ICN Research Group R. Ravindran
Internet-Draft A. Chakraborti
Intended status: Informational A. Azgin
Expires: May 20, 2017 Huawei Technologies
November 16, 2016
Forwarding-Label support in CCN Protocol
draft-ravi-icnrg-ccn-forwarding-label-00
Abstract
The objective of this proposal is to enable ID and Locator namespace
split in the CCN protocol that has several applications such as
towards Interest routing optimization, mobility, handling
indirections in manifests, and routing scalability. We enable this
through the notion of forwarding-label (FL) object, which is an
optional hop-by-hop payload in the Interest message with a locator
name which identifies a network domain, router, or a host. Depending
on the application and trust context, an FL object can be subjected
to policy based actions by the forwarders such as invoking security
verification or enabling other service-centric actions such as FL
object replacement. FL object can be inserted by the applications or
by the network. To enable dynamic name resolution FL objects can
also be modified in the network by designated points such as the edge
routers.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on May 20, 2017.
Ravindran, et al. Expires May 20, 2017 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Forwarding-label support in CCN November 2016
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. ID-Locator Namespace Split in CCN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Forwarding-Label Object Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. FL Object Naming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. FL Object Insertion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3. FL Object Swapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.4. FL Object Termination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. FL Object Message Format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. FL Object Processing Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. PIT Processing Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
6. Caching Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
7. Multiple Domain Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
8. FL Object Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9. Use Case Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.1. Handling Producer Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
9.2. Manifests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
9.3. Interest Routing Optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
9.4. Routing Scalability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
10. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1. ID-Locator Namespace Split in CCN
In the context of ICN/CCN, we define identifier and locator as
follows:
o Identifier (ID) is a persistent secure or non-secure flat-ID or a
hierarchical name assigned to a content, device or service. If
the ID is secure, then trust relationship can be derived from it.
Generally the identifier space is managed by applications.
Ravindran, et al. Expires May 20, 2017 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Forwarding-label support in CCN November 2016
o Locator (LID) is a routeable topological name assigned to a
network entity such as a router, a server, or an end device.
Generally the locator space is managed and assigned by the network
administrators.
We discuss here the motivations behind the need for separation
between persistent name (ID) and a locator (LID) in the Interest
message in the context of CCN and a proposal to achieve this. The
advantages of ID/Locator have been extensively studied and it has
been part of many host-centric protocols such as HIP[2], ILNP [3],
and LISP [4] and is also part of FIA architectures such as
MobilityFirst[16]. Specifically in CCN, ID based routing is not
efficient considering the need to dynamically replicate content and
handle mobile entities, and the problem to address routing
scalability [8]. Hence providing this distinct ID-LID separation in
the protocol offers the following advantages:
o Today CCN applications bind to persistent IDs, while their
resolution is handled through per-hop name-based routing by a CCN
forwarder using unicast/anycast/broadcast mechanisms, with routing
scalability handled through its namespace aggregation. This model
can introduce problems when the named entity is mobile, migrated,
or replicated, as the names have to be announced in the routing
control plane which can in turn introduce routing instability and
scalability challenges (as the name aggregation to topological
binding cannot be satisfied anymore). Enabling ID/Locator split
and managing this mapping in a separate name resolution service
shall address the routing churn introduced by dynamic entities.
CCN is unique in the sense that both name-based routing and
resolution service can operate simultaneously driven by their use
based on a given context. For e.g. while inter-domain routing can
be handled using a name resolution service, intra-domain routing
can be based on name-based routing.
o ID and Locator namespaces are managed by different entities. IDs
are managed by applications, hence relevant only to consumers,
producers and intermediate service points, while locator names are
managed by a network administrator. Locators map to network
domains or specific network elements through which the named
entity is reachable. The relationship between the two is
established during the namespace publishing phase, and managed by
a separate name resolution service. ID/Locator distinction in CCN
allows applications to manage its own namespace and not be
restricted by the naming rules imposed by the network.
o Affording ID/Locator split in an Interest message offers many
advantages in CCN especially when a centralized control is applied
such as using NFV/SDN frameworks, enabling efficiency and
Ravindran, et al. Expires May 20, 2017 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Forwarding-label support in CCN November 2016
flexibility in name resolution, routing, mobility, service
chaining, and routing scalability.
