Internet DRAFT - draft-irtf-icnrg-nrs-requirements
draft-irtf-icnrg-nrs-requirements
ICN Research Group J. Hong
Internet-Draft T. You
Intended status: Informational ETRI
Expires: 29 January 2022 L. Dong
C. Westphal
Futurewei Technologies Inc.
B. Ohlman
Ericsson
28 July 2021
Design Considerations for Name Resolution Service in ICN
draft-irtf-icnrg-nrs-requirements-06
Abstract
This document provides the functionalities and design considerations
for a Name Resolution Service (NRS) in ICN. An NRS in ICN is to
translate an object name into some other information such as a
locator, another name, etc. for forwarding the object request. 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 29 January 2022.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 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.
Hong, et al. Expires 29 January 2022 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Design Considerations for NRS July 2021
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. Name Resolution Service in ICN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Explicit name resolution approach . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2. Name-based routing approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3. Hybrid approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.4. Comparisons of name resolution approaches . . . . . . . . 5
3. Functionalities of NRS in ICN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Support heterogeneous name types . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2. Support producer mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3. Support scalable routing system . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.4. Support off-path caching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.5. Support nameless object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.6. Support manifest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.7. Support metadata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4. Design considerations for NRS in ICN . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.1. Resolution response time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2. Response accuracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.3. Resolution guarantee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.4. Resolution fairness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.5. Scalability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.6. Manageability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.7. Deployed system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.8. Fault tolerance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.9. Security and privacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.9.1. Confidentiality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.9.2. Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.9.3. Integrity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.9.4. Resiliency and availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
8.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Hong, et al. Expires 29 January 2022 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Design Considerations for NRS July 2021
1. Introduction
The current Internet is based upon a host-centric networking
paradigm, where hosts are identified with IP addresses and
communication is possible between any pair of hosts. Thus,
information in the current Internet is identified by the name of the
host (or server) where information is stored. In contrast to host-
centric networking, the primary communication objects in Information-
centric networking (ICN) are the named data objects (NDOs) and they
are uniquely identified by location-independent names. Thus, ICN
aims for the efficient dissemination and retrieval of NDOs at a
global scale, and has been identified and acknowledged as a promising
technology for a future Internet architecture to overcome the
limitations of the current Internet such as scalability and mobility
[Ahlgren] [Xylomenos]. ICN also has emerged as a candidate
architecture in the IoT environment since IoT focuses on data and
information [Baccelli] [Amadeo] [Quevedo] [Amadeo2] [ID.Zhang2].
Since naming data independently from its current location (where it
is stored) is a primary concept of ICN, how to find any NDO using a
location-independent name is one of the most important design
challenges in ICN. Such ICN routing may comprise three steps
[RFC7927]:
* Name resolution: matches/translates a content name to the locator
of content producer or source that can provide the content.
* Content request routing: routes the content request towards the
content's location either based on its name or locator.
* Content delivery: transfers the content to the requester.
Among the three steps of ICN routing, this document investigates only
the name resolution step which translates a content name to the
content locator. In addition, this document covers various possible
types of name resolution in ICN such as one name to another name,
name to locator, name to manifest, name to metadata, etc.
The focus of this document is a Name Resolution Service (NRS) itself
as a service or a system in ICN and it provides the functionalities
and the design considerations for an NRS in ICN as well as the
overview of the NRS approaches in ICN. On the other hand, its
companion document [NRSarch] describes considerations from the
perspective of ICN architecture and routing system when using an NRS
in ICN.
Hong, et al. Expires 29 January 2022 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Design Considerations for NRS July 2021
This document represents the consensus of the Information-Centric
Networking Research Group (ICNRG). It has been reviewed extensively
by the Research Group (RG) members who are actively involved in the
research and development of the technology covered by this document.
It is not an IETF product and is not a standard.
2. Name Resolution Service in ICN
A Name Resolution Service (NRS) in ICN is defined as the service that
provides the name resolution function for translating an object name
into some other information such as a locator, another name,
metadata, next hop info, etc. that is used for forwarding the object
request. In other words, an NRS is a service that can be provided by
the ICN infrastructure to help a consumer to reach a specific piece
of information (or named data object). The consumer provides an NRS
with a persistent name and the NRS returns a name or locator (or
potentially multiple names and locators) that can reach a current
instance of the requested object.
