GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools

Problem, Formatting or Query -  Send Feedback

Was this page helpful?-10+1


rfc:rfc7476

Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) K. Pentikousis, Ed. Request for Comments: 7476 EICT Category: Informational B. Ohlman ISSN: 2070-1721 Ericsson

                                                             D. Corujo
                                                Universidade de Aveiro
                                                             G. Boggia
                                                   Politecnico di Bari
                                                              G. Tyson
                                      Queen Mary, University of London
                                                             E. Davies
                                                Trinity College Dublin
                                                           A. Molinaro
                                                                 UNIRC
                                                                S. Eum
                                                                  NICT
                                                            March 2015
         Information-Centric Networking: Baseline Scenarios

Abstract

 This document aims at establishing a common understanding about a set
 of scenarios that can be used as a base for the evaluation of
 different information-centric networking (ICN) approaches so that
 they can be tested and compared against each other while showcasing
 their own advantages.  Towards this end, we review the ICN literature
 and document scenarios which have been considered in previous
 performance evaluation studies.  We discuss a variety of aspects that
 an ICN solution can address.  This includes general aspects, such as,
 network efficiency, reduced complexity, increased scalability and
 reliability, mobility support, multicast and caching performance,
 real-time communication efficiency, energy consumption frugality, and
 disruption and delay tolerance.  We detail ICN-specific aspects as
 well, such as information security and trust, persistence,
 availability, provenance, and location independence.
 This document is a product of the IRTF Information-Centric Networking
 Research Group (ICNRG).

Pentikousis, et al. Informational [Page 1] RFC 7476 ICN Baseline Scenarios March 2015

Status of This Memo

 This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
 published for informational purposes.
 This document is a product of the Internet Research Task Force
 (IRTF).  The IRTF publishes the results of Internet-related research
 and development activities.  These results might not be suitable for
 deployment.  This RFC represents the consensus of the Information-
 Centric Networking Research Group of the Internet Research Task Force
 (IRTF).  Documents approved for publication by the IRSG are not a
 candidate for any level of Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC
 5741.
 Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
 and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
 http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7476.

Copyright Notice

 Copyright (c) 2015 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.

Pentikousis, et al. Informational [Page 2] RFC 7476 ICN Baseline Scenarios March 2015

Table of Contents

 1. Introduction ....................................................3
    1.1. Baseline Scenario Selection ................................4
    1.2. Document Goals and Outline .................................5
 2. Scenarios .......................................................6
    2.1. Social Networking ..........................................6
    2.2. Real-Time Communication ....................................7
    2.3. Mobile Networking ..........................................9
    2.4. Infrastructure Sharing ....................................11
    2.5. Content Dissemination .....................................13
    2.6. Vehicular Networking ......................................14
    2.7. Delay- and Disruption-Tolerance ...........................17
         2.7.1. Opportunistic Content Sharing ......................20
         2.7.2. Emergency Support and Disaster Recovery ............21
    2.8. Internet of Things ........................................22
    2.9. Smart City ................................................25
 3. Cross-Scenario Considerations ..................................27
    3.1. Multiply Connected Nodes and Economics ....................27
    3.2. Energy Efficiency .........................................31
    3.3. Operation across Multiple Network Paradigms ...............33
 4. Summary ........................................................34
 5. Security Considerations ........................................35
 6. Informative References .........................................36
 Acknowledgments ...................................................44
 Authors' Addresses ................................................44

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 "named
 information" (or content, or data).  In this paradigm, connectivity
 may well be intermittent.  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, and anycast, multicast, and broadcast are natively
 supported.
 It is also worth noting that with the transition from a host-centric
 to an information-centric communication model the security paradigm
 changes as well.  In a host-centric network, the basic idea is to
 create secure (remote-access) tunnels to trusted providers of data.
 In an information-centric network, on the other hand, any source
 (cache) should be equally usable.  This requires some mechanism for

Pentikousis, et al. Informational [Page 3] RFC 7476 ICN Baseline Scenarios March 2015

 making each information item trustworthy by itself; this can be
 achieved, for example, by name-data integrity or by signing data
 objects.
 Although interest in ICN is growing rapidly, ongoing work on
 different architectures, such as NetInf [NetInf], the original
 Content-Centric Networking [CCN], and its successors, Project CCNx
 [CCNx] and Named Data Networking (NDN) [NDNP], the Publish-Subscribe
 Internet (PSI) architecture [PSI], and the Data-Oriented Network
 Architecture [DONA] is far from being completed.  One could think of
 ICN today as being at a stage of development similar to that of
 packet-switched networking in the late 1970s when different
 technologies, e.g., DECnet, Internetwork Packet Exchange (IPX), and
 IP, just to name a few, were being actively developed and put to the
 test.  As such, ICN's current development phase and the plethora of
 approaches to tackle the hardest problems make this a very active and
 growing research area, but, on the downside, it also makes it more
 difficult to compare different proposals on an equal footing.  This
 document aims to partially address this by establishing a common
 understanding about potential experimental setups where different ICN
 approaches can be tested and compared against each other while
 showcasing their advantages.
 The first draft version of this document appeared in November 2012.
 It was adopted by ICNRG at IETF 87 (July 2013) as the document to
 address the work item on the definition of "reference baseline
 scenarios to enable performance comparisons between different
 approaches".  Earlier draft versions of this document have been
 presented during the ICNRG meetings at IETF 85, IETF 86, IETF 87,
 IETF 88, IETF 89, and the ICNRG interim meeting in Stockholm in
 February 2013.  This document has been reviewed, commented, and
 discussed extensively for a period of nearly two years by the vast
 majority of ICNRG members, which certainly exceeds 100 individuals.
 It is the consensus of ICNRG that the baseline scenarios described in
 this document should be published in the IRTF Stream of the RFC
 series.  This document does not constitute a standard.

1.1. Baseline Scenario Selection

 Earlier surveys [SoA1] [SoA2] note 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 researchers devise different performance evaluation scenarios,
 typically with good reason, in order to highlight the advantages of
 their approach.  This should be expected to some degree at this early
 stage of ICN development.  Nevertheless, this document shows that

Pentikousis, et al. Informational [Page 4] RFC 7476 ICN Baseline Scenarios March 2015

 certain baseline scenarios seem to emerge in which ICN architectures
 could showcase their comparative advantages over current systems, in
 general, and against each other, in particular.
 This document surveys the peer-reviewed ICN literature and presents
 prominent evaluation study cases as a foundation for the baseline
 scenarios to be considered by the IRTF Information-Centric Networking
 Research Group (ICNRG) in its future work.  There are two goals for
 this document: first, to provide a set of use cases and applications
 that highlight opportunities for testing different ICN proposals;
 second, to identify key attributes of a common set of techniques that
 can be instrumental in evaluating ICN.  Further, these scenarios are
 intended to equip researchers with sufficient configuration data to
 effectively evaluate their ICN proposals in a variety of settings,
 particularly extending beyond scenarios focusing simply on
 traditional content delivery.  The overall aim is that each scenario
 is described at a sufficient level of detail, and with adequate
 references to already published work, so that it can serve as the
 base for comparative evaluations of different approaches.  Example
 code that implements some of the scenarios and topologies included in
 this document is available from
 <http://telematics.poliba.it/icn-baseline-scenarios>.

1.2. Document Goals and Outline

 This document incorporates input from ICNRG participants and their
 corresponding text contributions, has been reviewed by several ICNRG
 active participants (see Section 7), and represents the consensus of
 the research group.  However, this document does not constitute an
 IETF standard, but is an Informational document; see also [RFC5743].
 As mentioned above, these scenarios are intended to provide a
 framework for evaluating different ICN approaches.  The methodology
 for how to do these evaluations as well as definitions of metrics
 that should be used are described in a separate document
 [EVAL-METHOD].  In addition, interested readers should consider
 reviewing [CHALLENGES].
 The remainder of this document presents a number of scenarios grouped
 into several categories in Section 2, followed by a number of cross-
 scenario considerations in Section 3.  Overall, note that certain
 evaluation scenarios span across these categories, so the boundaries
 between them should not be considered rigid and inflexible.
 Section 4 summarizes the main evaluation aspects across the range of
 scenarios discussed in this document.

Pentikousis, et al. Informational [Page 5] RFC 7476 ICN Baseline Scenarios March 2015

2. Scenarios

 This section presents nine scenario categories based on use cases and
 evaluations that have appeared in the peer-reviewed literature.

2.1. Social Networking

 Social-networking applications have proliferated over the past decade
 based on overlay content dissemination systems that require large
 infrastructure investments to roll out and maintain.  Content
 dissemination is at the heart of the ICN paradigm.  Therefore, we
 would expect that social-networking scenarios are a "natural fit" for
 comparing ICN performance with 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 servers;
 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 other words, the above-mentioned evaluation studies indicate that
 with ICN there may be no need for an end-to-end system design that
 intermediates between content providers and consumers in a hub-and-
 spoke fashion at all times.
 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 Figure 1 for convenience) that has
 certain interesting characteristics, they do not explicitly address
 social networking in their evaluation scenario.  Nonetheless,

Pentikousis, et al. Informational [Page 6] RFC 7476 ICN Baseline Scenarios March 2015

 similarities are easy to spot: "followers" (such as C0, C1, ..., and
 Cz in Figure 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
 In summary, 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 Communication

 Real-time audio and video (A/V) communications include an array of
 services ranging from one-to-one voice calls to multiparty multimedia
 conferences with support ranging from whiteboards 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 (QoS) requirements that this type of
 communication imposes on network infrastructure are well known.
 Since one could argue that network primitives that are excellent for
 information dissemination are not well-suited for conversational
 services, ICN evaluation studies should consider real-time
 communication scenarios in detail.
 Notably, Jacobson et al. [VoCCN] presented an early evaluation where
 the performance of a VoIP (Voice over IP) call using an information-
 centric approach was compared with that of an off-the-shelf VoIP
 implementation using RTP/UDP.  The results indicated that despite the
 extra cost of adding security support in the ICN approach,
 performance was virtually identical in the two cases evaluated in

Pentikousis, et al. Informational [Page 7] RFC 7476 ICN Baseline Scenarios March 2015

 their testbed.  However, the experimental setup presented is quite
 rudimentary, while the evaluation considered a single voice call
 only.  Xuan and Yan [NDNpb] revisit the same scenario but are
 primarily interested in reducing the overhead that may arise in one-
 to-one communication employing an ICN architecture.  Both studies
 illustrate that quality telephony services are feasible with at least
 one ICN approach.  That said, future ICN evaluations should employ
 standardized call arrival patterns, for example, following well-
 established methodologies from the QoS and QoE (Quality of
 Experience) evaluation toolbox and would need to consider more
 comprehensive metrics.
 Given the widespread deployment of real-time A/V communications, an
 evaluation of an ICN system should demonstrate capabilities beyond
 feasibility.  For example, with respect to multimedia conferencing,
 Zhu et al. [ACT] describe the design of a distributed audio
 conference tool based on NDN.  Their system includes ICN-based
 conference discovery, speaker 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 code and show that stringent temporal
 requirements can be met, while scalability is significantly improved
 when compared to a host-centric (IP-based) client-server system.
 This type of work points to benefits for both the data and control
 path of a modern network infrastructure.
 Real-time communication also brings up the issue of named data
 granularity for dynamically generated content.  In many cases, A/V
 data is generated in real-time and is distributed immediately.  One
 possibility is to apply a single name to the entire content, but this
 could result in significant distribution delays.  Alternatively,
 distributing A/V content in smaller "chunks" that are named
 individually may be a better option with respect to real-time
 distribution but raises naming scalability concerns.
 We observe that, all in all, the ICN research community has hitherto
 only scratched the surface of illustrating the benefits of adopting
 an information-centric approach as opposed to a host-centric one, and
 thus more work is recommended in this direction.  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.  Accordingly, the primary aim of this scenario is
 to exercise each ICN architecture in terms of its ability to satisfy
 real-time QoS requirements and provide improved user experience.

