tech-invite   World Map     

IETF     RFCs     Groups     SIP     ABNFs    |    3GPP     Specs     Glossaries     Architecture     IMS     UICC    |    search     info

RFC 7927

 
 
 

Information-Centric Networking (ICN) Research Challenges

Part 2 of 2, p. 18 to 38
Prev Section

 


prevText      Top      ToC       Page 18 
4.4.  Mobility Management

   Mobility management has been an active field in host-centric
   communications for more than two decades.  In IETF in particular,
   starting with [RFC2002], a multitude of enhancements to IP have been
   standardized aiming to "allow transparent routing of IP datagrams to
   mobile nodes in the Internet" [RFC5944].  In a nutshell, mobility
   management for IP networks is locator-oriented and relies on the
   concept of a mobility anchor as a foundation for providing always-on
   connectivity to mobile nodes (see [MMIN]).  Other standards
   organizations, such as 3GPP, have followed similar anchor-based
   approaches.  Traffic to and from the mobile node must flow through
   the mobility anchor, typically using a set of tunnels, enabling the
   mobile node to remain reachable while changing its point of
   attachment to the network.

   Needless to say, an IP network that supports node mobility is more
   complex than one that does not, as specialized network entities must
   be introduced in the network architecture.  This is reflected in the
   control plane as well, which carries mobility-related signaling
   messages, establishes and tears down tunnels, and so on.  While
   mobile connectivity was an afterthought in IP, in ICN, this is
   considered a primary deployment environment.  Most, if not all, ICN
   proposals consider mobility from the very beginning, although at
   varying levels of architectural and protocol detail.  That said, no
   solution has so far come forward with a definite answer on how to
   handle mobility in ICN using native primitives.  In fact, we observe
   that mobility appears to be addressed on an ICN proposal-specific
   basis.  That is, there is no single paradigm solution, akin to
   tunneling through a mobility anchor in host-centric networking, that
   can be applied across different ICN proposals.  For instance,
   although widely deployed mobile network architectures typically come
   with their own network entities and associated protocols, they follow
   the same line of design with respect to managing mobility.  This
   design thinking, which calls for incorporating mobility anchors,
   permeates in the ICN literature too.

   However, employing mobility anchors and tunneling is probably not the
   best way forward in ICN research for mobile networking.
   Fundamentally, this approach is anything but information-centric and
   location-independent.  In addition, as argued in [SEEN], current
   mobility management schemes anchor information retrieval not only at
   a specific network gateway (e.g., home agent in Mobile IP) but also
   at a specific correspondent node due to the end-to-end nature of
   host-centric communication.  However, once a change in the point of
   attachment occurs, information retrieval from the original
   "correspondent node" may no longer be optimal.  This was shown in
   [MANI], for example, where a simple mechanism that triggers the

Top      Up      ToC       Page 19 
   discovery of new retrieval providers for the same data object,
   following a change in the point of attachment, clearly outperforms a
   tunnel-based approach like Mobile IP in terms of object download
   times.  The challenge here is how to capitalize on location
   information while facilitating the use of ICN primitives, which
   natively support multicast and anycast.

   ICN naming and name resolution, as well as the security features that
   come along, should natively support mobility.  For example, CCN [CCN]
   does not have the restriction of spanning tree routing, so it is able
   to take advantage of multiple interfaces or adapt to the changes
   produced by rapid mobility (i.e., there is no need to bind a layer 3
   address with a layer 2 address).  In fact, client mobility can be
   simplified by allowing requests for new content to normally flow from
   different interfaces or through newly connected points of attachment
   to the network.  However, when the node moving is the (only) content
   source, it appears that more complex network support might be
   necessary, including forwarding updates and cache rebuilding.  A case
   in point is a conversation network service, such as a voice or video
   call between two parties.  The requirements in this case are more
   stringent when support for seamless mobility is required, especially
   when compared to content dissemination that is amenable to buffering.
   Another parameter that needs to be paid attention to is the impact of
   using different wireless access interfaces based on different
   technologies, where the performance and link conditions can vary
   widely depending of numerous factors.

   In host-centric networking, mobility management mechanisms ensure
   optimal handovers and (ideally) seamless transition from one point of
   attachment to another.  In ICN, however, the traditional meaning of
   "point of attachment" no longer applies as communication is not
   restrained by location-based access to data objects.  Therefore, a
   "seamless transition" in ICN ensures that content reception continues
   without any perceptible change from the point of view of the ICN
   application receiving that content.  Moreover, this transition needs
   to be executed in parallel with ICN content identification and
   delivery mechanisms, enabling scenarios such as preparation of the
   content delivery process at the target connectivity point prior to
   the handover (to reduce link switch disturbances).  Finally, these
   mobility aspects can also be tightly coupled with network management
   aspects, in respect to policy enforcement, link control, and other
   parameters necessary for establishing the node's link to the network.

   In summary, the following research challenges for ICN mobility
   management can be derived:

   o  How can mobility management take full advantage of native ICN
      primitives?

Top      Up      ToC       Page 20 
   o  How do we avoid the need for mobility anchors in a network that by
      design supports multicast, anycast, and location-independent
      information retrieval?

   o  How can content retrieval mechanisms interface with specific link
      operations, such as identifying which links are available for
      certain content?

   o  How can mobility be offered as a service that is only activated
      when the specific user/content/conditions require it?

   o  How can mobility management be coordinated between the node and
      the network for optimization and policing procedures?

   o  How do we ensure that managing mobility does not introduce
      scalability issues in ICN?

   o  How will the name resolution process be affected by rapid
      topological changes when the content source itself is mobile?

