ICNRG K. Pentikousis, Ed. Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies Intended Status: Informational B. Ohlman Expires: August 4, 2013 Ericsson D. Corujo Universidade de Aveiro G. Boggia Politecnico di Bari January 31, 2013 ICN Baseline Scenarios draft-pentikousis-icn-scenarios-01 Abstract This document presents scenarios for information-centric networking (ICN) which can be used to establish a common understanding about potential experimental setups where different approaches can be tested and compared against each other. All scenarios included in this document are based on published literature. That is, they have all been considered in one or more performance evaluation studies, which are already available to the community. The scenarios selected aim to exercise a variety of aspects that an ICN solution can address. They include a) general aspects, such as, network efficiency, mobility support, multicast and caching performance, real-time communication efficacy, disruption and delay tolerance; and b) ICN-specific aspects, such as, information security and trust, persistence, availability, provenance, and location independence. Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. 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." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at Pentikousis & Ohlman Expires August 4, 2013 [Page 1] INTERNET DRAFT ICN Baseline Scenarios January 31, 2013 http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html Copyright and License Notice Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Table of Contents 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 ICN Baseline Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.1 Social Networking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.2 Real-time A/V Communications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.3 Mobile Networking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.4 Infrastructure Sharing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.5 Content Dissemination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2.6 Energy Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2.7 Delay and Disruption Tolerance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2.8 Internet of Things . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2.9 Smart City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3 Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4 IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5 Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 6 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 1 Introduction Information-centric networking (ICN) marks a fundamental shift in communications and networking. In contrast with the omnipresent and very successful host-centric paradigm, which is based on perpetual connectivity and the end-to-end principle, ICN changes the focal point of the network architecture from the "end host" to Pentikousis & Ohlman Expires August 4, 2013 [Page 2] INTERNET DRAFT ICN Baseline Scenarios January 31, 2013 "information" (or content, or data). In this paradigm, connectivity can be intermittent in general; end-host and in-network storage can be capitalized upon transparently, as bits in the network and on storage devices have exactly the same value. Mobility and multiaccess are the norm. Any-, multi-, and broadcasting are supported by default, and energy efficiency is a design consideration from the beginning. Although interest in ICN is growing rapidly, ongoing work on different architectures, such as, for example, NetInf [NetInf], CCN and NDN [CCN], the publish-subscribe Internet (PSI) architecture [PSI], and the data-oriented architecture [DONA] is far from being completed. The development phase that ICN is going through and the plethora of approaches to tackle the hardest problems make this a very active and appealing research area but, on the downside, it also makes it more difficult to compare different proposals on an equal ground. Ahlgren et al. note [SoA] that describing ICN architectures is akin to shooting a moving target. We find that comparing these different approaches is often even more tricky. It is not uncommon that different researchers select different performance evaluation scenarios, typically with good reasons, in order to highlight the advantages of their approach. This should be expected to some degree at an early stage. Nevertheless, we argue that certain scenarios seem to emerge where ICN architectures could showcase their superiority over current systems, in general, and against each other, in particular. This document collects several scenarios from the published ICN literature and aims to use them as foundation for the baseline scenarios to be considered by the IRTF Information-Centric Networking Research Group (ICNRG) in its future work. The list of scenarios can obviously change, as input from the research group is received. For example, this revision includes scenarios stemming from the "Internet of Things" and "Smart City" research areas. 