Network Working Group D. Kutscher, Ed.
Internet-Draft NEC
Intended status: Standards Track S. Eum
Expires: August 18, 2014 NICT
K. Pentikousis
EICT
I. Psaras
UCL
D. Corujo
Universidade de Aveiro
D. Saucez
INRIA
T. Schmidt
HAW HAmburg
M. Waehlisch
FU Berlin
February 14, 2014
ICN Research Challenges
draft-kutscher-icnrg-challenges-02
Abstract
This memo describes research challenges for Information-Centric
Networking. Information-Centric Networking is an approach to evolve
the Internet infrastructure to directly support information
distribution by introducing uniquely named data as a core Internet
principle. Data becomes independent from location, application,
storage, and means of transportation, enabling in-network caching and
replication. Challenges include naming, security, routing, system
scalability, mobility management, wireless networking, transport
services, in-network caching, and network management.
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."
Kutscher, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft ICN Challenges February 2014
This Internet-Draft will expire on August 18, 2014.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Problems with Information Distribution Today . . . . . . . . . 5
3. ICN Terminology and Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.2. Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. ICN Research Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1. Naming and data authenticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2. Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2.1. Data Object Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2.2. Binding NDOs to Real-World Identities . . . . . . . . 11
4.2.3. Traffic aggregation and filtering . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2.4. State overloading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.2.5. Delivering data objects from replicas . . . . . . . . 12
4.2.6. Cryptographic robustness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.2.7. Routing and forwarding information bases . . . . . . . 13
4.3. Routing and Resolution System Scalability . . . . . . . . 13
4.3.1. Route-By-Name Routing (RBNR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.3.2. Lookup-By-Name Routing (LBNR) . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.3.3. Hybrid Routing (HR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.4. Mobility Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.5. Wireless Networking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.6. Transport Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.7. In-Network Caching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.7.1. Cache Placement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.7.2. Content Placement -- Content-to-Cache Distribution . . 22
4.7.3. Request-to-Cache Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.7.4. Staleness Detection of Cached NDOs . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.8. Network Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5. Link to and Impact on IETF Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . 26
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
7. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Kutscher, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft ICN Challenges February 2014
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Kutscher, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft ICN Challenges February 2014
1. Introduction
Distributing and manipulating named information is a major
application in the Internet today. In addition to web-based content
distribution, other distribution technologies (such as P2P and CDN)
have emerged and are promoting a communication model of accessing
data by name, regardless of origin server location.
In order to respond to increasing traffic volume in the current
Internet for applications such as mobile video and cloud computing, a
set of disparate technologies and distribution services are applied
that employ caching, replication and content distribution in
different specific ways. These approaches are currently deployed in
separate silos -- different CDN providers and P2P applications rely
on their own, often proprietary, distribution technologies. It is
not possible to uniquely and securely identify named information
independently of the distribution channel; and the different
distribution approaches are typically implemented as an overlay,
potentially leading to unnecessary inefficiency.
For example, creating and sharing multimedia content in a social
networking application today, typically requires uploading data
objects to centralized service provider platforms, from where it can
be accessed individually by other users. Even if content sharing is
intended to happen locally, e.g., in a local network or local area,
the actual communication will require interactions from any
interested user with the service provider. CDNs can alleviate the
situation only partly, because, due to organizational and economic
reasons, it is not common to deploy CDN gear ubiquitously. Moreover,
since CDNs and the respective communication sessions form overlays,
the actual communication, i.e., the requests for named content and
the actual responses, are largely invisible to the network, i.e., it
is not easily possible to optimize efficiency and performance. For
example in a wireless access network, it is not possible to leverage
the inherent broadcast nature of the medium (and avoid duplicate
transmission of the same content) due to limitations from point-to-
point and overlay communication.
Information-centric networking (ICN) is an approach to evolve the
Internet infrastructure to directly support this use by introducing
named data as a core network-layer primitive. Data objects become
independent of location, application, storage, and means of
transportation, allowing for inexpensive and ubiquitous in-network
caching and replication. The expected benefits are improved
efficiency, better support for provenance verification and name-
content binding validation, better scalability with respect to
information/bandwidth demand and better robustness in challenging
communication scenarios.
Kutscher, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft ICN Challenges February 2014
ICN concepts can be deployed by retooling the protocol stack: name-
based data access can be implemented on top of the existing IP
infrastructure, e.g., by providing resource naming, ubiquitous
caching and corresponding transport services, or it can be seen as a
packet-level internetworking technology that would cause fundamental
changes to Internet routing and forwarding. In summary, ICN is
expected to evolve the Internet architecture towards a network model
that is more suitable for the current and future use patterns.
This document presents the ICN research challenges that need to be
addressed in order to achieve these goals. These research challenges
are seen from a technical perspective, although business
relationships between Internet players will also influence
developments in this area. We leave business challenges for a
separate document, however. The objective of this note is to
document the technical challenges and corresponding current
approaches and to expose requirements that should be addressed by
future research work.
2. Problems with Information Distribution Today
The best current practice to manage the above-mentioned growth in
terms of data volume and number of devices is to increase
infrastructure investment, employ application-layer overlays such as
CDNs, P2P applications, and M2M application platforms that cache
content, provide location-independent access to data, and optimize
its delivery. In principle, such platforms provide a service model
of accessing named data objects (NDOs) (e.g., replicated web
resources, M2M data in data centers) instead of a host-to-host packet
delivery service model.
However, since this functionality resides in overlays only, the full
potential of content distribution and M2M application platforms
cannot be leveraged as the network is not aware of data requests and
data transmissions. This has the following impact:
o data traffic typically follows sub-optimal paths as it is
effectively routed depending on the overlay topology instead of
the Internet layer topology;
o network capabilities, such as multicast and broadcast, are largely
underutilized or not employed at all. As a result, request and
delivery for the same object have to be made multiple times;
o overlays typically require significant infrastructure support,
e.g., authentication portals, content storage, and applications
servers, making it often impossible to establish local, direct
Kutscher, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft ICN Challenges February 2014
communication;
o since the network is not aware of the nature of data objects, it
is unable to manage access and transmission (without layer
violations);
o provenance validation uses host authentication today. As such,
even if there are locally cached copies available, it is normally
not easily possible to validate their authenticity; and
o many applications follow their own approach to caching,
replication, transport, authenticity validation (if at all),
although they all share similar models for accessing named data
objects in the network.
3. ICN Terminology and Concepts
3.1. Terminology
Information-Centric Networking (ICN) A concept for communicating in
a network that provides accessing named data objects as a first
order service. See Section 3.2 for details.