4.5.  Wireless Networking

   Today, all layer 2 (L2) wireless network radio access technologies
   are developed with a clear assumption in mind: the waist of the
   protocol stack is IP, and it will be so for the foreseeable future.
   By fixing the protocol stack waist, engineers can answer a large set
   of questions, including how to handle conversational traffic (e.g.,
   voice calls) vs. web traffic, how to support multicast, and so on, in
   a rather straightforward manner.  Broadcast, on the other hand, which
   is inherent in wireless communication, is not fully taken advantage
   of.  On the contrary, researchers are often more concerned about
   introducing mechanisms that ensure that "broadcast storms" do not
   take down a network.  The question of how can broadcast better serve
   ICN needs has yet to be thoroughly investigated.

   Wireless networking is often intertwined with mobility, but this is
   not always the case.  In fact, empirical measurements often indicate
   that many users tend to connect (and remain connected) to a single
   Wi-Fi access point for considerable amounts of time.  A case in
   point, which is frequently cited in different variations in the ICN
   literature, is access to a document repository during a meeting.  For
   instance, in a typical IETF working group meeting, a scribe takes
   notes, which are uploaded to a centralized repository (see Figure 1).
   Subsequently, each meeting participant obtains a copy of the document
   on their own devices for local use, annotation, and sharing with
   colleagues that are not present at the meeting.  Note that in this
   example, there is no node mobility and that it is not important

Top      Up      ToC       Page 21 
   whether the document with the notes is uploaded in one go at the end
   of the session or in a streaming-like fashion as is typical today
   with online (cloud-based) document processing.

           +---------------------+
           | Document Repository |
           +---------------------+
                     ||
                 (Internet)
                     ||
             +--------------+
             | Access Point |
             +--------------+
            /  |             \
           /   |              \
          /    |               \
     Scribe   Participant 1 ... Participant N

                Figure 1: Document Sharing During a Meeting

   In this scenario, we observe that the same data object bits
   (corresponding to the meeting notes) need to traverse the wireless
   medium at least N+1 times, where N is the number of meeting
   participants obtaining a copy of the notes.  In effect, a broadcast
   medium is shoehorned into N+1 virtual unicast channels.  One could
   argue that wireless local connectivity is inexpensive, but this is
   not the critical factor in this example.  The actual information
   exchange wastes N times the available network capacity, no matter
   what the spectral efficiency (or the economics) underlying the
   wireless technology is.  This waste is a direct result of extending
   the remote access paradigm from wired to wireless communication,
   irrespective of the special characteristics of the latter.

   It goes without saying that an ICN approach that does not take into
   consideration the wireless nature of an interface will waste the same
   amount of resources as a host-centric paradigm.  In-network caching
   at the wireless access point could reduce the amount of data carried
   over the backhaul link, but, if there is no change in the use of the
   wireless medium, the NDO will still be carried over the wireless
   ether N+1 times.  Intelligent caching strategies, replica placement
   cooperation, and so on simply cannot alleviate this.  On the other
   hand, promiscuous interface operation and opportunistic caching would
   maximize wireless network capacity utilization in this example.

   Arguably, if one designs a future wireless access technology with an
   information-centric "layer 3" in mind, many of the design choices
   that are obvious in an all-IP architecture may no longer be valid.

Top      Up      ToC       Page 22 
   Although this is clearly outside the scope of this document, a few
   research challenges that the wider community may be interested in
   include:

   o  Can we use wireless resources more frugally with the information-
      centric paradigm than what is possible today in all-IP wireless
      networks?

   o  In the context of wireless access, how can we leverage the
      broadcast nature of the medium in an information-centric network?

   o  Would a wireless-oriented ICN protocol stack deliver significant
      performance gains?  How different would it be from a wired-
      oriented ICN protocol stack?

   o  Is it possible that by changing the network paradigm to ICN we
      can, in practice, increase the spectral efficiency (bits/s/Hz) of
      a wireless network beyond what would be possible with today's
      host-centric approaches?  What would be the impact of doing so
      with respect to energy consumption?

   o  Can promiscuous wireless interface operation coupled with
      opportunistic caching increase ICN performance, and if so, by how
      much?

   o  How can a conversational service be supported at least as
      efficiently as today's state-of-the-art wireless networks deliver?

   o  What are the benefits of combining ICN with network coding in
      wireless networks?

   o  How can Multiple-Input Multiple-Output (MIMO) and Coordinated
      Multipoint Transmission (CoMP) be natively combined with ICN
      primitives in future cellular networks?

4.6.  Rate and Congestion Control

   ICN's receiver-driven communication model as described above creates
   new opportunities for transport protocol design, as it does not rely
   solely on end-to-end communication from a sender to a requestor.  A
   requested data object can be accessible in multiple different network
   locations.  A node can thus decide how to utilize multiple sources,
   e.g., by sending parallel requests for the same NDO or by switching
   sources (or next hops) in a suitable schedule for a series of
   requests.

Top      Up      ToC       Page 23 
   In this model, the requestor would control the data rate by
   regulating its request sending rate and next by performing source/
   next-hop selections.  Specific challenges depend on the specific ICN
   approach, but general challenges for receiver-driven transport
   protocols (or mechanisms, since dedicated protocols might not be
   required) include flow and congestion control, fairness, network
   utilization, stability (of data rates under stable conditions), etc.
   [HRICP] and [CONTUG] describe request rate control protocols and
   corresponding design challenges.

