Internet DRAFT - draft-rahman-icnrg-deployment-guidelines
draft-rahman-icnrg-deployment-guidelines
ICNRG A. Rahman
Internet-Draft D. Trossen
Intended status: Informational InterDigital Inc.
Expires: July 19, 2018 D. Kutscher
R. Ravindran
Huawei
January 15, 2018
Deployment Considerations for Information-Centric Networking (ICN)
draft-rahman-icnrg-deployment-guidelines-05
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.
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 July 19, 2018.
Rahman, et al. Expires July 19, 2018 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Deployment Considerations for ICN January 2018
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Deployment Configurations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Clean-slate ICN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. ICN-as-an-Overlay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3. ICN-as-an-Underlay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3.1. Edge Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.3.2. Core Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.4. ICN-as-a-Slice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4. Deployment Migration Paths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1. Application and Service Migration . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2. Content Delivery Network Migration . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.3. Edge Network Migration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.4. Core Network Migration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5. Deployment Trial Experiences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.1. ICN-as-an-Overlay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.1.1. FP7 PURSUIT Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.1.2. FP7 SAIL Trial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.1.3. NDN Testbed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.1.4. ICN2020 Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.2. ICN-as-an-Underlay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.2.1. H2020 POINT and RIFE Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.2.2. H2020 FLAME Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.2.3. CableLabs Content Delivery System . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.2.4. NDN IoT Trials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.3. Other Configurations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.3.1. Hybrid ICN Trials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.4. Summary of Deployment Trials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6. Deployment Issues Requiring Further Standardization . . . . . 14
6.1. Protocols for Application and Service Migration . . . . . 15
6.2. Protocols for Content Delivery Network Migration . . . . 15
Rahman, et al. Expires July 19, 2018 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Deployment Considerations for ICN January 2018
6.3. Protocols for Edge and Core Network Migration . . . . . . 15
6.4. Summary of ICN Protocol Gaps and Potential Protocol
Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
7. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
9. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
10. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
11. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Appendix A. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
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.
However, 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. Finally, recommendations are made for potential future
IETF standardization of key protocol functionality that will
facilitate interoperable ICN deployments going forward.
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, Content Distribution Networks
Rahman, et al. Expires July 19, 2018 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Deployment Considerations for ICN January 2018
(CDNs), core networks (e.g. Mobile core network), and back-end
processing networks (e.g. Data Centres). However, through out
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 Function 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.
3. 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 5), 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].
3.1. 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 (e.g., existing applications which are typically tied
directly to the TCP/IP protocol stack, IP routers, etc.). As such,
existing routing hardware as well as ancillary services 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 (Named Data Networking Forwarding
Daemon) [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
Rahman, et al. Expires July 19, 2018 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Deployment Considerations for ICN January 2018
deployment of general infrastructure upgrades, here SDN switches.
Such SDN infrastructure upgrades, while being possibly utilized for a
Clean-slate ICN deployment would not necessary be used exclusively
for such deployments. Different proposals have been made for various
ICN approaches to enable the operation over an SDN transport
[Reed][CONET][C_FLOW].
3.2. ICN-as-an-Overlay
Similar 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
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 based on segregating ICN user and control plane
traffic which is particularly well-suited to being overlaid on SDN
based networks.
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 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.
3.3. 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
Rahman, et al. Expires July 19, 2018 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Deployment Considerations for ICN January 2018
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.
3.3.1. Edge Network
Native ICN networks may be located at the edge of the network which
allows the possibility of introducing new network architectures and
protocols, and in this context ICN is an attractive option for newer
deployments 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. Furthermore, ICN will allow
enhancement of the role of gateways/proxies as ICN message security
should be preserved through the protocol translation function of a
gateway/proxy and thus offer a substantial gain.
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.
3.3.2. 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 network attachment point, such as realized in access
points or customer premise equipment, which in turn provides a
standard IP interface to existing user devices. Towards peering
networks, such network attachment point turns into a modified border
gateway/proxy, preserving the perception of an IP-based core network
towards any peering network.
The work in [White] proposes a similar deployment configuration.
Here, the target is the use of ICN for content distribution within
CDN server farms, i.e., the protocol mapping is realized at the
Rahman, et al. Expires July 19, 2018 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Deployment Considerations for ICN January 2018
ingress of the server farm where the HTTP-based retrieval request is
served, while the response is delivered through a suitable egress
node translation.
3.4. ICN-as-a-Slice
The objective of Network slicing [NGMN]is to multiplex a general pool
of compute, storage and bandwidth resources among multiple services
with exclusive SLA requirements on transport level QoS and security.