2 ICN Baseline Scenarios This section presents a number of scenarios grouped into several categories. Note that certain evaluation scenarios span across these categories, so the boundaries between them should not be considered rigid and inflexible. The goal is that each scenario should be described at a sufficient level of detail so that it can serve as the base for comparative evaluations of different approaches. This will need to include reference configurations, topologies, specifications of traffic mixes and traffic loads. These specifications (or Pentikousis & Ohlman Expires August 4, 2013 [Page 3] INTERNET DRAFT ICN Baseline Scenarios January 31, 2013 configurations) should preferably come as sets that describe extremes as well as "typical" usage scenarios. 2.1 Social Networking Social networking applications proliferated over the past decade based on overlay content dissemination systems that require large infrastructure investments to rollout and maintain. Content dissemination is at the heart of the ICN paradigm and, therefore, we would expect that they are a "natural fit" for showcasing the superiority of ICN over traditional client-server TCP/IP-based systems. Mathieu et al. [ICN-SN], for instance, illustrate how an Internet Service Provider (ISP) can capitalize on CCN to deploy a short- message service akin to Twitter at a fraction of the complexity of today's systems. Their key observation is that such a service can be seen as a combination of multicast delivery and caching. That is, a single user addresses a large number of recipients, some of which receive the new message immediately as they are online at that instant, while others receive the message whenever they connect to the network. Along similar lines, Kim et al. [VPC] present an ICN-based social networking platform in which a user shares content with her/his family and friends without the need for centralized content server; see also section 2.4, below, and [CBIS]. Based on the CCN naming scheme, [VPC] takes a user name to represent a set of devices that belong to the person. Other users in this in-network, serverless social sharing scenario can access the user's content not via a device name/address but with the user's name. In [VPC], signature verification does not require any centralized authentication server. Kim and Lee [VPC2] present a proof-of-concept evaluation in which users with ordinary smartphones can browse a list of members or content using a name, and download the content selected from the list. In short, in both evaluations there is no need for a classic client- server architecture (let alone a cloud-based infrastructure) to intermediate between content providers and consumers in a hub-and- spoke fashion. Earlier work by Arianfar et al. [CCR] considers a similar pull-based content retrieval scenario using a different architecture, pointing to significant performance advantages. Although the authors consider a network topology (redrawn in Fig. 1 for convenience) that has certain interesting characteristics, they do not explicitly address Pentikousis & Ohlman Expires August 4, 2013 [Page 4] INTERNET DRAFT ICN Baseline Scenarios January 31, 2013 social networking in their evaluation scenario. Nonetheless, similarities are easy to spot: "followers" (such as C0, C1, ..., and Cz in Fig. 1) obtain content put "on the network" (I1, ..., Im, and B1, B2) by a single user (e.g. Px) relying solely on network primitives. \--/ |C0| /--\ +--+ +--+ +--+ +--+ *=== |I0| === |I1| ... |In| |P0| \--/ +--+ +--+ +--+ +--+ |C1| \ / o /--\ +--+ +--+ o o |B1| === |B2| o o o o o o +--+ +--+ o o / \ o o +--+ +--+ +--+ +--+ o *=== |Ik| === |Il| ... |Im| |Px| \--/ +--+ +--+ +--+ +--+ |Cz| /--\ Figure 1. Dumbbell with linear daisy chains The social networking scenario aims to exercise each ICN architecture in terms of network efficiency, multicast support, caching performance and its reliance on centralized mechanisms (or lack thereof). 