   As mentioned above, the ICN communication paradigm does not depend
   strictly on end-to-end flows, as contents might be received from in-
   network caches.  The traditional concept of a flow is then somewhat
   not valid as sub-flows, or flowlets, might be formed on the fly, when
   fractions of an NDO are transmitted from in-network caches.  For a
   transport-layer protocol, this is challenging, as any measurement
   related to this flow as traditionally done by transport protocols
   such as TCP, can often prove misleading.  For example, false Round-
   Trip Time (RTT) measurements will lead to largely variable average
   and smoothed RTT values, which in turn will trigger false timeout
   expirations.

   Furthermore, out-of-order delivery is expected to be common in a
   scenario where parts of a data object are retrieved from in-network
   caches rather than from the origin server.  Several techniques for
   dealing with out-of-order delivery have been proposed in the past for
   TCP, some of which could potentially be modified and reused in the
   context of ICN.  Further research is needed in this direction though
   to choose the right technique and adjust it according to the
   requirements of the ICN architecture and transport protocol in use.

   ICN offers routers the possibility to aggregate requests and can use
   several paths, meaning that there is no such thing as a (dedicated)
   end-to-end communication path, e.g., a router that receives two
   requests for the same content at the same time only sends one request
   to its neighbor.  The aggregation of requests has a general impact on
   transport protocol design and offers new options for employing per-
   node forwarding strategies and for rethinking in-network resource
   sharing [RESOURCE-POOL].

   Achieving fairness for requestors can be one challenge as it is not
   possible to identify the number of requestors behind one particular
   request.  A second problem related to request aggregation is the
   management of request retransmissions.  Generally, it is assumed that
   a router will not transmit a request if it transmitted an identical
   request recently, and because there is no information about the
   requestor, the router cannot distinguish the initial request from a

Top      Up      ToC       Page 24 
   client from a retransmission from the same client.  In such a
   situation, routers can adapt their timers to use the best of the
   communication paths.

4.7.  In-Network Caching

   Explicitly named data objects allow for caching at virtually any
   network element, including routers, proxy caches, and end-user
   devices.  Therefore, in-network caching can improve network
   performance by fetching content from nodes that are geographically
   placed closer to the end user.  Several issues that need further
   investigation have been identified with respect to in-network
   caching.  In this section, we list important challenges that relate
   to the properties of the new ubiquitous caching system.

4.7.1.  Cache Placement

   The declining cost of fast memory gives the opportunity to deploy
   caches in network routers and to take advantage of cached NDOs.  We
   identify two approaches to in-network caching, namely, on-path and
   off-path caching.  Both approaches have to consider the issue of
   cache location.  Off-path caching is similar to traditional proxy-
   caching or CDN server placement.  Retrieval of contents from off-path
   caches requires redirection of requests and, therefore, is closely
   related to the Request-to-Cache Routing problem discussed below.
   Off-path caches have to be placed in strategic points within a
   network in order to reduce the redirection delays and the number of
   detour hops to retrieve cached contents.  Previous research on proxy-
   caching and CDN deployment is helpful in this case.

   On the other hand, on-path caching requires less network intervention
   and fits more neatly in ICN.  However, on-path caching requires line-
   speed operation, which places more constraints on the design and
   operation of in-network caching elements.  Furthermore, the gain of
   such a system of on-path in-network caches relies on opportunistic
   cache hits and has therefore been considered of limited benefit,
   given the huge amount of contents hosted in the Internet.  For this
   reason, network operators might initially consider only a limited
   number of network elements to be upgraded to in-network caching
   elements.  The decision on which nodes should be equipped with caches
   is an open issue and might be based, among others, on topological
   criteria or traffic characteristics.  These challenges relate to both
   the Content Placement problem and the Request-to-Cache Routing
   problem discussed below.

   In most cases, however, the driver for the implementation,
   deployment, and operation of in-network caches will be its cost.
   Operating caches at line speed inevitably requires faster memory,

Top      Up      ToC       Page 25 
   which increases the implementation cost.  Based on the capital to be
   invested, ISPs will need to make strategic decisions on the cache
   placement, which can be driven by several factors, such as avoidance
   of inter-domain/expensive links, centrality of nodes, size of domain
   and the corresponding spatial locality of users, and traffic patterns
   in a specific part of the network (e.g., university vs. business vs.
   fashion district of a city).

4.7.2.  Content Placement: Content-to-Cache Distribution

   Given a number of on-path or off-path in-network caching elements,
   content-to-cache distribution will affect both the dynamics of the
   system, in terms of request redirections (mainly in case of off-path
   caches) and the gain of the system in terms of cache hits.  A
   straightforward approach to content placement is on-path placement of
   contents as they travel from source to destination.  This approach
   reduces the computation and communication overhead of placing content
   within the network but, on the other hand, might reduce the chances
   of hitting cached contents.  This relates to the Request-to-Cache
   Routing problem discussed next.

   Furthermore, the number of replicas held in the system brings up
   resource management issues in terms of cache allocation.  For
   example, continuously replicating data objects in all network
   elements results in redundant copies of the same objects.  The issue
   of redundant replication has been investigated in the past for
   hierarchical web caches.  However, in hierarchical web-caching,
   overlay systems coordination between the data and the control plane
   can guarantee increased performance in terms of cache hits.  Line-
   speed, on-path, in-network caching poses different requirements;
   therefore, new techniques need to be investigated.  In this
   direction, reducing the redundancy of cached copies is a study item.
   However, the issue of coordinated content placement in on-path caches
   remains open.