The name resolution is a necessary process in ICN routing although
the name resolution either can be separated from the content request
routing as an explicit process or can be integrated with the content
request routing as an implicit process. The former is referred as
explicit name resolution approach, the latter is referred as name-
based routing approach in this document.
2.1. Explicit name resolution approach
An NRS could take the explicit name resolution approach to return the
locators of the content to the client, which will be used by the
underlying network as the identifier to route the client's request to
one of the producers or to a copy of the content. There are several
ICN projects that use the explicit name resolution approach such as
DONA [Koponen], PURSUIT [PURSUIT], NetInf [SAIL], MobilityFirst [MF],
IDNet [Jung], etc. In addition, the explicit name resolution
approach has been allowed for 5G control planes [SA2-5GLAN].
2.2. Name-based routing approach
An NRS could take the name-based routing approach, which integrates
the name resolution with the content request message routing as in
NDN [NDN]/CCNx [CCNx].
Hong, et al. Expires 29 January 2022 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Design Considerations for NRS July 2021
In the case that the content request also specifies the reverse path,
as in NDN/CCNx, the name resolution mechanism also derives the
routing path for the data. This adds a requirement on the name
resolution service to propagate request in a way that is consistent
with the subsequent data forwarding. Namely, the request must select
a path for the data based upon finding a copy of the content, but
also properly delivering the data.
2.3. Hybrid approach
An NRS could also take hybrid approach. For instance, it can attempt
the name-based routing approach first. If this fails at a certain
router, the router can go back to the explicit name resolution
approach. The hybrid NRS approach also works the other way around by
performing explicit name resolution first to find locators of
routers. And then it can carry out the name-based routing approach
of the client's request.
A hybrid approach would combine name resolution over a subset of
routers on the path with some tunneling in between (say, across an
administrative domain) so that only a few of the nodes in the ICN
network perform name resolution in the name-based routing approach.
2.4. Comparisons of name resolution approaches
The following compares the explicit name resolution and the name-
based routing approaches for several aspects:
* Overhead due to the maintenance of the content location: The
content reachability is dynamic and includes new content being
cached or content being expired from a cache, content producer
mobility, etc. Maintaining a consistent view of the content
location across the network requires some overhead that differs
for the name resolution approaches. The name-based routing
approach may require flooding parts of the network for update
propagation. In the worst case, the name-based routing approach
may flood the whole network (but mitigating techniques may be used
to scope the flooding). However, the explicit name resolution
approach only requires updating propagation in part of the name
resolution system (which could be an overlay with a limited number
of nodes).
* Resolution capability: The explicit name resolution approach, if
designed and deployed with sufficient robustness, can offer at
least weak guarantees that resolution will succeed for any content
name in the network if it is registered to the name resolution
overlay. In the name-based routing approach, content resolution
depends on the flooding scope of the content names (i.e. content
Hong, et al. Expires 29 January 2022 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Design Considerations for NRS July 2021
publishing message and the resulting name-based routing tables).
For example, when a content is cached, the router may only notify
this information to its direct neighbors. Thus, only those
neighboring routers can build a named based entry for this cached
content. But if the neighboring routers continue to propagate
this information, the other nodes are able to direct to this
cached copy as well.
* Node failure impact: Nodes involved in the explicit name
resolution approach are the name resolution overlay servers (e.g.
Resolution Handlers in DONA), while the nodes involved in the
name-based routing approach are routers which route messages based
on the name-based routing tables (e.g. NDN routers). Node
failures in the explicit name resolution approach may cause some
content request routing to fail even though the content is
available. This problem does not exist in the name-based routing
approach because other alternative paths can be discovered to
bypass the failed ICN routers, given the assumption that the
network is still connected.
* Maintained databases: The storage usage for the explicit name
resolution approach is different from that of the name-based
routing approach. The explicit name resolution approach typically
needs to maintain two databases: name to locator mapping in the
name resolution overlay and routing tables in the routers on the
data forwarding plane. The name-based routing approach needs to
maintain only the name-based routing tables.
