et al. Expires September 12, 2017 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Deployment Configurations for ICN March 2017
configurations with the existing Internet paradigm, are key topic
areas that require further investigation. Also, it is well
understood that results and conclusions from any mid to large-scale
ICN experiments in the live Internet will also provide useful
guidance for deployments.
However, so far outside of some preliminary investigations such as
[I-D.paik-icn-deployment-considerations], there has not been much
progress on this topic. This draft attempts to fill some of these
gaps by defining clear deployment configurations for ICN, and
associated migration pathways for these configurations. Also,
selected deployment trial experiences of ICN technology are
summarized. Finally, recommendations are made for future IETF
standardization of key protocol functionality that will facilitate
interoperable ICN deployments going forward.
2. Terminology
The following key terms and concepts are defined:
Information-Centric Networking (ICN) - ICN is an approach to
evolve the Internet infrastructure (e.g. routers, caches, servers)
towards accessing named data as a first-order network layer
service. In this approach, Named Data Objects (NDOs) are named
and secured individually. Hashing and/or Public-Key Cryptography
are used to provide NDO authentication and integrity validation
(amongst other services). ICN's data-oriented security (instead
of connection-based security) can enable several benefits: message
authentication and optionally encryption are fundamental elements
of the system, and the forwarding layer can be empowered to
implement suitable forwarding strategies and additional
functionality such as caching, local retransmissions, etc.
Software-Defined Networking (SDN) - SDN is a network control and
implementation architecture that disaggregates the network control
and forwarding functions. This enables programming network
elements (e.g. routers, switches) that implement packet forwarding
functions using a control abstraction, e.g., OpenFlow's Match-
Action-based abstraction. Corresponding controllers can have
visibility and control of a larger set of SDN elements in a
network deployment, which enables network programmability. This
can be used to achieve several objectives such as network
virtualization, optimized forwarded, failure resilience, etc.
Deployment - In the context of this document, deployment refers to
the final stage of the process of setting up an ICN network that
is (1) integrated and interoperable with the rest of the Internet,
Rahman, et al. Expires September 12, 2017 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Deployment Configurations for ICN March 2017
and (2) ready for useful work (e.g. transmission of end user video
and text) in a live environment.
3. Deployment Configurations
In this section, we present various deployment options for ICN.
These are presented as "configurations" that allow for studying these
options further. While this document will outline (in Section 5)
experiences with various of these configurations, we will not provide
an in-depth technical or commercial evaluation for any of them - for
this we refer to existing literature in this space such as [Tateson].
3.1. Wholesale Replacement
ICN has often been described as a "clean-slate" approach with the
goal to renew or replace the current IP routing fabric of the
Internet. As such, existing routing hardware as well as ancillary
services have not been taken for granted. This clean-slate view is
reflected as deployment configurations we label as "wholesale
replacement" of large part of the existing Internet infrastructure.
For instance, such configuration would see existing IP routers being
replaced by CCN routers [Jacobson] or Bloom-filter based forwarding
elements [IEEE_Communications]. All major ICN flavors have explored
this option as their path to deployment.
While such replacement could be seen as exclusive for ICN
deployments, some ICN propositions [POINT] rely on the deployment of
infrastructure upgrades, here SDN switches. Such upgrades, while
being possibly utilized for a "clean slate" ICN deployment would not
necessary be used exclusively for an ICN deployment. Different
proposals have been made for various ICN flavors to enable the
operation over an SDN transport [Reed][CONET][C_FLOW].
3.2. ICN-as-an-Overlay
Similar to other significant changes to the Internet routing fabric,
particularly the transition from IPv4 to IPv6 or the introduction of
IP multicast, this deployment configuration foresees the creation of
an ICN overlay. Note that this overlay approach is sometimes also
referred to as a tunneling approach. The overlay approach could be
done directly such as ICN-over-UDP as described in [CCNx_UDP].
Alternatively, the overlay could be done via ICN-in-L2-in-IP as
described in [IEEE_Communications].
