Internet DRAFT - draft-irtf-icnrg-deployment-guidelines
draft-irtf-icnrg-deployment-guidelines
ICNRG A. Rahman
Internet-Draft InterDigital Communications, LLC
Intended status: Informational D. Trossen
Expires: March 6, 2020 InterDigital Europe, Ltd
D. Kutscher
University of Applied Sciences Emden/Leer
R. Ravindran
Futurewei
September 3, 2019
Deployment Considerations for Information-Centric Networking (ICN)
draft-irtf-icnrg-deployment-guidelines-07
Abstract
Information-Centric Networking (ICN) is now reaching technological
maturity after many years of fundamental research and
experimentation. This document provides a number of deployment
considerations in the interest of helping the ICN community move
forward to the next step of live deployments. First, the major
deployment configurations for ICN are described including the key
overlay and underlay approaches. Then proposed deployment migration
paths are outlined to address major practical issues such as network
and application migration. Next, selected ICN trial experiences are
summarized. Finally, protocol areas that require further
standardization are identified to facilitate future interoperable ICN
deployments. This document is a product of the Information-Centric
Networking Research Group (ICNRG).
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 https://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 March 6, 2020.
Rahman, et al. Expires March 6, 2020 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Deployment Considerations for ICN September 2019
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 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
(https://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. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Acronyms List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Deployment Configurations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1. Clean-slate ICN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2. ICN-as-an-Overlay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.3. ICN-as-an-Underlay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.3.1. Edge Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.3.2. Core Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.4. ICN-as-a-Slice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.5. Composite-ICN Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. Deployment Migration Paths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.1. Application and Service Migration . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.2. Content Delivery Network Migration . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.3. Edge Network Migration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.4. Core Network Migration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6. Deployment Trial Experiences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6.1. ICN-as-an-Overlay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.1.1. FP7 PURSUIT Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.1.2. FP7 SAIL Trial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.1.3. NDN Testbed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
6.1.4. ICN2020 Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.1.5. UMOBILE Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6.2. ICN-as-an-Underlay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6.2.1. H2020 POINT and RIFE Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
6.2.2. H2020 FLAME Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
6.2.3. CableLabs Content Delivery System . . . . . . . . . . 18
6.2.4. NDN IoT Trials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6.2.5. NREN ICN Testbed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6.2.6. Doctor Testbed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
6.3. Composite-ICN Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Rahman, et al. Expires March 6, 2020 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Deployment Considerations for ICN September 2019
6.4. Summary of Deployment Trials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
7. Deployment Issues Requiring Further Standardization . . . . . 21
7.1. Protocols for Application and Service Migration . . . . . 21
7.2. Protocols for Content Delivery Network Migration . . . . 21
7.3. Protocols for Edge and Core Network Migration . . . . . . 22
7.4. Summary of ICN Protocol Gaps and Potential Protocol
Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
8. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
9. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
11. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
12. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Appendix A. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
1. Introduction
The ICNRG charter identifies deployment guidelines as an important
topic area for the ICN community. Specifically, the charter states
that defining concrete migration paths for ICN deployments which
avoid forklift upgrades, and defining practical ICN interworking
configurations with the existing Internet paradigm, are key topic
areas that require further investigation [ICNRGCharter]. Also, it is
well understood that results and conclusions from any mid to large-
scale ICN experiments in the live Internet will also provide useful
guidance for deployments.
So far, outside of some preliminary investigations such as
[I-D.paik-icn-deployment-considerations], there has not been much
progress on this topic. This document attempts to fill some of these
gaps by defining clear deployment configurations for ICN, and
associated migration pathways for these configurations. Also,
selected deployment trial experiences of ICN technology are
summarized. Recommendations are also made for potential future IETF
standardization of key protocol functionality that will facilitate
interoperable ICN deployments going forward.
The major configurations of possible ICN deployments are identified
in this document as (1) Clean-slate ICN replacement of existing
Internet infrastructure; (2) ICN-as-an-Overlay; (3) ICN-as-an-
Underlay; (4) ICN-as-a-Slice; and (5) Composite-ICN. Existing ICN
trial systems primarily fall under the ICN-as-an-Overlay, ICN-as-an-
Underlay and Composite-ICN configurations. Each of these deployment
configurations have their respective strengths and weaknesses. This
document will aim to provide guidance for current and future members
of the ICN community when they consider deployment of ICN
technologies.
Rahman, et al. Expires March 6, 2020 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Deployment Considerations for ICN September 2019
This document represents the consensus of the Information-Centric
Networking Research Group (ICNRG). It has been reviewed extensively
by the Research Group (RG) members active in the specific areas of
work covered by the document.
2. Terminology
This document assumes readers are, in general, familiar with the
terms and concepts that are defined in [RFC7927] and
[I-D.irtf-icnrg-terminology]. In addition, this document defines the
following terminology:
Deployment - In the context of this document, deployment refers to
the final stage of the process of setting up an ICN network that
is (1) ready for useful work (e.g., transmission of end user video
and text) in a live environment, and (2) integrated and
interoperable with the Internet. We consider the Internet in its
widest sense where it encompasses various access networks (e.g.,
WiFi, Mobile radio network), service edge networks (e.g., for edge
computing), transport networks, CDNs, core networks (e.g., Mobile
core network), and back-end processing networks (e.g., Data
Centres). However, throughout the document we typically limit the
discussion to edge networks, core networks and CDNs for
simplicity.
Information-Centric Networking (ICN) - A data-centric network
architecture where accessing data by name is the essential network
primitive. See [I-D.irtf-icnrg-terminology] for further
information.
Network Functions Virtualization (NFV): A networking approach
where network functions (e.g., firewalls, load balancers) are
modularized as software logic that can run on general purpose
hardware, and thus are specifically decoupled from the previous
generation of proprietary and dedicated hardware. See
[I-D.irtf-nfvrg-gaps-network-virtualization] for further
information.
Software-Defined Networking (SDN) - A networking approach where
the control and data plane for switches are separated, allowing
for realizing capabilities such as traffic isolation and
programmable forwarding actions. See [RFC7426] for further
information.
Rahman, et al. Expires March 6, 2020 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Deployment Considerations for ICN September 2019
3. Acronyms List
API - Application Programming Interface
BIER - Bit Indexed Explicit Replication
BoF - Birds of a Feather (session)
CCN - Content Centric Networking
CCNx - Content Centric Networking
CDN - Content Distribution Network
CoAP - Constrained Application Protocol
DASH - Dynamic Adaptive Streaming over HTTP
DiffServ - Differentiated Services
DoS - Denial of Service
DTN - Delay Tolerant Networking
ETSI - European Telecommunication Standards Institute
EU - European Union
FP7 - 7th Framework Programme for Research and Technological
Development
HLS - HTTP Live Streaming
HTTP - Hyper Text Transfer Protocol
HTTPS- Hyper Text Transfer Protocol Secure
H2020- Horizon 2020 (research program)
ICN - Information-Centric Networking
ICNRG- Information-Centric Networking Research Group
IETF - Internet Engineering Task Force
IntServ - Integrated Services
IoT - Internet of Things
Rahman, et al. Expires March 6, 2020 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Deployment Considerations for ICN September 2019
IP - Internet Protocol
IPv4 - Internet Protocol Version 4
IPv6 - Internet Protocol Version 6
IPTV - Internet Protocol Television
ISIS - Intermediate System to Intermediate System
ISP - Internet Service Provider
k - kilo (1000)
L2 - Layer 2
LTE - Long Term Evolution (or 4th generation cellular system)
MANO - Management and Orchestration
MEC - Mobile Edge Computing
Mbps - Megabits per second
M2M - Machine-to-Machine
NAP - Network Attachment Point
NDN - Named Data Networking
NETCONF - Network Configuration Protocol
NetInf - Network of Information
NFD - Named Data Networking Forwarding Daemon
NFV - Network Functions Virtualization
NICT - National Institute of Information and Communications
Technology of Japan
NR - New Radio (access network for 5G)
OAM - Operations and Maintenance
ONAP - Open Network Automation Platform
OSPF - Open Shortest Path First
Rahman, et al. Expires March 6, 2020 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Deployment Considerations for ICN September 2019
PoC - Proof of Concept (demo)
POINT- IP Over ICN - the better IP (project)
qMp - Quick Mesh Project
QoS - Quality of Service
RAM - Random Access Memory
RAN - Radio Access Network
REST - Representational State Transfer (architecture)
RESTCONF - Representational State Transfer Configuration
(protocol)
RIFE - Architecture for an Internet For Everybody (project)
RIP - Routing Information Protocol
ROM - Read Only Memory
RSVP - Resource Reservation Protocol
RTP - Real-time Transport Protocol
SDN - Software-Defined Networking
SFC - Service Function Chaining
SLA - Service Level Agreement
TCL - Transport Convergence Layer
TCP - Transmission Control Protocol
UDP - User Datagram Protocol
UMOBILE - Universal Mobile-centric and Opportunistic
Communications Architecture
US - United States
USA - United States of America
VoD - Video on Demand
Rahman, et al. Expires March 6, 2020 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Deployment Considerations for ICN September 2019
VPN - Virtual Private Network
WG - Working Group
YANG - Yet Another Next Generation (data modeling language)
5G - Fifth Generation (cellular network)
6LoWPAN - IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks
4. Deployment Configurations
In this section, we present various deployment options for ICN.
