ICNRG K. Pentikousis, Ed.
Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies
Intended Status: Informational B. Ohlman
Expires: August 4, 2013 Ericsson
D. Corujo
Universidade de Aveiro
G. Boggia
Politecnico di Bari
January 31, 2013
ICN Baseline Scenarios
draft-pentikousis-icn-scenarios-01
Abstract
This document presents scenarios for information-centric networking
(ICN) which can be used to establish a common understanding about
potential experimental setups where different approaches can be
tested and compared against each other. All scenarios included in
this document are based on published literature. That is, they have
all been considered in one or more performance evaluation studies,
which are already available to the community. The scenarios selected
aim to exercise a variety of aspects that an ICN solution can
address. They include a) general aspects, such as, network
efficiency, mobility support, multicast and caching performance,
real-time communication efficacy, disruption and delay tolerance; and
b) ICN-specific aspects, such as, information security and trust,
persistence, availability, provenance, and location independence.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that
other groups may also distribute working documents as
Internet-Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
Pentikousis & Ohlman Expires August 4, 2013 [Page 1]
INTERNET DRAFT ICN Baseline Scenarios January 31, 2013
http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
Copyright and License Notice
Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document.
Table of Contents
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2 ICN Baseline Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1 Social Networking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2 Real-time A/V Communications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3 Mobile Networking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.4 Infrastructure Sharing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.5 Content Dissemination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.6 Energy Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.7 Delay and Disruption Tolerance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.8 Internet of Things . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.9 Smart City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3 Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4 IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5 Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1 Introduction
Information-centric networking (ICN) marks a fundamental shift in
communications and networking. In contrast with the omnipresent and
very successful host-centric paradigm, which is based on perpetual
connectivity and the end-to-end principle, ICN changes the focal
point of the network architecture from the "end host" to
Pentikousis & Ohlman Expires August 4, 2013 [Page 2]
INTERNET DRAFT ICN Baseline Scenarios January 31, 2013
"information" (or content, or data). In this paradigm, connectivity
can be intermittent in general; end-host and in-network storage can
be capitalized upon transparently, as bits in the network and on
storage devices have exactly the same value. Mobility and
multiaccess are the norm. Any-, multi-, and broadcasting are
supported by default, and energy efficiency is a design consideration
from the beginning.
Although interest in ICN is growing rapidly, ongoing work on
different architectures, such as, for example, NetInf [NetInf], CCN
and NDN [CCN], the publish-subscribe Internet (PSI) architecture
[PSI], and the data-oriented architecture [DONA] is far from being
completed. The development phase that ICN is going through and the
plethora of approaches to tackle the hardest problems make this a
very active and appealing research area but, on the downside, it also
makes it more difficult to compare different proposals on an equal
ground.
Ahlgren et al. note [SoA] that describing ICN architectures is akin
to shooting a moving target. We find that comparing these different
approaches is often even more tricky. It is not uncommon that
different researchers select different performance evaluation
scenarios, typically with good reasons, in order to highlight the
advantages of their approach. This should be expected to some degree
at an early stage. Nevertheless, we argue that certain scenarios
seem to emerge where ICN architectures could showcase their
superiority over current systems, in general, and against each other,
in particular.
This document collects several scenarios from the published ICN
literature and aims to use them as foundation for the baseline
scenarios to be considered by the IRTF Information-Centric Networking
Research Group (ICNRG) in its future work. The list of scenarios can
obviously change, as input from the research group is received. For
example, this revision includes scenarios stemming from the "Internet
of Things" and "Smart City" research areas.
2 ICN Baseline Scenarios
This section presents a number of scenarios grouped into several
categories. Note that certain evaluation scenarios span across these
categories, so the boundaries between them should not be considered
rigid and inflexible. The goal is that each scenario should be
described at a sufficient level of detail so that it can serve as the
base for comparative evaluations of different approaches. This will
need to include reference configurations, topologies, specifications
of traffic mixes and traffic loads. These specifications (or
Pentikousis & Ohlman Expires August 4, 2013 [Page 3]
INTERNET DRAFT ICN Baseline Scenarios January 31, 2013
configurations) should preferably come as sets that describe extremes
as well as "typical" usage scenarios.