Named Data Object (NDO): Addressable data unit in an ICN that can
represent a collection of bytes or a piece of information. In
ICN, each data object has a name bound to it, and there are
typically mechanisms to secure (and validate) this binding.
Different ICN approaches have different concepts for how to map
NDOs to individual units of transport. Within the context of this
document, an NDO is any named object that can be requested from
the network.
Requestor: Entitiy in an ICN network that is sending a request for a
Named Data Object to the network.
3.2. Concepts
Fundamentally, ICN is providing access to named data as a first-order
network service, i.e., the network is able to serve requests to named
data natively. That means, network nodes can receive requests for
named data and act as necessary, for example, by forwarding the
request to a suitable next-hop. Consequently, the network processes
requests for named data objects (and corresponding responses)
natively. Every network node on a path is enabled to perform
forwarding decisions, to cache objects etc. This enables the network
to forward such requests on optimal paths, employing the best
transmission technologies at every node, e.g., broadcast/multicast
Kutscher, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft ICN Challenges February 2014
transmission in wireless networks to avoid duplicate transmission of
both requests and responses.
In ICN there is a set of common concepts and node requirements beyond
this basic service model. Naming data objects is a key concept. In
general, ICN names represent neither network nodes nor interfaces --
they represent NDOs independently of their location. Names do play a
key role in forwarding decisions and are used for matching requests
to responses: In order to provide better support for accessing copies
of NDOs regardless of their location, it is important to be able to
validate that a response actually delivers the bits that correspond
to an original request for named data.
Name-content binding validation is a fundamental security service in
ICN, and this is often achieved by establishing a verifiable binding
between the object name and the actual object or an identity that has
created the object. ICN can support other security services, such as
provenance validation, encryption -- depending on the details of
naming schemes, object models and assumptions on infrastructure
support. Security services such as name-content binding validation
are available to any node, i.e., not just the actual receivers. This
is an important feature, for enabling ingress gateways to check
object authenticity to prevent denial-of-service attacks.
Based on these fundamental properties it is possible to leverage
network storage ubiquitously: every node and every device can cache
data objects and respond to requests for such objects -- it is not
required to validate the authenticity of the node itself since name-
content bindings can be validated. Ubiquitous in-network storage can
be used for different purposes: it can enable sharing, i.e., the same
object copy can be delivered to multiple users/nodes as in today's
proxy caches and CDNs. It can also be used to make communication
more robust (and perform better) by enabling the network to answer
requests from local caches (instead of from origin servers). In case
of disruption (message not delivered), a node can re-send the
request, and it could be answered by an on-path cache, i.e., on the
other side of the disrupted link. The network itself would thus
support retransmissions -- enabling shorter round-trip times and
offloading origin servers and other parts of the network.
The request/response model and ubiquitous in-network storage also
enables new options for implementing transport services, i.e.,
reliable transmission, flow control, etc. First of all, a request/
response model can enable receiver-driven transport regimes, i.e.,
receivers (the requestors of NDOs) can control message sending rates
by regulating the request sending rate (assuming that every response
message has to be triggered by a request message). Retransmission
would be achieved by re-sending requests, e.g., after a timeout.
Kutscher, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft ICN Challenges February 2014
Because objects can be replicated, object transmission and transport
sessions would not necessarily have end-to-end semantics: requests
can be answered by caches, and a node can select one or multiple
next-hop destination for a particular request -- depending on
configuration, observed performance or other criteria.
This receiver-driven communication model potentially enables new
interconnection and business models: a request for named data can be
linked to an interest of a requestor (or requesting network) in data
from another peer, which could suggest modeling peering agreements
and charging accordingly.
4. ICN Research Challenges
4.1. Naming and data authenticity
Naming data objects is as important for ICN as naming hosts is for
today's Internet. Fundamentally, ICN requires unique names for
individual NDOs, since names are used for identifying objects
independently of their location or container. In addition, since
NDOs can be cached anywhere, the origin cannot be trusted anymore
hence the importance to establish a verifiable binding between the
object and its name (name-data integrity) so that a receiver can be
sure that the received bits do correspond to the NDO originally
requested (object authenticity). Information about an object's
provenance, i.e., who generated or published it, is also useful to
associate to the name.
The above functions are fundamentally required for the information-
centric network to work reliably, otherwise neither network elements
nor receivers can trust object authenticity. Lack of this trust
enables several attacks including DoS attacks by injecting spoofed
content into the network. There are different ways to use names and
cryptography to achieve the desired functions [ICNNAMING]
[ICNSURVEY], and there are different ways to manage namespaces
correspondingly.
Two types of naming schemes have been proposed in the ICN literature:
hierarchical and flat namespaces. For example, a hierarchical scheme
may have a structure similar to current URIs, where the hierarchy is
rooted in a publisher prefix. Such hierarchy enables aggregation of
routing information, improving scalability of the routing system. In
some cases, names are human-readable, which makes it possible for
users to manually type in names, reuse, and, to some extent, map the
name to user intent.
The second general class of naming schemes follows a "self-
Kutscher, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft ICN Challenges February 2014
certifying" approach, meaning that the object's name-data integrity
can be verified without requiring a public key infrastructure (PKI)
or other third party to first establish trust in the key. Self-
certification is achieved, e.g., by binding the hash of the NDO
content to the object's name. For instance, this can be done by
directly embedding the hash of the content in the name. Another
option is an indirect binding, which embeds the public key of the
publisher in the name and signs the hash of the content with the
corresponding secret key. The resulting names are typically non-
hierarchical, or flat, although the publisher field could be employed
to create a structure which could facilitate route aggregation.
There are several design trade-offs for ICN naming, which affect
routing and security. Self-certifying names are not human readable
nor hierarchical. They can however provide some structure for
aggregation, for instance, a name part corresponding to a publisher.