Considering the above requirements, we propose a Forwarding-label
(FL) object, which acts as a locator and provides the flexibility to
forward Interests on a name other than the one provided within the
original Interest message with the ability to modify it within the
network. Handling ID/Locator mapping requires a control plane
infrastructure and appropriate network layer state with security
functions to prevent malicious usage. Specific control plane or
security mechanism of ID/Locator mapping is out of the scope of this
document as many techniques can be used towards achieving this. This
draft presents various considerations towards FL object management
such as: FL object insertion/modification/deletion, FL object
processing by a CCN forwarder, PIT/CS implications for FL object
carrying Interests, FL object Interest packet format, and security/
trust considerations. We then discuss the application of FL object
in various scenarios.
2. Forwarding-Label Object Proposal
The use of FL is required when routing by ID is inefficient in
scenarios such as replicated content, device mobility, or scalability
challenges when ID based routing is employed. FL objects are
subjected to processing and modification in the network depending on
the specific use case scenario. Following we discuss various aspects
of FL related to its semantics and management.
2.1. FL Object Naming
FL objects are container objects that include LID, service specific
metadata, and security attributes for authentication. LIDs are
hierarchically structured topologically names where the names follow
the definition in [1]. The security attributes are optional and may
include validation payload and algorithm as discussed in [1].
2.2. FL Object Insertion
An FL object can be inserted in an Interest message by the consuming
application or by the network.
In certain situations, the application logic may use an FL object in
addition to the ID in the Interest message or this action may also be
triggered because of feedback from the network, for instance due to
failure of routing the Interest message based on the ID. In such
situations, forwarders which process traffic from applications
outside the trust domain require a way to validate the FL object. A
possible approach to ensure trust in such situations is discussed in
Ravindran, et al. Expires May 20, 2017 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Forwarding-label support in CCN November 2016
[8] where a trust binding is provided between the ID and the LID as a
link object which can be validated by the forwarder. To avoid the
possibility of a misuse of an FL object, a default policy of the
network may be to ignore it from untrusted applications and only
choose to route by the content ID.
In the case where the FL object is inserted by the network, FL object
insertion is triggered at the ingress service routers of the network
domain. For instance, network may insert an FL object to an incoming
Interest message, if the Interest message satisfies the flow service
profiles that are imposed by the network administrator at the ingress
edge routers. The service profile matching actions may include
matching an Interest name to a set of service prefixes or triggered
by certain markings such as context-ID (for e.g. contexts may include
service, trust, location) in the Interest message. FL objects
inserted within the trust domain may not require security validation.
In situations where a forwarder handles both of these scenarios,
policies can be applied at the ingress router to handle the two cases
accordingly. These policies may include the face on which the
Interests arrives on, or the Interest IDs etc.
2.3. FL Object Swapping
An FL object can be swapped by another within the network in the
context of a given service at designated points, such as the service
edge routers, in the network. As an FL object carries a LID, and
with appropriate representation and security considerations in the
Interest message, FL objects also can be potentially stacked if the
Interest message has to be tunneled through a domain, where routing
based on the top level FL object is not feasible.
2.4. FL Object Termination
FL objects are terminated by a forwarder when the LID in it matches
its own LID. Here we assume a forwarder to possibly have many LIDs
such as domain-IDs or router-IDs. For e.g. a forwarder (in a domain)
identified as /att/santaclara can process an FL object with its LID
set to this router's domain name or to a forwarder ID such as
/att/santaclara/pop-x. Whenever an FL object is terminated by the
forwarder, depending on the service context, it can attach a new FL
object, or conduct additional processing (e.g. re-resolution of the
name to a new FL object) based on the Interest parameters. The FL
object can also include optional policy metadata based on which FL
objects can be swapped in the network.
Ravindran, et al. Expires May 20, 2017 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Forwarding-label support in CCN November 2016
3. FL Object Message Format
As FL objects are swappable in the network, it is proposed as a hop-
by-hop field in the optional body of the fixed header as shown in
Figure 1. The optional FL container includes attribute of type FL-
Object, which contains a name TLV identifying the LID (Figure 2).