2.1 Social Networking
Social networking applications proliferated over the past decade
based on overlay content dissemination systems that require large
infrastructure investments to rollout and maintain. Content
dissemination is at the heart of the ICN paradigm and, therefore, we
would expect that they are a "natural fit" for showcasing the
superiority of ICN over traditional client-server TCP/IP-based
systems.
Mathieu et al. [ICN-SN], for instance, illustrate how an Internet
Service Provider (ISP) can capitalize on CCN to deploy a short-
message service akin to Twitter at a fraction of the complexity of
today's systems. Their key observation is that such a service can be
seen as a combination of multicast delivery and caching. That is, a
single user addresses a large number of recipients, some of which
receive the new message immediately as they are online at that
instant, while others receive the message whenever they connect to
the network.
Along similar lines, Kim et al. [VPC] present an ICN-based social
networking platform in which a user shares content with her/his
family and friends without the need for centralized content server;
see also section 2.4, below, and [CBIS]. Based on the CCN naming
scheme, [VPC] takes a user name to represent a set of devices that
belong to the person. Other users in this in-network, serverless
social sharing scenario can access the user's content not via a
device name/address but with the user's name. In [VPC], signature
verification does not require any centralized authentication server.
Kim and Lee [VPC2] present a proof-of-concept evaluation in which
users with ordinary smartphones can browse a list of members or
content using a name, and download the content selected from the
list.
In short, in both evaluations there is no need for a classic client-
server architecture (let alone a cloud-based infrastructure) to
intermediate between content providers and consumers in a hub-and-
spoke fashion.
Earlier work by Arianfar et al. [CCR] considers a similar pull-based
content retrieval scenario using a different architecture, pointing
to significant performance advantages. Although the authors consider
a network topology (redrawn in Fig. 1 for convenience) that has
certain interesting characteristics, they do not explicitly address
Pentikousis & Ohlman Expires August 4, 2013 [Page 4]
INTERNET DRAFT ICN Baseline Scenarios January 31, 2013
social networking in their evaluation scenario. Nonetheless,
similarities are easy to spot: "followers" (such as C0, C1, ..., and
Cz in Fig. 1) obtain content put "on the network" (I1, ..., Im, and
B1, B2) by a single user (e.g. Px) relying solely on network
primitives.
\--/
|C0|
/--\ +--+ +--+ +--+ +--+
*=== |I0| === |I1| ... |In| |P0|
\--/ +--+ +--+ +--+ +--+
|C1| \ / o
/--\ +--+ +--+ o
o |B1| === |B2| o
o o o o o +--+ +--+ o
o / \ o
o +--+ +--+ +--+ +--+
o *=== |Ik| === |Il| ... |Im| |Px|
\--/ +--+ +--+ +--+ +--+
|Cz|
/--\
Figure 1. Dumbbell with linear daisy chains
The social networking scenario aims to exercise each ICN architecture
in terms of network efficiency, multicast support, caching
performance and its reliance on centralized mechanisms (or lack
thereof).
2.2 Real-time A/V Communications
Real-time audio and video (A/V) communications include an array of
services ranging from one-to-one voice calls to multi-party multi-
media conferences with video and whiteboard support to augmented
reality. Real-time communications have been studied and deployed in
the context of packet- and circuit-switched networks for decades.
The stringent quality of service requirements that this type of
communication imposes on network infrastructure is well-known. Some
could argue that network primitives which are excellent for
information dissemination are not well-suited for conversational
services.
Notably, Jacobson et al. [VoCCN] presented an early evaluation where
the performance of a VoIP call over an information-centric approach
was compared with that of an off-the-shelf VoIP implementation using
RTP/UTP. The results indicated that despite the extra cost of adding
Pentikousis & Ohlman Expires August 4, 2013 [Page 5]
INTERNET DRAFT ICN Baseline Scenarios January 31, 2013
security support in the former case, performance was virtually
identical in the two cases evaluated in a testbed. However, the
experimental setup was quite rudimentary and the evaluation
considered a single voice call only. This scenario does illustrate
that VoIP is feasible with at least one ICN approach, but it would
need to be further enhanced to include more comprehensive metrics as
well as standardized call arrival patterns, for example, following
well-established methodologies from the quality of service/experience
(QoS/QoE) evaluation toolbox.