These are presented as "configurations" that allow for studying these
options further. While this document will outline experiences with
various of these configurations (in Section 6), we will not provide
an in-depth technical or commercial evaluation for any of them - for
this we refer to existing literature in this space such as [Tateson].
4.1. Clean-slate ICN
ICN has often been described as a "clean-slate" approach with the
goal to renew or replace the complete IP infrastructure of the
Internet. As such, existing routing hardware as well as ancillary
services such as existing applications which are typically tied
directly to the TCP/IP protocol stack are not taken for granted. For
instance, a Clean-slate ICN deployment would see existing IP routers
being replaced by ICN-specific forwarding and routing elements, such
as NFD [NFD], CCN routers [Jacobson] or PURSUIT forwarding nodes
[IEEE_Communications].
While such clean-slate replacement could be seen as exclusive for ICN
deployments, some ICN approaches (e.g., [POINT]) also rely on the
deployment of general infrastructure upgrades, in this case SDN
switches. Different proposals have been made for various ICN
approaches to enable the operation over an SDN transport
[Reed][CONET][C_FLOW].
4.2. ICN-as-an-Overlay
Similarly to other significant changes to the Internet routing
fabric, particularly the transition from IPv4 to IPv6 or the
introduction of IP multicast, this deployment configuration foresees
the creation of an ICN overlay. Note that this overlay approach is
sometimes, informally, also referred to as a tunneling approach. The
overlay approach can be implemented directly such as ICN-over-UDP as
described in [CCNx_UDP]. Alternatively, the overlay can be
accomplished via ICN-in-L2-in-IP as in [IEEE_Communications] which
Rahman, et al. Expires March 6, 2020 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Deployment Considerations for ICN September 2019
describes a recursive layering process. Another approach used in the
Network of Information (NetInf) is to define a convergence layer to
map NetInf semantics to HTTP [I-D.kutscher-icnrg-netinf-proto].
Finally, [Overlay_ICN] describes an incremental approach to deploying
an ICN architecture particularly well-suited to SDN based networks by
also segregating ICN user and control plane traffic.
Regardless of the flavor, however, the overlay approach results in
islands of ICN deployments over existing IP-based infrastructure.
Furthermore, these ICN islands are typically connected to each other
via ICN/IP tunnels. In certain scenarios this requires
interoperability between existing IP routing protocols (e.g., OSPF,
RIP, ISIS) and ICN based ones. ICN-as-an-Overlay can be deployed
over the IP infrastructure in either edge or core networks. This
overlay approach is thus very attractive for ICN experimentation and
testing as it allows rapid and easy deployment of ICN over existing
IP networks.
4.3. ICN-as-an-Underlay
Proposals such as [POINT] and [White] outline the deployment option
of using an ICN underlay that would integrate with existing
(external) IP-based networks by deploying application layer gateways
at appropriate locations. The main reasons for such a configuration
option is the introduction of ICN technology in given islands (e.g.,
inside a CDN or edge IoT network) to reap the benefits of native ICN
in terms of underlying multicast delivery, mobility support, fast
indirection due to location independence, in-network computing and
possibly more. The underlay approach thus results in islands of
native ICN deployments which are connected to the rest of the
Internet through protocol conversion gateways or proxies. Routing
domains are strictly separated. Outside of the ICN island, normal IP
routing protocols apply. Within the ICN island, ICN based routing
schemes apply. The gateways transfer the semantic content of the
messages (i.e., IP packet payload) between the two routing domains.
4.3.1. Edge Network
Native ICN networks may be located at the edge of the network where
the introduction of new network architectures and protocols is easier
in so-called greenfield deployments. In this context ICN is an
attractive option for scenarios such as IoT [I-D.irtf-icnrg-icniot].
The integration with the current IP protocol suite takes place at an
application gateway/proxy at the edge network boundary, e.g.,
translating incoming CoAP request/response transactions [RFC7252]
into ICN message exchanges or vice versa.
Rahman, et al. Expires March 6, 2020 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Deployment Considerations for ICN September 2019
The work in [VSER] positions ICN as an edge service gateway driven by
a generalized ICN based service orchestration system with its own
compute and network virtualization controllers to manage an ICN
infrastructure. The platform also offers service discovery
capabilities to enable user applications to discover appropriate ICN
service gateways. To exemplify a use case scenario, the [VSER]
platform shows the realization of a multi-party audio/video
conferencing service over such a edge cloud deployment of ICN routers
realized over commodity hardware platforms. This platform has also
been extended to offer seamless mobility and mobility as a service
[VSER-Mob] features.
4.3.2. Core Network
In this sub-option, a core network would utilize edge-based protocol
mapping onto the native ICN underlay. For instance, [POINT] proposes
to map HTTP transactions, or some other IP based transactions such as
CoAP, directly onto an ICN-based message exchange. This mapping is
realized at the NAP, such as realized in access points or customer
premise equipment, which in turn provides a standard IP interface to
existing user devices. The NAPs thus provides the apparent
perception of an IP-based core network towards any external peering
network.
The work in [White] proposes a similar deployment configuration.
There, the goal is to use ICN for content distribution within CDN
server farms. Specifically, the protocol mapping is realized at the
ingress of the server farm where the HTTP-based retrieval request is
served, while the response is delivered through a suitable egress
node translation.
4.4. ICN-as-a-Slice
The objective of Network slicing [NGMN-5G] is to multiplex a general
pool of compute, storage and bandwidth resources among multiple
service networks with exclusive SLA requirements on transport and
compute level QoS and security. This is enabled through NFV and SDN
technology functions that enables functional decomposition hence
modularity, independent scalability of control and/or the user-plane
functions, agility and service driven programmability. Network
slicing is often associated with 5G but is clearly not limited to
such systems. However, from a 5G perspective, the definition of
slicing includes access network enabling dynamic slicing the spectrum
resources among various services hence naturally extending itself to
end points and also cloud resources across multiple domains, to offer
end-to-end guarantees. These slices once instantiated could include
a mix of connectivity services like LTE-as-a-service or OTT services
like VoD or other IoT services through composition of a group of
Rahman, et al. Expires March 6, 2020 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Deployment Considerations for ICN September 2019
virtual and/or physical network functions at control, user and
service plane level. Such a framework can also be used to realize
ICN slices with its own control and forwarding plane over which one
or more end-user services can be delivered [NGMN-Network-Slicing].
The 5G next generation architecture [fiveG-23501] provides the
flexibility to deploy the ICN-as-a-Slice over either the edge (RAN),
Mobile core network, or the ICN-as-a-Slice may be deployed end-to-
end. Further discussions on extending the architecture presented in
[fiveG-23501] and the corresponding procedures in [fiveG-23502] to
support ICN has been provided in [I-D.ravi-icnrg-5gc-icn]. The draft
elaborates on two possible approaches to enable ICN. First, as an
edge service using the local data network (LDN) feature in 5G using
UPF classification functions to fast handover to the ICN forwarder;
the other is as a native deployment using the non-IP PDU support that
would allow new network layer PDU to be handed over to ICN UPFs
collocated with the gNB functions, without invoking any IP functions.
While the former deployment would still rely on 3GPP based mobility
functions, the later would allow mobility to be handled natively by
ICN. However both these deployment modes should benefit from other
ICN features such as in-network caching and computing. Associated
with this ICN user plan enablement, control plane extensions are also
proposed leveraging 5GC's interface to other application functions
(AF) to allow new network service level programmability. Such a
generalized network slicing framework should be able to offer service
slices over both IP and ICN. Coupled with the view of ICN functions
as being "chained service functions" [RFC7665], an ICN deployment
within such a slice could also be realized within the emerging
control plane that is targeted for adoption in future (e.g., 5G
mobile) network deployments. Finally, it should be noted that ICN is
not creating the network slice, but instead that the slice is created
to run an 5G-ICN instance [Ravindran].
At the level of the specific technologies involved, such as ONAP
[ONAP] that can be used to orchestrate slices, the 5G-ICN slice
requires compatibility for instance at the level of the forwarding/
data plane depending on if it is realized as an overlay or using
programmable data planes. With SDN emerging for new network
deployments, some ICN approaches will need to integrate with SDN as a
data plane forwarding function, as briefly discussed in Section 4.1.
Further cross domain ICN slices can also be realized using frameworks
such as [ONAP].
4.5. Composite-ICN Approach
Some deployments do not clearly correspond to any of the previously
defined basic configurations of (1) Clean-slate ICN; (2) ICN-as-an-
Overlay; (3) ICN-as-an-Underlay; and (4) ICN-as-a-Slice. Or, a
Rahman, et al. Expires March 6, 2020 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Deployment Considerations for ICN September 2019
deployment may contain a composite mixture of the properties of these
basic configurations. For example, the Hybrid ICN [H-ICN_1] approach
carries ICN names in existing IPv6 headers and does not have distinct
gateways or tunnels connecting ICN islands, or any other distinct
feature identified in the previous basic configurations. So we
categorize Hybrid ICN, and other approaches that do not clearly
correspond to one of the other basic configurations, as a Composite-
ICN approach.