Pentikousis, et al. Informational [Page 8] RFC 7476 ICN Baseline Scenarios March 2015

2.3. Mobile Networking

 IP mobility management relies on anchors to provide ubiquitous
 connectivity to end-hosts as well as moving networks [MMIN].  This is
 a natural choice for a host-centric paradigm that requires end-to-end
 connectivity and a continuous network presence for hosts [SCES].  An
 implicit assumption in host-centric mobility management is therefore
 that the mobile node aims to connect to a particular peer, as well as
 to maintain global reachability and service continuity [EEMN].
 However, with ICN, new ideas about mobility management should come to
 the fore, capitalizing on the different nature of the paradigm, such
 as native support for multihoming, abstraction of network addresses
 from applications, less dependence on connection-oriented sessions,
 and so on [MOBSURV].
 Dannewitz et al. [N-Scen] illustrate a scenario where a multiaccess
 end-host can retrieve email securely using a combination of cellular
 and Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN) 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
 Pentikousis [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).  Similar considerations hold
 for a vehicular (networking) environment, as we discuss in Section
 2.6.
 Overall, mobile networking scenarios have not been developed in
 detail, let alone evaluated at a large scale.  Further, the majority
 of scenarios discussed so far have related to the mobility of the
 information consumer, rather than the source.  We expect that in the
 coming period more papers will address this topic.  Earlier work
 [mNetInf] argues that for mobile and multiaccess networking scenarios
 we need to go beyond the current mobility management mechanisms in
 order to capitalize on the core ICN features.  They present a testbed
 setup (redrawn in Figure 2) that can serve as the basis for other ICN
 evaluations.  In this scenario, node "C0" has multiple network
 interfaces that can access local domains N0 and N1 simultaneously,
 allowing C0 to retrieve objects from whichever server (I2 or I3) can
 supply them without necessarily needing to access the servers in the
 core network "C" (P1 and P2).  Lindgren [HybICN] explores this

Pentikousis, et al. Informational [Page 9] RFC 7476 ICN Baseline Scenarios March 2015

 scenario further for an urban setting.  He uses simulation and
 reports sizable gains in terms of reduction of object retrieval times
 and core network capacity use.
 +------------+      +-----------+
 | Network N0 |      | Network C |
 |            |      |           |
 | +--+       | ==== |    +--+   |
 | |I2|       |      |    |P1|   |
 | +--+       |      |    +--+   |
 |     \--/   |      |           |
 +-----|C0|---+      |           |
 |     /--\   |      |           |
 | +--+       |      |           |
 | |I3|       |      |      +--+ |
 | +--+       | ==== |      |P2| |
 |            |      |      +--+ |
 | Network N1 |      |           |
 +------------+      +-----------+
 Figure 2.  Overlapping Wireless Multiaccess
 The benefits from capitalizing on the broadcast nature of wireless
 access technologies has yet to be explored to its full potential in
 the ICN literature, including quantifying possible gains in terms of
 energy efficiency [E-CHANET].  Obviously, ICN architectures must
 avoid broadcast storms.  Early work in this area considers
 distributed packet suppression techniques that exploit delayed
 transmissions and overhearing; examples can be found in [MobiA] and
 [CCNMANET] for ICN-based mobile ad-hoc networks (MANETs), and in
 [RTIND] and [CCNVANET] for vehicular scenarios.
 One would expect that mobile networking scenarios will be naturally
 coupled with those discussed in the previous sections, as more users
 access social-networking and multimedia applications through mobile
 devices.  Further, the constraints of real-time A/V applications
 create interesting challenges in handling mobility, particularly in
 terms of maintaining service continuity.  This scenario therefore
 spans across most of the others considered in this document with the
 likely need for some level of integration, particularly considering
 the well-documented increases in mobile traffic.  Mobility is further
 considered in Section 2.7 and the economic consequences of nodes
 having multiple network interfaces is explored in Section 3.1.
 Host-centric mobility management has traditionally used a range of
 metrics for evaluating performance on a per-node and network-wide
 level.  The first metric that comes to mind is handover latency,
 defined in [RFC5568] as the "period during which the mobile node is

Pentikousis, et al. Informational [Page 10] RFC 7476 ICN Baseline Scenarios March 2015

 unable to send or receive packets".  This metric should be considered
 in ICN performance evaluation studies dealing with mobility.  Note
 that, in IP-based networks, handover latency has been addressed by
 the introduction of mobility management protocols that aim to hide
 node mobility from the correspondent node, and often follow a make-
 before-break approach in order to ensure seamless connectivity and
 minimize (or eliminate altogether) handover latency.  The "always-on"
 and "always best connected" [ABC] paradigms have guided mobility
 management research and standardization for a good decade or so.  One
 can argue that such mechanisms are not particularly suited for ICN.
 That said, there has been a lot of interest recently in distributed
 mobility management schemes (see [MMIN] for a summary), where
 mobility management support is not "always on" by default.  Such
 schemes may be more suitable for ICN.  As a general recommendation,
 ICN designs should aim to minimize handover latency so that the end-
 user and service QoE is not affected adversely.
 Network overhead, such as the amount of signaling necessary to
 minimize handover latency, is also a metric that should be considered
 when studying ICN mobility management.  In the past, network overhead
 has been seen as one of the main factors hindering the deployment of
 various mobility solutions.  In IP-based networks, network overhead
 includes, but is not limited to, tunneling overhead, in-band control
 protocol overhead, mobile terminal and network equipment state
 maintenance and update.  ICN designs and evaluation studies should
 clearly identify the network overhead associated with handling
 mobility.  Alongside network overhead, deployment complexity should
 also be studied.
 To summarize, mobile networking scenarios should aim to provide
 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.  Beyond this, mobile networking
 scenarios should form a cross-scenario platform that can highlight
 how other scenarios can still maintain their respective performance
 metrics during periods of high mobility.

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 on 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 thereby increasing the value of an information-centric

Pentikousis, et al. Informational [Page 11] RFC 7476 ICN Baseline Scenarios March 2015

 network, although compensation schemes motivating users to contribute
 resources remain a research challenge primarily from a business
 perspective.
 For example, Jacobson et al. [CBIS] argue that in ICN the "where and
 how" of obtaining information are new degrees of freedom.  They
 illustrate this with a scenario involving a photo-sharing application
 that 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 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.
 Muscariello et al. [SHARE], for instance, presented early work on an
 analytical framework that attempts to capture the storage/bandwidth
 tradeoffs that ICN enables and can be used as the foundation for a
 network planning tool.  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 papers also sit alongside a variety of other studies that look
 at various scenarios such as caching HTTP-like traffic [CCNCT] and
 BitTorrent-like traffic [BTCACHE].  We observe that much more work is
 needed in order to understand how to make optimal use of all
 resources available in an information-centric network.  In real-world
 deployments, policy and commercial considerations are also likely to
 affect the use of particular resources, and more work is expected in
 this direction as well.
 In conclusion, scenarios in this category would cover the
 communication-computation-storage tradeoffs that an ICN deployment
 must consider.  This would exercise features relating to network
 planning, perhaps capitalizing on user-provided resources, as well as
 operational and economical aspects of ICN, and contrast them with
 other approaches.  An obvious baseline to compare against in this
 regard is existing federations of IP-based Content Distribution
 Networks (CDNs), such as the ones discussed in the IETF Content
 Delivery Networks Interconnection Working Group.

Pentikousis, et al. Informational [Page 12] RFC 7476 ICN Baseline Scenarios March 2015

2.5. Content Dissemination

 Content dissemination has attracted more attention than other aspects
 of ICN.  Scenarios in this category abound in the literature,
 including stored and streaming A/V distribution, file distribution,
 mirroring and bulk transfers, versioned content services (cf.
 Subversion-type revision control), as well as traffic aggregation.
 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 Figure 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 that 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.
 A case in point for content dissemination are vehicular ad hoc
 networks (VANETs), as an ICN approach may address their needs for
 information dissemination between vehicles better than today's
 solutions, as discussed in the following section.  The critical part
 of information dissemination in a VANET scenario revolves around
 "where" and "when".  For instance, one may be interested in traffic
 conditions 2 km ahead while having no interest in similar information
 about the area around the path origin.  VANET scenarios may provide
 fertile ground for showcasing the ICN advantage with respect to
 content dissemination especially when compared with current host-
 centric approaches.  That said, information integrity and filtering
 are challenges that must be addressed.  As mentioned above, content
 dissemination scenarios in VANETs have a particular affinity to the
 mobility scenarios discussed in Section 2.3.
 Content dissemination scenarios, in general, have a large overlap
 with those described in the previous sections and are explored in
 several papers, such as [DONA], [PSI], [PSIMob], [NetInf], [CCN],
 [CBIS], and [CCR], just to name a few.  In addition, Chai et al.
 [CURLING] present a hop-by-hop hierarchical content resolution
 approach that employs receiver-driven multicast over multiple
 domains, advocating another content dissemination approach.  Yet,
 largely, work in this area did not address the issue of access
 authorization in detail.  Often, the distributed content is mostly
 assumed to be freely accessible by any consumer.  Distribution of

Pentikousis, et al. Informational [Page 13] RFC 7476 ICN Baseline Scenarios March 2015

 paid-for or otherwise restricted content on a public ICN network
 requires more attention in the future.  Fotiou et al. [ACDICN]
 consider a scheme to this effect, but it still requires access to an
 authorization server to verify the user's status after the
 (encrypted) content has been obtained.  This may effectively negate
 the advantage of obtaining the content from any node, especially in a
 disruption-prone or mobile network.
 In summary, scenarios in this category aim to exercise primarily
 scalability and the cost and performance attributes of content
 dissemination.  Particularly, they should highlight the ability of an
 ICN to scale to billions of objects, while not exceeding the cost of
 existing content dissemination solutions (i.e., CDNs) and, ideally,
 increasing performance.  These should be shown in a holistic manner,
 improving content dissemination for both information consumers and
 publishers of all sizes.  We expect that in particular for content
 dissemination, in both extreme as well as typical scenarios, can be
 specified by drawing data from current CDN deployments.