Given the wide-spread deployment of real-time A/V communications, an
ICN approach should demonstrate more than feasibility. For example,
with respect to multimedia conferencing, Zhu et al. [ACT] describe
the design of a distributed audio conference tool based on NDN. The
design includes ICN-based conference discovery, speakers discovery
and voice data distribution. The reported evaluation results point
to gains in scalability and security. Moreover, Chen et al. [G-
COPSS] explore the feasibility of implementing a Massively
Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game (MMORPG) based on CCNx and show
that stringent temporal requirements can be met while scalability is
significantly improved when compared to an IP client-server system.
This type of work points to benefits both in the data path and the
control path of a modern network infrastructure.
All in all, however, the ICN research community has hitherto only
scratched the surface of this area with respect to illustrating the
benefits of adopting an information-centric approach as opposed to a
host-centric one. Arguably, more work is needed in this direction.
In short, scenarios in this category should illustrate not only
feasibility but reduced complexity, increased scalability,
reliability, and capacity to meet stringent QoS/QoE requirements when
compared to established host-centric solutions.
2.3 Mobile Networking
IP mobility management relies on mobility anchors to provide
ubiquitous connectivity to end-hosts as well as moving networks.
This is a natural choice for a host-centric paradigm that requires
end-to-end connectivity and continuous network presence [SCES]. An
implicit assumption in host-centric mobility management frameworks is
that the mobile node aims at connecting to a particular peer, not at
retrieving information [EEMN]. However, with ICN new ideas about
mobility management should come to the forefront, which capitalize on
the different nature of the paradigm.
For example, Dannewitz et al. [N-Scen], consider a scenario where a
Pentikousis & Ohlman Expires August 4, 2013 [Page 6]
INTERNET DRAFT ICN Baseline Scenarios January 31, 2013
multiaccess end-host can retrieve email securely using a combination
of cellular and wireless local area network connectivity. This
scenario borrows elements from previous work, e.g. [DTI], and
develops them further with respect to multiaccess. Unfortunately,
Dannewitz et al. [N-Scen] do not present any results demonstrating
that an ICN approach is indeed better. That said, the scenario is
interesting as it considers content specific to a single user (i.e.
her mailbox) and does point to reduced complexity. It is also
compatible with recent work in the Distributed Mobility Management
(DMM) Working Group within the IETF. Finally, Xylomenos et al.
[PSIMob] as well as [EEMN] argue that an information-centric
architecture can avoid the complexity of having to manage tunnels to
maintain end-to-end connectivity as is the case with mobile anchor-
based protocols such as Mobile IP (and its variants).
Overall, mobile networking scenarios have not been developed in
detail, let alone evaluated in a wide scale. We expect that in the
coming period more papers will address this topic, each perhaps
proposing its own evaluation scenario. Earlier work [mNetInf] argues
that for mobile and multiaccess networking scenarios we need go
beyond the current mobility management mechanisms in order to
capitalize on the core ICN features. They present a testbed setup
(redrawn in Fig. 2) which can serve as the basis for other ICN
evaluations. Lindgren [HybICN] explores this scenario further using
simulation for an urban setting and reports sizable gains in terms of
reduction of object retrieval times and core network capacity use.
+-----------+ +-----------+
| Network 0 | | Network C |
| | | |
| +--+ | ==== | +--+ |
| |I2| | | |P1| |
| +--+ | | +--+ |
| \--/ | | |
+-----|C0|--+ | |
| /--\ | | |
| +--+ | | |
| |I3| | | +--+ |
| +--+ | ==== | |P2| |
| | | +--+ |
| Network 1 | | |
+-----------+ +-----------+
Figure 2. Overlapping wireless multiaccess
One would expect that mobile networking scenarios will be naturally
coupled with those discussed in the previous sections, as more users
Pentikousis & Ohlman Expires August 4, 2013 [Page 7]
INTERNET DRAFT ICN Baseline Scenarios January 31, 2013
access social networking and A/V applications through mobile devices.