2.2 Real-time A/V Communications Real-time audio and video (A/V) communications include an array of services ranging from one-to-one voice calls to multi-party multi- media conferences with video and whiteboard support to augmented reality. Real-time communications have been studied and deployed in the context of packet- and circuit-switched networks for decades. The stringent quality of service requirements that this type of communication imposes on network infrastructure is well-known. Some could argue that network primitives which are excellent for information dissemination are not well-suited for conversational services. Notably, Jacobson et al. [VoCCN] presented an early evaluation where the performance of a VoIP call over an information-centric approach was compared with that of an off-the-shelf VoIP implementation using RTP/UTP. The results indicated that despite the extra cost of adding Pentikousis & Ohlman Expires August 4, 2013 [Page 5] INTERNET DRAFT ICN Baseline Scenarios January 31, 2013 security support in the former case, performance was virtually identical in the two cases evaluated in a testbed. However, the experimental setup was quite rudimentary and the evaluation considered a single voice call only. This scenario does illustrate that VoIP is feasible with at least one ICN approach, but it would need to be further enhanced to include more comprehensive metrics as well as standardized call arrival patterns, for example, following well-established methodologies from the quality of service/experience (QoS/QoE) evaluation toolbox. Given the wide-spread deployment of real-time A/V communications, an ICN approach should demonstrate more than feasibility. For example, with respect to multimedia conferencing, Zhu et al. [ACT] describe the design of a distributed audio conference tool based on NDN. The design includes ICN-based conference discovery, speakers discovery and voice data distribution. The reported evaluation results point to gains in scalability and security. Moreover, Chen et al. [G- COPSS] explore the feasibility of implementing a Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game (MMORPG) based on CCNx and show that stringent temporal requirements can be met while scalability is significantly improved when compared to an IP client-server system. This type of work points to benefits both in the data path and the control path of a modern network infrastructure. All in all, however, the ICN research community has hitherto only scratched the surface of this area with respect to illustrating the benefits of adopting an information-centric approach as opposed to a host-centric one. Arguably, more work is needed in this direction. In short, scenarios in this category should illustrate not only feasibility but reduced complexity, increased scalability, reliability, and capacity to meet stringent QoS/QoE requirements when compared to established host-centric solutions. 2.3 Mobile Networking IP mobility management relies on mobility anchors to provide ubiquitous connectivity to end-hosts as well as moving networks. This is a natural choice for a host-centric paradigm that requires end-to-end connectivity and continuous network presence [SCES]. An implicit assumption in host-centric mobility management frameworks is that the mobile node aims at connecting to a particular peer, not at retrieving information [EEMN]. However, with ICN new ideas about mobility management should come to the forefront, which capitalize on the different nature of the paradigm. For example, Dannewitz et al. [N-Scen], consider a scenario where a Pentikousis & Ohlman Expires August 4, 2013 [Page 6] INTERNET DRAFT ICN Baseline Scenarios January 31, 2013 multiaccess end-host can retrieve email securely using a combination of cellular and wireless local area network connectivity. This scenario borrows elements from previous work, e.g. [DTI], and develops them further with respect to multiaccess. Unfortunately, Dannewitz et al. [N-Scen] do not present any results demonstrating that an ICN approach is indeed better. That said, the scenario is interesting as it considers content specific to a single user (i.e. her mailbox) and does point to reduced complexity. It is also compatible with recent work in the Distributed Mobility Management (DMM) Working Group within the IETF. Finally, Xylomenos et al. [PSIMob] as well as [EEMN] argue that an information-centric architecture can avoid the complexity of having to manage tunnels to maintain end-to-end connectivity as is the case with mobile anchor- based protocols such as Mobile IP (and its variants). Overall, mobile networking scenarios have not been developed in detail, let alone evaluated in a wide scale. We expect that in the coming period more papers