Research challenges specific to naming include:
o naming static data objects can be performed by using content
hashes as part of object names, so that publishers calculate the
hash over existing data objects and receivers (or any ICN node)
can validate the name-content binding by re-calculating the hash
and comparing it to the name (component). [RFC6920] specifies a
concrete naming format for this.
o naming dynamic objects refers to use cases where the name has to
be generated before the object is created. For example, this
could be the case for live streaming, when a publisher wants to
make the stream available by registering stream chunk names in the
network. One approach to this can be self-certified names as
described above.
o requestor privacy protection can be a challenge in ICN as a direct
consequence of the accessing-named-data-objects paradigm: if the
network can "see" requests and responses, it can also log request
history for network segments or individual users, which can be
undesirable, especially since names are typically expected to be
long-lived. That is, even if the name itself does not reveal much
information, the assumption is that the name can be used to
retrieve the corresponding data objects in the future.
o Updating and versioning NDO can be challenging because it can
contradict fundamental ICN assumptions: if an NDO can be
replicated and stored in in-network storage for later retrieval,
names have to be long-lived -- and the name-content binding must
not change: updating an object (i.e., changing the content without
generating a new name) is impossible. Versioning is one possible
solution, but requires a naming scheme that supports it (and a way
Kutscher, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft ICN Challenges February 2014
for requestors to learn about versions).
o Managing accessibility: whereas in ICN the general assumption is
to enable ubiquitous access to NDOs, there can be relevant use
cases where access to objects should be restricted, for example to
a specific user group. There are different approaches for this,
such as object encryption (requiring key distribution and related
mechanisms) or the concept of scopes, e.g., based on names that
can only be used/resolved under some constraints.
4.2. Security
Security can take many different forms in ICN and instead of
discussing specific attacks or technical details, we propose here the
most important security challenges that come from the shift to
information-centric communications. Some challenges are well-
understood, and there are (sometimes multiple different) approaches
to address them, whereas other challenges are active research and
engineering topics.
4.2.1. Data Object Authentication
As mentioned in section Section 4.1, data object authentication is an
important ICN feature, since ICN data objects are retrieved not only
from an original copy holder but also from any caching point. Hence,
the communication channel endpoints to retrieve NDOs are not
trustable anymore and solutions widely used today such as TLS
[RFC5246] cannot be used as a general solution. Since data objects
can be maliciously modified ICN should provide users with a security
mechanism to verify the origin and integrity of the data object, and
there are different ways to achieve this.
An efficient approach for static NDOs is providing a name-content-
binding by hashing an NDO and using the hash as a part of the
object's name. [RFC6920] provides a mechanism and a format for
representing a digest algorithm and the actual digest in a name
(amongst other information).
For dynamic objects (where it is desirable to refer to an NDO by name
before the object has been created), public-key cryptography is often
applied, i.e., every NDO would be authenticated by means of a
signature performed by the data object publisher so that any data
object consumer can verify the validity of the data object based on
the signature. However, in order to verify the signature of an
object, the consumer must know the public key of the entity that
signed the object.
One research challenge is then to support a mechanism to distribute
Kutscher, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft ICN Challenges February 2014
the publisher's public keys to the consumers of data objects. There
are two main approaches to achieve this; one is based on an external
third party authority such as hierarchical Public Key Infrastructure
(PKI) [RFC5280] and the other is to adapt a self-certifying scheme.
The former, as the name implies, depends on an external third party
authority to distribute the public key of the publisher for the
consumers. In a self-certifying scheme, the public key (or a hash of
it) would be used as part of the name -- which is sufficient to
validate the object's authenticity.
In cases where information about the origin of a data object is not
available by other means, the object itself would have to incorporate
the necessary information to determine the object publisher, for
example with a certificate, that can be validated through the PKI.
Once the certificate is authenticated, its public key can be used to
authenticate the signed data object itself.
4.2.2. Binding NDOs to Real-World Identities
In addition to validating NDO authenticity, it is still important to
bind real-world identities, e.g., a publisher identity, to objects,
so that a requestor can verify that a received object was actually
published by a certain source.
With hash-based and self-certifying names, real-world-identity
bindings are not intrinsically established: the name provides the
hash of the NDO or of the public key that has been used to sign the
NDO. There needs to be another binding to a real-world-identity if
that feature is requested.
If the object name directly provides the publisher name and if that
name is protected by a certificate that links to PKI-like trust
chain, the object name itself can provide an intrinsic binding to a
real-world identity.
Binding between NDOs and Real-World Identities is essential but there
is no universal way to achieve it as it is all intrinsic to the
particular ICN approach.
4.2.3. Traffic aggregation and filtering
One request message to retrieve a data object can actually aggregate
requests coming from several consumers. This aggregation of requests
reduces the overall traffic but makes per-requestor filtering harder.
The challenge in this case is to provide a mechanism that allows
requests aggregation and per-requestor filtering. A possible
solution is to indicate the set of requestors in the aggregated
request such that the response can indicate the subset of requestors
Kutscher, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft ICN Challenges February 2014
allowed to access the data object. However, this solution requires
collaboration from other nodes in the network and is not suitable for
caching. Another possible solution is the encrypt data objects and
ensure that only authorised consumers can decrypt them. This
solution does not preclude caching and does not require collaboration
from the network. However, it implies a mechanism to generate group
keys (e.g., different private keys can be used to decrypt the same
encrypted data object) [Chaum].
4.2.4. State overloading
ICN solutions that implement state on intermediate routers for
request routing or forwarding (e.g., CCN [CCN]) are subject to denial
of service attacks from overloading or superseding the internal state
of a router (e.g., 'interest flooding' [BACKSCATTER]). Additionally,
stateful forwarding can enable attack vectors such as resource
exhaustion or complexity attacks to the routing infrastructure. The
challenge is then to provision routers and construct internal state
in a way that alleviates sensibility to such attacks. The problem
becomes even harder, if the protocol does not provide information
about the origin of messages. Without origin, it is a particular
challenge to distinguish between regular (intense) use and misuse of
the infrastructure.
4.2.5. Delivering data objects from replicas
A common capability of ICN solutions is data replication and in-
network storage. Delivering replicated data objects from caches
decouples content consumption from data sources which leads to a loss
of control on (1) content access, and (2) content dissemination. In
a widely distributed, decentralized environment like the Internet,
this raises several challenges.
One group of challenges is related to content management. Without
access control, a content provider looses the means to count and
survey content consumption, to limit access scopes, to control or
know about the number of copies of its data in the network, or to
withdraw publication reliably. Any non-cooperative or desynchronized
data cache may hinder an effective content management policy.
Another group of challenges arises from potential traffic
amplifications in the decoupled environment. ICN solutions that
attempt to retrieve content from several replicas in parallel, or
decorrelated network routing states, but also distributed attackers
may simultaneously initiate the transmission of content from multiple
replicas towards the same destination (e.g., 'initiated overloads' or
'blockades' [BACKSCATTER]). Methods for mitigating such threats need
rigorous forwarding checks that require alignment with caching
Kutscher, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft ICN Challenges February 2014
procedures (e.g., on-path or off-path).