   The Content-to-Cache Allocation problem relates also to the
   characteristics of the content to be cached.  Popular content might
   need to be placed where it is going to be requested next.
   Furthermore, issues of "expected content popularity" or temporal
   locality need to be taken into account in designing in-network
   caching algorithms in order for some contents to be given priority
   (e.g., popular content vs. one-timers).  The criteria as to which
   contents should be given priority in in-network content caches
   relates also to the business relationships between content providers
   and network operators.  Business model issues will drive some of
   these decisions on content-to-cache distribution, but such issues are
   outside the scope of this note and are not discussed here further.

Top      Up      ToC       Page 26 
4.7.3.  Request-to-Cache Routing

   In order to take advantage of cached contents, requests have to be
   forwarded to the nodes that cache the corresponding contents.  This
   challenge relates to name-based routing, discussed earlier.  Requests
   should ideally follow the path to the cached NDO.  However,
   instructions as to which content is cached where cannot be broadcast
   throughout the network.  Therefore, the knowledge of an NDO location
   at the time of the request either might not exist or might not be
   accurate (i.e., contents might have been removed by the time a
   request is redirected to a specific node).

   Coordination between the data and the control planes to update
   information of cached contents has been considered, but in this case,
   scalability issues arise.  We therefore have two options.  We either
   have to rely on opportunistic caching, where requests are forwarded
   to a server and in case the NDO is found on the path, then the
   content is fetched from this node instead of the origin server, or we
   employ cache-aware routing techniques.  Cache-aware routing can
   involve either both the control and the data plane or only one of
   them.  Furthermore, cache-aware routing can be done in a domain-wide
   scale or can involve more than one individual Autonomous System (AS).
   In the latter case, business relationships between ASes might need to
   be exploited in order to build a scalable model.

4.7.4.  Staleness Detection of Cached NDOs

   Due to the largely distributed copies of NDOs in in-network caches,
   ICN should be able to provide a staleness verification algorithm that
   provides synchronization of NDOs located at their providers and in-
   network caching points.  Two types of approaches can be considered
   for this problem, namely direct and indirect approaches.

   In the direct approach, each cache looks up certain information in
   the NDO's name, e.g., the timestamp, that directly indicates its
   staleness.  This approach is applicable to some NDOs that come from
   machine-to-machine and Internet of Things scenarios, whose base
   operation relies on obtaining the latest version of that NDO (i.e., a
   soil sensor in a farm providing different continuous parameters that
   are sent to a display or greenhouse regulation system) [FRESHNESS].

   In the indirect approach, each cache consults the publisher of the
   cached NDO about its staleness before serving it.  This approach
   assumes that the NDO includes the publisher information, which can be
   used to reach the publisher.  It is suitable for the NDO whose
   expiration time is difficult to be set in advance, e.g., a web page

Top      Up      ToC       Page 27 
   that contains the main text (which stays the same ever after) and the
   interactive sections such as comments or ads (which are updated
   irregularly).

   It is often argued that ignoring stale NDOs in caches and simply
   providing new names for updated NDOs might be sufficient rather than
   using a staleness verification algorithm to manage them.  However,
   notifying the new names of updated NDOs to users is not a trivial
   task.  Unless the update is informed to all users at the same time,
   some users would use the old name although they intended to retrieve
   the updated NDO.

   One research challenge is how to design consistency and coherence
   models for caching NDOs along with their revision handling and
   updating protocols in a scalable manner.

4.7.5.  Cache Sharing by Multiple Applications

   When ICN is deployed as a general, application-independent network
   and cache infrastructure, multiple consumers and producers
   (representing different applications) would communicate over the same
   infrastructure.  With universal naming schemes or sufficiently unique
   hash-based identifiers, different application could also share
   identical NDOs in a transparent way.

   Depending on the naming, data integrity, and data origin
   authentication approaches, there may be technical and business
   challenges to share caches across different applications, for
   example, content protection, avoiding cache poisoning, ensuring
   performance isolation, etc.  As ICN research matures, these
   challenges should be addressed more specifically in a dedicated
   document.

4.8.  Network Management

   Managing networks has been a core craft in the IP-based host-centric
   paradigm ever since the technology was introduced in production
   networks.  However, at the onset of IP, management was considered
   primarily as an add-on.  Essential tools that are used daily by
   networkers, such as ping and traceroute, did not become widely
   available until more than a decade or so after IP was first
   introduced.  Management protocols, such as SNMP, also became
   available much later than the original introduction of IP, and many
   still consider them insufficient despite the years of experience we
   have running host-centric networks.  Today, when new networks are
   deployed, network management is considered a key aspect for any
   operator, a major challenge that is directly reflected in higher
   operational cost if not done well.  If we want ICN to be deployed in

Top      Up      ToC       Page 28 
   infrastructure networks, development of management tools and
   mechanisms must go hand in hand with the rest of the architecture
   design.