From a 5G perspective, this also includes slicing the air interface
spectrum resources among different applications. These services
could include both connectivity services like LTE-as-a-service or OTT
services like VoD or other IoT services through composition of a
group of virtual and/or physical network functions. Such a framework
can also be used to realize ICN slices with its own control, service
and forwarding plane over which one or more end-user services can be
delivered.
5G next generation architecture [fiveG-23501] provides the
flexibility to deploy the ICN-as-a-Slice over either the edge (RAN)
or 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]. Such a
generalized network slicing framework should be able to offer service
slices to be realized using both IP and ICN. Network slicing will
rely heavily on network softwarization and programmability using SDN/
NFV technologies for efficient utilization of available resources
without compromising on the slice requirements. 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 orchestration 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 3.1.
Further cross domain ICN slices can also be realized using frameworks
such as [ONAP].
Rahman, et al. Expires July 19, 2018 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Deployment Considerations for ICN January 2018
4. Deployment Migration Paths
After outlining the various ICN deployment configurations in
Section 3, we now focus on the various migration paths that will have
importance to the various stakeholders that are usually involved in
the deployment of a technology at (ultimately) large scale. 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
Note that our presentation purely focuses 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.
4.1. Application and Service Migration
The internet is full of applications and services, utilizing the
innovation capabilities of 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 the hypertext transfer protocol. 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 options presented in
Section 3.3.2 and Section 3.3.1 aim at providing some level of
backward compatibility to this existing ecosystem through a proxy
based message flow mapping mechanism (e.g., mapping of existing
HTTP/TCP/IP message flows to HTTP/TCP/IP/ICN message flows). A
related approach of mapping TCP/IP to TCP/ICN message flows is
described in [Moiseenko]
Alternatively, ICN as an overlay (Section 3.2), as well as ICN-as-
a-Slice (Section 3.4), 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
Rahman, et al. Expires July 19, 2018 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Deployment Considerations for ICN January 2018
deployment are likely to aim at introducing new application/services
capitalizing on those ICN capabilities.
Finally, [I-D.suthar-icnrg-icn-lte-4g] outlines a dual-stack end user
device approach that is applicable for all deployment configurations.
Specifically, [I-D.suthar-icnrg-icn-lte-4g] introduces middleware
layers (called the Transport Convergence Layer, 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.
4.2. Content Delivery Network Migration
A significant number of services and applications are devoted to
content delivery in some form, either as video delivery services,
social media platforms, and many others. Content delivery networks
(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 configurations presented in Section 3.3.2 and
Section 3.3.1 aim at providing a migration path for existing CDNs.
This is also highlighted in the BIER WG use case document
[I-D.ietf-bier-use-cases], 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 5.
4.3. 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
reasons such as increased efficiency, lack of standardization
incentives and others. Utilizing the underlay deployment
configuration in Section 3.3.1, application gateways/proxies can
integrate such edge deployments into IP-based services, e.g.,
utilizing CoAP [RFC7252] based machine-to-machine (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 3.4 provides a suitable
Rahman, et al. Expires July 19, 2018 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Deployment Considerations for ICN January 2018
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.
4.4. Core Network Migration
Migrating core networks (e.g., of the Internet or Mobile core
network) requires not only significant infrastructure renewal but
also the fulfillment of the significant performance requirements,
particularly in terms of throughput. For those parts of the core
network that would see a migration to an SDN-based optical transport
the ICN-as-a-Slice deployment configuration in Section 3.4 could see
the introduction of native ICN solutions within slices provided by
the SDN-enabled transport network or as virtual network functions,
allowing for isolating the ICN traffic while addressing the specific
ICN performance benefits and constraints within such isolated slice.
For ICN solutions that natively work on top of SDN, the underlay
deployment configuration in Section 3.3.2 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).
5. Deployment Trial Experiences
In this section, we will outline trial experiences, often conducted
within international collaborative project efforts. Our focus here
is on the realization of the various deployment configurations in
Section 3, and we therefore categorize the trial experiences
according to these deployment configurations. While a large body of
work exists at the simulation or emulation level, we specifically
exclude these studies from our presentation to retain the focus on
real life experiences.
5.1. ICN-as-an-Overlay
5.1.1. FP7 PURSUIT Efforts
Although the FP7 PURSUIT [IEEE_Communications] efforts were generally
positioned as a Clean-slate ICN replacement of IP (Section 3.1), the
project realized its experimental test bed as an L2 VPN-based overlay
between several European, US as well as Asian sites, i.e., following
the overlay deployment configuration presented in Section 3.2.
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.