will address this topic, each perhaps proposing its own evaluation scenario. Earlier work [mNetInf] argues that for mobile and multiaccess networking scenarios we need go beyond the current mobility management mechanisms in order to capitalize on the core ICN features. They present a testbed setup (redrawn in Fig. 2) which can serve as the basis for other ICN evaluations. Lindgren [HybICN] explores this scenario further using simulation for an urban setting and reports sizable gains in terms of reduction of object retrieval times and core network capacity use. +-----------+ +-----------+ | Network 0 | | Network C | | | | | | +--+ | ==== | +--+ | | |I2| | | |P1| | | +--+ | | +--+ | | \--/ | | | +-----|C0|--+ | | | /--\ | | | | +--+ | | | | |I3| | | +--+ | | +--+ | ==== | |P2| | | | | +--+ | | Network 1 | | | +-----------+ +-----------+ Figure 2. Overlapping wireless multiaccess One would expect that mobile networking scenarios will be naturally coupled with those discussed in the previous sections, as more users Pentikousis & Ohlman Expires August 4, 2013 [Page 7] INTERNET DRAFT ICN Baseline Scenarios January 31, 2013 access social networking and A/V applications through mobile devices. Mobile networking scenarios should aim to exercise service continuity for those applications that require it, decrease complexity and control signaling for the network infrastructure, as well as increase wireless capacity utilization by taking advantage of the broadcast nature of the medium. 2.4 Infrastructure Sharing A key idea in ICN is that the network should secure information objects per se, not the communications channel that they are delivered over. This means that hosts attached to an information- centric network can share resources in an unprecedented scale, especially when compared to what is possible in an IP network. All devices with network access and storage capacity can contribute their resources increasing the value of an information-centric network (perhaps) much faster than Metcalfe's law. For example, Jacobson et al. [CBIS] argue that in ICN the "where and how" to obtain information are new degrees of freedom. They illustrate this with a scenario involving a photo sharing application which takes advantage of whichever access network connectivity is available at the moment (WLAN, Bluetooth, and even SMS) without requiring a centralized infrastructure to synchronize between numerous devices. It is important to highlight that since the focus of the communication changes, keep-alives in this scenario are simply unnecessary, as devices participating in the testbed network contribute resources in order to maintain user content consistency, not link state information as is the case in the host-centric paradigm. This means that the notion of "infrastructure" may be completely different in the future. Carofiglio et al., for instance, present early work on an analytical framework that attempts to capture the storage/bandwidth tradeoff and can be used as a basis for a network planning tool [SHARE]. In addition, Chai et al. [CL4M] explore the benefits of ubiquitous caching throughout an information-centric network and argue that "caching less can actually achieve more." These two papers indicate that there is a lot of work to be done in the area of how to use optimally all resources available to an information-centric network. Scenarios in this category, therefore, would cover the communication/computation/storage tradeoffs that an ICN deployment must consider, including network planning, perhaps capitalizing on user-provided resources, as well as operational and economical aspects to illustrate the superiority of ICN over other approaches, Pentikousis & Ohlman Expires August 4, 2013 [Page 8] INTERNET DRAFT ICN Baseline Scenarios January 31, 2013 including federations of IP-based Content Distribution Networks (CDNs). 2.5 Content Dissemination Content dissemination has attracted more attention than other aspects of ICN, perhaps due to a misunderstanding of what the first "C" in CCN stands for. Decentralized content dissemination with on-the-fly aggregation of information sources was envisaged in [N-Scen] where information objects can be dynamically assembled based on hierarchically structured subcomponents. For example, a video stream could be associated with different audio streams and subtitle sets, which can all be obtained from different sources. Using the topology depicted in Fig. 1 as an example, an application at C1 may end up obtaining, say, the video content from I1, but the user-selected subtitles from Px. Semantics and