Additionally, some other intermediary step may be included in the
name resolution, namely the mapping of one name to other names, in
order to facilitate the retrieval of named content, by way of a
manifest [Westphal] [Mosko]. The manifest is resolved using one of
the two above approaches, and it may include further mapping of names
to content and location. The steps for name resolution then become:
first translate the manifest name into a location of a copy of the
manifest; the manifest includes further names of the content
components, and potentially locations for the content. The content
is then retrieved by using these names and/or location, potentially
resulting in additional name resolutions.
Thus, no matter which approach is taken by an NRS in ICN, the name
resolution is the essential function that shall be provided by the
ICN infrastructure.
3. Functionalities of NRS in ICN
This section presents the functionalities of an NRS in ICN.
Hong, et al. Expires 29 January 2022 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Design Considerations for NRS July 2021
3.1. Support heterogeneous name types
In ICN, a name is used to identify data object and is bound to it
[RFC7927]. ICN requires uniqueness and persistency of the name of
data object to ensure the reachability of the object within a certain
scope. There are heterogeneous approaches to designing ICN naming
schemes [Bari]. Ideally, a name can include any form of identifier,
which can be flat or hierarchical, and human readable or non-
readable.
Although there are diverse types of naming schemes proposed in
literature, they all need to provide basic functions for identifying
data object, supporting named data lookup and routing. An NRS may
combine the better aspects of different schemes. Basically, an NRS
should be able to support a generic naming schema so that it can
resolve any type of content name, irrespective of whether it is flat,
hierarchical, attribute-based or anything else.
In PURSUIT [PURSUIT], names are flat and the rendezvous functions are
defined for an NRS, which is implemented by a set of Rendezvous Nodes
(RNs), the Rendezvous Network (RENE). Thus, a name consists of a
sequence of scope IDs and a single rendezvous ID is routed by the RNs
in RENE. Thus, PURSUIT decouples name resolution and data routing,
where the NRS is performed by the RENE.
In MobilityFirst [MF], a name called a Global Unique IDentifier
(GUID) derived from a human-readable name via a global naming service
is a flat typed 160-bits string with self-certifying properties.
Thus, MobilityFirst defines a Global Name Resolution Service (GNRS)
which resolves GUIDs to network addresses and decouples name
resolution and data routing similarly to PURSUIT.
In NetInf [Dannewitz], information objects are named using ni-naming
[RFC6920], which consist of an authority part and digest part
(content hash). The ni names can be flat as the authority part is
optional. Thus, the NetInf architecture also includes a Name
Resolution System (NRS) which can be used to resolve ni-names to
addresses in an underlying routable network layer.
In NDN [NDN] and CCNx [CCNx], names are hierarchical and may be
similar to URLs. Each name component can be anything, including a
human-readable string or a hash value. NDN/CCNx adopts the name-
based routing approach. The NDN router forwards the request by doing
the longest-match lookup in the Forwarding Information Base (FIB)
based on the content name and the request is stored in the Pending
Interest Table (PIT).
Hong, et al. Expires 29 January 2022 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Design Considerations for NRS July 2021
3.2. Support producer mobility
ICN natively supports mobility management. Namely, consumer or
client mobility is handled by re-requesting the content in case the
mobility event (say, handover) occurred before receiving the
corresponding content from the network. Since ICN can ensure that
content reception continues without any disruption in ICN
applications, seamless mobility from the consumer's point of view can
be easily supported.
However, producer mobility does not emerge naturally from the ICN
forwarding model as does consumer mobility. If a producer moves into
a different network location or a different name domain, which is
assigned by another authoritative publisher, it would be difficult
for the mobility management to update RIB and FIB entries in ICN
routers with the new forwarding path in a very short time.
Therefore, various ICN architectures in the literature have proposed
to adopt an NRS to achieve the producer or publisher mobility, where
the NRS can be implemented in different ways such as rendezvous
points and/or overlay mapping systems.
In NDN [Zhang2], for producer mobility support, rendezvous mechanisms
have been proposed to build interests rendezvous (RV) with data
generated by a mobile producer (MP). This can be classified into two
approaches: chase mobile producer; and rendezvous data. Regarding MP
chasing, rendezvous acts as a mapping service that provides the
mapping from the name of the data produced by the MP to the name of
the MP's current point of attachment (PoA). Alternatively, the RV
serves as a home agent as in IP mobility support, so the RV enables
consumer's interest message to tunnel towards the MP at the PoA.