2.6. Vehicular Networking

 Users "on wheels" are interested in road safety, traffic efficiency,
 and infotainment applications that can be supported through vehicle-
 to-vehicle (V2V) and vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I) wireless
 communications.  These applications exhibit unique features in terms
 of traffic generation patterns, delivery requirements, and spatial
 and temporal scope, which pose great challenges to traditional
 networking solutions.  VANETs, by their nature, are characterized by
 challenges such as fast-changing topology, intermittent connectivity,
 and high node mobility, but also by the opportunity to combine
 information from different sources as each vehicle does not care
 about "who" delivers the named data objects.
 ICN is an attractive candidate solution for vehicular networking, as
 it has several advantages.  First, ICN fits well to the nature of
 typical vehicular applications that are geography- and time-dependent
 (e.g., road traveler information, accident warning, point-of-interest
 advertisements) and usually target vehicles in a given area,
 regardless of their identity or IP address.  These applications are
 likely to benefit from in-network and decentralized data caching and
 replication mechanisms.  Second, content caching is particularly
 beneficial for intermittent on-the-road connectivity and can speed up
 data retrieval through content replication in several nodes.  Caching
 can usually be implemented at relatively low cost in vehicles, as the
 energy demands of the ICN device are likely to be a negligible
 fraction of the total vehicle energy consumption, thus allowing for
 sophisticated processing, continuous communication, and adequate
 storage in the vehicle.  Finally, ICN natively supports asynchronous

Pentikousis, et al. Informational [Page 14] RFC 7476 ICN Baseline Scenarios March 2015

 data exchange between end-nodes.  By using (and redistributing)
 cached named information objects, a mobile node can serve as a link
 between disconnected areas.  In short, ICN can enable communication
 even under intermittent network connectivity, which is typical of
 vehicular environments with sparse roadside infrastructure and fast-
 moving nodes.
 The advantages of ICN in vehicular networks were preliminarily
 discussed in [EWC] and [DMND], and additionally investigated in
 [DNV2V], [RTIND], [CCNHV], [CCDIVN], [CCNVANET], and [CRoWN].  For
 example, Bai and Krishnamachari [EWC] take advantage of the localized
 and dynamic nature of a VANET to explore how a road congestion
 notification application can be implemented.  Wang et al. [DMND]
 consider data collection where Road-Side Units (RSUs) collect
 information from vehicles by broadcasting NDN-like Interest packets.
 The proposed architecture is evaluated using simulation in a grid
 topology and is compared against a host-centric alternative based on
 Mobile IP.  See Figure 3 for an indicative example of an urban VANET
 topology.  Their results indicate high efficiency for ICN even at
 high speeds.  That said, this work is a preliminary exploration of
 ICN in vehicular environments, so various issues remain for
 evaluation.  They include system scalability to large numbers of
 vehicles and the impact of vehicles that forward Interest packets or
 relay data to other vehicles.
    + - - _- - -_- - - -_- - _- - - +
    |    /_\   /_\     /_\  /_\     |
    |    o o   o o     o o  o o     |
    |    +-------+     +-------+ _  |
    |    |       |     |       |/_\ |
    |  _ |       |     |       |o o |
    | /_\|       |    |       |     |
    | o o+--_----+\===/+--_----+    |
    |      /_\    |RSU|  /_\        |
    |      o o    /===\  o o        |
    |    +-------+     +-------+ _  |
    |    |       |     |       |/_\ |
    | _  |       |     |       |o o |
    |/_\ |       |     |       |    |
    |o o +_-----_+     +_-----_+    |
    |    /_\   /_\     /_\   /_\    |
    +_ _ o_o_ _o_o_ _ _o_o_ _o_o_ _ +
 Figure 3.  Urban Grid VANET Topology
 As mentioned in the previous section, due to the short communication
 duration between a vehicle and the RSU, and the typically short time
 of sustained connectivity between vehicles, VANETs may be a good

Pentikousis, et al. Informational [Page 15] RFC 7476 ICN Baseline Scenarios March 2015

 showcase for the ICN advantages with respect to content
 dissemination.  Wang et al. [DNV2V], for instance, analyze the
 advantages of hierarchical naming for vehicular traffic information
 dissemination.  Arnould et al. [CCNHV] apply ICN principles to safety
 information dissemination between vehicles with multiple radio
 interfaces.  In [CCDIVN], TalebiFard and Leung use network coding
 techniques to improve content dissemination over multiple ICN paths.
 Amadeo et al. [CCNVANET] [CRoWN] propose an application-independent
 ICN framework for content retrieval and distribution where the role
 of provider can be played equivalently by both vehicles and RSUs.
 ICN forwarding is extended through path-state information carried in
 Interest and Data packets, stored in a new data structure kept by
 vehicular nodes, and exploited also to cope with node mobility.
 Typical scenarios for testing content distribution in VANETs may be
 highways with vehicles moving in straight lines, with or without RSUs
 along the road, as shown in Figure 4.  With an NDN approach in mind,
 for example, RSUs may send Interest packets to collect data from
 vehicles [DMND], or vehicles may send Interest packets to collect
 data from other peers [RTIND] or from RSUs [CCNVANET].  Figure 2
 applies to content dissemination in VANET scenarios as well, where C0
 represents a vehicle that can obtain named information objects via
 multiple wireless peers and/or RSUs (I2 and I3 in the figure).  Grid
 topologies such as the one illustrated in Figure 3 should be
 considered in urban scenarios with RSUs at the crossroads or
 co-located with traffic lights as in [CRoWN].
      \___/                    \___/
      |RSU|                    |RSU|
    ================================
         _     _     _     _
        /_\   /_\   /_\   /_\
    _ _ o_o_ _o_o_ _o_o_ _o_o_ _ _ _
         _     _     _     _
        /_\   /_\   /_\   /_\
        o o   o o   o o   o o
    ================================
 Figure 4.  Highway VANET Topology
 To summarize, VANET scenarios aim to exercise ICN deployment from
 various perspectives, including scalability, caching, transport, and
 mobility issues.  There is a need for further investigation in (i)
 challenging scenarios (e.g., disconnected segments); (ii) scenarios
 involving both consumer and provider mobility; (iii) smart caching
 techniques that take into consideration node mobility patterns,
 spatial and temporal relevance, content popularity, and social
 relationships between users/vehicles; (iv) identification of new

Pentikousis, et al. Informational [Page 16] RFC 7476 ICN Baseline Scenarios March 2015

 applications (beyond data dissemination and traffic monitoring) that
 could benefit from the adoption of an ICN paradigm in vehicular
 networks (e.g., mobile cloud, social networking).

2.7. Delay- and Disruption-Tolerance

 Delay- and Disruption-Tolerant Networking (DTN) originated as a means
 to extend the Internet to interplanetary communications [DTN].
 However, it was subsequently found to be an appropriate architecture
 for many terrestrial situations as well.  Typically, this was where
 delays were greater than protocols such as TCP could handle, and
 where disruptions to communications were the norm rather than
 occasional annoyances, e.g., where an end-to-end path does not
 necessarily exist when communication is initiated.  DTN has now been
 applied to many situations, including opportunistic content sharing,
 handling infrastructural issues during emergency situations (e.g.,
 earthquakes) and providing connectivity to remote rural areas without
 existing Internet provision and little or no communications or power
 infrastructure.
 The DTN architecture [RFC4838] is based on a "store, carry, and
 forward" paradigm that has been applied extensively to situations
 where data is carried between network nodes by a "data mule", which
 carries bundles of data stored in some convenient storage medium
 (e.g., a USB memory stick).  With the advent of sensor and peer-to-
 peer (P2P) networks between mobile nodes, DTN is becoming a more
 commonplace type of networking than originally envisioned.  Since ICN
 also does not rely on the familiar end-to-end communications
 paradigm, there are clear synergies [DTNICN].  It could therefore be
 argued that many of the key principles embodied within DTN also exist
 in ICN, as we explain next.
 First, both approaches rely on in-network storage.  In the case of
 DTN, bundles are stored temporarily on devices on a hop-by-hop basis.
 In the case of ICN, information objects are also cached on devices in
 a similar fashion.  As such, both paradigms must provision storage
 within the network.
 Second, both approaches espouse late binding of names to locations
 due to the potentially large interval between request and response
 generation.  In the case of DTN, it is often impossible to predict
 the exact location (in a disconnected topology) where a node will be
 found.  Similarly, in the case of ICN, it is also often impossible to
 predict where an information object might be found.  As such, the
 binding of a request/bundle to a destination (or routing locator)
 must be performed as late as possible.