   Although defining an FCAPS (Fault, Configuration, Accounting,
   Performance, and Security) [ISOIEC-7498-4] management model for ICN
   is clearly outside the scope of this document, there is a need for
   creating basic tools early on while ICN is still in the design and
   experimentation phases that can evolve over time and help network
   operations centers (NOCs) to define policies, validate that they are
   indeed used in practice, be notified early on about failures, and
   determine and resolve configuration problems.  Authentication,
   Authorization, and Accounting (AAA) as well as performance
   management, from a NOC perspective, will also need to be considered.
   Given the expectations for a large number of nodes and unprecedented
   traffic volumes, automating tasks or even better employing self-
   management mechanisms are preferred.  The main challenge here is that
   all tools we have at our disposal today are node-centric, are end-to-
   end oriented, or assume a packet-stream communication environment.
   Rethinking reachability and operational availability, for example,
   can yield significant insights into how information-centric networks
   will be managed in the future.

   With respect to network management, we see three different aspects.
   First, any operator needs to manage all resources available in the
   network, which can range from node connectivity to network bandwidth
   availability to in-network storage to multi-access support.  In ICN,
   users will also bring into the network significant resources in terms
   of network coverage extension, storage, and processing capabilities.
   Delay Tolerant Networking (DTN) characteristics should also be
   considered to the degree that this is possible (e.g., content
   dissemination through data mules).  Second, given that nodes and
   links are not at the center of an information-centric network,
   network management should capitalize on native ICN mechanisms.  For
   example, in-network storage and name resolution can be used for
   monitoring, while native publish/subscribe functionality can be used
   for triggering notifications.  Finally, management is also at the
   core of network-controlling capabilities by allowing operating
   actions to be mediated and decided, triggering and activating
   networking procedures in an optimized way.  For example, monitoring
   aspects can be conjugated with different management actions in a
   coordinated way, allowing network operations to flow in a concerted
   manner.

   However, the considerations on leveraging intrinsic ICN mechanisms
   and capabilities to support management operations go beyond a simple
   mapping exercise.  In fact, it not only raises a series of challenges
   on its own, but also opens up new possibilities for both ICN and

Top      Up      ToC       Page 29 
   "network management" as a concept.  For instance, naming mechanisms
   are central to ICN-intrinsic operations, which are used to identify
   and reach content under different aspects (e.g., hierarchically
   structured vs. "flattish" names).  In this way, ICN is decoupled from
   host-centric aspects on which traditional network management schemes
   rely.  As such, questions are raised that can directly be translated
   into challenges for network management capability, such as, for
   example, how to address a node or a network segment in an ICN naming
   paradigm, how to identify which node is connected "where", how to be
   aware of the node capabilities (i.e., high or low-powered machine-to-
   machine (M2M) node), and if there is a host-centric protocol running
   where the management process can also leverage.

   But, on the other hand, these same inherent ICN characteristics also
   allow us to look into network management through a new perspective.
   By centering its operations around NDOs, one can conceive new
   management operations addressing, for example, per-content management
   or access control, as well as analyzing performance per NDO instead
   of per link or node.  Moreover, such considerations can also be used
   to manage operational aspects of ICN mechanisms themselves.  For
   example, [NDN-MGMT] reutilizes inherent content-centric capabilities
   of CCN to manage optimal link connectivity for nodes, in concert with
   a network optimization process.  Conversely, how these content-
   centric aspects can otherwise influence and impact management in
   other areas (e.g., security and resilience) is also important, as
   exemplified in [CCN-ACCESS], where access control mechanisms are
   integrated into a prototype of the [PURSUIT] architecture.

   The set of core research challenges for ICN management includes:

   o  Management and control of NDO reception at the requestor

   o  Coordination of management information exchange and control
      between ICN nodes and ICN network control points

   o  Identification of management and controlling actions and items
      through information naming

   o  Relationship between NDOs and host entities identification, i.e.,
      how to identify a particular link, interface, or flow that needs
      to be managed

4.9.  ICN Applications

   ICN can be applied to different application domains and is expected
   to provide benefits for application developers by providing a more
   suitable interface for application developers (in addition to the

Top      Up      ToC       Page 30 
   other ICN benefits described above).  [RFC7476] provides an overview
   of relevant application domains at large.  This section discusses
   opportunities and challenges for selected application types.

4.9.1.  Web Applications

   Intuitively, the ICN request/response communication style seems to be
   directly mappable to web communication over HTTP.  NDO names could be
   the equivalent of URIs in today's web, proprietary and transparent
   caching could be obsoleted by ICN in-network caching, and developers
   could directly use an ICN request/response API to build applications.

   Research efforts such as [ICN2014-WEB-NDN] have analyzed real-world
   web applications and ways to implement them in ICN.  The most
   significant insight is that REST-style (Representational State
   Transfer) web communication relies heavily on transmitting user/
   application context information in HTTP GET requests, which would
   have to be mapped to corresponding ICN messages.  The challenge in
   ICN would be how to exactly achieve that mapping.  This could be done
   to some degree by extending name formats or by extending message
   structure to include cookies and similar context information.  The
   design decisions would need to consider overhead in routers (for
   example, if larger GET/Interest messages would have to be stored in
   corresponding tables on routers).

   Other challenges include the ability to return different results
   based on requestor-specific processing in the presence of immutable
   objects (and name-object bindings) in ICN and the ability for
   efficient bidirectional communication, which would require some
   mechanism to name and reach requestor applications.

4.9.2.  Video Streaming and Download

   One of ICN's prime application areas is video streaming and download
   where accessing named data, object-level security, and in-network
   storage can fulfill requirements for both video streaming and
   download.  The applicability and benefits of ICN to video has been
   demonstrated by several prototype developments
   [ICN2014-AHLGREN-VIDEO-DEMO].