content negotiation, on behalf of the user, were also considered, e.g. for the case of popular tunes which may be available in different encoding formats. Effectively this scenario has the information consumer issuing independent requests for content based on information identifiers, and stitching the pieces together irrespective of "where" or "how" they were obtained. Content dissemination scenarios have a large overlap with the scenarios described above and are explored in several papers, such as [DONA][PSI][PSIMob][NetInf][CCN][CBIS][CCR], just to name a few. In addition, Chai et al. present a hop-by-hop hierarchical content resolution approach [CURLING], which employs receiver-driven multicast over multiple domains, advocating another content dissemination approach. Scenarios in this category abound in the literature, including stored and streaming A/V distribution, file distribution, mirroring and bulk transfers, SVN-type of services, as well as traffic aggregation. We expect that in particular for content dissemination both extreme as well as typical scenarios can be specified drawing data from current CDN deployments. 2.6 Energy Efficiency As mentioned earlier, energy efficiency can be tackled by ICN in ways that it cannot in a host-centric paradigm. For example, the work by Guan et al. [EECCN] indicates that CCN may be much more energy- efficient than traditional CDNs for delivering popular content given the current networking equipment energy consumption levels. Pentikousis & Ohlman Expires August 4, 2013 [Page 9] INTERNET DRAFT ICN Baseline Scenarios January 31, 2013 Evaluating energy efficiency does not require the definition of new scenarios, but does require the establishment of clear guidelines so that different ICN approaches can be compared not only in terms of scalability, for example, but also in terms to power consumption. 2.7 Delay and Disruption Tolerance Delay Tolerant Networking (DTN) [DTN] was originally designed for special use cases, such as interstellar networking, use of data mules, and so on. With the advent of sensor networks and peer-to- peer (P2P) networking between mobile nodes, DTN is becoming a more commonplace type of networking. ICN does not build on the familiar communication abstraction of end-to-end connectivity between a set of nodes. This makes it possible to include DTN support in ICN natively. Thus, it is of interest to evaluate different ICN approaches with respect to their delay and disruption tolerance. Important aspects to be evaluated in this respect include, but are not limited to, name resolution, routing and forwarding in disconnected parts of the network; support for unidirectional links; number of round trips needed to complete a data transfer, and so on. 2.8 Internet of Things Advances in electronics miniaturization combined with low-power wireless access technologies (e.g., ZigBee, NFC, Bluetooth and others) have enabled the coupling of interconnected digital services with everyday objects. As devices with sensors and actuators connect into the network, they become "smart objects" and form the foundation for the so-called Internet of Things (IoT). IoT is expected to increase significantly the amount of content carried by the network due to machine-to-machine communication as well as novel user interaction possibilities. Yet, the full potential of IoT does not lie on simple remote access to smart object data. Instead, it is the intersection of Internet services with the physical world that will bring about the most dramatic changes. Burke [IoTEx], for instance, makes a very good case for creating everyday experiences using interconnected things through participatory sensing applications. In this case, inherent ICN capabilities for data discovery, caching, and trusted communication are leveraged to obtain sensor information and enable content interexchange between mobile users, repositories, and applications. Pentikousis & Ohlman Expires August 4, 2013 [Page 10] INTERNET DRAFT ICN Baseline Scenarios January 31, 2013 Kutscher and Farrell [IWMT] discuss the benefits that ICN can provide in these environments, in terms of naming, caching and optimized transport. The Named Identifier scheme (ni) [NI] could be used for globally unique smart object identification, although an actual implementation report is not currently available. Access to information generated by smart objects can be of varied nature and often vital for the correct operation of large systems. As such, supporting timestamping, security, scalability, and flexibility need to be taken into account. Ghodsi