Another flavor of overlay would be embedding ICN semantics into
existing proposals. A recently announced approach is [Hybrid_ICN]
where the ICN names are mapped to IPv6 addresses. Another approach
used in the Network of Information (NetInf) is to define a
Rahman, et al. Expires September 12, 2017 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Deployment Configurations for ICN March 2017
convergence layer to map NetInf semantics to HTTP
[I-D.kutscher-icnrg-netinf-proto]. Regardless of the flavor,
however, the overlay approach results in islands of ICN deployments
over existing IP-based infrastructure.
3.3. ICN-as-an-Underlay
Proposals such as [POINT] and [White] outline the deployment option
of using an ICN underlay that would integrate with existing IP-based
services, while possibly still allowing for native ICN applications
to emerge. The main reasons for such configuration option is the
backward-compatible introduction of ICN technology, while possibly
reaping the benefits of ICN in terms of multicast delivery, mobility
support, fast indirection due to location independence, and possibly
more.
3.3.1. HTTP/IP-over-ICN
In this sub-option, a deployment configuration would utilize edge-
based protocol mapping onto the native ICN underlay. For instance,
[POINT] proposes to map either raw IP packets or HTTP transactions
directly onto an ICN-based message exchange. This mapping is
realized at the network attachment point, such as realized in access
points or customer premise equipment, which in turn provides a
standard IP interface to existing user devices. Towards peering
networks, such network attachment point turns into a modified border
gateway, preserving the perception of an IP-based network towards any
peering network.
The work in [White] proposes a similar deployment configuration.
Here, the target is the use of ICN for content distribution within
CDN server farms, i.e., the protocol mapping is realized at the
ingress of the server farm where the HTTP-based retrieval request is
served, while the response is delivered through a suitable egress
node translation.
3.3.2. Native ICN with Application Gateways
Native ICN networks may be found at the edge of the network, mostly
proposed for Internet-of-Things deployments. The integration with
the current IP protocol suite takes place at an application gateway
at the edge network boundary, e.g., translating incoming CoAP
request/response transactions [RFC7252] into ICN message exchanges.
However, ICN will allow us to evolve the role of gateways as ICN
message security should be preserved through the protocol translation
function of a gateway and thus offer a substantial gain.
Rahman, et al. Expires September 12, 2017 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Deployment Configurations for ICN March 2017
3.4. ICN-as-a-Slice
With the advent of network slicing, i.e., the ability to isolate
network resources exclusively towards a specific set of network
functions, the deployment of ICN within such isolated slice is
emerging as another deployment configuration. Coupled with the view
of ICN functions as being "chained service functions" [RFC7665], an
ICN deployment within such a slice could be realized within the
emerging control plane that is targeted for adoption in future (e.g.,
5th generation mobile) network deployments. Nonetheless, at the
level of the specific technologies involved, this requires
compatibility for instance at the level of the forwarding/data plane.
With SDN emerging as a novel data plane for new network deployments,
ICN flavors will need to integrate with SDN as a data plane
forwarding function, as briefly discussed in Section 3.1.
4. Deployment Migration Paths
After outlining the various ICN deployment configurations in
Section 3, we now focus on the various migration paths that might
have an importance to the various stakeholders that are usually
involved in the deployment of a technology at (ultimately) large
scale. We can identify these stakeholders as:
o Application developers and service providers
o ISPs, both as core as well as access network providers
o CDN providers (due to the strong relation of the ICN proposition
to content delivery)
Note that our presentation purely focuses on technological aspects of
such migration. Economic or regulatory aspects, such as studied in
[Tateson], [Techno_Economic] and [Internet_Pricing] are left out of
our discussion.
4.1. Application and Service Migration
The internet is full of applications and services, utilizing the
innovation capabilities of the many protocols defined over the packet
level IP service. HTTP provides one convergence point for these
services with many web development frameworks based on the semantics
provided by the hypertext transfer protocol. In recent years, even
services such as video delivery have been migrating from the
traditional RTP-over-UDP delivery to the various HTTP-level streaming
solutions, such as DASH [DASH] and others. Nonetheless, many non-
HTTP services exist, all of which need consideration when migrating
from the IP-based internet to an ICN-based one.