5. Deployment Migration Paths
We now focus on the various migration paths that will have importance
to the various stakeholders that are usually involved in the
deployment of ICN networks. We can identify these stakeholders as:
o Application providers
o ISPs and service providers, both as core as well as access network
providers, and also ICN network providers
o CDN providers (due to the strong relation of the ICN proposition
to content delivery)
o End device manufacturers and users
Our focus is on technological aspects of such migration. Economic or
regulatory aspects, such as studied in [Tateson], [Techno_Economic]
and [Internet_Pricing] are left out of our discussion.
5.1. Application and Service Migration
The Internet supports a multitude of applications and services using
the many protocols defined over the packet level IP service. HTTP
provides one convergence point for these services with many Web
development frameworks based on the semantics provided by it. In
recent years, even services such as video delivery have been
migrating from the traditional RTP-over-UDP delivery to the various
HTTP-level streaming solutions, such as DASH [DASH] and others.
Nonetheless, many non-HTTP services exist, all of which need
consideration when migrating from the IP-based Internet to an ICN-
based one.
The underlay deployment configuration option presented in Section 4.3
aims at providing some level of compatibility to the existing
ecosystem through a proxy based message flow mapping mechanism (e.g.,
mapping of existing HTTP/TCP/IP message flows to HTTP/ICN message
flows). A related approach of mapping TCP/IP to TCP/ICN message
flows is described in [Moiseenko]. Another approach described in
Rahman, et al. Expires March 6, 2020 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Deployment Considerations for ICN September 2019
[Marchal] uses HTTP/NDN gateways and focuses in particular on the
right strategy to map HTTP to NDN to guarantee a high level of
compatibility with HTTP while enabling an efficient caching of Data
in the ICN island. The choice of approach is a design decision based
on how to configure the protocol stack. For example, the approach
described in [Moiseenko] carries the TCP layer into the ICN underlay.
While the [Marchal] approach terminates both HTTP and TCP at the edge
of the ICN underlay and maps these functionalities onto existing ICN
functionalities.
Alternatively, ICN as an overlay (Section 4.2), as well as ICN-as-
a-Slice (Section 4.4), allow for the introduction of the full
capabilities of ICN through new application/service interfaces as
well as operations in the network. With that, these approaches of
deployment are likely to aim at introducing new application/services
capitalizing on those ICN capabilities, such as in-network multicast
and/or caching.
Finally, [I-D.irtf-icnrg-icn-lte-4g] outlines a dual-stack end user
device approach that is applicable for all deployment configurations.
Specifically, it introduces middleware layers (called the TCL) in the
device that will dynamically adapt existing applications to either an
underlying ICN protocol stack or standard IP protocol stack. This
involves end device signalling with the network to determine which
protocol stack instance and associated middleware adaptation layers
to utilize for a given application transaction.
5.2. Content Delivery Network Migration
A significant number of services and applications are devoted to
content delivery in some form, either as video delivery, social media
platforms, and many others. CDNs are deployed to assist these
services through localizing the content requests and therefore
reducing latency and possibly increase utilization of available
bandwidth as well as reducing the load on origin servers. Similar to
the previous sub-section, the underlay deployment configuration
presented in Section 4.3 aim at providing a migration path for
existing CDNs. This is also highlighted in a BIER use case document
[I-D.ietf-bier-multicast-http-response], specifically with potential
benefits in terms of utilizing multicast in the delivery of content
but also reducing load on origin as well as delegation server. We
return to this benefit in the trial experiences in Section 6.
5.3. Edge Network Migration
Edge networks often see the deployment of novel network level
technology, e.g., in the space of IoT. Such IoT deployments have for
many years relied, and often still do, on proprietary protocols for
Rahman, et al. Expires March 6, 2020 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Deployment Considerations for ICN September 2019
reasons such as increased efficiency, lack of standardization
incentives and others. Utilizing the underlay deployment
configuration in Section 4.3.1, application gateways/proxies can
integrate such edge deployments into IP-based services, e.g.,
utilizing CoAP [RFC7252] based M2M platforms such as oneM2M [oneM2M]
or others.
Another area of increased edge network innovation is that of mobile
(access) networks, particularly in the context of the 5G Mobile
networks. With the proliferation of network softwarization (using
technologies like service orchestration frameworks leveraging NFV and
SDN concepts) access networks and other network segments, the ICN-as-
a-Slice deployment configuration in Section 4.4 provides a suitable
migration path for integration non-IP-based edge networks into the
overall system through virtue of realizing the relevant (ICN)
protocols in an access network slice.
With the advent of SDN and NFV capabilities, so-called campus or
site-specific deployments could see the introduction of ICN islands
at the edge for scenarios such as gaming or AR/VR-based deployments
for, e.g., smart cities or theme parks.
5.4. Core Network Migration
Migrating core networks of the Internet or Mobile networks requires
not only significant infrastructure renewal but also the fulfillment
of the key performance requirements, particularly in terms of
throughput. For those parts of the core network that would migrate
to an SDN-based optical transport the ICN-as-a-Slice deployment
configuration in Section 4.4 would allow the introduction of native
ICN solutions within slices. This would allow for isolating the ICN
traffic while addressing the specific ICN performance benefits, such
as in-network multicast or caching, and constraints, such as the need
for specific network elements within such isolated slices. For ICN
solutions that natively work on top of SDN, the underlay deployment
configuration in Section 4.3.2 provides an additional migration path,
preserving the IP-based services and applications at the edge of the
network, while realizing the core network routing through an ICN
solution (possibly itself realized in a slice of the SDN transport
network).
6. Deployment Trial Experiences
In this section, we will outline trial experiences, often conducted
within collaborative project efforts. Our focus here is on the
realization of the various deployment configurations identified in
Section 4, and we therefore categorize the trial experiences
according to these deployment configurations. While a large body of
Rahman, et al. Expires March 6, 2020 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Deployment Considerations for ICN September 2019
work exists at the simulation or emulation level, we specifically
exclude these studies from our analysis to retain the focus on real
life experiences.
6.1. ICN-as-an-Overlay
6.1.1. FP7 PURSUIT Efforts
Although the FP7 PURSUIT [IEEE_Communications] efforts were generally
positioned as a Clean-slate ICN replacement of IP (Section 4.1), the
project realized its experimental test bed as an L2 VPN-based overlay
between several European, US as well as Asian sites, following the
overlay deployment configuration presented in Section 4.2. Software-
based forwarders were utilized for the ICN message exchange, while
native ICN applications, e.g., for video transmissions, were
showcased. At the height of the project efforts, about 70+ nodes
were active in the (overlay) network with presentations given at
several conferences as well as to the ICNRG.
6.1.2. FP7 SAIL Trial
The Network of Information (NetInf) is the approach to ICN developed
by the EU FP7 SAIL project [SAIL]. NetInf provides both name-based
forwarding with CCNx-like semantics and name resolution (for
indirection and late-binding). The NetInf architecture supports
different deployment options through its convergence layer such as
using UDP, HTTP, and even DTN underlays. In its first prototypes and
trials, NetInf was deployed mostly in an HTTP embedding and in a UDP
overlay following the overlay deployment configuration in
Section 4.2. Reference [SAIL_Prototyping] describes several trials
including a stadium environment and a multi-site testbed, leveraging
NetInf's Routing Hint approach for routing scalability
[SAIL_Content_Delivery].
6.1.3. NDN Testbed
The Named Data Networking (NDN) is one of the research projects of
the National Science Foundation (NSF) of the USA as part of the
Future Internet Architecture (FIA) Program. The original NDN
proposal was positioned as a Clean-slate ICN replacement of IP
(Section 4.1). However, in several trials, NDN generally follows the
overlay deployment configuration of Section 4.2 to connect
institutions over the public Internet across several continents. The
use cases covered in the trials include real-time video-conferencing,
geo-locating, and interfacing to consumer applications. Typical
trials involve up to 100 NDN enabled nodes [NDN-testbed] [Jangam].
Rahman, et al. Expires March 6, 2020 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Deployment Considerations for ICN September 2019
6.1.4. ICN2020 Efforts
ICN2020 is an ICN related project of the EU H2020 research program
and NICT [ICN2020-overview]. ICN2020 has a specific focus to advance
ICN towards real-world deployments through applications such as video
delivery, interactive videos and social networks. The federated
testbed spans the USA, Europe and Japan. Both NDN and CCN approaches
are within the scope of the project.
ICN2020 has released a set of interim public technical reports
[ICN2020]. The report [ICN2020-Experiments] contains a detailed
description of the progress made in both local testbeds as well as
federated testbeds. The plan for the federated testbed includes
integrating the NDN testbed, the CUTEi testbed [RFC7945] [CUTEi] and
the GEANT testbed [GEANT] to create an overlay deployment
configuration of Section 4.2 over the public Internet. The total
network contains 37 nodes. Since video was an important application
typical throughput was measured in certain scenarios and found to be
in the order of 70 Mbps per node.