et al. [NCOA] examine hierarchical and self-certifying naming schemes and point out that ensuring reliable and secure content naming and retrieval may pose stringent requirements (e.g., necessity for employing PKI), which can be too demanding for low-powered nodes, such as sensors. That said, earlier work by Heidemann et al. [nWSN] shows that for dense sensor network deployments, disassociating sensor naming from network topology and using named content at the lowest level of communication in combination with in-network processing of sensor data is feasible in practice and can be more efficient than employing a host-centric binding between node locator and the content existing therein. J. Burke et al. [NDNl] describe the implementation of a lighting control building automation system where the security, naming and device discovery NDN mechanisms are leveraged to provide configuration, installation and management of residential and industrial lighting control systems. The goal is an inherently resilient system, where even smartphones can be used for control. Naming reflects fixtures with evolved identification and node reaching capabilities thus simplifying bootstrapping, discovery, and user interaction with nodes. The authors report that this ICN-based system requires less maintenance and troubleshooting than typical IP- based alternatives. IoT exposes ICN concepts to a stringent set of requirements which are exacerbated by the amount of nodes, as well as by the type and volume of information that must be handled. A way to address this is [IoTScope], which tackles the problem of mapping named information to an object, diverting from typical centralized discovery services and leveraging the intrinsic ICN scalability capabilities for naming. It extends the base [PURSUIT] design with hierarchically-based scopes, facilitating lookup, access and modifications of only the part of the object information that the user is interested in. Another important aspect is how to efficiently address resolution and location of the information objects, particularly when large numbers of nodes are connected, as in IoT deployments. In [ICN-DHT], Katsaros et al. propose a Distributed Hash Table (DHT) which is compared with DONA [DONA]. Their results show how topological routing information has a Pentikousis & Ohlman Expires August 4, 2013 [Page 11] INTERNET DRAFT ICN Baseline Scenarios January 31, 2013 positive resolution impact, at the expense of memory and processing overhead. ICN approaches, therefore, should be evaluated with respect to their capacity to handle the content produced and consumed by extremely large numbers of diverse devices. IoT scenarios aim to exercise ICN deployment from different aspects, including ICN node design requirements, scalability, efficient naming, transport, and caching of time-restricted data. 2.9 Smart City The rapid increase in urbanization sets the stage for the most compelling and challenging environments for networking. By 2050 the global population will reach nine billion people, 75% of which will dwell in urban areas. In order to cope with this influx, many cities around the world started their transformation toward the Smart City vision. Smart cities will be based on the following innovation axes: smart mobility, smart environment, smart people, smart living, and smart governance. In development terms, the core goal of a smart city is to become a business-competitive and attractive environment, while serving citizen well being [CPG]. In a smart city, ICT plays a leading role and acts as the glue bringing together all actors, services, resources (and their interrelationships), that the urban environment is willing to host and provide [MVM]. ICN appears particularly suitable for these scenarios. Domains of interest include intelligent transportation systems, healthcare, A/V communications, peer-to-peer and collaborative platforms for citizens, social inclusion, active participation in public life, e-government, safety and security, sensor networks, and IoT. Nevertheless, the road to build a real information-centric digital ecosystem will be long and more coordinated effort is required to drive innovation in this domain. We argue that smart city needs and ICN technologies can trigger a virtuous innovation cycle toward future ICT platforms. Recent concrete ICN-based contributions have been formulated for home energy management [iHEMS], geo-localized services [ACC], smart city services [IB], and traffic information dissemination in vehicular scenarios [WAK]. Some of the proposed ICN-based solutions are