Rahman, et al. Expires September 12, 2017 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Deployment Configurations for ICN March 2017
The configuration options presented in Section 3.3.1 and
Section 3.3.2 aim at providing some level of backward compatibility
to this existing ecosystem. Alternatively, introducing ICN as an
overlay (Section 3.2) as well as within-a-slice (Section 3.4) aims at
introducing the full capabilities of ICN through new service
interfaces as well as operations in the network. The overlay and
within-a-slice approaches of deployment are likely to be more
disruptive at the application and service level, however more new
services are expected to be introduced based on such an approach.
4.2. Content Delivery Network Migration
A significant number of services and applications are devoted to
content delivery in some form, either as video delivery services,
social media platforms, and many others. Content delivery networks
(CDNs) are deployed to assist these services through localizing the
content requests and therefore reducing latency and possibly increase
utilization of available bandwidth. Similar to the previous sub-
section, the deployment configurations presented in Section 3.3.1 and
Section 3.3.2 aim at providing a migration path for existing CDNs.
This is also highlighted in the BIER WG use case draft
[I-D.ietf-bier-use-cases], specifically with potential benefits in
terms of utilizing multicast in the delivery of content. We return
to this benefit in the trial experiences in Section 5.
4.3. Edge Network Migration
Edge networks often see the deployment of novel network level
technology, e.g., in the space of the Internet of Things (IoT). Such
IoT deployments have for many years relied, and often still do, on
proprietary protocols for reasons such as increased efficiency, lack
of standardization incentives and others. Utilizing the deployment
configuration in Section 3.3.2, application gateways can integrate
such edge deployments into IP-based services, e.g., utilizing CoAP
[RFC7252] based machine-to-machine (M2M) platforms such as oneM2M
[oneM2M] or others.
Another area of increased edge network innovation is that mobile
(access) networks, particularly in the context of the 5th generation
of mobile networks (often called "5G"). With the proliferation of
SDN-based transport for access networks, the deployment configuration
in Section 3.4 provides a suitable migration path for integration
non-IP-based edge networks into the overall system through virtue of
realizing the relevant (ICN) protocols in an access network slice.
Rahman, et al. Expires September 12, 2017 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Deployment Configurations for ICN March 2017
4.4. Core Network Migration
Migrating the core network of the Internet requires not only
significant infrastructure renewal but also the fulfillment of the
significant performance requirements, particularly in terms of
throughput. For those parts of the core network that would see a
migration to an SDN-based transport, such as proposed by major
operators such as AT&T, the deployment configuration in Section 3.4
could see the introduction of native ICN solutions within slices
provided by the SDN-enabled transport network. For ICN solutions
that natively work on top of SDN, Section 3.3.1 provides an
additional migration, preserving the IP-based services and
applications at the edge of the network, while realizing the core
network routing through an ICN solution (possibly itself realized in
a slice of the SDN transport network).
5. Deployment Trial Experiences
In this section, we will outline trial experiences, often conducted
within international collaborative project efforts. Our focus here
is on the realization of the various deployment configurations in
Section 3. While a body of work exists at the simulation or
emulation level, we specifically exclude these studies from our
presentation to retain the focus on real experiences. We recognize
that this section is unlikely to be comprehensive. We will therefore
continue to solicit input from ICNRG members for other deployment
experiences to complete this section.
5.1. FP7 Pursuit Efforts
Although the FP7 PURSUIT [IEEE_Communications] efforts were generally
positioned as a wholesale replacement of IP (Section 3.1), the
project realized its experimental test bed as an L2 VPN-based overlay
between several European, US as well as Asian sites, i.e., following
the deployment configuration presented in Section 3.2. Software-
based forwarders were utilized for the ICN message exchange, while
native ICN applications, e.g., for video transmissions, were
showcased. At the height of the project efforts, about 70+ nodes
were active in the (overlay) network with presentations given at
several conferences as well as to the ICNRG.
5.2. H2020 POINT and RIFE Efforts
The efforts in the H2020 POINT+RIFE projects follow the deployment
configuration in Section 3.3.1, although utilizing an overlay
deployment to provide multi-national connectivity. However, pure
SDN-based deployments do exist at various project partner sites,
e.g., at Essex University, without any overlaying being realized.
Rahman, et al. Expires September 12, 2017 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Deployment Configurations for ICN March 2017
Edge-based network attachment points (NAPs) provide the IP/HTTP-level
protocol mapping onto ICN protocol exchanges, while the SDN underlay
(or the VPN-based L2 underlay) is used as a transport network.