6.1.5. UMOBILE Efforts
UMOBILE is another of the ICN research projects under the H2020
research program [UMOBILE-overview]. The UMOBILE architecture
integrates the principles of DTN and ICN in a common framework to
support edge computing and mobile opportunistic wireless environments
(e.g., post-disaster scenarios and remote areas). The UMOBILE
architecture [UMOBILE-2] was developed on top of the NDN framework by
following the overlay deployment configuration of Section 4.2.
UMOBILE aims to extend Internet functionally by combining ICN and DTN
technologies.
One of the key aspects of UMOBILE was the extension of the NDN
framework to locate network services (e.g., mobility management,
intermittent connectivity support) and user services (e.g., pervasive
content management) as close as possible to the end-users to optimize
bandwidth utilization and resource management. Another aspect was
the evolution of the NDN framework to operate in challenging wireless
networks, namely in emergency scenarios [UMOBILE-3] and environments
with intermittent connectivity. To achieve this, the NDN framework
was leveraged with a new messaging application called Oi!
[UMOBILE-4] [UMOBILE-5] that supports intermittent wireless
networking. UMOBILE also implements a new data-centric wireless
routing protocol, DABBER [UMOBILE-6] [I-D.mendes-icnrg-dabber], which
was designed based on data reachability metrics that take into
consideration availability of adjacent wireless nodes and different
data sources. The contextual-awareness of the wireless network
Rahman, et al. Expires March 6, 2020 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Deployment Considerations for ICN September 2019
operation is obtained via a machine learning agent running within the
wireless nodes [UMOBILE-7].
The consortium has completed several ICN deployment trails. In a
post disaster scenario trial [UMOBILE-8], a special DTN face was
created to provide reachability to remote areas where there is no
typical Internet connection. Another trail was the ICN deployment
over the "Guifi.net" community network in the Barcelona region. This
trial focused on the evaluation of ICN edge computing platform,
called PiCasso [UMOBILE-9]. In this trial, ten (10) raspberry Pis
were deployed across Barcelona to create an ICN overlay network on
top of the existing IP routing protocol (e.g., qMp routing). This
trial showed that ICN can play a key role in improving data delivery
QoS as well as reducing the traffic in intermittent connectivity
environments (e.g., wireless community network). A third trial in
Italy was focused on displaying the capability of the UMOBILE
architecture to reach disconnected areas and assist responsible
authorities in emergencies, corresponding to an infrastructure
scenario. The demonstration encompassed seven (7) end-user devices,
one (1) access-point, and one (1) gateway.
6.2. ICN-as-an-Underlay
6.2.1. H2020 POINT and RIFE Efforts
POINT and RIFE are two more ICN related research projects of the
H2020 research program. The efforts in the H2020 POINT+RIFE projects
follow the underlay deployment configuration in Section 4.3.2, edge-
based NAPs provide the IP/HTTP-level protocol mapping onto ICN
protocol exchanges, while the SDN underlay (or the VPN-based L2
underlay) is used as a transport network.
The multicast as well as service endpoint surrogate benefits in HTTP-
based scenarios, such as for HTTP-level streaming video delivery,
have been demonstrated in the deployed POINT test bed with 80+ nodes
being utilized. Demonstrations of this capability have been given to
the ICNRG, and public demonstrations were also provided at events
[MWC_Demo]. The trial has also been accepted by the ETSI MEC group
as a public proof-of-concept demonstration.
While the afore-mentioned demonstrations all use the overlay
deployment, H2020 also has performed ICN underlay trials. One such
trial involved commercial end users located in the Primetel network
in Cyprus with the use case centered on IPTV and HLS video
dissemination. Another trial was performed over the "Guifi.net"
community network in the Barcelona region, where the solution was
deployed in 40 households, providing general Internet connectivity to
the residents. Standard IPTV STBs as well as HLS video players were
Rahman, et al. Expires March 6, 2020 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Deployment Considerations for ICN September 2019
utilized in accordance with the aim of this deployment configuration,
namely to provide application and service migration.
6.2.2. H2020 FLAME Efforts
The H2020 FLAME efforts concentrate on providing an experimental
ground for the aforementioned POINT/RIFE solution in initially two
city-scale locations, namely in Bristol and Barcelona. This trial
followed the underlay deployment configuration in Section 4.3.2 as
per POINT/RIFE approach. Experiments were conducted with the city/
university joint venture Bristol-is-Open (BIO), to ensure the
readiness of the city-scale SDN transport network for such
experiments. Another trial was for the ETSI MEC PoC. This trial
showcased operational benefits provided by the ICN underlay for the
scenario of a location-based game. These benefits aim at reduced
network utilization through improved video delivery performance
(multicast of all captured videos to the service surrogates deployed
in the city at six locations) as well as reduced latency through the
playout of the video originating from the local NAP, collocated with
the WiFi AP instead of a remote server, i.e., the playout latency was
bounded by the maximum single hop latency.
Twenty three (23) large-scale media service experiments are planned
as part of the H2020 FLAME efforts in the area of Future Media
Internet (FMI). The platform, which includes the ICN capabilities
integrated with NFV and SDN capabilities of the infrastructure. The
ultimate goal of these platform efforts is the full integration of
ICN into the overall media function platform for the provisioning of
advanced (media-centric) Internet services.
6.2.3. CableLabs Content Delivery System
The Cablelabs ICN work reported in [White] proposes an underlay
deployment configuration based on Section 4.3.2. The use case is ICN
for content distribution within complex CDN server farms to leverage
ICN's superior in-network caching properties. This "island of ICN"
based CDN is then used to service standard HTTP/IP-based content
retrieval request coming from the general Internet. This approach
acknowledges that whole scale replacement (see Section 4.1) of
existing HTTP/IP end user applications and related Web infrastructure
is a difficult proposition. [White] is clear that the architecture
proposed had not yet been tested experimentally but that
implementations were in process and expected in the 3-5 year time
frame.
Rahman, et al. Expires March 6, 2020 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Deployment Considerations for ICN September 2019
6.2.4. NDN IoT Trials
[Baccelli] summarizes the trial of an NDN system adapted specifically
for a wireless IoT scenario. The trial was run with 60 nodes
distributed over several multi-story buildings in a university campus
environment. The NDN protocols were optimized to run directly over
6LoWPAN wireless link layers. The performance of the NDN based IoT
system was then compared to an equivalent system running standard IP
based IoT protocols. It was found that the NDN based IoT system was
superior in several respects including in terms of energy
consumption, and for RAM and ROM footprints [Baccelli]
[Anastasiades]. For example, the binary file size reductions for NDN
protocol stack versus standard IP based IoT protocol stack on given
devices were up to 60% less for ROM size and up to 80% less for RAM
size.
6.2.5. NREN ICN Testbed
The National Research and Education Network (NREN) ICN Testbed is a
project sponsored by Cisco, Internet2, and the US Research and
Education community. Participants include universities and US
federal government entities that connect via a nation-wide VPN-based
L2 underlay. The testbed uses the CCN approach and is based on the
[CICN] open source software. There are approximately 15 nodes spread
across the USA which connect to the testbed. The project's current
focus is to advance data-intensive science and network research by
improving data movement, searchability, and accessibility.
6.2.6. Doctor Testbed
The Doctor project is a French research project meaning "Deployment
and Securisation of new Functionalities in Virtualized Networking
Environments". The project aims to run NDN over virtualized NFV
infrastructure [Doctor] (based on Docker technology) and focuses on
the NFV MANO aspects to build an operational NDN network focusing on
important performance criteria such as security, performance and
interoperability.
The data-plane relies on a HTTP/NDN gateway [Marchal] that processes
HTTP traffic and transports it in an optimized way over NDN to
benefit from the properties of the NDN-island (i.e., by mapping HTTP
semantics to NDN semantics within the NDN-island). The testbed
carries real Web traffic of users, and has been currently evaluated
with the top-1000 most popular Web sites. The users only need to set
the gateway as the Web proxy. The control-plane relies on a central
manager which uses machine learning based detection methods [Mai-1]
from the date gathered by distributed probes and applies orchestrated
counter-measures against NDN attacks [Nguyen-1] [Nguyen-2] [Mai-2] or
Rahman, et al. Expires March 6, 2020 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Deployment Considerations for ICN September 2019
performance issues. A remediation can be, for example, the scale-up
of a bottleneck component, or the deployment of a security function
like a firewall or a signature verification module. Test results
thus far have indicated that key attacks can be detected accurately.
For example, content poisioning attacks can be detected at up to over
95% accuracy (with less than 0.01% false positives) [Nguyen-3].
6.3. Composite-ICN Approach
Hybrid ICN [H-ICN_1] [H-ICN_2] is an approach where the ICN names are
mapped to IPv6 addresses, and other ICN information is carried as
payload inside the IP packet. This allows standard (ICN-unaware) IP
routers to forward packets based on IPv6 info, but enables ICN-aware
routers to apply ICN semantics. The intent is to enable rapid hybrid
deployments and seamless interconnection of IP and Hybrid ICN
domains. Hybrid ICN uses [CICN] open source software. Initial tests
have been done with 150 clients consuming DASH videos which showed
good scalability properties at the Server Side using the Hybrid ICN
transport [H-ICN_3] [H-ICN_2].