Pentikousis, et al. Informational [Page 17] RFC 7476 ICN Baseline Scenarios March 2015

 Finally, both approaches treat data as a long-lived component that
 can exist in the network for extended periods of time.  In the case
 of DTN, bundles are carried by nodes until appropriate next hops are
 discovered.  In the case of ICN, information objects are typically
 cached until storage is exhausted.  As such, both paradigms require a
 direct shift in the way applications interact with the network.
 Through these similarities, it becomes possible to identify many DTN
 principles that are already in existence within ICN architectures.
 For example, ICN nodes will often retain information objects locally,
 making them accessible later on, much as DTN bundles are handled.
 Consequently, these synergies suggest strong potential for marrying
 the two technologies.  This could include, for instance, building new
 integrated Information-Centric Delay Tolerant Network (ICDTN)
 protocols or, alternatively, building ICN schemes over existing DTN
 protocols (and vice versa).
 The above similarities suggest that integration of the two principles
 would be feasible.  Beyond this, there are also a number of
 identifiable direct benefits.  Through caching and replication, ICN
 offers strong information resilience, whilst, through store-and-
 forward, DTN offers strong connectivity resilience.  As such, both
 architectures could benefit greatly from each other.  Initial steps
 have already been taken in the DTN community to integrate ICN
 principles, e.g., the Bundle Protocol Query Block [BPQ] has been
 proposed for the DTN Bundle Protocol [RFC5050].  Similarly, initial
 steps have also been taken in the ICN community, such as [SLINKY].
 In fact, the Scalable and Adaptive Internet Solutions (SAIL) project
 has developed a prototype implementation of NetInf running over the
 DTN Bundle Protocol.
 Of course, in many circumstances, information-centricity is not
 appropriate for use in delay- and disruption-tolerant environments.
 This is particularly the case when information is not the key
 communications atom transmitted.  Further, situations where a single
 sink is always used for receiving information may not warrant the
 identification and routing of independent information objects.
 However, there are a number of key scenarios where clear benefits
 could be gained by introducing information-centric principles into
 DTNs, two of which we describe later in this section.
 For the purpose of evaluating the use of ICNs in a DTN setting, two
 key scenarios are identified in this document.  (Note the rest of
 this section uses the term "ICDTN".)  These are both prominent use
 cases that are currently active in both the ICN and DTN communities.
 The first is opportunistic content sharing, whilst the second is the
 use of ad hoc networks during disaster recovery (e.g., earthquakes).
 We discuss both types of scenarios in the context of a simulation-

Pentikousis, et al. Informational [Page 18] RFC 7476 ICN Baseline Scenarios March 2015

 based evaluation: due to the scale and mobility of DTN-like setups,
 this is the primary method of evaluation used.  Within the DTN
 community, the majority of simulations are performed using the
 Opportunistic Network Environment (ONE) simulator [ONE], which is
 referred to in this document.  Before exploring the two scenarios,
 the key shared components of their simulation are discussed.  This is
 separated into the two primary inputs that are required: the
 environment and the workload.
 In both types of scenarios the environment can be abstractly modeled
 by a time series of active connections between device pairs.  Unlike
 other scenarios in this document, an ICDTN scenario therefore does
 not depend on (relatively) static topologies but, rather, a set of
 time-varying disconnected topologies.  In opportunistic networks,
 these topologies are actually products of the mobility of users.  For
 example, if two users walk past each other, an opportunistic link can
 be created.  There are two methods used to generate these mobility
 patterns and, in turn, the time series of topologies.  The first is
 synthetic, whereby a (mathematical) model of user behavior is created
 in an agent-based fashion, e.g., random waypoint, Gauss-Markov.  The
 second is trace-driven, whereby the mobility of real users is
 recorded and used.  In both cases, the output is a sequence of time-
 stamped "contacts", i.e., periods of time in which two devices can
 communicate.  An important factor missing from typical mobility
 traces, however, is the capacity of these contacts: how much data can
 be transferred?  In both approaches to modeling mobility, links are
 usually configured as Bluetooth or Wi-Fi (ONE easily allows this,
 although lower-layer considerations are ignored, e.g., interference).
 This is motivated by the predominance of these technologies on mobile
 phones.
 The workload in an ICDTN is modeled much like the workload within the
 other scenarios.  It involves object creation/placement and object
 retrieval.  Object creation/placement can either be done statically
 at the beginning of the simulations or, alternatively, dynamically
 based on a model of user behavior.  In both cases, the latter is
 focused on, as it models far better the characteristics of the
 scenarios.
 Once the environment and workload have been configured, the next step
 is to decide the key metrics for the study.  Unlike traditional
 networking, the QoS expectation is typically far lower in an ICDTN,
 thereby moving away from metrics such as throughput.  At a high
 level, it is of clear interest to evaluate different ICN approaches
 with respect to both their delay- and disruption-tolerance (i.e., how
 effective is the approach when used in an environment subject to
 significant delay and/or disruption) and to their active support for
 operations in a DTN environment.

Pentikousis, et al. Informational [Page 19] RFC 7476 ICN Baseline Scenarios March 2015

 The two most prominent metrics considered in a host-centric DTN are
 delivery probability and delivery delay.  The former relates to the
 probability by which a sent message will be received within a certain
 delay bound, whilst the latter captures the average length of time it
 takes for nodes to receive the message.  These metrics are similarly
 important in an ICDTN, although they are slightly different due to
 the request-response nature of ICN.  Therefore, the two most
 prominent evaluative metrics are satisfaction probability and
 satisfaction delay.  The former refers to the probability by which an
 information request (e.g., Interest) will be satisfied (i.e., how
 often a Data response will be received).  Satisfaction delay refers
 to the length of time it takes an information request to be
 satisfied.
 Note that the key difference between the host-centric and
 information-centric metrics is the need for a round-trip rather than
 a one-way communication.  Beyond this, depending on the focus of the
 work, other elements that may be investigated include 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; long-term content availability
 (or resilience); efficiency in the face of disruption; and so on.  It
 is also important to weigh these performance metrics against the
 necessary overheads.  In the case of an ICDTN, this is generally
 measured by the number of message replicas required to access
 content.  Note that routing in a DTN is often replication based,
 which leads to many copies of the same message.

2.7.1. Opportunistic Content Sharing

 The first key baseline scenario in this context is opportunistic
 content sharing.  This occurs when mobile nodes create opportunistic
 links between each other to share content of interest.  For example,
 people riding on an underground train can pass news items between
 their mobile phones.  Equally, content generated on the phones (e.g.,
 tweets [TWIMIGHT]) could be stored for later forwarding (or even
 forwarded amongst interested passengers on the train).  Such
 scenarios, clearly, must be based around either the altruistic or
 incentivized interaction amongst users.  The latter is a particularly
 active area of research.  These networks are often termed "pocket-
 switched networks", as they are independently formed between the user
 devices.  Here, the evaluative scenario of ICDTN microblogging is
 proposed.  As previously discussed, the construction of such an
 evaluative scenario requires a formalization of its environment and
 workload.  Fortunately, there exist a number of datasets that offer
 exactly this information required for microblogging.

Pentikousis, et al. Informational [Page 20] RFC 7476 ICN Baseline Scenarios March 2015

 In terms of the environment (i.e., mobility patterns), the Haggle
 project produced contact traces based on conference attendees using
 Bluetooth.  These traces are best targeted at application scenarios
 in which a small group of (50-100) people are in a relatively
 confined space.  In contrast, larger-scale traces are also available,
 most notably MIT's Reality Mining project.  These are better suited
 for cases where longer-term movement patterns are of interest.
 The second input, workload, relates to the creation and consumption
 of microblogs (e.g., tweets).  This can be effectively captured
 because subscriptions conveniently formalize who consumes what.  For
 bespoke purposes, specific data can be directly collected from
 Twitter for trace-driven simulations.  Several Twitter datasets are
 already available to the community containing a variety of data,
 ranging from Tweets to follower graphs.  See
 <http://www.tweetarchivist.com> and
 <http://socialcomputing.asu.edu/datasets/Twitter>.  These datasets
 can therefore be used to extract information production, placement,
 and consumption.

2.7.2. Emergency Support and Disaster Recovery

 The second key baseline scenario in this context relates to the use
 of ICDTNs in emergency scenarios.  In these situations, it is typical
 for infrastructure to be damaged or destroyed, leading to the
 collapse of traditional forms of communications (e.g., cellular
 telephone networks).  This has been seen in the recent North Indian
 flooding, as well as the 2011 Tohoku earthquake and tsunami.  Power
 problems often exacerbate the issue, with communication failures
 lasting for days.  Therefore, in order to address this, DTNs have
 been used due to their high levels of resilience and independence
 from fixed infrastructure.  The most prominent use of DTNs in
 disaster areas would be the dissemination of information, e.g.,
 warnings and evacuation maps.  Unlike the previous scenario, it can
 be assumed that certain users (e.g., emergency responders) are highly
 altruistic.  However, it is likely many other users (e.g., endangered
 civilians) might become far more conservative in how they use their
 devices for battery-conserving purposes.  Here, we focus on the
 dissemination of standard broadcast information that should be
 received by all parties; generally, this is something led by
 emergency responders.
 For the environmental setup, there are no commonly used mobility
 traces for disaster zones, unlike in the previous scenario.  This is
 clearly due to the difficultly (near impossibility) of acquiring them
 in a real setting.  That said, various synthetic models are
 available.  The Post-Disaster Mobility Model [MODEL1] models
 civilians and emergency responders after a disaster has occurred,

Pentikousis, et al. Informational [Page 21] RFC 7476 ICN Baseline Scenarios March 2015

 with people attempting to reach evacuation points (this has also been
 implemented in the ONE simulator).  Aschenbruck et al. [MODEL2] focus
 on emergency responders, featuring the removal of nodes from the
 disaster zone, as well as things like obstacles (e.g., collapsed
 buildings).  Cabrero et al. [MODEL3] also look at emergency
 responders but focus on patterns associated with common procedures.
 For example, command and control centers are typically set up with
 emergency responders periodically returning.  Clearly, the mobility
 of emergency responders is particularly important in this setting
 because they usually are the ones who will "carry" information into
 the disaster zone.  It is recommended that one of these emergency-
 specific models be used during any evaluations, due to the inaccuracy
 of alternate models used for "normal" behavior.
 The workload input in this evaluative scenario is far simpler than
 for the previous scenario.  In emergency cases, the dissemination of
 individual pieces of information to all parties is the norm.  This is
 often embodied using things like the Common Alert Protocol (CAP),
 which is an XML standard for describing warning message.  It is
 currently used by various systems, including the Integrated Public
 Alert & Warning System and Google Crisis Response.  As such, small
 objects (e.g., 512 KB to 2 MB) are usually generated containing text
 and images; note that the ONE simulator offers utilities to easily
 generate these.  These messages are also always generated by central
 authorities, therefore making the placement problem easier (they
 would be centrally generated and given to emergency responders to
 disseminate as they pass through the disaster zone).  The key
 variable is therefore the generation rate, which is synonymous with
 the rate that microblogs are written in the previous scenario.  This
 will largely be based on the type of disaster occurring; however,
 hourly updates would be an appropriate configuration.  Higher rates
 can also be tested, based on the rate at which situations change
 (landslides, for example, can exhibit highly dynamic properties).
 To summarize, this section has highlighted the applicability of ICN
 principles to existing DTN scenarios.  Two evaluative setups have
 been described in detail, namely, mobile opportunistic content
 sharing (microblogging) and emergency information dissemination.