Rahman, et al. Expires July 19, 2018 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Deployment Considerations for ICN January 2018
5.1.2. FP7 SAIL Trial
The Network of Information (NetInf) is the approach to Information-
Centric Networking developed by the European Union (EU) FP7 SAIL
project (http://www.sail-project.eu/). 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
abstraction. 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 3.2. Reference
[SAIL_NetInf] describes several trials including a stadium
environment large crowd scenario and a multi-site testbed, leveraging
NetInf's Routing Hint approach for routing scalability.
5.1.3. NDN Testbed
The Named Data Networking (NDN) is one of the research projects
funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) of the USA as part of
the Future Internet Architecture Program. The original NDN proposal
was positioned as a Clean-slate ICN replacement of IP (Section 3.1).
However, in several trials, NDN generally follows the overlay
deployment configuration of Section 3.2 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 (https://named-data.net/ndn-testbed/) [Jangam].
5.1.4. ICN2020 Efforts
ICN2020 is an ICN related research project funded by the EU and Japan
as part of the H2020 research and innovation program and NICT
(http://www.icn2020.org/). ICN2020 has a specific focus to advance
ICN towards real-world deployments through innovative applications
and global scale experimentation. Both NDN and CCN approaches are
within the scope of the project.
ICN2020 was kicked off in July 2016 and at the end of the first year
released a set of public technical reports [ICN2020]. The report
titled "Deliverable D4.1: 1st yearly report on Testbed and
Experiments (WP4)" 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
(https://www.geant.org/) to create an overlay deployment
configuration of Section 3.2 over the public Internet.
Rahman, et al. Expires July 19, 2018 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Deployment Considerations for ICN January 2018
5.2. ICN-as-an-Underlay
5.2.1. H2020 POINT and RIFE Efforts
POINT and RIFE are two more ICN related research projects funded by
the EU as part of the H2020 effort. The efforts in the H2020
POINT+RIFE projects follow the underlay deployment configuration in
Section 3.3.2, although this is mixed with utilizing an overlay
deployment to provide multi-national connectivity. However, underlay
SDN-based deployments do exist at various project partner sites,
e.g., at Essex University, without any overlaying being realized.
Edge-based network attachment points (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 in 2016, and public demonstrations were also provided at
events such as Mobile World Congress in 2016 [MWC_Demo]. The trial
has also been accepted by the ETSI MEC group as a proof-of-concept
with a demonstration at the ETSI MEC World Congress in 2016.
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 in the community network
of "guifi.net" 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
utilized in accordance with the aim of this deployment configuration,
namely to provide application and service migration.
5.2.2. 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 3.3.2 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
Rahman, et al. Expires July 19, 2018 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Deployment Considerations for ICN January 2018
(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 instead of a
remote server.
Ensuring the technology readiness and the early trialing of the ICN
capabilities lays the ground for the goal of the H2020 FLAME efforts
to conduct 23 large-scale experiments in the area of Future Media
Internet (FMI) throughout 2018 and 2019. Standard media service
functions as well as applications will ultimately utilize the ICN
underlay in the delivery of their experience. The platform, which
includes the ICN capabilities, will utilize concepts of SFC,
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.
5.2.3. CableLabs Content Delivery System
The work in [White] proposes an underlay deployment configuration
based on Section 3.3.2. The use case is ICN for content distribution
within CDN server farms (which can be quite large and complex) 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 3.1)
of existing HTTP/IP end user applications and related Web
infrastructure is a difficult proposition. [White] does not yet
provide results but indicated that experiments will be forthcoming.
5.2.4. 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].
5.3. Other Configurations
This section records deployment trial experiences from systems that
do not directly correspond to one of the basic configurations defined
in Section 3.
Rahman, et al. Expires July 19, 2018 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Deployment Considerations for ICN January 2018
5.3.1. Hybrid ICN Trials
Hybrid ICN [Hybrid_ICN-1] [Hybrid_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. A related open
source effort was kicked off in 2017 (https://wiki.fd.io/view/Cicn).
The intent of the trials are to show the routing performance
efficiency of the Hybrid ICN router (called the Vector Packet
Processor) over existing IP routers. Results have not yet been
published but are expected in the near future.
5.4. 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 1000
users maximum.
The ICN-as-a-Slice configuration still has not be trialled primarily
due to the fact that 5G standards are still in flux and not expected
to be stable before the mid-2018 time frame. 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, the Hybrid ICN approach offers an intersting
alternative as it allows ICN semantics to be embedded in standard
IPv6 packets and so the packets can be routed through either IP
routers or Hybrid ICN routers. Detailed performance results are
still pending for this alternative.