6.4. Summary of Deployment Trials
In summary, there have been significant trials over the years with
all the major ICN protocol flavors (e.g., CCN, NDN, POINT) using both
the ICN-as-an-Overlay and ICN-as-an-Underlay deployment
configurations. The major limitations of the trials include the fact
that only a limited number of applications have been tested.
However, the tested applications include both native ICN and existing
IP based applications (e.g., video-conferencing and IPTV). Another
limitation of the trials is that all of them involve less than 1k
users.
The ICN-as-a-Slice configuration has just started being trialled by
Huawei and China Unicom to demonstrate ICN features of security,
mobility and bandwidth efficiency over a wired infrastructure using
video conferencing as the application scenario [Chakraborti], also
this prototype has been extended to demonstrate this over a 5G-NR
access.
The Clean-slate ICN approach has obviously never been trialled as
complete replacement of Internet infrastructure (e.g., existing
applications, TCP/IP protocol stack, IP routers, etc.) is no longer
considered a viable alternative.
Finally, Hybrid ICN is a Composite-ICN approach that offers an
interesting alternative as it allows ICN semantics to be embedded in
standard IPv6 packets so the packets can be routed through either IP
routers or Hybrid ICN routers. Note that some other trials such as
Rahman, et al. Expires March 6, 2020 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Deployment Considerations for ICN September 2019
the Doctor testbed (Section 6.2.6) could also be characterized as a
Composite-ICN approach because it contains both ICN gateways (as in
ICN-as-an-Underlay) and virtualized infrastructure (as in ICN-as-
a-Slice). However, for the Doctor testbed we have chosen to
characterize it as an ICN-as-an-Underlay configuration because that
is a dominant characteristic.
7. Deployment Issues Requiring Further Standardization
The ICN Research Challenges [RFC7927] describes key ICN principles
and technical research topics. As the title suggests, [RFC7927] is
research oriented without a specific focus on deployment or
standardization issues. This section addresses this open area by
identifying key protocol functionality that that may be relevant for
further standardization effort in IETF. The focus is specifically on
identifying protocols that will facilitate future interoperable ICN
deployments correlating to the scenarios identified in the deployment
migration paths in Section 5. The identified list of potential
protocol functionality is not exhaustive.
7.1. Protocols for Application and Service Migration
End user applications and services need a standardized approach to
trigger ICN transactions. For example, in Internet and Web
applications today, there are established socket APIs, communication
paradigms such as REST, common libraries, and best practices. We see
a need to study application requirements in an ICN environment
further and, at the same time, develop new APIs and best practices
that can take advantage of ICN communication characteristics.
7.2. Protocols for Content Delivery Network Migration
A key issue in CDNs is to quickly find a location of a copy of the
object requested by an end user. In ICN, a Named Data Object (NDO)
is typically defined by its name. [RFC6920] defines a mechanism that
is suitable for static naming of ICN data objects. Other ways of
encoding and representing ICN names have been described in
[I-D.irtf-icnrg-ccnxmessages] and [I-D.irtf-icnrg-ccnxsemantics].
Naming dynamically generated data requires different approaches
(e.g., hash digest based names would normally not work), and there is
lack of established conventions and standards.
Another CDN issue for ICN is related to multicast distribution of
content. Existing CDNs have started using multicast mechanisms for
certain cases such as for broadcast streaming TV. However, as
discussed in Section 6.2.1, certain ICN approaches provide
substantial improvements over IP multicast, such as the implicit
support for multicast retrieval of content in all ICN flavours.
Rahman, et al. Expires March 6, 2020 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Deployment Considerations for ICN September 2019
Caching is an implicit feature in many ICN architectures that can
improve performance and availability in several scenarios. The ICN
in-network caching can augment managed CDN and improve its
performance. The details of the interplay between ICN caching and
managed CDN need further consideration.
7.3. Protocols for Edge and Core Network Migration
ICN provides the potential to redesign current edge and core network
computing approaches. Leveraging ICN's inherent security and its
ability to make name data and dynamic computation results available
independent of location, can enable a light-weight insertion of
traffic into the network without relying on redirection of DNS
requests. For this, proxies that translate from commonly used
protocols in the general Internet to ICN message exchanges in the ICN
domain could be used for the migration of application and services
within deployments at the network edge but also in core networks.
This is similar to existing approaches for IoT scenarios where a
proxy translates CoAP request/responses to other message formats.
For example, [RFC8075] specifies proxy mapping between CoAP and HTTP
protocols. Also, [RFC8613] is an example of how to pass end-to-end
encrypted content between HTTP and COAP by an application layer
security mechanism. Further work is required to identify if an
[RFC8613]-like approach, or some other approach, is suitable to
preserve ICN message security through future protocol translation
functions of gateways/proxies.
Interaction and interoperability between existing IP routing
protocols (e.g., OSPF, RIP, ISIS) and ICN routing approaches(e.g.,
NFD, CCN routers) are expected especially in the overlay approach.
Another important topic is the integration of ICN into networks that
support virtualized infrastructure in the form of NFV/SDN and most
likely utilizing SFC as a key protocol. Further work is required to
validate this idea and document best practices.
There are several existing approaches to supporting QoS in IP
networks including DiffServ, IntServ and RSVP. Some initial ideas
for QoS support in ICN networks are outlined in
[I-D.moiseenko-icnrg-flowclass] which proposes a flow classification
based approach to enable functions such ICN rate control and cache
control. Also [I-D.anilj-icnrg-icn-qos] proposes how to use DiffServ
DSCP codes to support QoS for ICN based data path delivery. Further
work is required to identify the best approaches for support of QoS
in ICN networks.
OAM is a crucial area that has not yet been fully addressed by the
ICN research community, but which is obviously critical for future
deployments of ICN. Potential areas that need investigation include
Rahman, et al. Expires March 6, 2020 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Deployment Considerations for ICN September 2019
whether the YANG data modelling approach and associated NETCONF/
RESTCONF protocols need any specific updates for ICN support.
Another open area is how to measure and benchmark performance of ICN
networks comparable to the sophisticated techniques that exist for
standard IP networks, virtualized networks and data centers. It
should be noted that some initial progress has been made in the area
of ICN network path traceroute facility with approaches such as
CCNinfo [I-D.irtf-icnrg-ccninfo] [Contrace].
7.4. Summary of ICN Protocol Gaps and Potential Protocol Efforts
Without claiming completeness, Table 1 maps the open ICN issues
identified in this document to potential protocol efforts that could
address some aspects of the gap.
+--------------+----------------------------------------------------+
| ICN Gap | Potential Protocol Effort |
+--------------+----------------------------------------------------+
| 1-Support of | HTTP/CoAP support of ICN semantics |
| REST APIs | |
| | |
| 2-Naming | Dynamic naming of ICN data objects |
| | |
| 3-Routing | Interactions between IP and ICN routing protocols |
| | |
| 4-Multicast | Multicast enhancements for ICN |
| distribution | |
| | |
| 5-In-network | ICN Cache placement and sharing |
| caching | |
| | |
| 6-NFV/SDN | Integration of ICN with NFV/SDN and including |
| support | possible impacts to SFC |
| | |
| 7-ICN | Mapping of HTTP and other protocols onto ICN |
| mapping | message exchanges (and vice-versa) while |
| | preserving ICN message security |
| | |
| 8-QoS | Support of ICN QoS via mechanisms such as DiffServ |
| support | and flow classification |
| | |
| 9-OAM | YANG models, NETCONF/RESTCONF protocols, |
| support | and network performance measurements |
| | |
+--------------+----------------------------------------------------+
Table 1: Mapping of ICN Gaps to Potential Protocol Efforts
Rahman, et al. Expires March 6, 2020 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Deployment Considerations for ICN September 2019
8. Conclusion
This document provides high level deployment considerations for
current and future members of the ICN community. Specifically, the
major configurations of possible ICN deployments are identified as
(1) Clean-slate ICN replacement of existing Internet infrastructure;
(2) ICN-as-an-Overlay; (3) ICN-as-an-Underlay; (4) ICN-as-a-Slice;
and (5) Composite-ICN. Existing ICN trial systems primarily fall
under the ICN-as-an-Overlay, ICN-as-an-Underlay and Composite-ICN
configurations.
In terms of deployment migration paths, ICN-as-an-Underlay offers a
clear migration path for CDN, edge or core networks to go to an ICN
paradigm (e.g., for an IoT deployment) while leaving the critical
mass of existing end user applications untouched. ICN-as-an-Overlay
is the easiest configuration to deploy rapidly as it leaves the
underlying IP infrastructure essentially untouched. However, its
applicability for general deployment must be considered on a case by
case basis (e.g., can it support all required user applications).
ICN-as-a-Slice is an attractive deployment option for up coming 5G
systems (i.e., for 5G radio and core networks) which will naturally
support network slicing, but this still has to be validated through
more trial experiences. Composite-ICN, by its nature, can combine
some of the best characteristics of the other configurations, but its
applicability for general deployment must again be considered on a
case by case basis (e.g., can enough IP routers be upgraded to
support Composite-ICN functionality to provide sufficient performance
benefits).