   [VIDEO-STREAMING] discusses the opportunities and challenges of
   implementing today's video services such as DASH-based (Dynamic
   Adaptive Streaming over HTTP) streaming and download over ICN,
   considering performance requirements, relationship to peer-to-peer
   live streaming, IPTV, and Digital Rights Management (DRM).

Top      Up      ToC       Page 31 
   In addition to just porting today's video application from a host-
   centric paradigm to ICN, there are also promising opportunities to
   leverage the ICN network services for redesigning and thus
   significantly enhancing video access and distribution
   [ICNRG-2015-01-WESTPHAL].  For example, ICN store and forward could
   be leveraged for rate adaptation to achieve maximum throughput and
   optimal Quality of Experience (QoE) in scenarios with varying link
   properties, if capacity information is fed back to rate selection
   algorithms at senders.  Other optimizations such as more aggressive
   prefetching could be performed in the network by leveraging
   visibility of chunk NDO names and NDO metadata in the network.
   Moreover, multi-source rate adaptation in combination with network
   coding could enable better QoE, for example, in multi-interface/
   access scenarios where multiple paths from client to upstream caches
   exist [RFC7476].

4.9.3.  Internet of Things

   The essence of ICN lies in the name-based routing that enables users
   to retrieve NDOs by the names regardless of their locations.  By
   definition, ICN is well suited for IoT applications, where users
   consume data generated from IoTs without maintaining secure
   connections to them.  The basic request/response style APIs of ICN
   enable developers to build IoT applications in a simple and fast
   manner.

   Ongoing efforts such as [ICN-FOR-IOT], [ICN-ARCH], and
   [ICN2014-NDNWILD] have addressed the requirements and challenges of
   ICN for IoT.  For instance, many IoT applications depend on a PUSH
   model where data transmission is initiated by the publisher, so they
   can support various real-time applications (emergency alarm, etc.).
   However, ICN does not support the PUSH model in a native manner due
   to its inherent receiver-driven data transmission mechanism.  The
   challenge would be how to efficiently support the PUSH model in ICN,
   so it provides publish/subscribe-style APIs for IoT application
   developers.  This could be done by introducing other types of
   identifiers such as a device identifier or by extending the current
   request/response communication style, which may result in heavy
   overhead in ICN routers.

   Moreover, key characteristics of the ICN underlying operation also
   impact important aspects of IoT, such as the caching in content
   storage of network forwarding entities.  This allows the
   simplification of ICN-based IoT application development.  Since the
   network is able to act on named content, generic names provide a way
   to address content independently of the underlying device (and
   access) technology, and bandwidth consumption is optimized due to the
   availability of cached content.  However, these aspects raise

Top      Up      ToC       Page 32 
   challenges themselves concerning the freshness of the information
   received from the cache in contrast to the last value generated by a
   sensor, as well as pushing content to specific nodes (e.g., for
   controlling them), which requires individual addressing for
   identification.  In addition, due to the heterogeneous nature of IoT
   nodes, their processing capabilities might not be able to handle the
   necessary content signing verification procedures.

5.  Security Considerations

   This document does not impact the security of the Internet.  Security
   questions related to ICN are discussed in Section 4.2.

6.  Informative References

   [ACCESS-CTL-DEL]
              Fotiou, N., Marias, G., and G. Polyzos, "Access control
              enforcement delegation for information-centric networking
              architectures", Proceedings of the second edition of the
              ICN workshop on Information-centric networking (ICN
              '12) Helsinki, Finland, DOI 10.1145/2342488.2342507, 2012.

   [BACKSCATTER]
              Waehlisch, M., Schmidt, TC., and M. Vahlenkamp,
              "Backscatter from the Data Plane - Threats to Stability
              and Security in Information-Centric Network
              Infrastructure", Computer Networks Vol 57, No. 16, pp.
              3192-3206, DOI 10.1016/j.comnet.2013.07.009, November
              2013.

   [BREADCRUMBS]
              Rosensweig, E. and J. Kurose, "Breadcrumbs: Efficient,
              Best-Effort Content Location in Cache Networks",
              In Proceedings of the IEEE INFOCOM 2009,
              DOI 10.1109/INFCOM.2009.5062201, April 2009.

   [CCN]      Jacobson, V., Smetters, D., Thornton, J., Plass, M.,
              Briggs, N., and R. Braynard, "Networking Named Content",
              CoNEXT 2009, DOI 10.1145/1658939.1658941, December 2009.

   [CCN-ACCESS]
              Fotiou, N., Marias, G., and G. Polyzos, "Access control
              enforcement delegation for information-centric networking
              architectures", In Proceedings of the second edition of
              the ICN workshop on Information-centric networking (ICN
              '12), ACM, New York, NY, USA, 85-90,
              DOI 10.1145/2342488.2342507, 2012.

Top      Up      ToC       Page 33 
   [CHAUM]    Chaum, D. and E. van Heijst, "Group signatures",
              In Proceedings of EUROCRYPT, DOI 10.1007/3-540-46416-6_22,
              1991.

   [COMPACT]  Cowen, L., "Compact routing with minimum stretch",
              In Journal of Algorithms, vol. 38, pp. 170-183,
              DOI 10.1006/jagm.2000.1134, 2001.

   [CONTUG]   Arianfar, S., Nikander, P., Eggert, L., Ott, J., and W.
              Wong, "ConTug: A Receiver-Driven Transport Protocol for
              Content-Centric Networks", Technical Report Aalto
              University Comnet, 2011.