4.2.6. Cryptographic robustness
Content producers sign their content to ensure the integrity of data
and to allow for data object authentication. This is a fundamental
requirement in ICN due to distributed caching. Publishers, who (a)
massively sign content, which is (b) long-lived, offer time and data
to an attacker for comprising cryptographic credentials. Signing
large amount of data eases common attacks that try to breach the key
of the publisher. Based on this observation, the following research
challenges appear. To which extent does the content publication
model conflict with cryptographic limitations? How can we achieve a
transparent re-signing without introducing additional cryptographical
weaknesses or key management overhead?
4.2.7. Routing and forwarding information bases
Section 4.3 shows that routing and forwarding information bases are
subject to scalability issue when routing by name is used. While the
system is designed it is not only important to ensure that it cannot
suffer from targeted attacks aiming at increasing routing and
forwarding information bases. As the routing system is tightly bound
to the ICN solution itself, there is no universal way to avoid such
attacks. However, a possible approache is to combine routing
information authenticity validation with filtering (e.g., maximum
deaggregation level whenever applicable, black lists, etc.).
4.3. Routing and Resolution System Scalability
ICN routing locates a data object based on its name which is
initially provided by a requestor. ICN routing may comprise three
steps: a name resolution step, a discovery step, and a delivery step.
The name resolution step translates the name of the requested data
object into its locator. The discovery step routes the request to
data object based on its name or locator. The last step (delivery)
routes the data object back to the requestor. Depending on how these
steps are combined, ICN routing schemes can be categorized as: Route-
By-Name Routing (RBNR), Lookup-By-Name Routing (LBNR), and Hybrid
Routing (HR).
4.3.1. Route-By-Name Routing (RBNR)
RBNR omits the first name resolution step. The name of data object
is directly used to route the request to the data object. Therefore,
routing information for each data object has to be maintained in the
routing table. Since the number of data objects is very large
(estimated as 10^11 back in 2007 [DONA] but this may be significantly
Kutscher, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft ICN Challenges February 2014
larger than that, e.g., 10^15 to 10^22), the size of routing tables
becomes a concern, as it can be proportional to the number of data
object unless an aggregation mechanism is introduced. On the other
hand, RBNR reduces overall latency and simplifies the routing process
due to the omission of the resolution process. For the delivery
step, RBNR needs another identifier (ID) of either host or location
to forward the requested data object back to the requestor.
Otherwise, an additional routing mechanism has to be introduced, such
as bread-crumbs routing [BREADCRUMBS], in which each request leaves
behind a trail of breadcrumbs along its forwarding path, and then the
response is forwarded back to the requestor consuming the trail.
Specific challenges include:
o How to aggregate the names of data objects to reduce the number of
routing entries?
o How does a user learn the name which is designed for aggregation
by provider? (For example, although we name our contribution as
"ICN research challenge", IRTF (provider) may want to change the
name to "/IETF/IRTF/ ICN/Research challenge" for aggregation. In
this case, how does a user learn the name "/IETF/IRTF/ICN/Research
challenge" to retrieve the contribution initially named "ICN
research challenge" without any resolution process?)
o Without introducing the name aggregation scheme, can we still
achieve scalable routing by taking advantage of topological
structure and distributed copies? For example, employing compact
routing [COMPACT], random walk [RANDOM] or Greedy routing
[GREEDY].
o How to incorporate copies of a data object in in-network caches in
this routing scheme?
4.3.2. Lookup-By-Name Routing (LBNR)
LBNR uses the first name resolution step to translate the name of
requesting data object into its locator. Then, the second discovery
step is carried out based on the locator. Since IP addresses could
be used as locators, the discovery step can depend on the current IP
infrastructure. The delivery step can be implemented similarly to IP
routing. The locator of the requestor is included in the request
message, and then the requested data object is delivered to the
requestor based on the locator. A specific instantiation of such a
system is [MDHT]. Specific challenges include:
o How to build a scalable resolution system which provides
Kutscher, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft ICN Challenges February 2014
* Fast lookup: mapping the name of data object to its locators
(copies as well).
* Fast update: the location of data object is expected to change
frequently. Also, multiple data objects may change their
locations at the same time, e.g., data objects in laptop.
o How to incorporate copies of a data object in in-network caches in
this routing scheme?
4.3.3. Hybrid Routing (HR)
HR combines RBNR and LBNR to benefit from their advantages. For
instance, within a single administrative domain, e.g., an ISP, where
scalability issues can be addressed with network planning, RBNR can
be adopted to reduce overall latency by omitting the resolution
process. On the other hand, LBNR can be used to route between
domains which have their own prefix (locator). A specific challenge
here is:
o How to design a scalable mapping system which, given the name of
data object, it should return a destination domain locator so that
a user request can be encapsulated and forwarded to the domain?
4.4. Mobility Management
Mobility management has been an active field in host-centric
communications for more than two decades. In IETF in particular,
starting with [RFC2002], a multitude of enhancements to IP have been
standardized aiming to "allow transparent routing of IP datagrams to
mobile nodes in the Internet" [RFC5944]. In a nutshell, mobility
management for IP networks is locator-oriented and relies on the
concept of a mobility anchor as a foundation for providing always-on
connectivity to mobile nodes. Other standards organizations, such as
3GPP, have followed similar anchor-based approaches. Traffic to and
from the mobile node must flow through the mobility anchor, typically
using a set of tunnels, enabling the mobile node to remain reachable
while changing its point of attachment to the network.
Needless to say, an IP network which supports node mobility is more
complex than one that does not, as specialized network entities must
be introduced in the network architecture. This is reflected in the
control plane as well, which carries mobility-related signaling
messages, establishes and tears down tunnels and so on. While mobile
connectivity was an afterthought in IP, in ICN this is considered a
primary deployment environment. Most, if not all, ICN proposals
consider mobility from the very beginning, although at varying levels
of architectural and protocol detail. That said, no solution has so
Kutscher, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft ICN Challenges February 2014
far come forward with a definite answer on how to handle mobility in
ICN using native primitives. In fact, we observe that mobility
appears to be addressed on ICN proposal specific basis. That is,
there is no single paradigm solution, akin to tunneling through a
mobility anchor in host-centric networking, that can be applied
across different ICN proposals. For instance, although widely-
deployed mobile network architectures typically come with their own
network entities and associated protocols, they follow the same line
of design with respect to managing mobility. This design thinking,
which calls for incorporating mobility anchors, permeates in the ICN
literature too.
However, employing mobility anchors and tunneling is probably not the
best way forward in ICN research for mobile networking.