There has been significant trial experience with all the major ICN
protocol flavors (e.g., CCN, NDN, POINT). However, only a limited
number of applications have been tested so far, and the maximum
number of users in any given trial has been less than 1k users. It
is recommended that future ICN deployments scale their users
gradually and closely monitor network performance as they go above 1k
users. A logical approach would be to increase the number of users
in a slowly increasing linear manner and monitor network performance
and stability especially at every multiple of 1k users.
Finally, this document describes a set of technical features in ICN
that warrant potential future IETF specification work. This will aid
initial and incremental deployments to proceed in an interoperable
manner. The fundamental details of the potential protocol
specification effort, however, are best left for future study by the
appropriate IETF WGs and/or BoFs. The ICNRG can aid this process in
the near and mid-term by continuing to examine key system issues like
QoS mechanisms, flexible naming schemes and OAM support for ICN.
Rahman, et al. Expires March 6, 2020 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Deployment Considerations for ICN September 2019
9. IANA Considerations
This document requests no IANA actions.
10. Security Considerations
ICN was purposefully designed from the start to have certain
intrinsic security properties. The most well known of which are
authentication of delivered content and (optional) encryption of the
content. [RFC7945] has an extensive discussion of various aspects of
ICN security including many which are relevant to deployments.
Specifically, [RFC7945] points out that ICN access control, privacy,
security of in-network caches, and protection against various network
attacks (e.g., DoS) have not yet been fully developed due to the lack
of a sufficient mass of deployments. [RFC7945] also points out
relevant advances occurring in the ICN research community that hold
promise to address each of the identified security gaps. Lastly,
[RFC7945] points out that as secure communications in the existing
Internet (e.g., HTTPS) becomes the norm, that major gaps in ICN
security will inevitably slow down the adoption of ICN.
In addition to the security findings of [RFC7945], this document has
highlighted that all anticipated ICN deployment configurations will
involve co-existence with existing Internet infrastructure and
applications. Thus even the basic authentication and encryption
properties of ICN content will need to account for interworking with
non-ICN content to preserve end-to-end security. For example, in the
edge network underlay deployment configuration described in
Section 4.3.1, the gateway/proxy that translates HTTP or CoAP
request/responses into ICN message exchanges will need to support a
security model to preserve end-to-end security. One alternative
would be to consider an approach similiar to [RFC8613] which is used
to pass end-to-end encrypted content between HTTP and COAP by an
application layer security mechanism. Further investigation is
required to see if this approach is suitable to preserve ICN message
security through future protocol translation functions (e.g., ICN to
HTTP, or COAP to ICN) of gateways/proxies.
Finally, the Doctor project discussed in Section 6.2.6 is an example
of an early deployment that is looking at specific attacks against
ICN infrastructure. In this case, looking at Interest Flooding
Attacks [Nguyen-2] and Content Poisoning Attacks [Nguyen-1] [Mai-2]
[Nguyen-3] and evaluation of potential counter-measures based on MANO
orchestrated actions on the virtualized infrastructure [Mai-1] .
Rahman, et al. Expires March 6, 2020 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Deployment Considerations for ICN September 2019
11. Acknowledgments
The authors want to thank Alex Afanasyev, Hitoshi Asaeda, Giovanna
Carofiglio, Xavier de Foy, Guillaume Doyen, Hannu Flinck, Anil
Jangam, Michael Kowal, Adisorn Lertsinsrubtavee, Paulo Mendes, Luca
Muscariello, Thomas Schmidt, Jan Seedorf, Eve Schooler, Samar
Shailendra, Milan Stolic, Prakash Suthar, Atsushi Mayutan, and Lixia
Zhang for their very useful reviews and comments to the document.
Special thanks to Dave Oran (ICNRG co-chair) and Marie-Jose Montpetit
for their extensive and thoughtful reviews of the document. Their
reviews helped to immeasurably improve the document quality.
12. Informative References
[Anastasiades]
Anastasiades, C., "Information-centric communication in
mobile and wireless networks", PhD Dissertation, 2016,
<http://boris.unibe.ch/83683/1/16anastasiades_c.pdf>.
[Baccelli]
Baccelli, E. and et al., "Information Centric Networking
in the IoT: Experiments with NDN in the Wild", ACM
20164, Paris, France, 2014,
<http://conferences2.sigcomm.org/acm-icn/2014/papers/
p77.pdf>.
[C_FLOW] Suh, J. and et al., "C_FLOW: Content-Oriented Networking
over OpenFlow", Open Networking Summit, April, 2012,
<http://opennetsummit.org/archives/apr12/site/pdf/
snu.pdf>.
[CCNx_UDP]
PARC, "CCNx Over UDP", 2015,
<https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/interim-2015-icnrg-
04/slides/slides-interim-2015-icnrg-4-5.pdf>.
[Chakraborti]
Chakraborti, A. and et al., "Design and Evaluation of a
Multi-source Multi-destination Real-time Application on
Content Centric Network", IEEE, HoT ICN, 2018 , 2018.
[CICN] CICN, "Community Information-Centric Networking (CICN)",
2017, <https://wiki.fd.io/view/Cicn>.
Rahman, et al. Expires March 6, 2020 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft Deployment Considerations for ICN September 2019
[CONET] Veltri, L. and et al., "CONET Project: Supporting
Information-Centric Functionality in Software Defined
Networks", Workshop on Software Defined Networks, , 2012,
<http://netgroup.uniroma2.it/Stefano_Salsano/papers/
salsano-icc12-wshop-sdn.pdf>.
[Contrace]
Asaeda, H. and et al., "Contrace: A Tool for Measuring and
Tracing Content-Centric Networks", IEEE Communications
Magazine, Vol.53, No.3 , 2015.
[CUTEi] Asaeda, H. and N. Choi, "Container-Based Unified Testbed
for Information Centric Networking", IEEE Network, Vol.28,
No.6 , 2014.
[DASH] DASH, "DASH Industry Forum", 2017, <http://dashif.org/>.
[Doctor] Doctor, "Deployment and Securisation of new
Functionalities in Virtualized Networking Environments
(Doctor)", 2017,
<http://www.doctor-project.org/index.htm>.
[fiveG-23501]
3gpp-23.501, "Technical Specification Group Services and
System Aspects; System Architecture for the 5G System
(Rel.15)", 3GPP , 2017.
[fiveG-23502]
3gpp-23.502, "Technical Specification Group Services and
System Aspects; Procedures for the 5G System (Rel.15)",
3GPP , 2017.
[GEANT] GEANT, "GEANT Overview", 2016, <https://www.geant.org/>.
[H-ICN_1] Cisco, "Hybrid ICN: Cisco Announces Important Steps toward
Adoption of Information-Centric Networking", 2017,
<http://blogs.cisco.com/sp/cisco-announces-important-
steps-toward-adoption-of-information-centric-networking>.
[H-ICN_2] Cisco, "Mobile Video Delivery with Hybrid ICN: IP-
Integrated ICN Solution for 5G", 2017,
<https://www.cisco.com/c/dam/en/us/solutions/collateral/
service-provider/ultra-services-platform/
mwc17-hicn-video-wp.pdf>.
Rahman, et al. Expires March 6, 2020 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft Deployment Considerations for ICN September 2019
[H-ICN_3] Muscariello, L. and et al., "Hybrid Information-Centric
Networking: ICN inside the Internet Protocol", 2018,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2018-icnrg-
01/materials/slides-interim-2018-icnrg-01-sessa-hybrid-
icn-hicn-luca-muscariello>.
[H-ICN_4] Sardara, M. and et al., "(h)ICN Socket Library for HTTP:
Leveraging (h)ICN socket library for carrying HTTP
messages", 2018, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/
interim-2018-icnrg-01/materials/slides-interim-2018-icnrg-
01-sessa-hicn-socket-library-for-http-luca-muscariello>.
[I-D.anilj-icnrg-icn-qos]
Jangam, A., suthar, P., and M. Stolic, "Supporting QoS
aware Data Delivery in Information Centric Networks",
draft-anilj-icnrg-icn-qos-00 (work in progress), July
2018.
[I-D.ietf-bier-multicast-http-response]
Trossen, D., Rahman, A., Wang, C., and T. Eckert,
"Applicability of BIER Multicast Overlay for Adaptive
Streaming Services", draft-ietf-bier-multicast-http-
response-01 (work in progress), June 2019.
[I-D.irtf-icnrg-ccninfo]
Asaeda, H., Ooka, A., and X. Shao, "CCNinfo: Discovering
Content and Network Information in Content-Centric
Networks", draft-irtf-icnrg-ccninfo-02 (work in progress),
July 2019.
[I-D.irtf-icnrg-ccnxmessages]
Mosko, M., Solis, I., and C. Wood, "CCNx Messages in TLV
Format", draft-irtf-icnrg-ccnxmessages-09 (work in
progress), January 2019.