The multicast as well as service endpoint surrogate benefits in HTTP-
based scenarios, such as for HTTP-level streaming video delivery,
have been demonstrated in the deployed POINT test bed with 80+ nodes
being utilized. Demonstrations of this capability have been given to
the ICNRG in 2015 and 2016, respectively, while public demonstrations
were provided at events such as Mobile World Congress in 2016
[MWC_Demo]. The trial has also been accepted by the ETSI MEC group
as a proof-of-concept with a demonstration at the ETSI MEC World
Congress in Munich in September 2016."
While the mentioned demonstrations all use the overlay international
deployment, both H2020 efforts plan pure ICN underlay trials in the
summer and fall of 2017. One such trial will involve real end users
located in the Primetel network in Cyprus with the use case centered
on IPTV and HLS video dissemination. Another trial is planned for
fall 2017 in the community network of "guifi.net" in the Barcelona
region, where the solution will be deployed in 40 households,
providing general Internet connectivity to the residents. Standard
IPTV STBs as well as HLS video players will be utilized in accordance
with the aim of this deployment configuration, namely to provide
application and service migration.
5.3. H2020 FLAME Efforts
Starting in January 2017, the H2020 FLAME efforts aims at providing
an experimental ground for the aforementioned POINT/RIFE solution in
initially two city-scale locations, namely in Bristol and Barcelona.
This trial will again follow the deployment configuration in
Section 3.3.1 as per POINT/RIFE approach. Currently, experiments are
ongoing,conducted by the city/university joint venture Bristol-is-
Open (BIO), to ensure the readiness of the city-scale SDN transport
network for such experiments. At the time of initial publication of
this draft in March 2017, the deployment of the ICN underlay onto the
SDN transport network will be finalized with the aim of running the
third trial of the aforementioned ETSI MEC PoC in the network during
April/May of 2017. This third trial will showcase operational
benefits provided by the ICN underlay for the scenario of a location-
based game. These benefits aim at reduced network utilization
through improved video delivery performance (multicast of all
captured videos to the service surrogates deployed in the city at six
locations) as well as reduced latency through the playout of the
video originating from the local NAP instead of a remote server.
Rahman, et al. Expires September 12, 2017 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Deployment Configurations for ICN March 2017
Ensuring the technology readiness and the early trialing of the ICN
capabilities lays the ground for the goal of the H2020 FLAME efforts
to conduct 23 large-scale experiments in the area of Future Media
Internet (FMI) throughout 2018 and 2019. Standard media service
functions as well as applications will ultimately utilize the ICN
underlay in the delivery of their experience. The platform, which
includes the ICN capabilities, will utilize concepts of SFC,
integrated with NFV and SDN capabilities of the infrastructure. The
ultimate goal of these platform efforts is the full integration of
ICN into the overall media function platform for the provisioning of
advanced (media-centric) internet services.
5.4. FP7 SAIL Trial
The Network of Information (NetInf) is the approach to Information-
Centric Networking developed by the EU FP7 SAIL project
(http://www.sail-project.eu/). NetInf provides both name-based
forwarding with CCNx-like semantics and name resolution (for
indirection and late-binding). The NetInf architecture supports
different deployment options through its convergence layer
abstraction. In its first prototypes and trials, NetInf was deployed
mostly in an HTTP embedding and in a UDP overlay following the
deployment configuration in Section 3.2. Reference [SAIL_NetInf]
describes several trials including a stadium environment large crowd
scenario and a multi-site testbed, leveraging NetInf's Routing Hint
approach for routing scalability.
5.5. NDN Testbed
The Named Data Networking (NDN) is one of the research projects
funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) of the USA as part of
the Future Internet Architecture Program. The original NDN proposal
was positioned as a wholesale replacement of IP (Section 3.1).
However, in several trials, NDN generally follows the overlay
deployment configuration of Section 3.2 to connect institutions over
the public Internet across several continents. The use cases covered
in the trials include real-time video-conferencing, geo-locating, and
interfacing to consumer applications. Typical trials involve several
hundred NDN enabled nodes (https://named-data.net/ndn-testbed/).
