Forwarding-Label support in CCN Protocol
draft-ravi-icnrg-ccn-forwarding-label-00

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Last updated 2016-11-16
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text pdf html bibtex
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
ICN Research Group                                          R. Ravindran
Internet-Draft                                            A. Chakraborti
Intended status: Informational                                  A. Azgin
Expires: May 20, 2017                                Huawei Technologies
                                                       November 16, 2016

                Forwarding-Label support in CCN Protocol
                draft-ravi-icnrg-ccn-forwarding-label-00

Abstract

   The objective of this proposal is to enable ID and Locator namespace
   split in the CCN protocol that has several applications such as
   towards Interest routing optimization, mobility, handling
   indirections in manifests, and routing scalability.  We enable this
   through the notion of forwarding-label (FL) object, which is an
   optional hop-by-hop payload in the Interest message with a locator
   name which identifies a network domain, router, or a host.  Depending
   on the application and trust context, an FL object can be subjected
   to policy based actions by the forwarders such as invoking security
   verification or enabling other service-centric actions such as FL
   object replacement.  FL object can be inserted by the applications or
   by the network.  To enable dynamic name resolution FL objects can
   also be modified in the network by designated points such as the edge
   routers.

Status of This Memo

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

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on May 20, 2017.

Ravindran, et al.         Expires May 20, 2017                  [Page 1]
Internet-Draft       Forwarding-label support in CCN       November 2016

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  ID-Locator Namespace Split in CCN . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Forwarding-Label Object Proposal  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.1.  FL Object Naming  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.2.  FL Object Insertion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.3.  FL Object Swapping  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.4.  FL Object Termination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
   3.  FL Object Message Format  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   4.  FL Object Processing Rules  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
   5.  PIT Processing Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   6.  Caching Implications  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   7.  Multiple Domain Scenario  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   8.  FL Object Security  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   9.  Use Case Scenarios  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     9.1.  Handling Producer Mobility  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     9.2.  Manifests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     9.3.  Interest Routing Optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     9.4.  Routing Scalability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   10. Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15

1.  ID-Locator Namespace Split in CCN

   In the context of ICN/CCN, we define identifier and locator as
   follows:

   o  Identifier (ID) is a persistent secure or non-secure flat-ID or a
      hierarchical name assigned to a content, device or service.  If
      the ID is secure, then trust relationship can be derived from it.
      Generally the identifier space is managed by applications.

Ravindran, et al.         Expires May 20, 2017                  [Page 2]
Show full document text