[I-D.irtf-icnrg-ccnxsemantics]
Mosko, M., Solis, I., and C. Wood, "CCNx Semantics",
draft-irtf-icnrg-ccnxsemantics-10 (work in progress),
January 2019.
[I-D.irtf-icnrg-icn-lte-4g]
suthar, P., Stolic, M., Jangam, A., Trossen, D., and R.
Ravindran, "Native Deployment of ICN in LTE, 4G Mobile
Networks", draft-irtf-icnrg-icn-lte-4g-03 (work in
progress), March 2019.
Rahman, et al. Expires March 6, 2020 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft Deployment Considerations for ICN September 2019
[I-D.irtf-icnrg-icniot]
Ravindran, R., Zhang, Y., Grieco, L., Lindgren, A., Burke,
J., Ahlgren, B., and A. Azgin, "Design Considerations for
Applying ICN to IoT", draft-irtf-icnrg-icniot-03 (work in
progress), May 2019.
[I-D.irtf-icnrg-terminology]
Wissingh, B., Wood, C., Afanasyev, A., Zhang, L., Oran,
D., and C. Tschudin, "Information-Centric Networking
(ICN): CCN and NDN Terminology", draft-irtf-icnrg-
terminology-04 (work in progress), June 2019.
[I-D.irtf-nfvrg-gaps-network-virtualization]
Bernardos, C., Rahman, A., Zuniga, J., Contreras, L.,
Aranda, P., and P. Lynch, "Network Virtualization Research
Challenges", draft-irtf-nfvrg-gaps-network-
virtualization-10 (work in progress), September 2018.
[I-D.kutscher-icnrg-netinf-proto]
Kutscher, D., Farrell, S., and E. Davies, "The NetInf
Protocol", draft-kutscher-icnrg-netinf-proto-01 (work in
progress), February 2013.
[I-D.mendes-icnrg-dabber]
Mendes, P., Sofia, R., Tsaoussidis, V., Diamantopoulos,
S., Sarros, C., Borrego, C., and J. Borrell, "Information-
centric Routing for Opportunistic Wireless Networks",
draft-mendes-icnrg-dabber-02 (work in progress), February
2019.
[I-D.moiseenko-icnrg-flowclass]
Moiseenko, I. and D. Oran, "Flow Classification in
Information Centric Networking", draft-moiseenko-icnrg-
flowclass-04 (work in progress), July 2019.
[I-D.paik-icn-deployment-considerations]
Paik, E., Yun, W., Kwon, T., and h.
hgchoi@mmlab.snu.ac.kr, "Deployment Considerations for
Information-Centric Networking", draft-paik-icn-
deployment-considerations-00 (work in progress), July
2013.
[I-D.ravi-icnrg-5gc-icn]
Ravindran, R., suthar, P., Trossen, D., Wang, C., and G.
White, "Enabling ICN in 3GPP's 5G NextGen Core
Architecture", draft-ravi-icnrg-5gc-icn-04 (work in
progress), May 2019.
Rahman, et al. Expires March 6, 2020 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft Deployment Considerations for ICN September 2019
[ICN2020] ICN2020, "ICN2020 Deliverables", 2017,
<http://www.icn2020.org/dissemination/
deliverables-public/>.
[ICN2020-Experiments]
ICN2020, "Deliverable D4.1: 1st yearly report on Testbed
and Experiments (WP4)", 2017,
<http://www.icn2020.org/dissemination/
deliverables-public/>.
[ICN2020-overview]
ICN2020, "ICN2020 Project Overview", 2016,
<http://www.icn2020.org/>.
[ICNRGCharter]
NDN, "Information-Centric Networking Research Group
Charter", 2013,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-irtf-icnrg/>.
[IEEE_Communications]
Trossen, D. and G. Parisis, "Designing and Realizing an
Information-Centric Internet", Information-Centric
Networking, IEEE Communications Magazine Special Issue,
2012.
[Internet_Pricing]
Trossen, D. and G. Biczok, "Not Paying the Truck Driver:
Differentiated Pricing for the Future Internet", ReArch
Workshop in conjunction with ACM Context, December, 2010.
[Jacobson]
Jacobson, V. and et al., "Networking Named Content",
Proceedings of ACM Context, , 2009.
[Jangam] Jangam, A. and et al., "Porting and Simulation of Named-
data Link State Routing Protocol into ndnSIM", ACM
DIVANet'17, Miami Beach, USA, 2017,
<https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3132351>.
[Mai-1] Mai, H. and et al., "Implementation of Content Poisoning
Attack Detection and Reaction in Virtualized NDN
Networks", 21st Conference on Innovation in Clouds,
Internet and Networks, ICIN 2018 (demo paper) IEEE, 2018,
<http://www.mallouli.com/recherche/publications/
noms2018-1.pdf>.
Rahman, et al. Expires March 6, 2020 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft Deployment Considerations for ICN September 2019
[Mai-2] Mai, H. and et al., "Towards a Security Monitoring Plane
for Named Data Networking: Application to Content
Poisoning Attack", Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE/IFIP
Symposium on Network Operations and Management (NOMS)
IEEE, 2018.
[Marchal] Marchal, X. and et al., "Leveraging NFV for the Deployment
of NDN: Application to HTTP Traffic Transport",
Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE/IFIP Symposium on Network
Operations and Management (NOMS), 2018,
<http://www.mallouli.com/recherche/publications/
noms2018-1.pdf>.
[Moiseenko]
Moiseenko, I. and D. Oran, "TCP/ICN : Carrying TCP over
Content Centric and Named Data Networks", 2016,
<http://conferences2.sigcomm.org/acm-icn/2016/proceedings/
p112-moiseenko.pdf>.
[MWC_Demo]
InterDigital, "InterDigital Demo at Mobile World Congress
(MWC)", 2016, <http://www.interdigital.com/
download/56d5c71bd616f892ba001861>.
[NDN-testbed]
NDN Testbed, "Named Data Networking (NDN) Testbed", 2010,
<https://named-data.net/ndn-testbed/>.
[NFD] NDN, "NFD - Named Data Networking Forwarding Daemon",
2017, <https://named-data.net/doc/NFD/current/>.
[NGMN-5G] NGMN, "NGMN 5G White Paper", 2015,
<https://www.ngmn.org/fileadmin/ngmn/content/images/news/
ngmn_news/NGMN_5G_White_Paper_V1_0.pdf>.
[NGMN-Network-Slicing]
NGMN, "NGMN Description of Network Slicing Concept", 2016,
<https://www.ngmn.org/fileadmin/
user_upload/160113_Network_Slicing_v1_0.pdf>.
[Nguyen-1]
Nguyen, T. and et al., "Content Poisoning in Named Data
Networking: Comprehensive Characterization of real
Deployment", Proceedings of the 15th IEEE/IFIP
International Symposium on Integrated Network Management,
2017.
Rahman, et al. Expires March 6, 2020 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft Deployment Considerations for ICN September 2019
[Nguyen-2]
Nguyen, T., Cogranne, R., and G. Doyen, "An Optimal
Statistical Test for Robust Detection against Interest
Flooding Attacks in CCN", Proceedings of the 14th IEEE/
IFIP International Symposium on Integrated Network
Management, 2015.
[Nguyen-3]
Nguyen, T. and et al., "A Security Monitoring Plane for
Named Data Networking Deployment", IEEE Communications
Magazine, Nov 2018.
[ONAP] ONAP, "Open Network Automation Platform", 2017,
<https://www.onap.org/>.
[oneM2M] OneM2M, "oneM2M Service Layer Standards for M2M and IoT",
2017, <http://www.onem2m.org/>.
[Overlay_ICN]
Shailendra, S. and et al., "A Novel Overlay Architecture
for F Networking", 2016, <https://www.researchgate.net/pub
lication/282779666_A_novel_overlay_architecture_for_Inform
ation_Centric_Networking>.
[POINT] Trossen, D. and et al., "POINT: IP Over ICN - The Better
IP?", European Conference on Networks and Communications
(EuCNC), , 2015.
[Ravindran]
Ravindran, R. and et al., "5G-ICN : Delivering ICN
Services over 5G using Network Slicing", IEEE
Communication Magazine, May, 2016,
<https://arxiv.org/abs/1610.01182>.
[Reed] Reed, M. and et al., "Stateless Multicast Switching in
Software Defined Networks", ICC 2016, Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia, 2016.
[RFC6920] Farrell, S., Kutscher, D., Dannewitz, C., Ohlman, B.,
Keranen, A., and P. Hallam-Baker, "Naming Things with
Hashes", RFC 6920, DOI 10.17487/RFC6920, April 2013,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6920>.
[RFC7252] Shelby, Z., Hartke, K., and C. Bormann, "The Constrained
Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7252,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7252, June 2014,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7252>.
Rahman, et al. Expires March 6, 2020 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft Deployment Considerations for ICN September 2019
[RFC7426] Haleplidis, E., Ed., Pentikousis, K., Ed., Denazis, S.,
Hadi Salim, J., Meyer, D., and O. Koufopavlou, "Software-
Defined Networking (SDN): Layers and Architecture
Terminology", RFC 7426, DOI 10.17487/RFC7426, January
2015, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7426>.