Fundamentally this approach is anything but information-centric and
location-indepedent. In addition, as argued in [SEEN], current
mobility management schemes anchor information retrieval not only at
a specific network gateway (e.g., home agent in Mobile IP) but due to
the end-to-end nature of host-centric communication also at a
specific correspondent node. However, once a change in the point of
attachment occurs, information retrieval from the original
"correspondent node" may be no longer optimal. This was shown in
[MANI], for example, where a simple mechanism that triggers the
discovery of new retrieval providers for the same data object,
following a change in the point of attachment, clearly outperforms a
tunnel-based approach like Mobile IP in terms of object download
times. The challenge here is how to capitalize on location
information while facilitating the use of ICN primitives which
natively support multicast and anycast.
ICN naming and name resolution, as well as the security features that
come along should natively support mobility. For example, CCN [CCN]
does not have the restriction of spanning tree routing, so it is able
to take advantage of multiple interfaces or adapt to the changes
produced by rapid mobility (i.e., there is no need to bind a layer 3
address with a layer 2 address). In fact, client mobility can be
simplified by allowing requests for new content to normally flow from
different interfaces, or through newly connected points of attachment
to the network. However, when the node moving is the (only) content
source, it appears that more complex network support might be
necessary, including forwarding updates and cache rebuilding. A case
in point is a conversation network service, such as a voice or video
call between two parties. The requirements in this case are more
stringent when support for seamless mobility is required, esp. when
compared to content dissemination that is amenable to buffering.
Another parameter that needs to be paid attention to is the impact of
using different wireless access interfaces based on different
technologies, where the performance and link conditions can vary
Kutscher, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft ICN Challenges February 2014
widely depending of numerous factors.
In host-centric networking, mobility management mechanisms ensure
optimal handovers and (ideally) seamless transition from one point of
attachment to another. In ICN, however, the traditional meaning of
"point of attachment" no longer applies as communication is not
restrained by location-based access to data objects. Therefore, a
"seamless transition" in ICN ensures that content reception continues
without any perceptible change from the point of view of the ICN
application receiving that content. Moreover, this transition needs
to be executed in parallel with ICN content identification and
reaching mechanisms enabling scenarios, such as, preparation of the
content reaching process at the target connectivity point, prior to
the handover (to reduce link switch disturbances). Finally, these
mobility aspects can also be tightly coupled with network management
aspects, in respect to policy enforcement, link control and other
parameters necessary for establishing the node's link to the network.
In summary, the following research challenges on ICN mobility
management can be derived:
o How can mobility management take full advantage of native ICN
primitives?
o How do we avoid the need for mobility anchors in a network that by
design supports multicast, anycast and location-indepedent
information retrieval?
o How can content retrieval mechanisms interface with specific link
operations, such as identifying which links are available for
certain content?
o How can mobility be offered as a service, which is only activated
when the specific user/content/conditions require it?
o How can mobility management be coordinated between the node and
the network for optimization and policing procedures?
o How do we ensure that managing mobility does not introduce
scalability issues in ICN?
4.5. Wireless Networking
Today, all layer 2 wireless network radio access technologies (L2)
are developed with a clear assumption in mind: the waist of the
protocol stack is IP and it will be so for the foreseeable future.
By fixing the protocol stack waist, engineers can answer a large set
of questions, including how to handle conversational traffic (e.g.,
Kutscher, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft ICN Challenges February 2014
voice calls) vs. web access to online resources, how to support
multicast (the IP flavor), and so on, in a rather straightforward
manner. Broadcast, on the other hand, which is inherent in wireless
communication is not fully taken advantage off. On the contrary,
researchers are often more concerned about introducing mechanisms
that ensure that "broadcast storms" do not take down a network. The
question of how broadcast can serve ICN needs better has yet to be
thoroughly investigated.
Wireless networking is often intertwined with mobility but this is
not always the case. In fact, empirical measurements often indicate
that many users tend to connect (and remain connected) to a single
Wi-Fi access point for considerable amounts of time. A case in
point, which is frequently cited in different variations in the ICN
literature, is access to a document repository during a meeting. For
instance, in a typical IETF working group meeting, a scribe takes
notes which are uploaded to a centralized repository (see Figure 1).
Subsequently, each meeting participant obtains a copy of the document
on their own devices for local use, annotation, and sharing with
colleagues that are not present at the meeting. Note that in this
example there is no node mobility and that it is not important
whether the document with the notes is uploaded in one go at the end
of the session or in a streaming-like fashion as is typical today
with online (cloud-based) document processing.
+---------------------+
| Document Repository |
+---------------------+
||
(Internet)
||
+--------------+
| Access Point |
+--------------+
/ | \
/ | \
/ | \
Scribe Participant 1 ... Participant N
Figure 1: Document sharing during a meeting
In this scenario we observe that the same data object bits
(corresponding to the meeting notes) need to traverse the wireless
medium at least N+1 times, where N is the number of meeting
participants obtaining a copy of the notes. In effect, a broadcast
medium is shoehorned into N+1 virtual unicast channels. One could
argue that wireless local connectivity is inexpensive, but this is
Kutscher, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft ICN Challenges February 2014
not the critical factor in this example. The actual information
exchange wastes N times the available network capacity, no matter
what is the spectral efficiency (or the economics) underlying the
wireless technology. This waste is a direct result of extending the
remote access paradigm from wired to wireless communication,
irrespective of the special characteristics of the latter.
It goes without saying that an ICN approach that does not take into
consideration the wireless nature of an interface will waste the same
amount of resources as a host-centric paradigm. In-network caching
at the wireless access point could reduce the amount of data carried
over the backhaul link but, if there is no change in the use of the
wireless medium, the NDO will still be carried over the wireless
ether N+1 times. Intelligent caching strategies, replica placement
cooperation and so on simply cannot alleviate this. On the other
hand, promiscuous interface operation and opportunistic caching would
maximize wireless network capacity utilization in this example.
Arguably, if one designs a future wireless access technology with an
information-centric "layer 3" in mind, many of the design choices
that are obvious in an all-IP architecture may no longer be valid.
Although this is clearly outside the scope of this document, a few
research challenges that the wider community may be interested in
include:
o Can we use wireless resources more frugally with the information-
centric paradigm than what is possible today in all-IP wireless
networks?
o In the context of wireless access, how can we leverage the
broadcast nature of the medium in an information-centric network?
o Would a wireless-oriented ICN protocol stack deliver significant
performance gains? How different would it be from a wired-
oriented ICN protocol stack?
o Is it possible that by changing the network paradigm to ICN we can
in practice increase the spectral efficiency (bits/s/Hz) of a
wireless network beyond what would be possible with today's host-
centric approaches? What would be the impact of doing so with
respect to energy consumption?
o Can wireless interface promiscuous operation coupled with
opportunistic caching increase ICN performance, and if so, by how
much?
o How can a conversational service be supported at least as
efficiently as today's state-of-the-art wireless networks deliver?