2.8. Internet of Things

 Advances in electronics miniaturization combined with low-power
 wireless access technologies (e.g., ZigBee, Near Field Communication
 (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

Pentikousis, et al. Informational [Page 22] RFC 7476 ICN Baseline Scenarios March 2015

 Things (IoT).  IoT is expected to increase significantly the amount
 of content carried by the network due to machine-to-machine (M2M)
 communication as well as novel user-interaction possibilities.
 Yet, the full potential of IoT does not lie in 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 exchange between mobile users, repositories, and
 applications.
 Kutscher and Farrell [IWMT] discuss the benefits that ICN can provide
 in these environments in terms of naming, caching, and optimized
 transport.  The Named Information URI scheme (ni) [RFC6920], for
 instance, 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., the
 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.
 Burke et al. [NDNl] describe the implementation of a building
 automation system for lighting control 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.

Pentikousis, et al. Informational [Page 23] RFC 7476 ICN Baseline Scenarios March 2015

 Biswas et al. [CIBUS] visualize ICN as a contextualized information-
 centric bus (CIBUS) over which diverse sets of service producers and
 consumers coexist with different requirements.  ICN is leveraged to
 unify different platforms to serve consumer-producer interaction in
 both infrastructure and ad hoc settings.  Ravindran et al. [Homenet]
 show the application of this idea in the context of a home network,
 where consumers (residents) require policy-driven interactions with
 diverse services such as climate control, surveillance systems, and
 entertainment systems.  Name-based protocols are developed to enable
 zero-configuration node and service discovery, contextual service
 publishing and subscription, policy-based routing and forwarding with
 name-based firewall, and hoc device-to-device communication.
 IoT exposes ICN concepts to a stringent set of requirements that are
 exacerbated by the quantity of nodes, as well as by the type and
 volume of information that must be handled.  A way to address this is
 proposed in [IoTScope], which tackles the problem of mapping named
 information to an object, diverting from the currently typical
 centralized discovery of 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) that is compared with the Data-Oriented
 Network Architecture described in [DONA].  Their results show how
 topological routing information has a positive impact on resolution,
 at the expense of memory and processing overhead.
 The use of ICN mechanisms in IoT scenarios faces the most dynamic and
 heterogeneous type of challenges, when taking into consideration the
 requirements and objectives of such integration.  The disparity in
 technologies (not only in access technologies, but also in terms of
 end-node diversity such as sensors, actuators, and their
 characteristics) as well as in the information that is generated and
 consumed in such scenarios, will undoubtedly bring about many of the
 considerations presented in the previous sections.  For instance, IoT
 shares similarities with the constraints and requirements applicable
 to vehicular networking.  Here, a central problem is the deployment
 of mechanisms that can use opportunistic connectivity in unreliable
 networking environments (similar to the vehicular networking and DTN
 scenarios).
 However, one important concern in IoT scenarios, also motivated by
 this strongly heterogeneous environment, is how content dissemination
 will be affected by the different semantics of the disparate

Pentikousis, et al. Informational [Page 24] RFC 7476 ICN Baseline Scenarios March 2015

 information and content being shared.  In fact, this is already a
 difficult problem that goes beyond the scope of ICN [SEMANT].  With
 the ability of the network nodes to cache forwarded information to
 improve future requests, a challenge arises regarding whether the ICN
 fabric should be involved in any kind of procedure (e.g., tagging)
 that facilitates the relationship or the interpretation of the
 different sources of information.
 Another issue lies with the need for having energy-efficiency
 mechanisms related to the networking capabilities of IoT
 infrastructures.  Often, the devices in IoT deployments have limited
 battery capabilities, and thus need low power consumption schemes
 working at multiple levels.  In principle, energy efficiency gains
 should be observed from the inherent in-network caching capability.
 However, this might not be the most usual case in IoT scenarios,
 where the information (particularly from sensors or controlling
 actuators) is more akin to real-time traffic, thus reducing the scale
 of potential savings due to ubiquitous in-network caching.
 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, efficient naming, transport, and caching of time-
 restricted data.  Scalability is particularly important in this
 regard as the successful deployment of IoT principles could increase
 both device and content numbers dramatically beyond all current
 expectations.

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 have 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, energy networks, health care, A/V communications, peer-to-

Pentikousis, et al. Informational [Page 25] RFC 7476 ICN Baseline Scenarios March 2015

 peer and collaborative platforms for citizens, social inclusion,
 active participation in public life, e-government, safety and
 security, and sensor networks.  Clearly, this scenario has close ties
 to the vision of IoT, discussed in the previous section, as well as
 to vehicular networking.
 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 [RTIND].  Some of the proposed
 ICN-based solutions are implemented in real testbeds, 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
 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 testbed
 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 DHTs are employed
 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 testbed: a small number of nodes are
 emulated with simple embedded PCs or specific hardware boards (e.g.,
 for some sensor nodes); other nodes (which connect 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) comprising sensors and moving vehicles, as
 well as a cloud-computing system that supports data retrieval and
 storage operations.  The main aspects of this proposal are analyzed
 via simulation using open source code that is publicly available.
 Some software applications are designed on real systems (e.g., PCs
 and smartphones).
 With respect to evaluating ICN approaches in smart-city scenarios, it
 is necessary to consider generic metrics useful to track and monitor
 progress on services results and also for comparing localities
 between themselves and learn from the best [ISODIS].  In particular,
 it is possible to select a specific set of Key Performance Indicators
 (KPIs) for a given project in order to evaluate its success.  These

Pentikousis, et al. Informational [Page 26] RFC 7476 ICN Baseline Scenarios March 2015

 KPIs may reflect the city's environmental and social goals, as well
 as its economic objectives, and they can be calculated at the global,
 regional, national, and local levels.  Therefore, it is not possible
 to define a unique set of interesting metrics, but in the context of
 smart cities, the KPIs should be characterized with respect to the
 developed set of services offered by using the ICN paradigm.
 To sum up, 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. Cross-Scenario Considerations

 This section discusses considerations that span multiple scenarios.

3.1. Multiply Connected Nodes and Economics

 The evolution of, in particular, wireless networking technologies has
 resulted in a convergence of the bandwidth and capabilities of
 various different types of network.  Today, a leading-edge mobile
 telephone or tablet computer will typically be able to access a Wi-Fi
 access point, a 4G cellular network, and the latest generation of
 Bluetooth local networking.  Until recently, a node would usually
 have a clear favorite network technology appropriate to any given
 environment.  The choice would, for example, be primarily determined
 by the available bandwidth with cost as a secondary determinant.
 Furthermore, it is normally the case that a device only uses one of
 the technologies at a time for any particular application.
 It seems likely that this situation will change so that nodes are
 able to use all of the available technologies in parallel.  This will
 be further encouraged by the development of new capabilities in
 cellular networks including Small Cell Networks [SCN] and
 Heterogeneous Networks [HetNet].  Consequently, mobile devices will
 have similar choices to wired nodes attached to multiple service
 providers allowing "multihoming" via the various different
 infrastructure networks as well as potential direct access to other
 mobile nodes via Bluetooth or a more capable form of ad hoc Wi-Fi.
 Infrastructure networks are generally under the control of separate
 economic entities that may have different policies about the
 information of an ICN deployed within their network caches.  As ICN
 shifts the focus from nodes to information objects, the interaction

Pentikousis, et al. Informational [Page 27] RFC 7476 ICN Baseline Scenarios March 2015

 between networks will likely evolve to capitalize on data location
 independence, efficient and scalable in-network named object
 availability, and access via multiple paths.  These interactions
 become critical in evaluating the technical and economic impact of
 ICN architectural choices, as noted in [ArgICN].  Beyond simply
 adding diversity in deployment options, these networks have the
 potential to alter the incentives among existing (and future, we may
 add) network players, as noted in [EconICN].
 Moreover, such networks enable more numerous internetwork
 relationships where exchange of information may be conditioned on a
 set of multilateral policies.  For example, shared SCNs are emerging
 as a cost-effective way to address coverage of complex environments
 such as sports stadiums, large office buildings, malls, etc.  Such
 networks are likely to be a complex mix of different cellular and
 WLAN access technologies (such as HSPA, LTE, and Wi-Fi) as well as
 ownership models.  It is reasonable to assume that access to content
 generated in such networks may depend on contextual information such
 as the subscription type, timing, and location of both the owner and
 requester of the content.  The availability of such contextual
 information across diverse networks can lead to network
 inefficiencies unless data management can benefit from an
 information-centric approach.  The "Event with Large Crowds"
 demonstrator created by the SAIL project investigated this kind of
 scenario; more details are available in [SAIL-B3].
 Jacobson et al. [CCN] include interactions between networks in their
 overall system design and mention both "an edge-driven, bottom-up
 incentive structure" and techniques based on evolutions of existing
 mechanisms both for ICN router discovery by the end-user and for
 interconnecting between Autonomous Systems (ASes).  For example, a
 BGP extension for domain-level content prefix advertisement can be
 used to enable efficient interconnection between ASes.  Liu et al.
 [MLDHT] proposed to address the "suffix-hole" issue found in prefix-
 based name aggregation through the use of a combination of Bloom-
 filter-based aggregation and multi-level DHT.
 Name aggregation has been discussed for a flat naming design, for
 example, in [NCOA], in which the authors note that based on
 estimations in [DONA] flat naming may not require aggregation.  This
 is a point that calls for further study.  Scenarios evaluating name
 aggregation, or lack thereof, should take into account the amount of
 state (e.g., size of routing tables) maintained in edge routers as
 well as network efficiency (e.g., amount of traffic generated).

Pentikousis, et al. Informational [Page 28] RFC 7476 ICN Baseline Scenarios March 2015

               +---------------+
   +---------->| Popular Video |
   |           +---------------+
   |             ^           ^
   |             |           |
   |           +-+-+ $0/MB +-+-+
   |           | A +-------+ B |
   |           ++--+       +-+-+
   |            | ^         ^ |
   |      $8/MB | |         | | $10/MB
   |            v |         | v
 +-+-+  $0/MB  +--+---------+--+
 | D +---------+       C       |
 +---+         +---------------+
 Figure 5.  Relationships and Transit Costs between Networks A to D
 DiBenedetto et al. [RP-NDN] study policy knobs made available by NDN
 to network operators.  New policies that are not feasible in the
 current Internet are described, including a "cache sharing peers"
 policy, where two peers have an incentive to share content cached in,
 but not originating from, their respective network.  The simple
 example used in the investigation considers several networks and
 associated transit costs, as shown in Figure 5 (based on Figure 1 of
 [RP-NDN]).  Agyapong and Sirbu [EconICN] further establish that ICN
 approaches should incorporate features that foster (new) business
 relationships.  For example, publishers should be able to indicate
 their willingness to partake in the caching market, proper reporting
 should be enabled to avoid fraud, and content should be made
 cacheable as much as possible to increase cache hit ratios.
 Kutscher et al. [SAIL-B3] enable network interactions in the NetInf
 architecture using a name resolution service at domain edge routers
 and a BGP-like routing system in the NetInf Default-Free Zone.
 Business models and incentives are studied in [SAIL-A7] and
 [SAIL-A8], including scenarios where the access network provider (or
 a virtual CDN) guarantees QoS to end users using ICN.  Figure 6
 illustrates a typical scenario topology from this work that involves
 an interconnectivity provider.