Mobile networking scenarios should aim to exercise service continuity
for those applications that require it, decrease complexity and
control signaling for the network infrastructure, as well as increase
wireless capacity utilization by taking advantage of the broadcast
nature of the medium.
2.4 Infrastructure Sharing
A key idea in ICN is that the network should secure information
objects per se, not the communications channel that they are
delivered over. This means that hosts attached to an information-
centric network can share resources in an unprecedented scale,
especially when compared to what is possible in an IP network. All
devices with network access and storage capacity can contribute their
resources increasing the value of an information-centric network
(perhaps) much faster than Metcalfe's law.
For example, Jacobson et al. [CBIS] argue that in ICN the "where and
how" to obtain information are new degrees of freedom. They
illustrate this with a scenario involving a photo sharing application
which takes advantage of whichever access network connectivity is
available at the moment (WLAN, Bluetooth, and even SMS) without
requiring a centralized infrastructure to synchronize between
numerous devices. It is important to highlight that since the focus
of the communication changes, keep-alives in this scenario are simply
unnecessary, as devices participating in the testbed network
contribute resources in order to maintain user content consistency,
not link state information as is the case in the host-centric
paradigm. This means that the notion of "infrastructure" may be
completely different in the future.
Carofiglio et al., for instance, present early work on an analytical
framework that attempts to capture the storage/bandwidth tradeoff and
can be used as a basis for a network planning tool [SHARE]. In
addition, Chai et al. [CL4M] explore the benefits of ubiquitous
caching throughout an information-centric network and argue that
"caching less can actually achieve more." These two papers indicate
that there is a lot of work to be done in the area of how to use
optimally all resources available to an information-centric network.
Scenarios in this category, therefore, would cover the
communication/computation/storage tradeoffs that an ICN deployment
must consider, including network planning, perhaps capitalizing on
user-provided resources, as well as operational and economical
aspects to illustrate the superiority of ICN over other approaches,
Pentikousis & Ohlman Expires August 4, 2013 [Page 8]
INTERNET DRAFT ICN Baseline Scenarios January 31, 2013
including federations of IP-based Content Distribution Networks
(CDNs).
2.5 Content Dissemination
Content dissemination has attracted more attention than other aspects
of ICN, perhaps due to a misunderstanding of what the first "C" in
CCN stands for. Decentralized content dissemination with on-the-fly
aggregation of information sources was envisaged in [N-Scen] where
information objects can be dynamically assembled based on
hierarchically structured subcomponents. For example, a video stream
could be associated with different audio streams and subtitle sets,
which can all be obtained from different sources. Using the topology
depicted in Fig. 1 as an example, an application at C1 may end up
obtaining, say, the video content from I1, but the user-selected
subtitles from Px. Semantics and content negotiation, on behalf of
the user, were also considered, e.g. for the case of popular tunes
which may be available in different encoding formats. Effectively
this scenario has the information consumer issuing independent
requests for content based on information identifiers, and stitching
the pieces together irrespective of "where" or "how" they were
obtained.
Content dissemination scenarios have a large overlap with the
scenarios described above and are explored in several papers, such as
[DONA][PSI][PSIMob][NetInf][CCN][CBIS][CCR], just to name a few. In
addition, Chai et al. present a hop-by-hop hierarchical content
resolution approach [CURLING], which employs receiver-driven
multicast over multiple domains, advocating another content
dissemination approach.
Scenarios in this category abound in the literature, including stored
and streaming A/V distribution, file distribution, mirroring and bulk
transfers, SVN-type of services, as well as traffic aggregation. We
expect that in particular for content dissemination both extreme as
well as typical scenarios can be specified drawing data from current
CDN deployments.
2.6 Energy Efficiency
As mentioned earlier, energy efficiency can be tackled by ICN in ways
that it cannot in a host-centric paradigm. For example, the work by
Guan et al. [EECCN] indicates that CCN may be much more energy-
efficient than traditional CDNs for delivering popular content given
the current networking equipment energy consumption levels.