Regarding rendezvous data, the solution involves moving the data
produced by the MP to a data depot instead of forwarding interest
messages. Thus, a consumer's interest message can be forwarded to
stationary place as called data rendezvous, so it would either return
the data or fetch it using another mapping solution. Therefore, RV
or other mapping functions are in the role of an NRS in NDN.
In [Ravindran], forwarding-label (FL) object is referred to enable
identifier (ID) and locator (LID) namespaces to be split in ICN.
Generally, IDs are managed by applications, while locators are
managed by a network administrator, so that IDs are mapping to
heterogeneous name schemes and LIDs are mapping to the network
domains or to specific network elements. Thus, the proposed FL
object acts as a locator (LID) and provides the flexibility to
forward Interest messages through mapping service between IDs and
LIDs. Therefore, the mapping service in control plane infrastructure
can be considered as an NRS in this draft.
Hong, et al. Expires 29 January 2022 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Design Considerations for NRS July 2021
In MobilityFirst [MF], both consumer and publisher mobility can be
primarily handled by the global name resolution service (GNRS) which
resolves GUIDs to network addresses. Thus, the GNRS must be updated
for mobility support when a network attached object changes its point
of attachment, which differs from NDN/CCNx.
In NetInf [Dannewitz], mobility is handled by an NRS in a very
similar way to MobilityFirst.
Besides the consumer and producer mobility, ICN also has to face
challenges to support the other dynamic features such as multi-
homing, migration, and replication of named resources such as
content, devices, and services. Therefore, an NRS can help to
support these dynamic features.
3.3. Support scalable routing system
In ICN, the name of data objects is used for routing by either a name
resolution step or a routing table lookup. Thus, routing information
for each data object should be maintained in the routing base, such
as Routing Information Base (RIB) and Forwarding Information Base
(FIB). Since the number of data objects would be very large, the
size of information bases would be significantly larger as well
[RFC7927].
The hierarchical namespace used in CCNx [CCNx] and NDN [NDN]
architectures reduces the size of these tables through name
aggregation and improves the scalability of the routing system. A
flat naming scheme, on the other hand, would aggravate the
scalability problem of the routing system. The non-aggregated name
prefixes injected to the Default Route Free Zone (DFZ) of ICN would
create more serious scalability problem when compared to the
scalability issues of the IP routing system. Thus, an NRS may play
an important role in the reduction of the routing scalability problem
regardless of the types of namespaces.
In [Afanasyev], in order to address the routing scalability problem
in NDN's DFZ, a well-known concept of Map-and-Encap is applied to
provide a simple and secure namespace mapping solution. In the
proposed map-and-encap design, data whose name prefixes do not exist
in the DFZ forwarding table can be retrieved by a distributed mapping
system called NDNS, which maintains and lookups the mapping
information from a name to its globally routed prefixes, where NDNS
is a kind of an NRS.
Hong, et al. Expires 29 January 2022 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Design Considerations for NRS July 2021
3.4. Support off-path caching
Caching in-network is considered to be a basic architectural
component of an ICN architecture. It may be used to provide a level
of Quality-of-Service (QoS) experience to users, to reduce the
overall network traffic, to prevent network congestion and Denial-of-
Service (DoS) attacks and to increase availability. Caching
approaches can be categorized into off-path caching and on-path
caching based on the location of caches in relation to the forwarding
path from the original server to the consumer. Off-path caching,
also referred as content replication or content storing, aims to
replicate content within a network in order to increase availability,
regardless of the relationship of the location to the forwarding
path. Thus, finding off-path cached objects is not trivial in name-
based routing of ICN. In order to support off-path caches, replicas
are usually advertised into a name-based routing system or into an
NRS.
In [Bayhan], an NRS is used to find off-path copies in the network,
which may not be accessible via name-based routing mechanisms. Such
capability can be helpful for an Autonomous System (AS) to avoid the
costly inter-AS traffic for external content more, to yield higher
bandwidth efficiency for intra-AS traffic, and to decrease the data
access latency for a pleasant user experience.
3.5. Support nameless object
In CCNx 1.0 [Mosko2], the concept of "Nameless Objects" that are a
Content Object without a Name is introduced to provide a means to
move Content between storage replicas without having to rename or re-
sign the content objects for the new name. Nameless Objects can be
addressed by the ContentObjectHash that is to restrict Content Object
matching by using SHA-256 hash.