   [DONA]     Koponen, T., Ermolinskiy, A., Chawla, M., Kim, K., gon
              Chun, B., and S. Shenker, "A Data-Oriented (and Beyond)
              Network Architecture", In Proceedings of SIGCOMM 2007,
              DOI 10.1145/1282427.1282402, August 2007.

   [ENCRYPTION-AC]
              Kurihara, J., Uzun, E., and C. Wood, "An Encryption-Based
              Access Control Framework for Content-Centric Networking",
              IFIP Networking 2015, Toulouse, France,
              DOI 10.1109/IFIPNetworking.2015.7145300, September 2015.

   [FRESHNESS]
              Quevedo, J., Corujo, D., and R. Aguiar, "Consumer Driven
              Information Freshness Approach for Content Centric
              Networking", IEEE INFOCOM Workshop on Name-Oriented
              Mobility Toronto, Canada,
              DOI 10.1109/INFCOMW.2014.6849279, May 2014.

   [GREEDY]   Papadopoulos, F., Krioukov, D., Boguna, M., and A. Vahdat,
              "Greedy forwarding in dynamic scale-free networks embedded
              in hyperbolic metric spaces", In Proceedings of the IEEE
              INFOCOM, San Diego, USA, DOI 10.1109/INFCOM.2010.5462131,
              2010.

   [HRICP]    Carofiglio, G., Gallo, M., and L. Muscariello, "Joint hop-
              by-hop and receiver-driven interest control protocol for
              content-centric networks", In Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM
              ICN 2012, DOI 10.1145/2342488.2342497, 2012.

   [ICN-ARCH] Zhang, Y., Raychadhuri, D., Grieco, L., Baccelli, E.,
              Burke, J., Ravindran, R., Ed., and G. Wang, "ICN based
              Architecture for IoT - Requirements and Challenges", Work
              in Progress, draft-zhang-iot-icn-challenges-02, August
              2015.

Top      Up      ToC       Page 34 
   [ICN-FOR-IOT]
              Lindgren, A., Ben Abdesslem, F., Ahlgren, B., Schelen, O.,
              and A. Malik, "Applicability and Tradeoffs of Information-
              Centric Networking for Efficient IoT", Work in Progress,
              draft-lindgren-icnrg-efficientiot-03, July 2015.

   [ICN2014-AHLGREN-VIDEO-DEMO]
              Ahlgren, B., Jonasson, A., and B. Ohlman, "Demo Overview:
              HTTP Live Streaming over NetInf Transport", ACM SIGCOMM
              Information-Centric Networking Conference Paris, France,
              DOI 10.1145/2660129.2660136, September 2014.

   [ICN2014-NDNWILD]
              Baccelli, E., Mehlis, C., Hahm, O., Schmidt, T., and M.
              Waehlisch, "Information Centric Networking in the IoT:
              Experiments with NDN in the Wild", ACM SIGCOMM
              Information-Centric Networking Conference Paris, France,
              DOI 10.1145/2660129.2660144, September 2014.

   [ICN2014-WEB-NDN]
              Moiseenko, I., Stapp, M., and D. Oran, "Communication
              Patterns for Web Interaction in Named Data Networking",
              ACM SIGCOMM Information-Centric Networking
              Conference Paris, France, DOI 10.1145/2660129.2660152,
              September 2014.

   [ICNNAMING]
              Ghodsi, A., Koponen, T., Rajahalme, J., Sarolahti, P., and
              S. Shenker, "Naming in Content-Oriented Architectures",
              In Proceedings ACM SIGCOMM Workshop on Information-Centric
              Networking (ICN), DOI 10.1145/2018584.2018586, 2011.

   [ICNRG-2015-01-WESTPHAL]
              Westphal, C., "Video over ICN", IRTF ICNRG
              Meeting Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, January 2015,
              <http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/interim/2015/01/13/icnrg/
              slides/slides-interim-2015-icnrg-1-0.pptx>.

   [ICNSURVEY]
              Ahlgren, B., Dannewitz, C., Imbrenda, C., Kutscher, D.,
              and B. Ohlman, "A Survey of Information-Centric
              Networking", In Communications Magazine, IEEE, vol. 50,
              no. 7, pp. 26-36, DOI 10.1109/MCOM.2012.6231276, 2012.

Top      Up      ToC       Page 35 
   [ISOIEC-7498-4]
              ISO, "Information Processing Systems -- Open Systems
              Interconnection -- Basic Reference Model -- Part 4:
              Management Framework", November 1989,
              <http://standards.iso.org/ittf/PubliclyAvailableStandards/
              s014258_ISO_IEC_7498-4_1989(E).zip>.

   [MANI]     Pentikousis, K. and T. Rautio, "A multiaccess Network of
              Information", WoWMoM 2010 IEEE,
              DOI 10.1109/WOWMOM.2010.5534922, June 2010.

   [MDHT]     D'Ambrosio, M., Dannewitz, C., Karl, H., and V.
              Vercellone, "MDHT: A hierarchical name resolution service
              for information-centric networks", ACM SIGCOMM workshop on
              Information-centric networking Toronto, Canada,
              DOI 10.1145/2018584.2018587, August 2011.

   [MMIN]     Pentikousis, K. and P. Bertin, "Mobility management in
              infrastructure networks", Internet Computing, IEEE vol.
              17, no. 5, pp. 74-79, DOI 10.1109/MIC.2013.98, October
              2013.