Pentikousis & Ohlman Expires August 4, 2013 [Page 9]
INTERNET DRAFT ICN Baseline Scenarios January 31, 2013
Evaluating energy efficiency does not require the definition of new
scenarios, but does require the establishment of clear guidelines so
that different ICN approaches can be compared not only in terms of
scalability, for example, but also in terms to power consumption.
2.7 Delay and Disruption Tolerance
Delay Tolerant Networking (DTN) [DTN] was originally designed for
special use cases, such as interstellar networking, use of data
mules, and so on. With the advent of sensor networks and peer-to-
peer (P2P) networking between mobile nodes, DTN is becoming a more
commonplace type of networking. ICN does not build on the familiar
communication abstraction of end-to-end connectivity between a set of
nodes. This makes it possible to include DTN support in ICN
natively.
Thus, it is of interest to evaluate different ICN approaches with
respect to their delay and disruption tolerance. Important aspects
to be evaluated in this respect include, but are not limited to, name
resolution, routing and forwarding in disconnected parts of the
network; support for unidirectional links; number of round trips
needed to complete a data transfer, and so on.
2.8 Internet of Things
Advances in electronics miniaturization combined with low-power
wireless access technologies (e.g., ZigBee, NFC, Bluetooth and
others) have enabled the coupling of interconnected digital services
with everyday objects. As devices with sensors and actuators connect
into the network, they become "smart objects" and form the foundation
for the so-called Internet of Things (IoT). IoT is expected to
increase significantly the amount of content carried by the network
due to machine-to-machine communication as well as novel user
interaction possibilities.
Yet, the full potential of IoT does not lie on simple remote access
to smart object data. Instead, it is the intersection of Internet
services with the physical world that will bring about the most
dramatic changes. Burke [IoTEx], for instance, makes a very good
case for creating everyday experiences using interconnected things
through participatory sensing applications. In this case, inherent
ICN capabilities for data discovery, caching, and trusted
communication are leveraged to obtain sensor information and enable
content interexchange between mobile users, repositories, and
applications.
Pentikousis & Ohlman Expires August 4, 2013 [Page 10]
INTERNET DRAFT ICN Baseline Scenarios January 31, 2013
Kutscher and Farrell [IWMT] discuss the benefits that ICN can provide
in these environments, in terms of naming, caching and optimized
transport. The Named Identifier scheme (ni) [NI] could be used for
globally unique smart object identification, although an actual
implementation report is not currently available. Access to
information generated by smart objects can be of varied nature and
often vital for the correct operation of large systems. As such,
supporting timestamping, security, scalability, and flexibility need
to be taken into account.
Ghodsi et al. [NCOA] examine hierarchical and self-certifying naming
schemes and point out that ensuring reliable and secure content
naming and retrieval may pose stringent requirements (e.g., necessity
for employing PKI), which can be too demanding for low-powered nodes,
such as sensors. That said, earlier work by Heidemann et al. [nWSN]
shows that for dense sensor network deployments, disassociating
sensor naming from network topology and using named content at the
lowest level of communication in combination with in-network
processing of sensor data is feasible in practice and can be more
efficient than employing a host-centric binding between node locator
and the content existing therein.
J. Burke et al. [NDNl] describe the implementation of a lighting
control building automation system where the security, naming and
device discovery NDN mechanisms are leveraged to provide
configuration, installation and management of residential and
industrial lighting control systems. The goal is an inherently
resilient system, where even smartphones can be used for control.
Naming reflects fixtures with evolved identification and node
reaching capabilities thus simplifying bootstrapping, discovery, and
user interaction with nodes. The authors report that this ICN-based
system requires less maintenance and troubleshooting than typical IP-
based alternatives.