An Interest message would still carry a Name and a ContentObjectHash,
where a Name is used for routing, while a ContentObjectHash is used
for matching. However, on the reverse path, if the Content Object's
name is missing, it is a "Nameless Object" and only matches against
the ContentObjectHash. Therefore, a consumer needs to resolve proper
name and hashes through an outside system, which can be considered as
an NRS.
Hong, et al. Expires 29 January 2022 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Design Considerations for NRS July 2021
3.6. Support manifest
For collections of data objects which are organized as large and file
like contents [FLIC], manifests are used as data structures to
transport this information. Thus, manifests may contain hash digests
of signed content objects or other manifests, so that large content
objects which represent large piece of application data can be
collected by using such manifest.
In order to request content objects, a consumer needs to know a
manifest root name to acquire the manifest. In case of FLIC, a
manifest name can be represented by a nameless root manifest, so that
outside system such as an NRS may be involved to give this
information to the consumer.
3.7. Support metadata
When resolving the name of a content object, NRS could return a rich
set of metadata in addition to returning a locator. The metadata
could include alternative object locations, supported object transfer
protocol(s), caching policy, security parameters, data format, hash
of object data, etc. The consumer could use this metadata for
selection of object transfer protocol, security mechanism, egress
interface, etc. An example of how metadata can be used in this way
is provided by the NEO ICN architecture [NEO].
4. Design considerations for NRS in ICN
This section presents the design considerations for NRS in ICN.
4.1. Resolution response time
The name resolution process should provide a response within a
reasonable amount of time. The response should be either a proper
mapping of the name to a copy of the content, or an error message
stating that no such object exists. If the name resolution does not
map to a location, the system may not issue any response, and the
client should set a timer when sending a request, so as to consider
the resolution incomplete when the timer expires.
The acceptable response delay could be of the order of a round trip
time between the client issuing the request and the NRS servers that
provides the response. While this RTT may vary greatly depending on
the proximity between the two end points, some upper bound need be
used. Especially, in some delay-sensitive scenarios such as
industrial Internet and telemedicine, the upper bound of the response
delay must be guaranteed.
Hong, et al. Expires 29 January 2022 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Design Considerations for NRS July 2021
The response time includes all the steps of the resolution, including
potentially a hop-by-hop resolution or a hierarchical forwarding of
the resolution request.
4.2. Response accuracy
An NRS must provide an accurate response, namely a proper binding of
the requested name (or prefix) with a location. The response can be
either a (prefix, location) pair, or the actual forwarding of a
request to a node holding the content, which is then transmitted in
return.
An NRS must provide an up-to-date response, namely an NRS should be
updated within a reasonable time when new copies of the content are
being stored in the network. While every transient cache addition/
eviction should not trigger an NRS update, some origin servers may
move and require the NRS to be updated.
An NRS must provide mechanisms to update the mapping of the content
with its location. Namely, an NRS must provide a mechanism for a
content provider to add new content, revoke old/dated/obsolete
content, and modify existing content. Any content update should then
be propagated through the NRS system within reasonable delay.
Content that is highly mobile may require to specify some type of
anchor that is kept at the NRS, instead of the content location.
4.3. Resolution guarantee
An NRS must ensure that the name resolution is successful with high
probability if the name matching content exists in the network,
regardless of its popularity and number of cached copies existing in
the network. As per Section 4.1, some resolution may not occur in a
timely manner. However, the probability of such event should be
minimized. The NRS system may provide a probability (say, five 9s,
or five sigmas for instance) that a resolution will be satisfied.
4.4. Resolution fairness
An NRS could provide this service for all content in a fair manner,
independently of the specific content properties (content producer,
content popularity, availability of copies, content format, etc.).
Fairness may be defined as a per request delay to complete the NRS
steps that is not agnostic to the properties of the content itself.
Fairness may be defined as well as the number of requests answered
per unit of time.
Hong, et al. Expires 29 January 2022 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Design Considerations for NRS July 2021
However, it is notable that content (or their associated producer)
may request a different level of QoS from the network (see [RFC9064]
for instance), and this may include the NRS as well, in which case
considerations of fairness may be restricted to content within the
same class of service.