implemented in real test-beds while others are evaluated through simulation. Zhang et al. [iHEMS] propose a secure publish-subscribe architecture for handling the communication requirements of Home Energy Management Systems (HEMS). The objective is to safely and effectively collect Pentikousis & Ohlman Expires August 4, 2013 [Page 12] INTERNET DRAFT ICN Baseline Scenarios January 31, 2013 measurement and status information from household elements, aggregate and analyze the data, and ultimately enable intelligent control decisions for actuation. They consider a simple experimental test- bed for their proof-of-concept evaluation, exploiting open source code for the ICN implementation, and emulating some node functionality in order to facilitate system operation. A different scenario is considered in [ACC], where Distributed Hash Tables (DHT) are proposed as a means for distributed, scalable, and geographically-aware service lookup in a smart city. Also in this case, the ICN application is validated by considering a small scale test-bed: a small number of nodes are realized with simple embedded PCs or specific hardware boards (e.g., for some sensor nodes); other nodes realizing the network connecting the principal actors of the tests are emulated with workstations. The proposal in [IB] draws from a smart city scenario (mainly oriented towards waste collection management) composed by sensors and moving vehicles, as well as a cloud computing system that supports data retrieval and storage operations. The main aspects of the proposal are analyzed by considering a simulated scenario using open source code which is publicly available. Some software applications are designed on real systems (e.g., PCs and smartphones). Finally, Wang et al. [WAK] discuss the adoption of named data networking in vehicular (V2V) communication systems. They validate their work using simulation based on a freely available network simulator but consider rather simple traffic patterns. Smart city scenarios aim to exercise several ICN aspects in an urban environment. In particular, they can be useful to (i) analyze the capacity of using ICN for managing extremely large data sets; (ii) study ICN performance in terms of scalability in distributed services; (iii) verify the feasibility of ICN in a very complex application like vehicular communication systems; and (iv) examine the possible drawbacks related to privacy and security issues in complex networked environments. 3 Security Considerations TBD 4 IANA Considerations This document presents no IANA considerations. Pentikousis & Ohlman Expires August 4, 2013 [Page 13] INTERNET DRAFT ICN Baseline Scenarios January 31, 2013 5 Acknowledgments This document has benefited from comments and text provided by the following members of ICNRG: Luigi Alfredo Grieco (Politecnico di Bari); section 2.9. Myeong-Wuk Jang (Samsung); section 2.1. 6 Informative References [NetInf] Ahlgren, B. et al., "Design considerations for a network of information", Proc. CoNEXT Re-Arch Workshop. ACM, 2008. [CCN] Jacobson, V. et al., "Networking Named Content", Proc. CoNEXT. ACM, 2009. [PSI] Trossen, D. and G. Parisis, "Designing and realizing an information-centric internet", IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 50, no. 7, July 2012. [DONA] Koponen, T. et al., "A Data-Oriented (and Beyond) Network Architecture", Proc. SIGCOMM. ACM, 2007. [SoA] Ahlgren, B. et al., "A survey of information-centric networking", IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 50, no. 7, July 2012. [ICN-SN] Mathieu, B. et al., "Information-centric networking: a natural design for social network applications", IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 50, no. 7, July 2012. [VPC] Kim, J. et al., "Content Centric Network-based Virtual Private Community", Proc. ICCE. IEEE, 2011. [VPC2] Kim, D. and J. Lee, "CCN-based virtual private community for extended home media service", IEEE Trans. Consumer Electronics, vol. 57, no. 2, May 2011. [CCR] Arianfar, S. et al., "On content-centric router design and implications", Proc. CoNEXT Re-Arch Workshop. ACM, 2010. [VoCCN] Jacobson, V. et al., "VoCCN: Voice-over Content-Centric Networks", Proc. CoNEXT Re-Arch Workshop. ACM, 2009. [ACT] Zhu, Z. et al., "ACT: Audio Conference Tool Over Named Data Networking", Proc. SIGCOMM ICN Workshop. ACM, 2011. Pentikousis & Ohlman Expires August 4, 2013 [Page 14] INTERNET DRAFT ICN Baseline Scenarios January 31, 2013 [G-COPSS] Chen, J. et al., "G-COPSS: A Content Centric Communication Infrastructure for Gaming Applications", Proc. ICDCS. IEEE, 