Pentikousis, et al. Informational [Page 29] RFC 7476 ICN Baseline Scenarios March 2015

 +----------+     +-----------------+     +------+
 | Content  |     | Access Network/ |     | End  |
 | Provider +---->|  ICN Provider   +---->| User |
 +----------+     +-+-------------+-+     +------+
                    |             |
                    |             |
                    v             v
 +-------------------+     +----------------+       +------+
 | Interconnectivity |     | Access Network |       | End  |
 |     Provider      +---->|     Provider   +------>| User |
 +-------------------+     +----------------+       +------+
 Figure 6.  Setup and Operating Costs of Network Entities
 Jokela et al. [LIPSIN] propose a two-layer approach where additional
 rendezvous systems and topology formation functions are placed
 logically above multiple networks and enable advertising and routing
 content between them.  Visala et al. [LANES] further describe an ICN
 architecture based on similar principles, which, notably, relies on a
 hierarchical DHT-based rendezvous interconnect.  Rajahalme et al.
 [PSIRP1] describe a rendezvous system using both a BGP-like routing
 protocol at the edge and a DHT-based overlay at the core.  Their
 evaluation model is centered around policy-compliant path stretch,
 latency introduced by overlay routing, caching efficacy, and load
 distribution.
 Rajahalme et al. [ICCP] point out that ICN architectural changes may
 conflict with the current tier-based peering model.  For example,
 changes leading to shorter paths between ISPs are likely to meet
 resistance from Tier-1 ISPs.  Rajahalme [IDMcast] shows how
 incentives can help shape the design of specific ICN aspects, and in
 [IDArch] he presents a modeling approach to exploit these incentives.
 This includes a network model that describes the relationship between
 Autonomous Systems based on data inferred from the current Internet,
 a traffic model taking into account business factors for each AS, and
 a routing model integrating the valley-free model and policy
 compliance.  A typical scenario topology is illustrated in Figure 7,
 which is redrawn here based on Figure 1 of [ICCP].  Note that it
 relates well with the topology illustrated in Figure 1 of this
 document.

Pentikousis, et al. Informational [Page 30] RFC 7476 ICN Baseline Scenarios March 2015

                      o-----o
                +-----+  J  +-----+
                |     o--*--o     |
                |        *        |
             o--+--o     *     o--+--o
             |  H  +-----------+  I  |
             o-*-*-o     *     o-*-*-o
               * *       *       * *
          ****** ******* * ******* *******
          *            * * *             *
       o--*--o        o*-*-*o         o--*--o
       |  E  +--------+  F  +---------+  G  +
       o-*-*-o        o-----o         o-*-*-o
         * *                            * *
    ****** *******                 ****** ******
    *            *                 *           *
 o--*--o      o--*--o           o--*--o     o--*--o
 |  A  |      |  B  +-----------+  C  |     |  D  |
 o-----o      o--+--o           o--+--o     o----+o
                 |                 |         ^^  | route
           data  |            data |    data ||  | to
                 |                 |         ||  | data
             o---v--o          o---v--o     o++--v-o
             | User |          | User |     | Data |
             o------o          o------o     o------o
 Legend:
 *****  Transit link
 +---+  Peering link
 +--->  Data delivery or route to data
 Figure 7.  Tier-Based Set of Interconnections between AS A to J
 To sum up, the evaluation of ICN architectures across multiple
 network types should include a combination of technical and economic
 aspects, capturing their various interactions.  These scenarios aim
 to illustrate scalability, efficiency, and manageability, as well as
 traditional and novel network policies.  Moreover, scenarios in this
 category should specifically address how different actors have proper
 incentives, not only in a pure ICN realm, but also during the
 migration phase towards this final state.

3.2. Energy Efficiency

 ICN has prominent features that can be taken advantage of in order to
 significantly reduce the energy footprint of future communication
 networks.  Of course, one can argue that specific ICN network
 elements may consume more energy than today's conventional network

Pentikousis, et al. Informational [Page 31] RFC 7476 ICN Baseline Scenarios March 2015

 equipment due to the potentially higher energy demands for named-data
 processing en route.  On balance, however, ICN introduces an
 architectural approach that may compensate on the whole and can even
 achieve higher energy efficiency rates when compared to the host-
 centric paradigm.
 We elaborate on the energy efficiency potential of ICN based on three
 categories of ICN characteristics.  Namely, we point out that a) ICN
 does not rely solely on end-to-end communication, b) ICN enables
 ubiquitous caching, and c) ICN brings awareness of user requests (as
 well as their corresponding responses) at the network layer thus
 permitting network elements to better schedule their transmission
 patterns.
 First, ICN does not mandate perpetual end-to-end communication, which
 introduces a whole range of energy consumption inefficiencies due to
 the extensive signaling, especially in the case of mobile and
 wirelessly connected devices.  This opens up new opportunities for
 accommodating sporadically connected nodes and could be one of the
 keys to an order-of-magnitude decrease in energy consumption compared
 to the potential contributions of other technological advances.  For
 example, web applications often need to maintain state at both ends
 of a connection in order to verify that the authenticated peer is up
 and running.  This introduces keep-alive timers and polling behavior
 with a high toll on energy consumption.  Pentikousis [EEMN] discusses
 several related scenarios and explains why the current host-centric
 paradigm, which employs perpetual end-to-end connections, introduces
 built-in energy inefficiencies, and argues that patches to make
 currently deployed protocols energy-aware cannot provide for an
 order-of-magnitude increase in energy efficiency.
 Second, ICN network elements come with built-in caching capabilities,
 which is often referred to as "ubiquitous caching".  Pushing data
 objects to caches closer to end-user devices, for example, could
 significantly reduce the amount of transit traffic in the core
 network, thereby reducing the energy used for data transport.  Guan
 et al. [EECCN] study the energy efficiency of a CCNx architecture
 (based on their proposed energy model) and compare it with
 conventional content dissemination systems such as CDNs and P2P.
 Their model is based on the analysis of the topological structure and
 the average hop length from all consumers to the nearest cache
 location.  Their results show that an information-centric approach
 can be more energy efficient in delivering popular and small-size
 content.  In particular, they also note that different network-
 element design choices (e.g., the optical bypass approach) can be
 more energy efficient in delivering infrequently accessed content.

Pentikousis, et al. Informational [Page 32] RFC 7476 ICN Baseline Scenarios March 2015

 Lee et al. [EECD] investigate the energy efficiency of various
 network devices deployed in access, metro, and core networks for both
 CDNs and ICN.  They use trace-based simulations to show that an ICN
 approach can substantially improve the network energy efficiency for
 content dissemination mainly due to the reduction in the number of
 hops required to obtain a data object, which can be served by
 intermediate nodes in ICN.  They also emphasize that the impact of
 cache placement (in incremental deployment scenarios) and
 local/cooperative content replacement strategies needs to be
 carefully investigated in order to better quantify the energy
 efficiencies arising from adopting an ICN paradigm.
 Third, ICN elements are aware of the user request and its
 corresponding data response; due to the nature of name-based routing,
 they can employ power consumption optimization processes for
 determining their transmission schedule or powering down inactive
 network interfaces.  For example, network coding [NCICN] or adaptive
 video streaming [COAST] can be used in individual ICN elements so
 that redundant transmissions, possibly passing through intermediary
 networks, could be significantly reduced, thereby saving energy by
 avoiding carrying redundant traffic.
 Alternatively, approaches that aim to simplify routers, such as
 [PURSUIT], could also reduce energy consumption by pushing routing
 decisions to a more energy-efficient entity.  Along these lines, Ko
 et al. [ICNDC] design a data center network architecture based on ICN
 principles and decouple the router control-plane and data-plane
 functionalities.  Thus, data forwarding is performed by simplified
 network entities, while the complicated routing computation is
 carried out in more energy-efficient data centers.
 To summarize, energy efficiency has been discussed in ICN evaluation
 studies, but most published work is preliminary in nature.  Thus, we
 suggest that more work is needed in this front.  Evaluating energy
 efficiency does not require the definition of new scenarios or
 baseline topologies, 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 of power
 consumption.

3.3. Operation across Multiple Network Paradigms

 Today the overwhelming majority of networks are integrated with the
 well-connected Internet with IP at the "waist" of the technology
 hourglass.  However, there is a large amount of ongoing research into
 alternative paradigms that can cope with conditions other than the
 standard set assumed by the Internet.  Perhaps the most advanced of
 these is Delay- and Disruption-Tolerant Networking (DTN).  DTN is

Pentikousis, et al. Informational [Page 33] RFC 7476 ICN Baseline Scenarios March 2015

 considered as one of the scenarios for the deployment in Section 2.7,
 but here we consider how ICN can operate in an integrated network
 that has essentially disjoint "domains" (a highly overloaded term!)
 or regions that use different network paradigms and technologies, but
 with gateways that allow interoperation.
 ICN operates in terms of named data objects so that requests and
 deliveries of information objects can be independent of the
 networking paradigm.  Some researchers have contemplated some form of
 ICN becoming the new waist of the hourglass as the basis of a future
 reincarnation of the Internet, e.g., [ArgICN], but there are a large
 number of problems to resolve, including authorization, access
 control, and transactional operation for applications such as
 banking, before some form of ICN can be considered as ready to take
 over from IP as the dominant networking technology.  In the meantime,
 ICN architectures will operate in conjunction with existing network
 technologies as an overlay or in cooperation with the lower layers of
 the "native" technology.
 It seems likely that as the reach of the "Internet" is extended,
 other technologies such as DTN will be needed to handle scenarios
 such as space communications where inherent delays are too large for
 TCP/IP to cope with effectively.  Thus, demonstrating that ICN
 architectures can work effectively in and across the boundaries of
 different networking technologies will be important.
 The NetInf architecture, in particular, targets the inter-domain
 scenario by the use of a convergence-layer architecture [SAIL-B3],
 and Publish-Subscribe Internet Routing Paradigm (PSIRP) and/or
 Publish-Subscribe Internet Technology (PURSUIT) is envisaged as a
 candidate for an IP replacement.
 The key items for evaluation over and above the satisfactory
 operation of the architecture in each constituent domain will be to
 ensure that requests and responses can be carried across the network
 boundaries with adequate performance and do not cause malfunctions in
 applications or infrastructure because of the differing
 characteristics of the gatewayed domains.

