Internet DRAFT - draft-corujo-icn-mgmt
draft-corujo-icn-mgmt
ICNRG D. Corujo
Internet-Draft Instituto de Telecomunicacoes
Intended status: Informational K. Pentikousis
Expires: January 2, 2015 EICT
I. Vidal
J. Garcia-Reinoso
UC3M
S. Lederer
Alpen-Adria Universitat Klagenfurt
S. Spirou
Intracom Telecom
C. Westphal
Huawei
July 1, 2014
ICN Management Considerations
draft-corujo-icn-mgmt-05
Abstract
ICN has been proposing and evaluating novel ways for reaching on-line
content in upcoming Future Internet environments, leveraging
intrinsic capabilities such as naming, caching and built-in security.
In order to fully realize the capabilities and vision provided by
ICN, supportive management procedures need to be ensured, providing
the architectures, and the elements that figure in them, with the
means to facilitate the delivery of content and the operation of the
network. In the current Internet, these management aspects have been
being developed and enhanced in parallel to the existing data
protocol and mechanisms, resulting in a plethora of different and
hard-to-integrate approaches, but still fulfil indispensable roles
and actions for the operation and well-being of the network. We
consider that the availability of management mechanisms for ICN will
foster deployment and, as such, should be tackled still in the design
and experimentation phases. In this way, this document addresses and
identifies ICN management considerations, under two different
settings: a) achieving management operations using ICN-based
mechanisms and, b) how to manage ICN procedures themselves. The
ultimate goal is to provide the necessary breadth to establish
management mechanisms deployment guidelines in a common way
throughout the existing ICN ecosystem of architectures.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Corujo, et al. Expires January 2, 2015 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft ICN Management Considerations July 2014
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 2, 2015.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2014 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. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. ICN Management Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. ICN-assisted Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1.1. Video Adaptation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1.1.1. Adaptive Delivery of Multimedia Content in ICN . 4
2.1.2. Content Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1.3. Network Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.1.3.1. NetInf Management Considerations . . . . . . . . 7
2.1.4. Resource Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.2. Management for ICN Aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.2.1. Caching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.2.2. Information Freshness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.3. Hybrid Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.3.1. Face Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
6. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Corujo, et al. Expires January 2, 2015 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft ICN Management Considerations July 2014
1. Introduction
Information-centric networking (ICN) enables new ideas for naming and
addressing, privacy, security, and trust, and should also lead us to
think new ways for deploying, operating and managing networks in the
future. By default, users, programs, information objects and hosts
are in general untrustworthy and mobile in an information-centric
network. This means that many of the assumptions in traditional
network management, including all aspects of FCAPS (Fault,
Configuration, Accounting, Performance, and Security) need to be
rethought. However, despite the different instantiations of ICN
architectures, and the plethora of novel research work built on top
of them, little attention has been paid to management aspects so far.
This includes both enabling "traditional" network management
operations (which work well from small networks to large
infrastructure networks), and supporting and optimizing intrinsic
procedures of the ICN fabric.
This document aims to draw the attention of ICNRG to the importance
of network management for real-world deployments. Today, network
management is practically an add-on to host-centric deployments. We
can do better as we move forward in ICN research considering the full
range of deployments from home-office environments to challenged
networks to tier-1 networks. To this end, we draft some first
management considerations that, on the one hand, capitalize on ICN
concepts for defining management procedures and, on the other,
explore the possibilities for defining a common management framework
irrespective of the ICN approach taken. We reckon that the later is
a much more formidable task and we are looking forward to tackling it
together with other members of ICNRG.
We argue that addressing management at an early stage is not only
important for real-world adoption and the successful future
deployment of ICN, but also to deal with scenarios where management
can simplify, enhance or optimize ICN network utilization and
performance. The subject becomes particularly challenging, as
disparate characteristics from different ICN approaches (e.g., in
terms of namespace, granularity, routing, and so on) impact the
definition and design of these management mechanisms. This document
analyses ICN Management under three different perspectives. Firstly,
in Section 2 it will provide considerations regarding the usage of
ICN mechanisms for realizing management procedures. Secondly, in
Section 2.2 will look into how the intrinsic procedures used for
operating the ICN architecture can be managed. Finally, in
Section 2.3 we will look in a combined way to the former two issues
and identify the role of ICN when it's own procedures will be used to
manage ICN operations.
Corujo, et al. Expires January 2, 2015 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft ICN Management Considerations July 2014
We plan to incrementally develop the draft, incorporating
considerations on other ICN aspects as well as different approaches
(e.g., [PURSUIT] and [NetInf]) as well as address other pertinent
aspects as we receive feedback from the research group members.
2. ICN Management Approaches
In this part of the document, ICN management approaches will be
addressed in respect to how ICN mechanisms can be used to realize
management procedures, how to manage the specific ICN mechanisms
themselves and hybrid approaches where the ICN mechanisms themselves
are used to realize the management of ICN aspects.
2.1. ICN-assisted Management
This section addresses how the ICN operational mechanisms can be used
to realize different kinds of network managament procedures.
2.1.1. Video Adaptation
This section investigates ICN management considerations for the
delivery of video data, and especially the adaptive delivery of
video. From a content perspective, multimedia is omnipresent in the
Internet, e.g., producing 62% of the total Internet traffic in North
America's fixed access networks [GIPR2013].