2012. [SCES] Allman, M. et al., "Enabling an Energy-Efficient Future Internet through Selectively Connected End Systems", Proc. HotNets-VI. ACM, 2007. [EEMN] Pentikousis, K., "In Search of Energy-Efficient Mobile Networking", IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2010. [N-Scen] Dannewitz, C. et al., "Scenarios and research issues for a Network of Information", Proc. MobiMedia. ICST, 2012. [DTI] Ott, J. and D. Kutscher, "Drive-thru Internet: IEEE 802.11b for 'automobile' users", Proc. INFOCOM. IEEE, 2004. [PSIMob] Xylomenos, G. et al., "Caching and Mobility Support in a Publish-Subscribe Internet Architecture", IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 50, no. 7, July 2012. [mNetInf] Pentikousis, K. and T. Rautio, "A Multiaccess Network of Information", Proc. WoWMoM. IEEE, 2010. [HybICN] Lindgren, A., "Efficient content distribution in an information-centric hybrid mobile networks", Proc. CCNC. IEEE, 2011. [CBIS] Jacobson, V. et al., "Custodian-Based Information Sharing", IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 50, no. 7, July 2012. [SHARE] Carofiglio, G. et al., "Bandwidth and storage sharing performance in information centric networking", Proc. SIGCOMM ICN Workshop. ACM, 2011. [CL4M] Chai, W. K. et al., "Cache 'Less for More' in Information- centric Networks", Proc. Networking. IFIP, 2012. [CURLING] Chai, W. K. et al., "CURLING: Content-Ubiquitous Resolution and Delivery Infrastructure for Next-Generation Services", IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 49, no. 3, Mar. 2011. [EECCN] Guan, K. et al., "On the Energy Efficiency of Content Delivery Architectures ", Proc. ICC Workshops. IEEE, 2011. [DTN] Fall, K., "A delay-tolerant network architecture for Pentikousis & Ohlman Expires August 4, 2013 [Page 15] INTERNET DRAFT ICN Baseline Scenarios January 31, 2013 challenged internets", Proc. SIGCOMM. ACM, 2003. [IoTEx] Burke, J., "Authoring Place-based Experiences with an Internet of Things: Tussles of Expressive, Operational, and Participatory Goals", Proc. Interconnecting Smart Objects with the Internet Workshop. IAB, 2011. [IWMT] Kutscher, D. and S. Farrell, "Towards an Information- Centric Internet with more Things", Proc. Interconnecting Smart Objects with the Internet Workshop. IAB, 2011. [NI] Farrell, S. et al., "Naming Things with Hashes", draft- farrell-decade-ni-10 (work in progress), August 2012. [NCOA] Ghodsi, A. et al., "Naming in Content-oriented Architectures", Proc. SIGCOMM ICN Workshop. ACM, 2011. [nWSN] Heidemann, J. et al., "Building efficient wireless sensor networks with low-level naming", Proc. SOSP. ACM, 2001. [NDNl] Burke, J. et al., "Authenticated Lighting Control Using Named Data Networking", NDN Technical Report NDN-0011, Oct. 2012. [IoTScope] Marias, G.F. et al., "Efficient information lookup for the Internet of Things", Proc. WoWMoM. IEEE, 2012. [PURSUIT] Fotiou, N. et al., "Developing Information Networking Further: From PSIRP to PURSUIT", Proc. BROADNETS. ICST, 2010. [ICN-DHT] Katsaros, K. et al., "On inter-domain name resolution for information-centric networks", Proc. Networking. Springer, 2012. [CPG] Cianci, I. et al., "Content Centric Services in Smart Cities", Proc. NGMAST. IEEE, 2012. [MVM] Hernndez-Muoz, J.M. et al., "Smart cities at the forefront of the future Internet", The Future Internet. Springer, 2011. [iHEMS] Zhang, J. et al., "iHEMS: An Information-Centric Approach to Secure Home Energy Management", Proc. SmartGridComm. IEEE, 2012. [ACC] Andreini, F. et al., "A scalable architecture for geo- localized service access in smart cities", Proc. Future Pentikousis & Ohlman Expires August 4, 2013 [Page 16] INTERNET DRAFT ICN Baseline Scenarios January 31, 2013 Network and Mobile Summit. IEEE, 2011. [IB] Idowu, S. and N. Bari, "A Development Framework for Smart City Services, Integrating Smart City Service Components", Master Thesis. Lulea University of Technology, 2012. [WAK] Wang, L. et al., "Rapid Traffic Information Dissemination Using Named Data", Proc. MobiHoc NoM workshop. ACM, 2012. Authors' Addresses Kostas Pentikousis (editor) Huawei Technologies Carnotstrasse 4 10587 Berlin Germany Email: k.pentikousis@huawei.com Borje Ohlman Ericsson Research S-16480 Stockholm Sweden Email: Borje.Ohlman@ericsson.com Daniel Corujo Instituto de Telecomunicacoes Campus Universitario de Santiago P-3810-193 Aveiro Portugal Email: dcorujo@av.it.pt Gennaro Boggia Dep. of Electrical and Information Engineering Politecnico di Bari Via Orabona 4 70125 Bari Italy Email: g.boggia@poliba.it Pentikousis & Ohlman Expires August 4, 2013 [Page 17]