IoT exposes ICN concepts to a stringent set of requirements which are
exacerbated by the amount of nodes, as well as by the type and volume
of information that must be handled. A way to address this is
[IoTScope], which tackles the problem of mapping named information to
an object, diverting from typical centralized discovery services and
leveraging the intrinsic ICN scalability capabilities for naming. It
extends the base [PURSUIT] design with hierarchically-based scopes,
facilitating lookup, access and modifications of only the part of the
object information that the user is interested in. Another important
aspect is how to efficiently address resolution and location of the
information objects, particularly when large numbers of nodes are
connected, as in IoT deployments. In [ICN-DHT], Katsaros et al.
propose a Distributed Hash Table (DHT) which is compared with DONA
[DONA]. Their results show how topological routing information has a
Pentikousis & Ohlman Expires August 4, 2013 [Page 11]
INTERNET DRAFT ICN Baseline Scenarios January 31, 2013
positive resolution impact, at the expense of memory and processing
overhead.
ICN approaches, therefore, should be evaluated with respect to their
capacity to handle the content produced and consumed by extremely
large numbers of diverse devices. IoT scenarios aim to exercise ICN
deployment from different aspects, including ICN node design
requirements, scalability, efficient naming, transport, and caching
of time-restricted data.
2.9 Smart City
The rapid increase in urbanization sets the stage for the most
compelling and challenging environments for networking. By 2050 the
global population will reach nine billion people, 75% of which will
dwell in urban areas. In order to cope with this influx, many cities
around the world started their transformation toward the Smart City
vision. Smart cities will be based on the following innovation axes:
smart mobility, smart environment, smart people, smart living, and
smart governance. In development terms, the core goal of a smart
city is to become a business-competitive and attractive environment,
while serving citizen well being [CPG].
In a smart city, ICT plays a leading role and acts as the glue
bringing together all actors, services, resources (and their
interrelationships), that the urban environment is willing to host
and provide [MVM]. ICN appears particularly suitable for these
scenarios. Domains of interest include intelligent transportation
systems, healthcare, A/V communications, peer-to-peer and
collaborative platforms for citizens, social inclusion, active
participation in public life, e-government, safety and security,
sensor networks, and IoT.
Nevertheless, the road to build a real information-centric digital
ecosystem will be long and more coordinated effort is required to
drive innovation in this domain. We argue that smart city needs and
ICN technologies can trigger a virtuous innovation cycle toward
future ICT platforms. Recent concrete ICN-based contributions have
been formulated for home energy management [iHEMS], geo-localized
services [ACC], smart city services [IB], and traffic information
dissemination in vehicular scenarios [WAK]. Some of the proposed
ICN-based solutions are implemented in real test-beds while others
are evaluated through simulation.
Zhang et al. [iHEMS] propose a secure publish-subscribe architecture
for handling the communication requirements of Home Energy Management
Systems (HEMS). The objective is to safely and effectively collect
Pentikousis & Ohlman Expires August 4, 2013 [Page 12]
INTERNET DRAFT ICN Baseline Scenarios January 31, 2013
measurement and status information from household elements, aggregate
and analyze the data, and ultimately enable intelligent control
decisions for actuation. They consider a simple experimental test-
bed for their proof-of-concept evaluation, exploiting open source
code for the ICN implementation, and emulating some node
functionality in order to facilitate system operation.
A different scenario is considered in [ACC], where Distributed Hash
Tables (DHT) are proposed as a means for distributed, scalable, and
geographically-aware service lookup in a smart city. Also in this
case, the ICN application is validated by considering a small scale
test-bed: a small number of nodes are realized with simple embedded
PCs or specific hardware boards (e.g., for some sensor nodes); other
nodes realizing the network connecting the principal actors of the
tests are emulated with workstations. The proposal in [IB] draws
from a smart city scenario (mainly oriented towards waste collection
management) composed by sensors and moving vehicles, as well as a
cloud computing system that supports data retrieval and storage
operations. The main aspects of the proposal are analyzed by
considering a simulated scenario using open source code which is
publicly available. Some software applications are designed on real
systems (e.g., PCs and smartphones). Finally, Wang et al. [WAK]
discuss the adoption of named data networking in vehicular (V2V)
communication systems. They validate their work using simulation
based on a freely available network simulator but consider rather
simple traffic patterns.
Smart city scenarios aim to exercise several ICN aspects in an urban
environment. In particular, they can be useful to (i) analyze the
capacity of using ICN for managing extremely large data sets; (ii)
study ICN performance in terms of scalability in distributed
services; (iii) verify the feasibility of ICN in a very complex
application like vehicular communication systems; and (iv) examine
the possible drawbacks related to privacy and security issues in
complex networked environments.