4.5. Scalability
The NRS system must scale up to support a very large user population
(including human users as well as machine-to-machine communications).
As an idea of the scale, it is expected that 50 billion devices will
be connected in 2025 (per ITU projections). The system must be able
to respond to a very large number of requests per unit of time.
Message forwarding and processing, routing table building-up and name
records propagation must be efficient and scalable.
The NRS system must scale up with the number of pieces of content
(content names) and should be able to support a content catalog that
is extremely large. Internet traffic is of the order of the
zettabytes per year (10^21 bytes). Since NRS is associated with
actual traffic, the number of pieces of content should scale with the
amount of traffic. Content size may vary from a few bytes to several
GB, so the NRS should be expected scale up to catalog of the size of
10^21 in the near future, and larger beyond.
The NRS system must be able to scale up, namely to add NRS servers to
the NRS system, in a way that is transparent to the users. Addition
of a new server should have limited negative impact on the other NRS
servers (or should have a negative impact on only a small subset of
the NRS servers). The impact of adding new servers may induce some
overhead at the other servers to rebuild a hierarchy or to exchange
messages to include the new server within the service. Further, data
may be shared among the new servers, for load balancing or tolerance
to failure. These steps should not disrupt the service provided by
the NRS and should in the long run improve the quality of the
service.
The NRS system may support access from a heterogeneity of connection
methods and devices. In particular, the NRS system may support
access from constrained devices and interactions with the NRS system
would not be too costly. An IoT node for instance should be able to
access the NRS system as well as a more powerful node.
The NRS system should scale up in its responsiveness to the increased
request rate that is expected from applications such as IoT or M2M,
where data is being frequently generated and/or frequently requested.
Hong, et al. Expires 29 January 2022 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Design Considerations for NRS July 2021
4.6. Manageability
The NRS system must be manageable since some parts of the system may
grow or shrink dynamically and an NRS system node may be added or
deleted frequently.
The NRS system may support an NRS management layer that allows for
adding or subtracting NRS nodes. In order to infer the circumstance,
the management layer can measure network status.
4.7. Deployed system
The NRS system must be deployable since deployability is important
for a real-world system. The NRS system must be deployable in
network edges and cores so that the consumers as well as ICN routers
can perform name resolution in a very low latency.
4.8. Fault tolerance
The NRS system must ensure resiliency in the event of NRS server
failures. The failure of a small subset of nodes should not impact
the NRS performance significantly.
After an NRS server fails, the NRS system must be able to recover
and/or restore the name records stored in the NRS server.
4.9. Security and privacy
On utilizing an NRS in ICN, there are some security considerations
for the NRS servers/nodes and name mapping records stored in the NRS
system. This subsection describes them.
4.9.1. Confidentiality
The name mapping records in the NRS system must be assigned with
proper access rights such that the information contained in the name
mapping records would not be revealed to unauthorized users.
The NRS system may support access control for certain name mapping
records. Access control can be implemented with a reference monitor
that uses client authentication, so only users with appropriate
credentials can access these records, and they are not shared with
unauthorized users. Access control can also be implemented by
encryption-based techniques using control of keys to control the
propagations of the mappings.
Hong, et al. Expires 29 January 2022 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Design Considerations for NRS July 2021
The NRS system may support obfuscation and/or encryption mechanisms
so that the content of a resolution request may not be accessible by
third parties outside of the NRS system.
The NRS system must keep confidentiality to prevent sensitive name
mapping records from being reached by unauthorized data requesters.
This is more required in IoT environments where a lot of sensitive
data is produced.
The NRS system must also keep confidentiality of meta-data as well as
NRS usage to protect the privacy of the users. For instance, a
specific user's NRS requests should not be shared outside the NRS
system (with the exception of legal intercept).
4.9.2. Authentication
* NRS server authentication: Authentication of the new NRS servers/
nodes that want to be registered with the NRS system must be
required so that only authenticated entities can store and update
name mapping records. The NRS system should detect an attacker
attempting to act as a fake NRS server to cause service disruption
or manipulate name mapping records.
* Producer authentication: The NRS system must support
authentication of the content producers to ensure that
update/addition/removal of name mapping records requested by
content producers are actually valid and that content producers
are authorized to modify (or revoke) these records or add new
records.