LID is a hierarchically structured variable length name as defined in
[1]. A LID implies a locator such as an AS-ID, Gateway-ID, Router-ID
or Host-ID. In addition to the LID, optional FL metadata includes
contextual information on the application or the service to aid the
network for invoking an appropriate FL processing, such as trust
validation of the FL object. Optional security attributes, such as
authentication information, can be included depending on the specific
use case scenarios, such as secure name delegation information as
discussed in [8], or signature of the consumer.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| CCN Fixed Header |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| <Optional Hop-by-Hop TLVs> |
/ /
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Type = FL-Object | Length |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| LID TLV |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
/ Optional FL Object Metadata /
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
/ Optional FL Object Security Attributes /
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
/ Interest Message Body /
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: Interest message with hop-by-hop Optional Forwarding-Label TLV
Ravindran, et al. Expires May 20, 2017 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Forwarding-label support in CCN November 2016
+----------------------+------------------+-----------------+
| Forwarding-Label | Meaning | Value |
+----------------------+------------------+-----------------+
| LID TLV | Identifies an | Name TLV |
| | AS-ID/Gateway-ID/| |
| | Host-ID | |
+----------------------+------------------+-----------------+
Figure 2: Locator-ID (LID) Definition
4. FL Object Processing Rules
The following discussion is based on the assumption that all
forwarders must process the optional header fields. In the context
of CCN packet processing, FL object is only relevant when the
decision to forward the Interest message is to be made. At this
stage, multiple options exist, assuming consistent policies exists
throughout the domain: 1) In the first scenario, the rule may be that
if an FL object is included in an Interest message, then it should be
given preference over the ID. This is under the assumption that FL
objects are trusted indirections within the Interest message, and can
be validated by the router if required; 2) In the second scenario,
the forwarder could prioritize forwarding on the ID, and then forward
on the LID at every hop; 3) In the third scenario, where policy based
routing is involved, more complex routing approaches can be
considered at the network edge, such as the forwarder could apply
service policy on the Interest ID and choose to remove or swap it
with a new FL object irrespective of the current FL object inserted
in the Interest message, while the core nodes could use a more
simpler approach, such as approach 1 or 2. Following are the steps
when approach 1 is applied.
o During Interest packet processing, while a forwarding decision is
being made, if an LID is available then it should be preferred for
forwarding over the name in the Interest message irrespective of
the feasibility of ID based routing.
o The validation of FL depends on the trust context. In trusted
scenarios, where the applications and the network are managed by
the same authority, the forwarder can bypass the validation. In
untrusted scenarios, the edge router may validate the FL that is
inserted by the sender, and to avoid re-validations by successive
forwarders, these Interests can be marked to have been validated
at the ingress point.
Ravindran, et al. Expires May 20, 2017 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Forwarding-label support in CCN November 2016
o If FL object is trusted and validated and the lookup based on LID
in the FL object succeeds, then two possibilities exist: 1) for a
non-terminating flow, the LID FIB lookup results in a next hop
towards which the Interest is forwarded ; 2) for a terminating
flow, LID lookup invokes a service logic wherein the service
either re-resolves the Interest ID to another LID resulting in a
new FL object or removes the current FL object and subjects the
Interest to regular processing based on the ID in the Interest
message.
o If the FL object is trusted and validated and the LID lookup
fails, then the router can try to forward the Interest based on
the Interest ID. However if routing based on the Interest ID
fails, then the router could raise an error condition and feedback
the message to the previous hop, in the same or a different
domain, with the appropriate error code.
5. PIT Processing Implications
To maintain the simplicity of the forwarding logic, the purpose of an
FL object should be to guide the Interest towards the closest source
of the resource entity, hence FL object may only be used for the
forwarding decision and not be required for content object
processing. However there may be usage scenarios where the FL object
state is required to be saved in the PIT and even piggybacked in the
content object (CO).
For example, in the case when there is no binding between the ID and
the LID in the Interest expressed by a consumer, and multiple
Interests arrive carrying the same ID but with different LIDs, then
the expected outcome is to forward all such Interests with unique
LIDs. In this case the forwarder is required to save the LID along
with the Interest ID in the PIT and forward the duplicate Interest
whose LIDs differ from ID to LIDs state saved in the PIT.
In another application, it may be required to decouple the choice of
one consumer's LID from another consumer's LID, i.e, when a secure
binding exists between the ID and the LID. In this case, the
forwarder stores the FL object in the PIT, and the returning CO
should piggyback the Interest's FL object as long as the CO is from
the location intended in the LID, which is matched against the
pending PIT entry before continuing with the reverse path forwarding.