3 Security Considerations
TBD
4 IANA Considerations
This document presents no IANA considerations.
Pentikousis & Ohlman Expires August 4, 2013 [Page 13]
INTERNET DRAFT ICN Baseline Scenarios January 31, 2013
5 Acknowledgments
This document has benefited from comments and text provided by the
following members of ICNRG:
Luigi Alfredo Grieco (Politecnico di Bari); section 2.9.
Myeong-Wuk Jang (Samsung); section 2.1.
6 Informative References
[NetInf] Ahlgren, B. et al., "Design considerations for a network
of information", Proc. CoNEXT Re-Arch Workshop. ACM,
2008.
[CCN] Jacobson, V. et al., "Networking Named Content", Proc.
CoNEXT. ACM, 2009.
[PSI] Trossen, D. and G. Parisis, "Designing and realizing an
information-centric internet", IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 50,
no. 7, July 2012.
[DONA] Koponen, T. et al., "A Data-Oriented (and Beyond) Network
Architecture", Proc. SIGCOMM. ACM, 2007.
[SoA] Ahlgren, B. et al., "A survey of information-centric
networking", IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 50, no. 7, July 2012.
[ICN-SN] Mathieu, B. et al., "Information-centric networking: a
natural design for social network applications", IEEE
Commun. Mag., vol. 50, no. 7, July 2012.
[VPC] Kim, J. et al., "Content Centric Network-based Virtual
Private Community", Proc. ICCE. IEEE, 2011.
[VPC2] Kim, D. and J. Lee, "CCN-based virtual private community
for extended home media service", IEEE Trans. Consumer
Electronics, vol. 57, no. 2, May 2011.
[CCR] Arianfar, S. et al., "On content-centric router design and
implications", Proc. CoNEXT Re-Arch Workshop. ACM, 2010.
[VoCCN] Jacobson, V. et al., "VoCCN: Voice-over Content-Centric
Networks", Proc. CoNEXT Re-Arch Workshop. ACM, 2009.
[ACT] Zhu, Z. et al., "ACT: Audio Conference Tool Over Named
Data Networking", Proc. SIGCOMM ICN Workshop. ACM, 2011.
Pentikousis & Ohlman Expires August 4, 2013 [Page 14]
INTERNET DRAFT ICN Baseline Scenarios January 31, 2013
[G-COPSS] Chen, J. et al., "G-COPSS: A Content Centric Communication
Infrastructure for Gaming Applications", Proc. ICDCS.
IEEE, 2012.
[SCES] Allman, M. et al., "Enabling an Energy-Efficient Future
Internet through Selectively Connected End Systems", Proc.
HotNets-VI. ACM, 2007.
[EEMN] Pentikousis, K., "In Search of Energy-Efficient Mobile
Networking", IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2010.
[N-Scen] Dannewitz, C. et al., "Scenarios and research issues for a
Network of Information", Proc. MobiMedia. ICST, 2012.
[DTI] Ott, J. and D. Kutscher, "Drive-thru Internet: IEEE
802.11b for 'automobile' users", Proc. INFOCOM. IEEE,
2004.
[PSIMob] Xylomenos, G. et al., "Caching and Mobility Support in a
Publish-Subscribe Internet Architecture", IEEE Commun.
Mag., vol. 50, no. 7, July 2012.
[mNetInf] Pentikousis, K. and T. Rautio, "A Multiaccess Network of
Information", Proc. WoWMoM. IEEE, 2010.
[HybICN] Lindgren, A., "Efficient content distribution in an
information-centric hybrid mobile networks", Proc. CCNC.
IEEE, 2011.
[CBIS] Jacobson, V. et al., "Custodian-Based Information
Sharing", IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 50, no. 7, July 2012.
[SHARE] Carofiglio, G. et al., "Bandwidth and storage sharing
performance in information centric networking", Proc.
SIGCOMM ICN Workshop. ACM, 2011.