6. 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
Rahman, et al. Expires July 19, 2018 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Deployment Considerations for ICN January 2018
migration paths in Section 4. The identified list of potential
protocol functionality is not exhaustive.
6.1. 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.
6.2. 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. There already exists [RFC6920]
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.mosko-icnrg-ccnxurischeme].
Naming dynamically generated data requires different approaches (for
example, 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 5.2.1, certain ICN approaches provide
substantial improvements over IP multicast, such as the implicit
support for multicast retrieval of content in all ICN flavours.
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.
6.3. 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 secure, yet 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
Rahman, et al. Expires July 19, 2018 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Deployment Considerations for ICN January 2018
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. However, as mentioned previously, ICN will allow us to
evolve the role of gateways/proxies as ICN message security should be
preserved through the protocol translation function of a thus offer a
substantial gain.
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 integration of ICN into networks that
support virtualized infrastructure in the form of NFV/SDN and most
likely utilizing Service Function Chaining (SFC) as a key protocol.
Further work is required to validate this idea and document best
practices.
Operations and Maintenance (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 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 CONTRACE [I-D.asaeda-icnrg-contrace] [Contrace].
6.4. Summary of ICN Protocol Gaps and Potential Protocol Efforts
Without claiming completeness, Table 1 maps the open the open ICN
issues identified in this document to potential protocol efforts that
could address some aspects of the gap.
Rahman, et al. Expires July 19, 2018 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Deployment Considerations for ICN January 2018
+--------------+----------------------------------------------------+
| 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-OAM | YANG models, NETCONF/RESTCONF protocols, |
| support | and network performance measurements |
| | |
+--------------+----------------------------------------------------+
Table 1: Mapping of ICN Gaps to Potential Protocol Efforts
7. Conclusion
This document provides high level deployment considerations for 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; and (4) ICN-as-a-Slice. Existing ICN trial systems
primarily fall under either the ICN-as-an-Overlay or ICN-as-an-
Underlay configuration.
In terms of deployment migration paths, ICN-as-an-Underlay offers a
clear migration path for CDN, edge and core networks to go to an ICN
paradigm (e.g., for an IoT deployment). ICN-as-an-Overlay is
probably the easiest configuration to deploy 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., based on if it can run all required applications or
other similar criteria). ICN-as-a-Slice is an attractive deployment
Rahman, et al. Expires July 19, 2018 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Deployment Considerations for ICN January 2018
option for future 5G systems (i.e., for 5G radio and core networks)
which will naturally support network slicing, but this still has to
be validated through actual trial experiences.
For the crucial issue of existing application and service migration
to ICN, various mapping schemes are possible to mitigate impacts.
For example, HTTP/TCP/IP flows may be mapped to/from ICN message
flows at proxies in the ICN-as-an-Underlay configurations leaving the
massive number of existing end point applications/services untouched
or minimally impacted. Also dual stack end user devices that include
middleware to allow applications to communicate in both ICN mode and
standard IP mode are an attractive proposition for gradual and
geographically discontinuous introduction for all deployment
configurations.
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 1000 users. It
is recommended that future ICN deployments scale their users
gradually and closely monitor network performance as they go above
1000 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.
8. IANA Considerations
This document requests no IANA actions.
9. 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 real 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)
Rahman, et al. Expires July 19, 2018 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Deployment Considerations for ICN January 2018
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 3.3.1, the gateway/proxy that translates HTTP or CoAP
request/responses into ICN message exchanges will need to support a
model to preserve end-to-end security.
10. Acknowledgments
The authors want to thank Alex Afanasyev, Mayutan Arumaithurai,
Hitoshi Asaeda, Giovanna Carofiglio, Xavier de Foy, Hannu Flinck,
Anil Jangam, Luca Muscariello, Dave Oran, Thomas Schmidt, Jan
Seedorf, Eve Schooler, Samar Shailendra, Milan Stolic, Prakash
Suthar, Atsushi Tagami, and Lixia Zhang for their very useful
reviews, comments and input to the document.
11. 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>.
Rahman, et al. Expires July 19, 2018 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Deployment Considerations for ICN January 2018
[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/>.
[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.
[Hybrid_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>.
[Hybrid_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>.
[I-D.asaeda-icnrg-contrace]
Asaeda, H., Shao, X., and T. Turletti, "Contrace:
Traceroute Facility for Content-Centric Network", draft-
asaeda-icnrg-contrace-04 (work in progress), October 2017.