[RFC7665] Halpern, J., Ed. and C. Pignataro, Ed., "Service Function
Chaining (SFC) Architecture", RFC 7665,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7665, October 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7665>.
[RFC7927] Kutscher, D., Ed., Eum, S., Pentikousis, K., Psaras, I.,
Corujo, D., Saucez, D., Schmidt, T., and M. Waehlisch,
"Information-Centric Networking (ICN) Research
Challenges", RFC 7927, DOI 10.17487/RFC7927, July 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7927>.
[RFC7945] Pentikousis, K., Ed., Ohlman, B., Davies, E., Spirou, S.,
and G. Boggia, "Information-Centric Networking: Evaluation
and Security Considerations", RFC 7945,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7945, September 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7945>.
[RFC8075] Castellani, A., Loreto, S., Rahman, A., Fossati, T., and
E. Dijk, "Guidelines for Mapping Implementations: HTTP to
the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 8075,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8075, February 2017,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8075>.
[RFC8613] Selander, G., Mattsson, J., Palombini, F., and L. Seitz,
"Object Security for Constrained RESTful Environments
(OSCORE)", RFC 8613, DOI 10.17487/RFC8613, July 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8613>.
[SAIL] SAIL, "Scalable and Adaptive Internet Solutions (SAIL)",
2013, <http://www.sail-project.eu/>.
[SAIL_Content_Delivery]
FP7, "SAIL Content Delivery and Operations", 2013,
<https://sail-project.eu/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/
SAIL_DB2_v1_0_final-Public.pdf>.
[SAIL_Prototyping]
FP7, "SAIL Prototyping and Evaluation", 2013,
<http://www.sail-project.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/
SAIL_DB4_v1.1_Final_Public.pdf>.
Rahman, et al. Expires March 6, 2020 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft Deployment Considerations for ICN September 2019
[Tateson] Tateson, J. and et al., "Final Evaluation Report on
Deployment Incentives and Business Models", 2010,
<http://www.psirp.org/files/Deliverables/FP7-INFSO-ICT-
216173-PSIRP-D4.6_FinalReportOnDeplIncBusinessModels.pdf>.
[Techno_Economic]
Trossen, D. and A. Kostopolous, "Techno-Economics Aspects
of Information-Centric Networking", Journal for
Information Policy, Volume 2, 2012.
[UMOBILE-2]
Sarros, C. and et al., "Connecting the Edges: A Universal,
Mobile-Centric, and Opportunistic Communications
Architecture", IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 56,
February 2018.
[UMOBILE-3]
Tavares, M., Aponte, O., and P. Mendes, "Named-data
Emergency Network Services", Proc. of ACM MOBISYS, Munich,
Germany, June 2018.
[UMOBILE-4]
Lopes, L. and et al., "Oi! - Opportunistic Data
Transmission Based on Wi-Fi Direct", Proc. of IEEE
INFOCOM, San Francisco, USA, April 2016.
[UMOBILE-5]
Dynerowicz, S. and P. Mendes, "Named-Data Networking in
Opportunistic Networks", Proc. of ACM ICN, Berlin,
Germany, September 2017.
[UMOBILE-6]
Mendes, P. and et al., "Information-centric Routing for
Opportunistic Wireless Networks", Proc. of ACM ICN,
Boston, USA, September 2018.
[UMOBILE-7]
Sofia, R., "The UMOBILE Contextual Manager Service.
Technical Report. Technical Report Senception 001, 2018
(base for UMOBILE deliverable D4.5 - Report on Data
Collection and Inference Models", 2018.
[UMOBILE-8]
Sarros, C. and et al., "ICN-based edge service deployment
in challenged networks", Proceedings of the 4th ACM
Conference on Information-Centric Networking (ICN '17).
ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2017 .
Rahman, et al. Expires March 6, 2020 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft Deployment Considerations for ICN September 2019
[UMOBILE-9]
Lertsinsrubtavee, A. and et al., "Information-Centric
Multi-Access Edge Computing Platform for Community Mesh
Networks", Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGCAS Conference on
Computing and Sustainable Societies (COMPASS '18). ACM,
New York, NY, USA, 2018 .
[UMOBILE-overview]
UMOBILE, "Universal Mobile-centric and Opportunistic
Communications Architecture (UMOBILE)", 2018,
<http://www.umobile-project.eu/>.
[VSER] Ravindran, R. and et al., "Towards software defined ICN
based edge-cloud services",
CloudNetworking(CloudNet), IEEE Internation Conference on,
IEEE Internation Conference on CloudNetworking(CloudNet),
2013.
[VSER-Mob]
Azgin, A. and et al., "Seamless Mobility as a Service in
Information-centric Networks", ACM ICN Sigcomm, IC5G
Workshop, 2016.
[White] White, G. and G. Rutz, "Content Delivery with Content
Centric Networking, CableLabs White Paper", 2016,
<http://www.cablelabs.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/
Content-Delivery-with-Content-Centric-Networking-Feb-
2016.pdf>.
Appendix A. Change Log
[Note to RFC Editor: Please remove this section before publication.]
Changes from draft-irtf-rev-06 to draft-irtf-rev-07:
o Added reference to OSCORE (RFC 8613) which is a way of passing
end-to-end encrypted content between HTTP and COAP without
invalidating encryption. Thus it can be a potential model for
HTTP to ICN, or COAP to ICN, to consider in the future.
o Updated affiliation information for author Ravi Ravindran.
Changes from draft-irtf-rev-05 to draft-irtf-rev-06:
o Various updates to ensure that draft complies with RFC 5743
(Definition of an Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) Document
Stream) section 2.1.
Rahman, et al. Expires March 6, 2020 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft Deployment Considerations for ICN September 2019
Changes from draft-irtf-rev-04 to draft-irtf-rev-05:
o Addressed detailed review comments from Marie-Jose Montpetit.
Changes from draft-irtf-rev-03 to draft-irtf-rev-04:
o Added text from Paulo Mendes and Adisorn Lertsinsrubtavee on
UMOBILE Trial Experiences.
o Incorporated off-line editorial comments from Hitoshi Asaeda and
Anil Jangam.
Changes from draft-irtf-rev-02 to draft-irtf-rev-03:
o Editorial update of description and references of Doctor testbed
as per comments from Guillaume Doyen.
o Ran IETF spell checker tool and corrected various spelling errors.
Changes from draft-irtf-rev-01 to draft-irtf-rev-02:
o Updated description of Doctor testbed as per comments from
Guillaume Doyen. Also referenced Doctor testbed from the Security
Considerations section.
o Added "Composite-ICN" configuration to cover the Hybrid ICN and
similar configurations which do not clearly fit in one of the
other basic configurations.
o Updated description of the ICN-as-a-Slice configuration to clarify
that it may also apply to non-5G systems.
Changes from draft-irtf-rev-00 to draft-irtf-rev-01:
o Added text from Michael Kowal describing NREN ICN Testbed.
o Added text from Guillaume Doyen describing Doctor Project.
o Updated text on Hybrid ICN based on input from Luca Muscariello.
Changes from draft-rahman-rev-05 to draft-irtf-rev-00:
o Changed draft status from individual draft-rahman-icnrg-
deployment-guidelines-05 to RG adopted draft-irtf-icnrg-
deployment-guidelines-00.
Changes from rev-04 to rev-05:
Rahman, et al. Expires March 6, 2020 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft Deployment Considerations for ICN September 2019
o Added this Change Log in Appendix A.
o Removed references to Hybrid ICN from section 3.2 (ICN-as-an-
Overlay definition). Instead, consolidated all Hybrid ICN info in
the Deployment Trial Experiences under a new subsection 5.3 (Other
Configurations).
o Updated ICN2020 description in Section 5.1.4 with text received
from Mayutan Arumaithurai and Hitoshi Asaeda.
o Clarified in ICN-as-a-Slice description (section 3.4) that it may
be deployed on either the Edge (RAN) or Core Network, or the ICN-
as-a-Slice may be deployed end-to-end through the entire Mobile
network.
o Added several new references in various sections.
o Various minor editorial updates.
Authors' Addresses
Akbar Rahman
InterDigital Communications, LLC
1000 Sherbrooke Street West, 10th floor
Montreal H3A 3G4
Canada
Email: Akbar.Rahman@InterDigital.com
URI: http://www.InterDigital.com/
Dirk Trossen
InterDigital Europe, Ltd
64 Great Eastern Street, 1st Floor
London EC2A 3QR
United Kingdom
Email: Dirk.Trossen@InterDigital.com
URI: http://www.InterDigital.com/
Rahman, et al. Expires March 6, 2020 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft Deployment Considerations for ICN September 2019
Dirk Kutscher
University of Applied Sciences Emden/Leer
Constantiapl. 4
Emden 26723
Germany
Email: ietf@dkutscher.net
URI: https://www.hs-emden-leer.de/en/
Ravi Ravindran
Future Technologies
2330 Central Expressway
Santa Clara 95050
USA
Email: ravi.ravindran@futurewei.com
Rahman, et al. Expires March 6, 2020 [Page 38]