[CL4M] Chai, W. K. et al., "Cache 'Less for More' in Information-
centric Networks", Proc. Networking. IFIP, 2012.
[CURLING] Chai, W. K. et al., "CURLING: Content-Ubiquitous
Resolution and Delivery Infrastructure for Next-Generation
Services", IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 49, no. 3, Mar. 2011.
[EECCN] Guan, K. et al., "On the Energy Efficiency of Content
Delivery Architectures ", Proc. ICC Workshops. IEEE,
2011.
[DTN] Fall, K., "A delay-tolerant network architecture for
Pentikousis & Ohlman Expires August 4, 2013 [Page 15]
INTERNET DRAFT ICN Baseline Scenarios January 31, 2013
challenged internets", Proc. SIGCOMM. ACM, 2003.
[IoTEx] Burke, J., "Authoring Place-based Experiences with an
Internet of Things: Tussles of Expressive, Operational,
and Participatory Goals", Proc. Interconnecting Smart
Objects with the Internet Workshop. IAB, 2011.
[IWMT] Kutscher, D. and S. Farrell, "Towards an Information-
Centric Internet with more Things", Proc. Interconnecting
Smart Objects with the Internet Workshop. IAB, 2011.
[NI] Farrell, S. et al., "Naming Things with Hashes", draft-
farrell-decade-ni-10 (work in progress), August 2012.
[NCOA] Ghodsi, A. et al., "Naming in Content-oriented
Architectures", Proc. SIGCOMM ICN Workshop. ACM, 2011.
[nWSN] Heidemann, J. et al., "Building efficient wireless sensor
networks with low-level naming", Proc. SOSP. ACM, 2001.
[NDNl] Burke, J. et al., "Authenticated Lighting Control Using
Named Data Networking", NDN Technical Report NDN-0011,
Oct. 2012.
[IoTScope] Marias, G.F. et al., "Efficient information lookup for the
Internet of Things", Proc. WoWMoM. IEEE, 2012.
[PURSUIT] Fotiou, N. et al., "Developing Information Networking
Further: From PSIRP to PURSUIT", Proc. BROADNETS. ICST,
2010.
[ICN-DHT] Katsaros, K. et al., "On inter-domain name resolution for
information-centric networks", Proc. Networking.
Springer, 2012.
[CPG] Cianci, I. et al., "Content Centric Services in Smart
Cities", Proc. NGMAST. IEEE, 2012.
[MVM] Hernndez-Muoz, J.M. et al., "Smart cities at the forefront
of the future Internet", The Future Internet. Springer,
2011.
[iHEMS] Zhang, J. et al., "iHEMS: An Information-Centric Approach
to Secure Home Energy Management", Proc. SmartGridComm.
IEEE, 2012.
[ACC] Andreini, F. et al., "A scalable architecture for geo-
localized service access in smart cities", Proc. Future
Pentikousis & Ohlman Expires August 4, 2013 [Page 16]
INTERNET DRAFT ICN Baseline Scenarios January 31, 2013
Network and Mobile Summit. IEEE, 2011.
[IB] Idowu, S. and N. Bari, "A Development Framework for Smart
City Services, Integrating Smart City Service Components",
Master Thesis. Lulea University of Technology, 2012.
[WAK] Wang, L. et al., "Rapid Traffic Information Dissemination
Using Named Data", Proc. MobiHoc NoM workshop. ACM, 2012.
Authors' Addresses
Kostas Pentikousis (editor)
Huawei Technologies
Carnotstrasse 4
10587 Berlin
Germany
Email: k.pentikousis@huawei.com
Borje Ohlman
Ericsson Research
S-16480 Stockholm
Sweden
Email: Borje.Ohlman@ericsson.com
Daniel Corujo
Instituto de Telecomunicacoes
Campus Universitario de Santiago
P-3810-193 Aveiro
Portugal
Email: dcorujo@av.it.pt
Gennaro Boggia
Dep. of Electrical and Information Engineering
Politecnico di Bari
Via Orabona 4
70125 Bari
Italy
Email: g.boggia@poliba.it
Pentikousis & Ohlman Expires August 4, 2013 [Page 17]