Kutscher, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft ICN Challenges February 2014
o What are the benefits from combining ICN with network coding in
wireless networks?
o How can MIMO and Coordinated Multipoint Transmission (CoMP) be
natively combined with ICN primitives in future cellular networks?
4.6. Transport Services
ICN's receiver-driven communication model as described above creates
new options for transport protocol design, as it does not rely solely
on end-to-end communication from a sender to a receiver. A requested
object can be accessible in multiple different network locations. A
node can thus decide how to utilize multiple sources, e.g., by
sending parallel requests for the same object or by switching sources
(or next hops) in a suitable schedule for a series of requests.
In this model, the requestor would control the data rate by
regulating its request sending rate and next by performing source/
next-hop selections. Specific challenges depend on the specific ICN
approach, but general challenges for receiver-driven transport
protocols (or mechanisms, since dedicated protocols might not be
required) include flow and congestion control, fairness, network
utilization, stability (of data rates under stable conditions) etc.
[HRICP] describes a sample request rate control protocol and
corresponding design challenges.
As mentioned above, the ICN communication paradigm does not depend
strictly on end-to-end flows, as contents might be received from mid-
network caches. The traditional concept of a flow is then somewhat
cancelled as sub-flows, or flowlets might be formed on the fly, when
fractions of an NDO are transmitted from in-network caches. For a
transport layer protocol this is challenging, as any measurement
related to this flow, as traditionally done by transport protocols
such as TCP, will be hugely misleading. For example, false RTT
measurements will lead to largely variable average and smooth RTT
values, which in turn will trigger false timeout expirations.
Furthermore, out-of-order delivery is expected to be common in a
scenario where parts of a content file are retrieved from in-network
caches, rather than from the origin server. Several techniques for
dealing with out-of-order delivery have been proposed in the past for
TCP, some of which could potentially be modified and re-used in the
context of ICN. Further research is needed on this direction though
to i) choose the right technique and ii) adjust it according to the
requirements of the ICN architecture and transport protocol in use.
ICN offers routers the possibility to aggregate requests and can use
several paths, meaning that there is no such thing as a (dedicated)
Kutscher, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft ICN Challenges February 2014
end-to-end communication path, e.g., a router that receives two
requests for the same content at the same time only sends one request
to its neighbor. The aggregation of requests has a general impact on
transport service design.
Achieving fairness for requestors can be one challenge as it is not
possible to identify the number of requestors behind one particular
request. A second problem related to request aggregation is the
management of request retransmissions. Generally, it is assumed that
a router will not transmit a request if it transmitted an identical
request recently and because there is no information about the
requestor, the router cannot distinguish the initial request from a
client from a retransmission from the same client. In such a
situation, how routers can adapt their timers to use the best of the
communication paths. Finally, aggregation of requests has an impact
on the server (producer) side. This last has no way to determine the
number of clients actually consuming the content it is producing.
This shift of model influences the business model of the server,
e.g., how to implement pay-per-click
4.7. In-Network Caching
Explicitly named content objects allow for caching at virtually any
network element, including routers, proxy caches and end-host
machines. In-network caching can therefore improve network
performance by fetching content from nodes geographically placed
closer to the end-user. Several issues that need further
investigation have been identified with respect to in-network
caching. Here we list some of the most important challenges that
relate to the properties of the new ubiquitous caching system.
4.7.1. Cache Placement
The declining cost of fast memory gives the opportunity to deploy
caches in network routers and take advantage of explicitly named
cached contents. There exist two approaches to in-network caching,
namely, on-path and off-path caching. Both approaches have to
consider the issue of cache location. Off-path caching is similar to
traditional proxy-caching or CDN server placement. Retrieval of
contents from off-path caches requires redirection of requests and,
therefore, is closely related to the Request-to-Cache Routing problem
discussed later. Off-path caches have to be placed in strategic
points within a network in order to reduce the redirection delays and
the number of detour hops to retrieve cached contents. Previous
research on proxy-caching and CDN deployment is helpful in this case.
On the other hand, on-path caching requires less network intervention
and fits more neatly in ICN. However, on-path caching requires line-
Kutscher, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft ICN Challenges February 2014
speed operation, which places more constraints on the design and
operation of in-network caching elements. Furthermore, the gain of
such a system of on-path in-network caches relies on opportunistic
cache hits and has therefore been considered of limited benefit,
given the huge amount of contents hosted in the Internet. For this
reason, network operators might initially consider only a limited
number of network elements to be upgraded to in-network caching
elements. The decision on which nodes should be equipped with caches
is an open issue and might be based, among others, on topological
criteria, or traffic characteristics. These challenges relate to
both the Content Placement Problem and the Request-to-Cache Routing
Problem discussed below.
In call cases, however, the driver for the implementation, deployment
and operation of in-network caches will be its cost. Operating
caches at line speed inevitably requires faster memories, which
increase the implementation cost. Based on the capital to be
invested, ISPs will need to make strategic decisions on the cache
placement, which can be driven by several factors, such as: avoid
inter-domain/expensive links, centrality of nodes, size of domain and
the corresponding spatial locality of users, traffic patterns in a
specific part of the network (e.g., university vs business vs fashion
district of a city).
4.7.2. Content Placement -- Content-to-Cache Distribution
Given a number of (on-path or off-path) in-network caching elements,
content-to-cache distribution will affect both the dynamics of the
system, in terms of request redirections (mainly in case of off-path
caches) and the gain of the system in terms of cache hits. A
straightforward approach to content placement is on-path placement of
contents as they travel from source to destination. This approach
reduces the computation and communication overhead of placing content
within the network but, on the other hand, might reduce the chances
of hitting cached contents. This relates to the Request-to-Cache
Routing problem discussed next.
Furthermore, the number of replicas held in the system brings up
resource management issues in terms of cache allocation. For
example, continuously replicating content objects in all network
elements results in redundant copies of the same objects. The issue
of redundant replication has been investigated in the past for
hierarchical web caches. However, in hierarchical web-caching,
overlay systems coordination between the data and the control plane
can guarantee increased performance in terms of cache hits. Line-
speed, on-path in-network caching poses different requirements and
therefore, new techniques need to be investigated. In this
direction, there already exist some studies that attempt to reduce
Kutscher, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft ICN Challenges February 2014
redundancy of cached copies. However, the issue of coordinated
content placement in on-path caches still remains open.