Rahman, et al. Expires July 19, 2018 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Deployment Considerations for ICN January 2018
[I-D.ietf-bier-use-cases]
Kumar, N., Asati, R., Chen, M., Xu, X., Dolganow, A.,
Przygienda, T., Gulko, A., Robinson, D., Arya, V., and C.
Bestler, "BIER Use Cases", draft-ietf-bier-use-cases-05
(work in progress), July 2017.
[I-D.irtf-icnrg-ccnxmessages]
Mosko, M., Solis, I., and C. Wood, "CCNx Messages in TLV
Format", draft-irtf-icnrg-ccnxmessages-06 (work in
progress), October 2017.
[I-D.irtf-icnrg-icniot]
Ravindran, R., Zhang, Y., Grieco, L., Lindgren, A.,
Raychadhuri, D., Baccelli, E., Burke, J., Wang, G.,
Ahlgren, B., and O. Schelen, "Design Considerations for
Applying ICN to IoT", draft-irtf-icnrg-icniot-00 (work in
progress), January 2018.
[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-00 (work in progress), December 2017.
[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-08 (work in progress), November 2017.
[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.mosko-icnrg-ccnxurischeme]
marc.mosko@parc.com, m. and c. cwood@parc.com, "The CCNx
URI Scheme", draft-mosko-icnrg-ccnxurischeme-01 (work in
progress), April 2016.
[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.
Rahman, et al. Expires July 19, 2018 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Deployment Considerations for ICN January 2018
[I-D.ravi-icnrg-5gc-icn]
Ravindran, R., suthar, P., and G. Wang, "Enabling ICN in
3GPP's 5G NextGen Core Architecture", draft-ravi-icnrg-
5gc-icn-00 (work in progress), October 2017.
[I-D.suthar-icnrg-icn-lte-4g]
suthar, P., Stolic, M., Jangam, A., and D. Trossen,
"Native Deployment of ICN in LTE, 4G Mobile Networks",
draft-suthar-icnrg-icn-lte-4g-04 (work in progress),
November 2017.
[ICN2020] ICN2020, "ICN2020 Deliverables", 2017,
<http://www.icn2020.org/dissemination/
deliverables-public/>.
[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. KBiczok, "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,
<http://symposium.nsercdiva.com/2017/program.html>.
[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>.
Rahman, et al. Expires July 19, 2018 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Deployment Considerations for ICN January 2018
[MWC_Demo]
InterDigital, "InterDigital Demo at Mobile World Congress
(MWC)", 2016, <http://www.interdigital.com/
download/56d5c71bd616f892ba001861>.
[NFD] NDN, "NFD - Named Data Networking Forwarding Daemon",
2017, <https://named-data.net/doc/NFD/current/>.
[NGMN] NGMN, "NGMN 5g Initiative White Paper", 2015,
<https://www.ngmn.org/uploads/media/
NGMN_5G_White_Paper_V1_0.pdf>.
[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 Information Centric Networking", 2016,
<https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282779666_A_nove
l_overlay_architecture_for_Information_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., Chakraborti, A., Amin, S., Azgin, A., and
G. Wang, "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 July 19, 2018 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Deployment Considerations for ICN January 2018
[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>.
[SAIL_NetInf]
FP7, "SAIL Prototyping and Evaluation", 2013,
<http://www.sail-project.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/
SAIL_DB4_v1.1_Final_Public.pdf>.
[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.
Rahman, et al. Expires July 19, 2018 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Deployment Considerations for ICN January 2018
[VSER] Ravindran, R., Liu, X., Chakraborti, A., Zhang, X., and G.
Wang, "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., Ravindran, R., Chakraborti, A., and G. Wang,
"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", 2010,
<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 rev-04 to rev-05:
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
Rahman, et al. Expires July 19, 2018 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Deployment Considerations for ICN January 2018
Akbar Rahman
InterDigital Inc.
1000 Sherbrooke Street West, 10th floor
Montreal H3A 3G4
Canada
Email: Akbar.Rahman@InterDigital.com
URI: http://www.InterDigital.com/
Dirk Trossen
InterDigital Inc.
64 Great Eastern Street, 1st Floor
London EC2A 3QR
United Kingdom
Email: Dirk.Trossen@InterDigital.com
URI: http://www.InterDigital.com/
Dirk Kutscher
Huawei German Research Center
Riesstrasse 25
Munich 80992
Germany
Email: ietf@dkutscher.net
URI: http://www.Huawei.com/
Ravi Ravindran
Huawei Research Center
2330 Central Expressway
Santa Clara 95050
USA
Email: ravi.ravindran@huawei.com
URI: http://www.Huawei.com/
Rahman, et al. Expires July 19, 2018 [Page 26]