* Mapping record authentication: The NRS should verify new mapping
records that are being registered so that it cannot be polluted
with falsified information or invalid records.
4.9.3. Integrity
The NRS system must be prevented from malicious users attempting to
hijack or corrupt the name mapping records.
4.9.4. Resiliency and availability
The NRS system should be resilient against denial of service attacks
and other common attacks to isolate the impact of the attacks and
prevent collateral damage to the entire system. Therefore, if a part
of the NRS system fails, the failure should only affect a local
domain. And fast recovery mechanisms need to be in place to bring
the service back to normal.
Hong, et al. Expires 29 January 2022 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Design Considerations for NRS July 2021
5. Conclusion
ICN routing may comprise three steps: name resolution, content
request routing, and content delivery. This document investigates
the name resolution step, which is the first and most important to be
achieved for ICN routing to be successful. A Name Resolution Service
(NRS) in ICN is defined as the service that provides such a function
of name resolution for translating an object name into some other
information such as a locator, another name, metadata, next hop info,
etc. that is used for forwarding the object request.
This document classifies and analyzes the NRS approaches according to
whether the name resolution step is separated from the content
request routing as an explicit process or not. This document also
explains the NRS functions used to support heterogeneous name types,
producer mobility, scalable routing system, off-path caching,
nameless object, manifest, and metadata. Finally, this document
presents design considerations for NRS in ICN, which include
resolution response time and accuracy, resolution guarantee,
resolution fairness, scalability, manageability, deployed system, and
fault tolerance.
6. IANA Considerations
There are no IANA considerations related to this document.
7. Security Considerations
A discussion of security guidelines was provided in section 4.9.
8. References
8.1. Normative References
[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>.
8.2. Informative References
[Ahlgren] Ahlgren, B., Dannewitz, C., Imbrenda, C., Kutscher, D.,
and B. Ohlman, "A Survey of Information-Centric
Networking", IEEE Communications Magarzine Vol.50, Issue
7, 2012.
Hong, et al. Expires 29 January 2022 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Design Considerations for NRS July 2021
[Xylomenos]
Xylomenos, G., Ververidis, C. N., Siris, V. A., Fotiou,
N., Tsilopoulos, C., Vasilako, X., Katsaros, K. V., and G.
C. Polyzos, "A Survey of Information-Centric Networking
Research,Communications Surveys and Tutorials", IEEE
Communications Surveys and Tutorials vol. 16, no. 2, 2014.
[Baccelli] Baccelli, E., Mehlis, C., Hahm, O., Schmidt, T., and M.
Wahlisch, "Information Centric Networking in the IoT:
Experiments with NDN in the Wild", ACM ICN 2014, 2014.
[Amadeo] Amadeo, M., Campolo, C., Iera, A., and A. Molinaro, "Named
data networking for IoT: An architectural perspective",
European Conference on Networks and Communications
(EuCNC) , 2014.
[Quevedo] Quevedo, J., Corujo, D., and R. Aguiar, "A case for ICN
usage in IoT environments", IEEE GLOBECOM , 2014.
[Amadeo2] Amadeo, M. et al., "Information-centric networking for the
internet of things: challenges and opportunitiesve", IEEE
Network vol. 30, no. 2, July 2016.
[ID.Zhang2]
Ravindran, R. et al., "Design Considerations for Applying
ICN to IoT", draft-zhang-icnrg-icniot-03 , May 2019.
[Koponen] Koponen, T., Chawla, M., Chun, B., Ermolinskiy, A., Kim,
K. H., Shenker, S., and I. Stoica, "A Data-Oriented (and
Beyond) Network Architecture", ACM SIGCOMM 2007 pp.
181-192, 2007.
[PURSUIT] "FP7 PURSUIT project.",
http://www.fp7-pursuit.eu/PursuitWeb/ .
[SAIL] "FP7 SAIL project.", http://www.sail-project.eu/ .
[NDN] "NSF Named Data Networking project.",
http://www.named-data.net .
[CCNx] "Content Centric Networking project.",
https://wiki.fd.io/view/Cicn .
[MF] "NSF Mobility First project.",
http://mobilityfirst.winlab.rutgers.edu/ .
[Jung] Jung, H. et al., "IDNet: Beyond All-IP Network", ETRI
Jouranl vol. 37, no. 5, October 2015.