The Content-to-Cache Allocation problem relates also to the
characteristics of the content to be cached. Popular content might
need to be placed where it is going to be requested next.
Furthermore, issues of "expected content popularity" or temporal
locality need to be taken into account in designing in-network
caching algorithms in order for some contents to be given priority
(e.g., popular content vs. one-timers). The criteria as to which
contents should be given priority in in-network content caches relate
also to the business relationships between content providers and
network operators. Business model issues will drive some of these
decisions on content-to-cache distribution, but such issues are
outside the scope of this note and are not discussed here further.
4.7.3. Request-to-Cache Routing
In order to take advantage of cached contents, requests have to be
forwarded to the nodes that temporarily host (cache) the
corresponding contents. This challenge relates to name-based
routing, discussed before. Requests should ideally follow the path
to the cached content. However, instructions as to which content is
cached where cannot be broadcast throughout the network. Therefore,
the knowledge of a content's location at the time of the request
might either not exist, or it might not be accurate (i.e., contents
might have been removed by the time a request is redirected to a
specific node).
Coordination between the data and the control planes to update
information of cached contents has been considered, but in this case
scalability issues arise. We therefore, have two options. We either
have to rely on opportunistic caching, where requests are forwarded
to a server and in case the content is found on the path, then the
content is fetched from this node (instead of the original server);
or we employ cache-aware routing techniques. Cache-aware routing can
either involve both the control and the data plane, or only one of
them. Furthermore, cache-aware routing can be done in a domain-wide
scale or can involve more than one individual Autonomous System (AS).
In the latter case, business relationships between ASes might need to
be exploited in order to build a scalable model.
4.7.4. Staleness Detection of Cached NDOs
Due to the largely distributed copies of NDOs in in-network caches,
ICN should be able to provide a staleness verification algorithm
which provides synchronization of NDOs located at their providers and
in-network caching points. It is often argued that ignoring stale
Kutscher, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft ICN Challenges February 2014
NDOs in caches and simply providing new names for updated NDOs might
be sufficient rather than using a staleness verification algorithm to
manage them. However, the renaming scheme still causes following
problems.
First, notifying the new names of updated NDOs to users is not a
trivial task. Unless the update is informed to entire users at the
same time, some users would use the old acquainted name by intending
to retrieve the updated NDO. Second, the renaming scheme does not
provide a mechanism to limit access to the stale NDOs which may be
required for a security reason occationally.
One research challenge is how to design consistency and coherence
models for caching NDOs along with their revision handling and
updating protocols in a scalable manner.
4.8. Network Management
Managing networks has been a core craft in the IP-based host-centric
paradigm ever since the technology was introduced in production
networks. However, at the onset of IP, management was considered
primarily as an add-on. Essential tools that are used daily by
networkers, such as ping and traceroute, did not become widely
available until more than a decade or so after IP was first
introduced. Management protocols, such as SNMP, also became
available much later than the original introduction of IP and many
still consider them insufficient despite the years of experience we
have running host-centric networks. Today, when new networks are
deployed network management is considered a key aspect for any
operator, a major challenge which is directly reflected in higher
OPEX if not done well. If we want ICN to be deployed in
infrastructure networks, development of management tools and
mechanisms must go hand-in-hand with the rest of the architecture
design.
Although defining an FCAPS model for ICN is clearly outside the scope
of this document, there is a need for creating basic tools early on
while ICN is still in the design and experimentation phases that can
evolve over time and help network operations centers (NOC) to define
policies, validate that they are indeed used in practice, be notified
early on about failures, determine and resolve configuration
problems. AAA as well as performance management, from a NOC
perspective, will also need to be considered. Given the expectations
for a large number of nodes and unprecedented traffic volumes,
automating tasks, or even better employing self-management mechanisms
is preferred. The main challenge here is that all tools we have at
our disposal today are node-centric, end-to-end oriented, or assuming
a packet-stream communication environment. Rethinking reachability
Kutscher, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft ICN Challenges February 2014
and operational availability, for example, can yield significant
insights into how information-centric networks will be managed in the
future.
With respect to network management we see three different aspects.
First, any operator needs to manage all resources available in the
network, which can range from node connectivity to network bandwidth
availability to in-network storage to multi-access support. In ICN,
users will also bring into the network significant resources in terms
of network coverage extension, storage, and processing capabilities.
DTN characteristics should also be considered to the degree that this
is possible (e.g., content dissemination through data mules).
Secondly, given that nodes and links are not at the center of an
information-centric network, network management should capitalize on
native ICN mechanisms. For example, in-network storage and name
resolution can be used for monitoring, while native publish/subscribe
functionality can be used for triggering notifications. Finally,
management is also at the core of network controlling capabilities by
allowing operating actions to be mediated and decided, triggering and
activating networking procedures in an optimized way. For example,
monitoring aspects can be conjugated with different management
actions in a coordinated way, allowing network operations to flow in
a concertated way.
However, the considerations on leveraging intrinsic ICN mechanisms
and capabilities to support management operations go beyond a simple
mapping exercise. In fact, not only it raises a series of challenges
on its own, but also opens up new possibilities for both ICN and
"network management" as a concept. For instance, naming mechanisms
are central to ICN intrinsic operations, which are used to identify
and reach content under different aspects (e.g., hierarchically
structured vs. 'flattish' names). In this way, ICN is decoupled from
host-centric aspects on which traditional networking management
schemes rely upon. As such, questions are raised which can directly
be translated into challenges for network management capability, such
as, for example how to address a node or a network segment in a ICN
naming paradigm, how to identify which node is connected "where", and
if there is a host-centric protocol running from which the management
process can also leverage upon.
But, on the other hand, these same inherent ICN characteristics also
allow us to look into network management through a new perspective.
By centering its operations around content, one can conceive new
management operations addressing, for example, per-content management
or access control, as well as analyzing performance per content name
instead of per link or node. Moreover, such considerations can also
be used to manage operational aspects of ICN mechanisms themselves.
For example, [NDN-MGMT] re-utilizes inherent content-centric
Kutscher, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft ICN Challenges February 2014
capabilities of CCN to manage optimal link connectivity for nodes, in
concert with a network optimization process. Conversely, how these
content-centric aspects can otherwise influence and impact management
in other areas (e.g., security, resilience) is also important, as
exemplified by in [ccn-access], where access control mechanisms are
integrated into a prototype of the [PURSUIT] architecture.