In cases, where the FL object is swapped by the intermediate routers,
the CO should be updated with the appropriate FL to ensure matching
of the PIT entries along the previous hops. These considerations are
similar to those elaborated in [14].
Ravindran, et al. Expires May 20, 2017 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Forwarding-label support in CCN November 2016
6. Caching Implications
The considerations here follow our previous discussion, where the FL
object is piggybacked in the CO. If there is an implicit security
binding between the Interest ID and the LID, then the FL object state
is piggybacked along with the CO, and the FL object in the incoming
Interest should be matched against the CO's FL object before the
cached content object is returned.
7. Multiple Domain Scenario
In wide area network scenarios, Interests cross multiple domains. If
an FL object is only trusted within the domain boundaries, then the
FL object is removed before the Interest is forwarded to the next
domain, which then, upon entry inserts a new forwarding label with
the associated security attributes at the ingress of the next domain.
But if trust exists between domains, such as one through a trusted
third party (validated based on the FL object security binding), to
use the FL inserted by the previous domain, then the intermediate
domains can avoid further FL processing and use the FL object passed
on by the previous domains.
8. FL Object Security
FL object security is related to the purpose it is used for and the
control plane mechanism used to manage it. Depending on the use case
scenario of the FL, appropriate security mechanisms should be applied
to secure the control and data planes to avoid exploitation of this
feature.
Generally, the major threats against the FL object approach is to
manipulate the relationship between the name and the FL object. Such
manipulations can happen in various scenarios, some of which are
listed as follows: (i) a malicious interceptor (acting as a
publisher) intentionally injecting an incorrect mapping into the name
resolution system; (ii) a malicious interceptor (between the edge
router and the resolution server) manipulating the mapping sent back
from the name resolution system when the edge router queries the
mapping system ; (iii) a compromised intermediate router maliciously
changing the FL object, e.g., with the wrong FL object or an out-
dated FL object; (iv) an untrusted application injecting invalid FL
object into the Interest message.
To achieve network level FL security, appropriate mechanisms should
be applied to provide mapping provenance, mapping integrity and to
prevent replay attack to address these issues. The security
mechanisms applicable to the above discussed scenarios (i) and (ii)
are similar to ones applied to secure other mapping systems such as
Ravindran, et al. Expires May 20, 2017 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Forwarding-label support in CCN November 2016
LISP [5] and DNS[7]. Scenario (iii) requires new security
mechanisms, one such way is to enable a domain level trust
infrastructure so that the mapping between the name and the FL object
can be authenticated by the successive routers.
In untrusted environments, when an FL object is inserted in the
Interest message by the end hosts, appropriate authentication
information should also be included in the FL object to allow ingress
routers to optionally validate the delegation of the Interest ID to
LID [8]. Furthermore, additional security policies can be enabled by
the network to handle FL objects outside its trust domain.
9. Use Case Scenarios
Here we provide the discussions related to using FL objects in
different scenarios.
9.1. Handling Producer Mobility
In the literature the different techniques to handle producer
mobility can be classified into the following two types:
o Application-based approach, where the application takes the
responsibility for announcing its reacheability to the network and
triggering a network state change to enable Interest routing
towards the mobile producer. Most of the current proposals fall
under this category, and these include the following two
approaches: 1)The Kite proposal [13] implements an anchor based
approach where consumers and producers agree on an anchor point
based on external mechanisms and uses application initiated
(traced and tracing) Interests to handle the producer mobility;
2)The anchor-less proposal [15] is another application-based
approach wherein enhanced name-based routing is used to track the
mobile producer. While these approaches allow consumers and
producers to work on a single name space, it raises scalability
concerns with increasing number of mobile nodes and number of
applications signaling into the network. As these approaches
introduce more signaling in the network, the operational
efficiency of packet forwarding is negatively affected due to the
state changes that have to be applied to maintain the sanity of
the Interest packet processing logic. Another potential security
issue with these approaches is that it can be prone to flooding
attacks by malicious applications targeting specific application
names and impeding their normal operation.