4. Summary

 This document presents a wide range of different application areas in
 which the use of information-centric network designs have been
 evaluated in the peer-reviewed literature.  Evidently, this broad
 range of scenarios illustrates the capability of ICN to potentially
 address today's problems in an alternative and better way than host-
 centric approaches as well as to point to future scenarios where ICN
 may be applicable.  We believe that by putting different ICN systems

Pentikousis, et al. Informational [Page 34] RFC 7476 ICN Baseline Scenarios March 2015

 to the test in diverse application areas, the community will be
 better equipped to judge the potential of a given ICN proposal and
 therefore subsequently invest more effort in developing it further.
 It is worth noting that this document collected different kinds of
 considerations, as a result of our ongoing survey of the literature
 and the discussion within ICNRG, which we believe would have
 otherwise remained unnoticed in the wider community.  As a result, we
 expect that this document can assist in fostering the applicability
 and future deployment of ICN over a broader set of operations, as
 well as possibly influencing and enhancing the base ICN proposals
 that are currently available and possibly assist in defining new
 scenarios where ICN would be applicable.
 We conclude this document with a brief summary of the evaluation
 aspects we have seen across a range of scenarios.
 The scalability of different mechanisms in an ICN architecture stands
 out as an important concern (cf. Sections 2.1, 2.2, 2.5, 2.6, 2.8,
 2.9, and 3.1) as does network, resource, and energy efficiency (cf.
 Sections 2.1, 2.3, 2.4, 3.1, and 3.2).  Operational aspects such as
 network planing, manageability, reduced complexity and overhead (cf.
 Sections 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.8, and 3.1) should not be neglected
 especially as ICN architectures are evaluated with respect to their
 potential for deployment in the real world.  Accordingly, further
 research in economic aspects as well as in the communication,
 computation, and storage tradeoffs entailed in each ICN architecture
 is needed.
 With respect to purely technical requirements, support for multicast,
 mobility, and caching lie at the core of many scenarios (cf. Sections
 2.1, 2.3, 2.5, and 2.6).  ICN must also be able to cope when the
 Internet expands to incorporate additional network paradigms (cf.
 Section 3.3).  We have also seen that being able to address stringent
 QoS requirements and increase reliability and resilience should also
 be evaluated following well-established methods (cf. Sections 2.2,
 2.8, and 2.9).
 Finally, we note that new applications that significantly improve the
 end-user experience and forge a migration path from today's host-
 centric paradigm could be the key to a sustained and increasing
 deployment of the ICN paradigm in the real world (cf. Sections 2.2,
 2.3, 2.6, 2.8, and 2.9).

5. Security Considerations

 This document does not impact the security of the Internet.

Pentikousis, et al. Informational [Page 35] RFC 7476 ICN Baseline Scenarios March 2015

6. Informative References

 [RFC5743]  Falk, A., "Definition of an Internet Research Task Force
            (IRTF) Document Stream", RFC 5743, December 2009,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5743>.
 [RFC5050]  Scott, K. and S. Burleigh, "Bundle Protocol
            Specification", RFC 5050, November 2007,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5050>.
 [RFC4838]  Cerf, V., Burleigh, S., Hooke, A., Torgerson, L., Durst,
            R., Scott, K., Fall, K., and H. Weiss, "Delay-Tolerant
            Networking Architecture", RFC 4838, April 2007,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4838>.
 [RFC5568]  Koodli, R., Ed., "Mobile IPv6 Fast Handovers", RFC 5568,
            July 2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5568>.
 [RFC6920]  Farrell, S., Kutscher, D., Dannewitz, C., Ohlman, B.,
            Keranen, A., and P. Hallam-Baker, "Naming Things with
            Hashes", RFC 6920, April 2013,
            <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6920>.
 [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.
 [CCNx]     Mosko, M.,  Solis, I., and E. Uzun, "CCN 1.0 Protocol
            Architecture", Project CCNx documentation, Xerox Palo Alto
            Research Center, 2013,
            <http://ccnx.org/pubs/ICN_CCN_Protocols.pdf>.
 [NDNP]     Zhang, L., et al., "Named Data Networking (NDN) Project",
            NDN Technical Report NDN-0001, Oct. 2010,
            <http://named-data.net/publications/techreports/>.
 [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.
 [SoA1]     Ahlgren, B., et al., "A survey of information-centric
            networking", IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 50, no. 7, July 2012.

Pentikousis, et al. Informational [Page 36] RFC 7476 ICN Baseline Scenarios March 2015

 [SoA2]     Xylomenos, G., et al. "A survey of information-centric
            networking research", IEEE Communications Surveys and
            Tutorials (2013): 1-26.
 [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.
 [CBIS]     Jacobson, V., et al., "Custodian-Based Information
            Sharing", IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 50, no. 7, July 2012.
 [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.
 [NDNpb]    Xuan, Y. and Z. Yan, "Enhancing Routing Efficiency in
            Named Data Network with Piggybacked Interest", Proc. CFI,
            ACM, 2013.
 [ACT]      Zhu, Z., et al., "ACT: Audio Conference Tool Over Named
            Data Networking", Proc. SIGCOMM ICN Workshop, ACM, 2011.
 [G-COPSS]  Chen, J., et al., "G-COPSS: A Content Centric
            Communication Infrastructure for Gaming Applications",
            Proc. ICDCS, IEEE, 2012.
 [MMIN]     Pentikousis, K., and P. Bertin., "Mobility Management in
            Infrastructure Networks", IEEE Internet Computing 17, no.
            5 (2013): 74-79.
 [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.

Pentikousis, et al. Informational [Page 37] RFC 7476 ICN Baseline Scenarios March 2015

 [MOBSURV]  Tyson, G., et al., "A Survey of Mobility in Information-
            Centric Networks: Challenges and Research Directions",
            Proc. MobiHoc Workshop on Emerging Name-Oriented Mobile
            Networking Design, ACM, 2012.
 [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.
 [E-CHANET] M. Amadeo, et al., "E-CHANET: Routing, Forwarding and
            Transport in Information-Centric Multihop Wireless
            Networks", Computer Communications, Elsevier, Jan. 2013
            online.
 [MobiA]    Meisel, M., et al., "Ad Hoc Networking via Named Data",
            Proc. MobiArch, ACM 2010.
 [CCNMANET] Oh, S. Y., et al., "Content Centric Networking in Tactical
            and Emergency MANETs", Proc. Wireless Days, IFIP, 2010.
 [RTIND]    Wang, L., et al., "Rapid Traffic Information Dissemination
            Using Named Data", Proc. MobiHoc NoM workshop, ACM, 2012.
 [CCNVANET] Amadeo, M., et al., "Content-Centric Networking: is that a
            Solution for Upcoming Vehicular Networks?", Proc. VANET,
            ACM, 2012.
 [ABC]      Gustafsson, E., and A. Jonsson. "Always best connected",
            Wireless Communications, IEEE 10.1 (2003): 49-55.
 [SHARE]    Muscariello, L., et al., "Bandwidth and storage sharing
            performance in information centric networking", Proc.
            SIGCOMM ICN Workshop, ACM, 2011.

Pentikousis, et al. Informational [Page 38] RFC 7476 ICN Baseline Scenarios March 2015

 [CL4M]     Chai, W. K., et al., "Cache 'Less for More' in
            Information-centric Networks", Proc. Networking, IFIP,
            2012.
 [CCNCT]    Psaras, I., et al., "Modelling and Evaluation of CCN-
            Caching Trees", In Proc. of the 10th international IFIP
            conference on Networking, Valencia, Spain, May 2011.
 [BTCACHE]  Tyson, G., et al., "A Trace-Driven Analysis of Caching in
            Content-Centric Networks", Proc. ICCCN, IEEE, 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.
 [ACDICN]   Fotiou, N., et al., "Access control enforcement delegation
            for information-centric networking architectures", Proc.
            SIGCOMM ICN Workshop, ACM, 2012.
 [EWC]      Bai, F. and B. Krishnamachari, "Exploiting the wisdom of
            the crowd: localized, distributed information-centric
            VANETs", IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 48, no. 5, May 2010.
 [DMND]     Wang, J., R. Wakikawa, and L. Zhang, "DMND: Collecting
            data from mobiles using Named Data", Proc. Vehicular
            Networking Conference (VNC), IEEE, 2010.
 [DNV2V]    Wang, L., et al., "Data Naming in Vehicle-to-Vehicle
            Communications", Proc. INFOCOM NOMEN workshop, IEEE, 2012.
 [CCNHV]    Arnould, G., et al., "A Self-Organizing Content Centric
            Network Model for Hybrid Vehicular Ad-Hoc Networks". Proc.
            DIVANet, ACM, 2011.
 [CCDIVN]   TalebiFard, P. and V.C.M. Leung, "A Content Centric
            Approach to Dissemination of Information in Vehicular
            Networks", Proc. DIVANet, ACM, 2012.
 [CRoWN]    Amadeo, M., et al., "CRoWN: Content-Centric Networking in
            Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks", IEEE Communications Letters,
            vol. 16, no. 9, Sept. 2012.
 [SCN]      Hoydis, J., et al., "Green small-cell networks", IEEE
            Vehicular Technology Magazine, vol. 6, no.1, pp. 37-43,
            March 2011.