5.6. CableLabs Content Delivery System
The work in [White] proposes a deployment configuration based on
Section 3.3.1. The use case is ICN for content distribution within
CDN server farms (which can be quite large and complex) to leverage
ICNs superior in-network caching properties. This "island of ICN"
based CDN is then used to service standard HTTP/IP-based content
retrieval request coming from the general Internet. This approach
Rahman, et al. Expires September 12, 2017 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Deployment Configurations for ICN March 2017
acknowledges that whole scale replacement (see Section 3.1) of
existing HTTP/IP end user applications and related Web infrastructure
is a difficult proposition. [White] does not yet provide results but
indicated that experiments will be forthcoming.
6. Deployment Issues Requiring Further Standardization
The ICN Research Challenges [RFC7927] describes key ICN principles
and technical research topics. As the title suggests, [RFC7927] is
research oriented without a specific focus on deployment or
standardization issues. This section will address this open area by
identifying key protocol functionality that that we deem relevant for
further standardization effort in IETF. The focus is specifically on
identifying protocols that will facilitate future interoperable ICN
deployments correlating to the scenarios identified in the deployment
migration paths in Section 4. The identified list of required
protocol functionality is not exhaustive.
6.1. Protocols for Application and Service Migration
End user applications and services need a standardized approach to
trigger ICN transactions. For example, in Internet and Web
applications today, there are established socket APIs, communication
paradigms such as REST, common libraries, and best practices. We see
a need to study application requirements in an ICN environment
further and, at the same time, develop new APIs and best practices
that can take advantage of ICN communication characteristics.
6.2. Protocols for Content Delivery Network Migration
A key issue in CDNs is to quickly find a location of a copy of the
object requested by an end user. In ICN, a Named Data Object (NDO)
is typically defined by its name. There already exists [RFC6920]
that is suitable for static naming of ICN data objects. Other ways
of encoding and representing ICN names have been described in
[I-D.irtf-icnrg-ccnxmessages] and [I-D.mosko-icnrg-ccnxurischeme].
Naming dynamically generated data requires different approaches (for
example, hash digest based names would normally not work), and there
is lack of established conventions and standards.
Another CDN issue for ICN is related to multicast distribution of
content. Existing CDNs have started using multicast mechanisms for
certain cases such as for broadcast streaming TV. However, as
discussed in Section 5.2, certain ICN approaches provide substantial
improvements over IP multicast, such as the implicit support for
multicast retrieval of content in all ICN flavours.
Rahman, et al. Expires September 12, 2017 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Deployment Configurations for ICN March 2017
Caching is an implicit feature in many ICN architectures that can
improve performance and availability in several scenarios. The ICN
in-network caching can augment managed CDN and improve its
performance. The details of the interplay between ICN caching and
managed CDN need further consideration.
6.3. Protocols for Edge and Core Network Migration
ICN provides the potential to redesign current edge and core network
computing approaches. Leveraging ICN's inherent security and its
ability to make name data and dynamic computation results available
independent of location, can enable a secure, yet light-weight
insertion of traffic into the network without relying on redirection
of DNS requests. For this, gateways that translate from commonly
used protocols in the general Internet to ICN message exchanges in
the ICN domain could be used for the migration of application and
services within deployments at the network edge but also in core
networks. This is similar to existing approaches for IoT scenarios
where a gateway translates CoAP request/responses to other message
formats. For example, [RFC8075] specifies gateway mapping between
CoAP and HTTP protocols. However, as mentioned previously, ICN will
allow us to evolve the role of gateways as ICN message security
should be preserved through the protocol translation function of a
gateway and thus offer a substantial gain. Another area is
integration of ICN into networks that support virtualized
infrastructure in the form of NFV/SDN. Further work is required to
validate this idea and document best practices.
6.4. Summary of ICN Protocol Gaps and Potential IETF Efforts
Without claiming completeness, Table 1 maps the open the open ICN
deployment protocol issues identified in this document to potential
IETF groups that could address some aspects of them. An example of a
specific gap that the group could potentially address is identified
in parenthesis beside the group name.