o Network-based approach uses the late-binding technique [11],
wherein the reachability of the mobile node is handled by the
network. In this case applications can explicitly request
Ravindran, et al. Expires May 20, 2017 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Forwarding-label support in CCN November 2016
mobility for a given name space [9], with the network handling the
mobility by tracking its latest location in the network through a
name resolution system. At the same time, through coordination of
the old and new point-of-attachments (PoA) and in-band signaling
one can achieve zero loss for a given Interest flow. The late-
binding technique uses ID/Locator split that is only applied at
the PoAs, thereby avoiding any routing churn in the network due to
producer mobility, while offering better scalability when the
number of mobile producers increases. Here the mobile entity (ME)
registers a persistent name that requires mobility with its
current point-of-attachment (PoA). The PoA then registers the
mapping between the name and the PoA's locator in its local name
resolution system. Then the domain updates the ME's home domain
name resolution system with its current domain LID. When a
correspondent nodes expresses Interest for the name, it is first
resolved to the current ME domain by the home domain. When the
Interest enters the domain offering mobility service, it is
resolved again to the ME's current location. Furthermore PoA-to-
PoA signaling can be enabled to offer seamless forwarding of
Interests whenever an ME changes its PoA. In addition to
correcting the path stretch the Interests re-routed from the old
PoA can be marked and re-routed to the new PoA with the new FL.
On the return path, the CO are also marked, this in-band marking
is used by the ingress PoA at the consumer's end to re-resolve the
mobile prefix to a new forwarding locater that would correct the
path stretch.
9.2. Manifests
The FL objects can also be used to support the retrieval of nameless
objects [10]. Using the current manifest proposal [6] a consumer
receives a manifest with the ContentObjectHashIDs and their
respective locator information. A consuming application uses the
locater as a routeable content name, while the ContentObjectHashID is
used as a HashID restriction parameter. Multiplexing the Interest
name field as an ID and also as an LID has the following
consequences: (1) a forwarder cannot distinguish between Interest
packets containing ID or LID in the name field, as the protocol
doesn't differentiate these two constructs; (2) it complicates
Interest processing when LID is used as a name, by first requiring to
check for the presence of ContentObjectHashID, and to use it to index
the Interest based on it instead of the locator name; (3) more
complications arise if an Interest packet arrives with two IDs i.e. a
ContentObjectHashID as the hash restriction and the ID as the content
name, in which case, one of them may seek precedence over the other.
The above issues can be avoided through the use of the
ContentObjectHashID as the content name and the locater in the FL
Ravindran, et al. Expires May 20, 2017 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Forwarding-label support in CCN November 2016
object. In this case, a forwarder will always index the pending
Interest table based on the content name. The routing decision then
would be based on the FL object depending on the routing policy in
the forwarder. This also avoids the situation of dealing with two
IDs in the Interest packet, i.e. the application has to choose either
ID or ContentObjectHashID as the content ID. This use of FL object
can be enforced in a straight forward manner by identifying flat-ID,
e.g. ContentObjectHashID, and routeable name as different typed name
objects in the Interest packet.
A possible high level forwarding logic for the edge/core router to
support nameless objects based on the above discussion is presented
in Figure 3. Here edge router can also be a gateway node.
Ravindran, et al. Expires May 20, 2017 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Forwarding-label support in CCN November 2016
Begin
if Edge_Router
If Interest arrives on a face with a flat-ID
Then check for the presence of FL object
If FL object is present, use the LID in the FL object for Interest forwarding
If there no FL Object
If policy allows, resolve the flat-ID with a NRS to obtain an FL object
Use the FL object to route the Interest
End
If the Interest arrives with a routeable ID
If there is FL object
Then use the ID for forwarding and Remove the FL object
If there is no FL object
Match Interest ID with name policy for e.g. mobility or interest routing optimization
If a name policy for resolution exists
Then network resolution service is invoked on the ID which returns an FL object
Use the FL object to direct the Interest to the appropriate next hop
End
End
if Core_Router
if Interest arrives with an FL Object
Use the LID for forwarding
Else if Interest is with a Routeable ID
Use the name for forwarding
End
Figure 3: Forwarding logic to support flat-ID and routeable ID at the edge router
We discuss security implications of using ID and FL object in the
Interest message depending on the ID type and
o Case 1 - ContentObjectHashId with FL object: This use case is a
straight forward simplification of what is being proposed in [10].