Pentikousis, et al. Informational [Page 39] RFC 7476 ICN Baseline Scenarios March 2015

 [HetNet]   Li, H., et al. "Efficient HetNet implementation using
            broadband wireless access with fiber-connected massively
            distributed antennas architecture", IEEE Wireless
            Communications, vol. 18, no.3, pp. 72-78, June 2011.
 [ArgICN]   Trossen, D., et al., "Arguments for an information centric
            internetworking architecture", ACM SIGCOMM CCR, 40:26-33,
            Apr. 2010.
 [EconICN]  Agyapong, P. and M. Sirbu, "Economic Incentives in
            Information Centric Networking: Implications for Protocol
            Design and Public Policy", IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 50, no.
            12, Dec. 2012.
 [SAIL-B3]  Kutscher, D., Ed., et al., "Final NetInf Architecture",
            SAIL Project Deliverable D-B.3, Jan. 2013,
            <http://www.sail-project.eu/deliverables/>.
 [MLDHT]    Liu, H., et al., "A multi-level DHT routing framework with
            aggregation", Proc. SIGCOMM ICN Workshop, ACM, 2012.
 [NCOA]     Ghodsi, A., et al., "Naming in Content-oriented
            Architectures", Proc. SIGCOMM ICN Workshop, ACM, 2011.
 [RP-NDN]   DiBenedetto, S., et al., "Routing policies in named data
            networking", Proc. SIGCOMM ICN Workshop, ACM, 2011.
 [SAIL-A7]  Salo, J., Ed., et al., "New business models and business
            dynamics of the future networks", SAIL Project Deliverable
            D-A.7, Aug. 2011,
            <http://www.sail-project.eu/deliverables/>.
 [SAIL-A8]  Zhang, N., Ed., et al., "Evaluation of business models",
            SAIL Project Deliverable D-A.8, Jan. 2013,
            <http://www.sail-project.eu/deliverables/>.
 [LIPSIN]   Jokela, P., et al., "LIPSIN: line speed publish/subscribe
            inter-networking", Proc. of ACM SIGCOMM 2009.
 [LANES]    Visala, K., et al., "LANES: An Inter-Domain Data-Oriented
            Routing Architecture", Proc. CoNEXT Re-Arch Workshop, ACM,
            2009.
 [PSIRP1]   Rajahalme, J., et al., "Inter-Domain Rendezvous Service
            Architecture", PSIRP Technical Report TR09-003, Dec. 2009.

Pentikousis, et al. Informational [Page 40] RFC 7476 ICN Baseline Scenarios March 2015

 [ICCP]     Rajahalme J., et al., "Incentive-Compatible Caching and
            Peering in Data-Oriented Networks", Proc. CoNEXT Re-Arch
            Workshop, ACM, 2008.
 [IDMcast]  Rajahalme, J., "Incentive-informed Inter-domain
            Multicast", Proc. Global Internet Symposium 2010.
 [IDArch]   Rajahalme, J., "Inter-domain incentives and Internet
            architecture", PhD. Dissertation, Aalto University, Aug.
            2012.
 [PURSUIT]  Fotiou, N., et al., "Developing Information Networking
            Further: From PSIRP to PURSUIT", Proc. BROADNETS, ICST,
            2010.
 [EECCN]    Guan, K., et al., "On the Energy Efficiency of Content
            Delivery Architectures", Proc. ICC Workshops, IEEE, 2011.
 [EECD]     Lee, U., Rimac, I., Kilper, D., and V. Hilt, "Toward
            energy-efficient content dissemination", IEEE Network,
            vol. 25, no. 2, March-April 2011.
 [NCICN]    Montpetit, M. J., Westphal, C., and D. Trossen, "Network
            coding meets information-centric networking: an
            architectural case for information dispersion through
            native network coding", Proc. MOBIHOC NoM Workshop, ACM,
            2012.
 [COAST]    Gruneberg, K., et al., "File format specification and 3D
            video codec", COAST Project Deliverable D5.1, July 2011,
            <http://www.coast-fp7.eu/deliverables.html>.
 [ICNDC]    Ko, B. J., Pappas, V., Raghavendra, R., Song, Y.,
            Dilmaghani, R. B., Lee, K.-w., and D. Verma, "An
            information-centric architecture for data center
            networks", Proc. SIGCOMM ICN Workshop, ACM, 2012.
 [DTN]      Fall, K., "A delay-tolerant network architecture for
            challenged internets", Proc. SIGCOMM, ACM, 2003.
 [DTNICN]   Tyson, G., Bigham, J., and E. Bodanese, "Towards an
            Information-Centric Delay-Tolerant Network", Proc. IEEE
            INFOCOM NOMEN 2013, Turin, Italy.
 [BPQ]      Farrell, S., Lynch, A., Kutscher, D., and A. Lindgren,
            "Bundle Protocol Query Extension Block", Work in Progress,
            draft-irtf-dtnrg-bpq-00, May 2012.

Pentikousis, et al. Informational [Page 41] RFC 7476 ICN Baseline Scenarios March 2015

 [SLINKY]   Kawadia, V., Riga, N., Opper, J., and D. Sampath, "Slinky:
            An adaptive protocol for content access in disruption-
            tolerant ad hoc networks", in Proc. MobiHoc Workshop on
            Tactical Mobile Ad Hoc Networking, 2011.
 [ONE]      "The Opportunistic Network Environment simulator",
            <http://www.netlab.tkk.fi/tutkimus/dtn/theone>.
 [TWIMIGHT] Hossmann, T., et al. "Twitter in disaster mode: smart
            probing for opportunistic peers", Proc. 3rd ACM
            International Workshop on Mobile Opportunistic Networks,
            ACM, 2012.
 [MODEL1]   Uddin, M.Y.S., Nicol, D.M., Abdelzaher, T.F., and R.H.
            Kravets, "A post-disaster mobility model for Delay
            Tolerant Networking", Simulation Conference (WSC),
            Proceedings of the 2009 Winter, pp. 2785-2796, 13-16 Dec.
            2009.
 [MODEL2]   Aschenbruck, N., Gerhards-Padilla, E., and P. Martini,
            "Modeling mobility in disaster area scenarios",
            Performance Evaluation 66, no. 12 (2009): 773-790.
 [MODEL3]   Cabrero, S., Paneda, X.G., Plagemann, T., Melendi, D., and
            R. Garcia, "An Overlay Routing Protocol for Video over
            sparse MANETs in Emergencies", Cadernos de Informatica 6,
            no. 1 (2011): 195-202.
 [IoTEx]    Burke, J., "Authoring Place-based Experiences with an
            Internet of Things: Tussles of Expressive, Operational,
            and Participatory Goals", Position Paper, Interconnecting
            Smart Objects with the Internet Workshop, IAB, 2011.
 [IWMT]     Kutscher, D. and S. Farrell, "Towards an Information-
            Centric Internet with more Things", Position Paper,
            Interconnecting Smart Objects with the Internet Workshop,
            IAB, 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.
 [CIBUS]    Biswas, T., et al., "Contextualized Information-Centric
            Home Network", Proc. ACM SIGCOMM, ACM, 2013.

Pentikousis, et al. Informational [Page 42] RFC 7476 ICN Baseline Scenarios March 2015

 [Homenet]  Ravindran, R., et al., "Information-centric Networking
            based Homenet", Proc. International Workshop on Management
            of the Future Internet (ManFI), IFIP/IEEE, 2013.
 [IoTScope] Marias, G.F., et al., "Efficient information lookup for
            the Internet of Things", Proc. WoWMoM, IEEE, 2012.
 [ICN-DHT]  Katsaros, K., et al., "On inter-domain name resolution for
            information-centric networks", Proc. Networking, Springer,
            2012.
 [SEMANT]   Sheth, A., et al., "Semantic Sensor Web," Internet
            Computing, IEEE , vol. 12, no. 4, pp.78-83, July-Aug. 2008
 [CPG]      Cianci, I., et al., "Content Centric Services in Smart
            Cities", Proc. NGMAST, IEEE, 2012.
 [MVM]      Hernndez-Munoz, 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
            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's Thesis, Lulea University of Technology, 2012.
 [ISODIS]   ISO/DIS, "Sustainable development and resilience of
            communities --Indicators for city services and quality of
            life", ISO/DIS 37120, 2013.
 [EVAL-METHOD]
            Pentikousis, K., Ed., Ohlman, B., Davies, E., Spirou, S.,
            Boggia, G., and P. Mahadevan, "Information-centric
            Networking: Evaluation Methodology", Work in Progress,
            draft-irtf-icnrg-evaluation-methodology-00, July 2014.
 [CHALLENGES]
            Kutscher, D., Ed., Eum, S., Pentikousis, K., Psaras, I.,
            Corujo, D., Saucez, D., Schmidt, T., and M. Waehlisch,
            "ICN Research Challenges", Work in Progress, draft-irtf-
            icnrg-challenges-01, February 2015.

Pentikousis, et al. Informational [Page 43] RFC 7476 ICN Baseline Scenarios March 2015

Acknowledgments

 Dorothy Gellert contributed to an earlier draft version of this
 document.
 This document has benefited from reviews, pointers to the growing ICN
 literature, suggestions, comments, and proposed text provided by the
 following members of the IRTF Information-Centric Networking Research
 Group (ICNRG), listed in alphabetical order: Marica Amadeo, Hitoshi
 Asaeda, Claudia Campolo, Luigi Alfredo Grieco, Myeong-Wuk Jang, Ren
 Jing, Will Liu, Hongbin Luo, Priya Mahadevan, Ioannis Psaras, Spiros
 Spirou, Dirk Trossen, Jianping Wang, Yuanzhe Xuan, and Xinwen Zhang.
 The authors would like to thank Mark Stapp, Juan Carlos Zuniga, and
 G.Q. Wang for their comments and suggestions as part of their open
 and independent review of this document within ICNRG.

Authors' Addresses

 Kostas Pentikousis (editor)
 EICT GmbH
 Torgauer Strasse 12-15
 10829 Berlin
 Germany
 EMail: k.pentikousis@eict.de
 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

Pentikousis, et al. Informational [Page 44] RFC 7476 ICN Baseline Scenarios March 2015

 Gennaro Boggia
 Dep. of Electrical and Information Engineering
 Politecnico di Bari
 Via Orabona 4
 70125 Bari
 Italy
 EMail: g.boggia@poliba.it
 Gareth Tyson
 School and Electronic Engineering and Computer Science
 Queen Mary, University of London
 United Kingdom
 EMail: gareth.tyson@eecs.qmul.ac.uk
 Elwyn Davies
 Trinity College Dublin/Folly Consulting Ltd
 Dublin, 2
 Ireland
 EMail: davieseb@scss.tcd.ie
 Antonella Molinaro
 Dep. of Information, Infrastructures, and Sustainable
 Energy Engineering
 Universita' Mediterranea di Reggio Calabria
 Via Graziella 1
 89100 Reggio Calabria
 Italy
 EMail: antonella.molinaro@unirc.it
 Suyong Eum
 National Institute of Information and Communications Technology
 4-2-1, Nukui Kitamachi, Koganei
 Tokyo  184-8795
 Japan
 Phone: +81-42-327-6582
 EMail: suyong@nict.go.jp

Pentikousis, et al. Informational [Page 45]

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/rfc/rfc7476.txt · Last modified: 2015/03/13 20:03 (external edit)