In this way, a set of core research challenges on ICN management can
be derived as:
o Manage and control content reception at the destination
o Coordination of management information exchange and control
between ICN nodes and ICN network control points Identification of
management and controlling actions and items through information
naming
o Relationship between NDOs and host entities identification (i.e.,
how to identify a particular link, interface or flow that need to
be managed)
5. Link to and Impact on IETF Technologies
TBW later.
6. Security Considerations
Security related questions related to ICN are discussed in
Section 4.2.
7. Informative References
[BACKSCATTER]
Waehlisch, M., Schmidt, TC., and M. Vahlenkamp,
"Backscatter from the Data Plane - Threats to Stability
and Security in Information-Centric Network
Infrastructure", Computer Networks Vol 57, No. 16, pp.
3192-3206, November 2013.
[BREADCRUMBS]
Rosensweig, E. and J. Kurose, "Breadcrumbs: Efficient,
Best-Effort Content Location in Cache Networks",
In Proceedings of the IEEE INFOCOM 2009, April 2009.
[CCN] Jacobson, K, D, F, H, and L, "Networking Named Content",
Kutscher, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft ICN Challenges February 2014
CoNEXT 2009 , December 2009.
[COMPACT] Cowen, L., "Compact routing with minimum stretch",
In Journal of Algorithms, vol. 38, pp. 170--183, 2001.
[Chaum] Chaum, D. and E. van Heijst, "Group signatures",
In Proceedings of EUROCRYPT, 1991.
[DONA] Koponen, T., Ermolinskiy, A., Chawla, M., Kim, K., gon
Chun, B., and S. Shenker, "A Data-Oriented (and Beyond)
Network Architecture", In Proceedings of SIGCOMM 2007,
August 2007.
[GREEDY] Papadopoulos, F., Krioukov, D., Boguna, M., and A. Vahdat,
"Greedy forwarding in dynamic scale-free networks embedded
in hyperbolic metric spaces", In Proceedings of the IEEE
INFOCOM, San Diego, USA, 2010.
[HRICP] Carofiglio, G., Gallo, M., and L. Muscariello, "Joint hop-
by-hop and receiver-driven interest control protocol for
content-centric networks", In Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM
ICN 2012, DOI 10.1145/2342488.2342497, 2012.
[ICNNAMING]
Ghodsi, A., Koponen, T., Rajahalme, J., Sarolahti, P., and
S. Shenker, "Naming in Content-Oriented Architectures",
In Proceedings ACM SIGCOMM Workshop on Information-Centric
Networking (ICN), 2011.
[ICNSURVEY]
Ahlgren, B., Dannewitz, C., Imbrenda, C., Kutscher, D.,
and B. Ohlman, "A Survey of Information-Centric
Networking", In Communications Magazine, IEEE , vol.50,
no.7, pp.26-36, DOI 10.1109/MCOM.2012.6231276, 2012.
[MANI] Pentikousis, K. and T. Rautio, "A multiaccess Network of
Information", WoWMoM 2010, IEEE , June 2010.
[MDHT] D'Ambrosio, M., Dannewitz, C., Karl, H., and V.
Vercellone, "MDHT: A hierarchical name resolution service
for information-centric networks", ACM SIGCOMM workshop on
Information-centric networking Toronto, Canada, 2011,
August 2011.
[NDN-MGMT]
Corujo, D., Aguiar, R., Vidal, I., and J. Garcia-Reinoso,
"A named data networking flexible framework for management
communications", Communications Magazine, IEEE , vol.50,
Kutscher, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft ICN Challenges February 2014
no.12, pp.36-43 , December 2012.
[PURSUIT] Fotiou et al., N., "Developing Information Networking
Further: From PSIRP to PURSUIT", In Proceedings of Proc.
BROADNETS. ICST, 2010.
[RANDOM] Gkantsidis, C., Mihail, M., and A. Saberi, "Random walks
in peer-to-peer networks: algorithms and evaluation",
In Perform. Eval., vol. 63, pp. 241--263, 2006.
[RFC2002] Perkins, C., "IP Mobility Support", RFC 2002,
October 1996.
[RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
(TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, August 2008.
[RFC5280] Cooper, D., Santesson, S., Farrell, S., Boeyen, S.,
Housley, R., and W. Polk, "Internet X.509 Public Key
Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List
(CRL) Profile", RFC 5280, May 2008.
[RFC5944] Perkins, C., "IP Mobility Support for IPv4, Revised",
RFC 5944, November 2010.
[RFC6920] Farrell, S., Kutscher, D., Dannewitz, C., Ohlman, B.,
Keranen, A., and P. Hallam-Baker, "Naming Things with
Hashes", RFC 6920, April 2013.
[SEEN] Pentikousis, K., "In search of energy-efficient mobile
networking", Communications Magazine, IEEE, vol. 48, no.
1, pp.95-103 , January 2010.
[ccn-access]
Fotiou, N., Marias, G., and G. Polyzos, "Access control
enforcement delegation for information-centric networking
architectures", In Proceedings of the second edition of
the ICN workshop on Information-centric networking (ICN
'12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 85-90., 2012.
Kutscher, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft ICN Challenges February 2014
Authors' Addresses
Dirk Kutscher (editor)
NEC
Kurfuersten-Anlage 36
Heidelberg,
Germany
Phone:
Email: kutscher@neclab.eu
Suyong Eum
National Institute of Information and Communications Technology
4-2-1, Nukui Kitamachi, Koganei
Tokyo 184-8795
Japan
Phone: +81-42-327-6582
Email: suyong@nict.go.jp
Kostas Pentikousis
EICT GmbH
Torgauer Strasse 12-15
Berlin 10829
Germany
Email: k.pentikousis@eict.de
Ioannis Psaras
University College London, Dept. of E.E. Eng.
Torrington Place
London WC1E 7JE
United Kingdom
Email: i.psaras@ucl.ac.uk
Daniel Corujo
Universidade de Aveiro
Instituto de Telecomunicacoes, Campus Universitario de Santiago
Aveiro P-3810-193
Portugal
Email: dcorujo@av.it.pt
Kutscher, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft ICN Challenges February 2014
Damien Saucez
INRIA
2004 route des Lucioles - BP 93
Sophia Antipolis 06902 Cedex
France
Email: damien.saucez@inria.fr
Thomas C. Schmidt
HAW HAmburg
Berliner Tor 7
Hamburg 20099
Germany
Email: t.schmidt@ieee.org
Matthias Waehlisch
FU Berlin
Takustr. 9
Berlin 14195
Germany
Email: waehlisch@ieee.org
Kutscher, et al. Expires August 18, 2014 [Page 30]