Rahman, et al. Expires September 12, 2017 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Deployment Configurations for ICN March 2017
+--------------+----------------------------------------------------+
| ICN Protocol | Potential IETF Group |
| Gaps | |
+--------------+----------------------------------------------------+
| 1-Support of | HTTPBIS and CORE WG |
| REST APIs | (HTTP/CoAP support of ICN semantics) |
| | |
| 2-Naming | New BoF/WG |
| | (Dynamic naming of ICN data objects) |
| | |
| 3-Multicast | BIER or new BoF/WG |
| distribution | (Multicast enhancements for ICN) |
| | |
| 4-In-network | New BoF/WG |
| caching | (Cache placement and sharing) |
| | |
| 5-NFV/SDN | SFC or New BoF/WG |
| Support | (Integration of ICN with NFV/SDN) |
| | |
| 6-ICN | New BoF/WG |
| mapping | (Mapping of HTTP and other protocols onto ICN |
| | message exchanges while preserving ICN message |
| | security) |
| | |
+--------------+----------------------------------------------------+
Table 1: Mapping of ICN Protocol Gaps to Potential IETF Groups
7. Conclusion
This documents describes a set of technical features in ICN that
warrant future specification work. For initial and incremental
deployment it can be useful to address some of these features and
corresponding specification work items in existing IETF working
groups. In this document, we have proposed a corresponding mapping
of topics to WGs. The fundamental protocols specifications may still
be best addressed by a specific WG.
8. IANA Considerations
This document requests no IANA actions.
9. Security Considerations
TBD.
Rahman, et al. Expires September 12, 2017 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Deployment Configurations for ICN March 2017
10. Acknowledgments
The authors want to thank Xavier de Foy for his very useful reviews
and comments to the document.
11. Informative References
[C_FLOW] Suh, J. and et al., "C_FLOW: Content-Oriented Networking
over OpenFlow", Open Networking Summit, April, 2012,
<http://opennetsummit.org/archives/apr12/site/pdf/
snu.pdf>.
[CCNx_UDP]
PARC, , "CCNx Over UDP", 2015,
<https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/interim-2015-icnrg-
04/slides/slides-interim-2015-icnrg-4-5.pdf>.
[CONET] Veltri, L. and et al., "CONET Project: Supporting
Information-Centric Functionality in Software Defined
Networks", Workshop on Software Defined Networks, , 2012,
<http://netgroup.uniroma2.it/Stefano_Salsano/papers/
salsano-icc12-wshop-sdn.pdf>.
[DASH] DASH, , "DASH Industry Forum", 2017, <http://dashif.org/>.
[Hybrid_ICN]
Cisco, , "Hybrid ICN: Cisco Announces Important Steps
toward Adoption of Information-Centric Networking", 2017,
<http://blogs.cisco.com/sp/cisco-announces-important-
steps-toward-adoption-of-information-centric-networking>.
[I-D.ietf-bier-use-cases]
Kumar, N., Asati, R., Chen, M., Xu, X., Dolganow, A.,
Przygienda, T., arkadiy.gulko@thomsonreuters.com, a.,
Robinson, D., Arya, V., and C. Bestler, "BIER Use Cases",
draft-ietf-bier-use-cases-04 (work in progress), January
2017.
[I-D.irtf-icnrg-ccnxmessages]
marc.mosko@parc.com, m., Solis, I., and c. cwood@parc.com,
"CCNx Messages in TLV Format", draft-irtf-icnrg-
ccnxmessages-03 (work in progress), June 2016.
[I-D.kutscher-icnrg-netinf-proto]
Kutscher, D., Farrell, S., and E. Davies, "The NetInf
Protocol", draft-kutscher-icnrg-netinf-proto-01 (work in
progress), February 2013.
Rahman, et al. Expires September 12, 2017 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Deployment Configurations for ICN March 2017
[I-D.mosko-icnrg-ccnxurischeme]
marc.mosko@parc.com, m. and c. cwood@parc.com, "The CCNx
URI Scheme", draft-mosko-icnrg-ccnxurischeme-01 (work in
progress), April 2016.
[I-D.paik-icn-deployment-considerations]
Paik, E., Yun, W., Kwon, T., and h.
hgchoi@mmlab.snu.ac.kr, "Deployment Considerations for
Information-Centric Networking", draft-paik-icn-
deployment-considerations-00 (work in progress), July
2013.