Hong, et al. Expires 29 January 2022 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Design Considerations for NRS July 2021
[SA2-5GLAN]
3gpp-5glan, "SP-181129, Work Item Description,
Vertical_LAN(SA2), 5GS Enhanced Support of Vertical and
LAN Services", 3GPP ,
http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/tsg_sa/TSG_SA/TSGS_82/Docs/SP-
181120.zip.
[Bari] Bari, M. F., Chowdhury, S. R., Ahmed, R., Boutaba, R., and
B. Mathieu, "A Survey of Naming and Routing in
Information-Centric Networks", IEEE Communications
Magazine Vol. 50, No. 12, P.44-53, 2012.
[Westphal] Westphal, C. and E. Demirors, "An IP-based Manifest
Architecture for ICN", ACM ICN , 2015.
[Mosko] Mosko, M., Scott, G., Solis, I., and C. Wood, "CCNx
Manifest Specification", draft-wood-icnrg-
ccnxmanifests-00 , July 2015.
[RFC6920] Farrell, S., Kutscher, D., Dannewitz, C., Ohlman, B.,
Keranen, A., and P. Hallam-Baker, "Naming Things with
Hashes", RFC6920, DOI 10.17487/RFC6920,
https://rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6920.txt , April 2013.
[Zhang2] Zhang, Y. et al., "A Survey of Mobility Support in Named
Data Networking", IEEE Conference on Computer
Communications Workshops , 2016.
[Dannewitz]
Dannewitz, C. et al., "Network of Information (NetInf)-An
information centric networking architecture", Computer
Communications vol. 36, no. 7, April 2013.
[Ravindran]
Ravindran, R. et al., "Forwarding-Label support in CCN
Protocol", draft-ravi-icnrg-ccn-forwarding-label-02 ,
March 2018.
[Afanasyev]
Afanasyev, A. et al., "SNAMP: Secure Namespace Mapping to
Scale NDN Forwarding", IEEE Global Internet Symposium ,
April 2015.
[Mosko2] Mosko, M., "Nameless Objects", IRTF ICNRG , January 2016.
[Bayhan] Bayhan, S. et al., "On Content Indexing for Off-Path
Caching in Information-Centric Networks", ACM ICN ,
September 2016.
Hong, et al. Expires 29 January 2022 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Design Considerations for NRS July 2021
[FLIC] Tschudin, C. et al., "File-Like ICN Collection (FLIC)",
draft-irtf-icnrg-flic-02 , November 2019.
[NEO] Eriksson, A. and A. M. Malik, "A DNS-based information-
centric network architecture open to multiple protocols
for transfer of data objects", 21st Conference on
Innovation in Clouds, Internet and Networks and Workshops
(ICIN), pp. 1-8, 2018.
[NRSarch] Hong, J. et al., "Architectural Considerations of ICN
using Name Resolution Service", draft-irtf-icnrg-nrsarch-
considerations-06 , February 2021.
[RFC9064] Oran, D., "Considerations in the development of a QoS
Architecture for CCNx-like ICN protocols", RFC9064,
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc9064/ , June 2021.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Dave Oran, Dirk Kutscher, Ved Kafle,
Vincent Roca, Marie-Jose Montpetit, Stephen Farrell, Mirja Kuhlewind,
and Colin Perkins for very useful reviews, comments and improvement
on the document.
Authors' Addresses
Jungha Hong
ETRI
218 Gajeong-ro, Yuseung-Gu
Daejeon
Email: jhong@etri.re.kr
Tae-Wan You
ETRI
218 Gajeong-ro, Yuseung-Gu
Daejeon
Email: twyou@etri.re.kr
Lijun Dong
Futurewei Technologies Inc.
10180 Telesis Court
San Diego, CA 92121
United States of America
Hong, et al. Expires 29 January 2022 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Design Considerations for NRS July 2021
Email: lijun.dong@futurewei.com
Cedric Westphal
Futurewei Technologies Inc.
2330 Central Expressway
Santa Clara, CA 95050
United States of America
Email: cedric.westphal@futurewei.com
Borje Ohlman
Ericsson Research
S-16480 Stockholm
Sweden
Email: Borje.Ohlman@ericsson.com
Hong, et al. Expires 29 January 2022 [Page 20]