Here the locator is included within the FL object and the
ContentObjectHashId is used as the name, so this shouldn't
introduce any new security concerns. This holds good for both
application and network based FL object insertion.
Ravindran, et al. Expires May 20, 2017 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Forwarding-label support in CCN November 2016
o Case 2 - Routeable ID with FL object: For UE based FL object
insertion, this scenario can cause cache poisoning in the absence
of signature check enforcement in the forwarders. For the case
when FL object is managed within a trusted domain, the security
implications are discussed in Section 8.
9.3. Interest Routing Optimization
Networks which hosts its own or third party content/service can
benefit from the ability to handle Interest routing logic in its
domain opportunistically. When a Interest seeking a specific content
or service enters a network domain, the ingress router can redirect
the Interest to the closest cache point or service location.
9.4. Routing Scalability
As discussed in [8], locator based routing can address routing
scalability as the number of ASs are many orders less than the number
of information objects. This reduces the forwarding table in the DFZ
zone in the order of number of ASs in the Internet.
10. Informative References
[1] CCN Wire format, CCNX1., "http://www.ietf.org/id/
draft-mosko-icnrg-ccnxmessages-00.txt.", 2013.
[2] Nikander, P., Gurtov, A., and T. Henderson, "Host identity
protocol (HIP): Connectivity, mobility, multi-homing,
security, and privacy over IPv4 and IPv6 networks", IEEE
Communications Surveys and Tutorials, pp: 186-204, 2010.
[3] Atkinson, R., "An Overview of the Identifier-Locator
Network Protocol (ILNP)", Technical Report, University
College London, 2005.
[4] LISP, RFC6380., "https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-
lisp-sec-07.", 2014.
[5] LISP-Security, LISP-SEC., "https://tools.ietf.org/html/
draft-ietf-lisp-sec-07.", 2014.
[6] CCNx, Manifest., "http://www.ccnx.org/pubs/
draft-wood-icnrg-ccnxmanifests-00.html.", 2015.
[7] DNS-SEC, RFC4033., "DNS Security Introduction and
Requirements.", 2005.
Ravindran, et al. Expires May 20, 2017 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Forwarding-label support in CCN November 2016
[8] Afanasyev, A., "Map-and-Encap for Scaling NDN Routing.",
NDN Technical Report ndn-004-02, 2015.
[9] Azgin, A., Ravidran, R., Chakraborti, A., and G. Wang,
"Seamless Producer Mobility as a Service in Information
Centric Networks.", 5G/ICN Workshop, ACM ICN Sigcomm 2016,
2016.
[10] Mosko, M., "Nameless Objects.", IETF/ICNRG, Paris
Interim 2016, 2016.
[11] Azgin, A., Ravindran, R., and G. Wang, "A Scalable
Mobility-Centric Architecture for Named Data Networking.",
ICCCN (Scene Workshop) , 2014.
[12] Cisco System Inc., CISCO., "Cisco visual networking index:
Global mobile data traffic forecast update.", 2009-2014.
[13] Zhang, Y., Zhang, H., and L. Zhang, "Kite: A Mobility
Support Scheme for NDN.", NDN, Technical Report NDN-0020 ,
2014.
[14] CCNx Label Forwarding, CCNLF., "http://www.ccnx.org/pubs/
ccnx-mosko-labelforwarding-01.txt.", 2013.
[15] Auge, J., Carofiglio, G., Grassi, G., Muscariello, L.,
Pau, G., and X. Zeng, "Anchor-less Producer Mobility in
ICN.", ICN, Sigcomm, 2015 , 2015.
[16] NSF FIA project, MobilityFirst.,
"http://www.nets-fia.net/", 2010.
Authors' Addresses
Ravishankar Ravindran
Huawei Technologies
2330 Central Expressway
Santa Clara, CA 95050
USA
Email: ravi.ravindran@huawei.com
Ravindran, et al. Expires May 20, 2017 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Forwarding-label support in CCN November 2016
Asit Chakraborti
Huawei Technologies
2330 Central Expressway
Santa Clara, CA 95050
USA
Email: asit.chakraborti@huawei.com
Aytac Azgin
Huawei Technologies
2330 Central Expressway
Santa Clara, CA 95050
USA
Email: aytac.azgin@huawei.com
Ravindran, et al. Expires May 20, 2017 [Page 16]