   [NDN-CTL-SHARING]
              Yu, Y., "Controlled Sharing of Sensitive Content", IRTF
              ICNRG Meeting San Francisco, USA, October 2015,
              <https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/interim/2015/10/03/
              icnrg/slides/slides-interim-2015-icnrg-4-8.pdf>.

   [NDN-MGMT] Corujo, D., Aguiar, R., Vidal, I., and J. Garcia-Reinoso,
              "A named data networking flexible framework for management
              communications", Communications Magazine, IEEE vol. 50,
              no. 12, pp. 36-43, DOI 10.1109/MCOM.2012.6384449, December
              2012.

   [PURSUIT]  Fotiou et al., N., "Developing Information Networking
              Further: From PSIRP to PURSUIT", In Proceedings of Proc.
              BROADNETS. ICST, DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-30376-0_1, 2010.

   [RANDOM]   Gkantsidis, C., Mihail, M., and A. Saberi, "Random walks
              in peer-to-peer networks: algorithms and evaluation",
              In Perform. Eval., vol. 63, pp. 241-263,
              DOI 10.1016/j.peva.2005.01.002, 2006.

   [RESOURCE-POOL]
              Psaras, I., Saino, L., and G. Pavlou, "Revisiting Resource
              Pooling: The case of In-Network Resource Sharing", ACM
              HotNets Los Angeles, USA, DOI 10.1145/2670518.2673875,
              October 2014.

Top      Up      ToC       Page 36 
   [RFC2002]  Perkins, C., Ed., "IP Mobility Support", RFC 2002,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2002, October 1996,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2002>.

   [RFC4838]  Cerf, V., Burleigh, S., Hooke, A., Torgerson, L., Durst,
              R., Scott, K., Fall, K., and H. Weiss, "Delay-Tolerant
              Networking Architecture", RFC 4838, DOI 10.17487/RFC4838,
              April 2007, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4838>.

   [RFC5246]  Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
              (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5246, August 2008,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5246>.

   [RFC5280]  Cooper, D., Santesson, S., Farrell, S., Boeyen, S.,
              Housley, R., and W. Polk, "Internet X.509 Public Key
              Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List
              (CRL) Profile", RFC 5280, DOI 10.17487/RFC5280, May 2008,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5280>.

   [RFC5944]  Perkins, C., Ed., "IP Mobility Support for IPv4, Revised",
              RFC 5944, DOI 10.17487/RFC5944, November 2010,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5944>.

   [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,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6920>.

   [RFC7476]  Pentikousis, K., Ed., Ohlman, B., Corujo, D., Boggia, G.,
              Tyson, G., Davies, E., Molinaro, A., and S. Eum,
              "Information-Centric Networking: Baseline Scenarios",
              RFC 7476, DOI 10.17487/RFC7476, March 2015,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7476>.

   [RFC7696]  Housley, R., "Guidelines for Cryptographic Algorithm
              Agility and Selecting Mandatory-to-Implement Algorithms",
              BCP 201, RFC 7696, DOI 10.17487/RFC7696, November 2015,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7696>.

   [SEEN]     Pentikousis, K., "In search of energy-efficient mobile
              networking", Communications Magazine, IEEE vol. 48 no. 1,
              pp. 95-103, DOI 10.1109/MCOM.2010.5394036, January 2010.

Top      Up      ToC       Page 37 
   [VIDEO-STREAMING]
              Westphal, C., Ed., Lederer, S., Posch, D., Timmerer, C.,
              Azgin, A., Liu, S., Mueller, C., Detti, A., Corujo, D.,
              Wang, J., Montpetit, M., Murray, N., Azgin, A., and S.
              Liu, "Adaptive Video Streaming over ICN", Work in
              Progress, draft-irtf-icnrg-videostreaming-08, April 2016.

Acknowledgments

   The authors would like to thank Georgios Karagiannis for providing
   suggestions on QoS research challenges, Dimitri Papadimitriou for
   feedback on the routing section, and Joerg Ott and Stephen Farrell
   for reviewing the whole document.

Authors' Addresses

   Dirk Kutscher (editor)
   NEC
   Kurfuersten-Anlage 36
   Heidelberg
   Germany

   Email: kutscher@neclab.eu


   Suyong Eum
   Osaka University, School of Information Science and Technology
   1-5 Yamadaoka, Suita
   Osaka  565-0871
   Japan

   Phone: +81-6-6879-4571
   Email: suyong@ist.osaka-u.ac.jp


   Kostas Pentikousis
   Travelping
   Koernerstr. 7-10
   Berlin  10785
   Germany

   Email: k.pentikousis@travelping.com

Top      Up      ToC       Page 38 
   Ioannis Psaras
   University College London, Dept. of E.E.  Eng.
   Torrington Place
   London  WC1E 7JE
   United Kingdom

   Email: i.psaras@ucl.ac.uk


   Daniel Corujo
   Universidade de Aveiro
   Instituto de Telecomunicacoes, Campus Universitario de Santiago
   Aveiro  P-3810-193
   Portugal

   Email: dcorujo@av.it.pt


   Damien Saucez
   INRIA
   2004 route des Lucioles - BP 93
   Sophia Antipolis  06902 Cedex
   France

   Email: damien.saucez@inria.fr


   Thomas C. Schmidt
   HAW Hamburg
   Berliner Tor 7
   Hamburg  20099
   Germany

   Email: t.schmidt@haw-hamburg.de


   Matthias Waehlisch
   FU Berlin
   Takustr. 9
   Berlin  14195
   Germany

   Email: waehlisch@ieee.org