[IEEE_Communications]
Trossen, D. and G. Parisis, "Designing and Realizing an
Information-Centric Internet", Information-Centric
Networking, IEEE Communications Magazine Special Issue,
2012.
[Internet_Pricing]
Trossen, D. and G. KBiczok, "Not Paying the Truck Driver:
Differentiated Pricing for the Future Internet", ReArch
Workshop in conjunction with ACM Context, December, 2010.
[Jacobson]
Jacobson, V. and et al., "Networking Named Content",
Proceedings of ACM Context, , 2009.
[MWC_Demo]
InterDigital, , "InterDigital Demo at Mobile World
Congress (MWC)", 2016, <http://www.interdigital.com/
download/56d5c71bd616f892ba001861>.
[oneM2M] OneM2M, , "oneM2M Service Layer Standards for M2M and
IoT", 2017, <http://www.onem2m.org/>.
[POINT] Trossen, D. and et al., "POINT: IP Over ICN - The Better
IP?", European Conference on Networks and Communications
(EuCNC), , 2015.
[Reed] Reed, M. and et al., "Stateless Multicast Switching in
Software Defined Networks", ICC 2016, Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia, 2016.
[RFC6920] Farrell, S., Kutscher, D., Dannewitz, C., Ohlman, B.,
Keranen, A., and P. Hallam-Baker, "Naming Things with
Hashes", RFC 6920, DOI 10.17487/RFC6920, April 2013,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6920>.
Rahman, et al. Expires September 12, 2017 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Deployment Configurations for ICN March 2017
[RFC7252] Shelby, Z., Hartke, K., and C. Bormann, "The Constrained
Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7252,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7252, June 2014,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7252>.
[RFC7665] Halpern, J., Ed. and C. Pignataro, Ed., "Service Function
Chaining (SFC) Architecture", RFC 7665,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7665, October 2015,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7665>.
[RFC7927] Kutscher, D., Ed., Eum, S., Pentikousis, K., Psaras, I.,
Corujo, D., Saucez, D., Schmidt, T., and M. Waehlisch,
"Information-Centric Networking (ICN) Research
Challenges", RFC 7927, DOI 10.17487/RFC7927, July 2016,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7927>.
[RFC8075] Castellani, A., Loreto, S., Rahman, A., Fossati, T., and
E. Dijk, "Guidelines for Mapping Implementations: HTTP to
the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 8075,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8075, February 2017,
<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8075>.
[SAIL_NetInf]
FP7, , "SAIL Prototyping and Evaluation", 2013,
<http://www.sail-project.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/
SAIL_DB4_v1.1_Final_Public.pdf>.
[Tateson] Tateson, J. and et al., "Final Evaluation Report on
Deployment Incentives and Business Models", 2010,
<http://www.psirp.org/files/Deliverables/FP7-INFSO-ICT-
216173-PSIRP-D4.6_FinalReportOnDeplIncBusinessModels.pdf>.
[Techno_Economic]
Trossen, D. and A. Kostopolous, "Techno-Economics Aspects
of Information-Centric Networking", Journal for
Information Policy, Volume 2, 2012.
[White] White, G. and G. Rutz, "Content Delivery with Content
Centric Networking, CableLabs White Paper", 2010,
<http://www.cablelabs.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/
Content-Delivery-with-Content-Centric-Networking-Feb-
2016.pdf>.
Authors' Addresses
Rahman, et al. Expires September 12, 2017 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Deployment Configurations for ICN March 2017
Akbar Rahman
InterDigital Communications, LLC
1000 Sherbrooke Street West, 10th floor
Montreal H3A 3G4
Canada
Email: Akbar.Rahman@InterDigital.com
URI: http://www.InterDigital.com/
Dirk Trossen
InterDigital Communications, LLC
64 Great Eastern Street, 1st Floor
London EC2A 3QR
United Kingdom
Email: Dirk.Trossen@InterDigital.com
URI: http://www.InterDigital.com/
Dirk Kutscher
Huawei German Research Center
Riesstrasse 25
Munich 80992
Germany
Email: ietf@dkutscher.net
URI: http://www.Huawei.com/
Rahman, et al. Expires September 12, 2017 [Page 17]