Video, and multimedia content in general, is has specific
characteristics, which have to be considered and where network
management consideration are necessary. The consumption of
multimedia content comes along with timing requirements for the
delivery of the content, for both, live and on-demand consumption.
Long startup delays, buffering periods or poor quality, etc. should
be avoided to achieve a good Quality of Experience of the consumer of
the content. Of course, these requirements are heavily influenced by
routing decision and caching, which are central parts of ICN, and
which may be leveraged more efficiently by an intelligent network
management.
2.1.1.1. Adaptive Delivery of Multimedia Content in ICN
Today's dominant streaming systems are based on the common approach
of leveraging HTTP-based Internet infrastructures, which are
consequently based on the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) and the
Internet Protocol (IP). Especially the adaptive multimedia streaming
(AMS) via HTTP is gaining more and more momentum and resulted in the
standardization of MPEG-DASH [MPEG-DASH], which stands for Dynamic
Adaptive Streaming over HTTP. The basic idea of AHS is to split up
the media file into segments of equal length, which can be encoded at
Corujo, et al. Expires January 2, 2015 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft ICN Management Considerations July 2014
different resolutions, bitrates, etc. The segments are stored on
conventional HTTP Web server and can be accessed through HTTP GET
requests from the client. Due to this, the streaming system is pull
based and the entire streaming logic is on the client side. This
means that the client fully controls the bitrate of the streaming
media on a per-segment basis, which has several advantages, e.g., the
client knows its bandwidth requirements and capabilities best. As
one can see, ICN and adaptive multimedia streaming have several
elements in common, such as the client-initiated pull approach, the
content being dealt with in pieces as well as the support of
efficient replication and distribution of content pieces within the
network. As ICN is a promising candidate for the Future Internet
(FI) architecture, it is useful to investigate its suitability in
combination with AMS systems and standards like MPEG-DASH as shown in
[AdaptCCN][InterAdaptCCN], as well as the possibilities and benefits
of intelligent network management to improve the performance of AMS
in ICN as well as the resulting QoE at the client.
One of the most promising aspects in this context is the possibility
of ICN to consume content from different origin nodes as well as over
different network links in parallel, which can be seen as an
intrinsic error resilience feature w.r.t. the network. This is a
useful feature of ICN for adaptive multimedia streaming within mobile
environments since most mobile devices are equipped with multiple
network links. Here, a focus of ICN management could be in the load
balancing of such traffic between the available links. This would
increase the effective media throughput of the multimedia content,
however, it could potentially lead to high variations of the
resulting bandwidth which is available to the client. As DASH is
designed for environments with dynamic bandwidth conditions, they can
be compensated in general. However, more conservative adaptation
algorithms may prevent too frequent switching between the content's
bitrate representations as well as compensate short-term bandwidth
drops caused by network link switches more smoothly.
2.1.2. Content Management
An ICN network aims to facilitate access to, and delivery of,
information objects (content and services). Content (in particular,
video) access and delivery seems to be the dominant use case in
traditional, host-based networks, so ICN networking is forced to
adopt content delivery as a minimum requirement. Indeed, virtually
all ICN approaches so far target at least content delivery.
From the perspective of a content owner or provider, an ICN network
functions essentially as a content delivery network. This creates a
set of requirements for ICN. First of all, end-users and content
providers alike should be able to Read (consume) a content object
Corujo, et al. Expires January 2, 2015 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft ICN Management Considerations July 2014
available on the ICN network. In addition, content providers need
the ability to Create (publish), Update, and Delete content.
Finally, Accounting (logging) is necessary to support business models
that typically require charging, analytics, and monitoring.
The Read operation has received the lion's share in ICN research.
This is expected as content access and delivery is at the heart of
ICN. Given a request for a named content object, the ICN network
resolves that name to an object replica and proceeds with delivery to
the end-user. Of course, different ICN approaches employ different
mechanisms to achieve the Read operation. For example, name
resolution can be done with a hierarchical system resembling DNS,
with DHTs, or with flooding. Similarly, content delivery can be done
over normal best-effort paths from the origin server, over
dynamically computed provisioned paths, or from caches close to the
end-user. Some approaches can even cater to mobile end-users and
content hosts. ICN should be able to handle frequent Reads as well
as Read spikes (flash crowds). In fact, it seems crucial for ICN's
deployment chances to at least match the capabilities of incumbent
content delivery systems.
ICN research has not addressed Create as much as Read, but some
effort has been expanded on mechanisms for publishing content. Much
of this effort has focused on content naming schemes that enable
global uniqueness of names and hence allow global addressing of the
content objects. It has been difficult to balance human readability
of names, efficiency in machine processing, and name aggregation
(that can realistically enable request routing by name). Although a
fully automated mechanism for (human-readable) name assignment would
be desirable, so far it seems that a manual process, similar to that
of domain name registration in DNS, is necessary to allocate at least
namespaces. No other restrictions on naming have been seriously
considered. The consensus seems to be that with ICN anyone should be
able to publish anything. Content semantics are a higher layer
issue. This might be a prudent approach when building a transport
layer technology, but it could undermine the potential of ICN
deployment. A content owner would not want copies of its content
published on an ICN network under different names. In any case, once
a name has been assigned, the Create operation is mainly about
creating an entry in the name resolution system. This is obviously a
security risk and furthermore, for highly distributed name resolution
systems, it can suffer from considerable lag in availability.
Fortunately, Create is a rare operation compared to Read.
Update is an operation that seeks to alter an already created object.
A content provider would want to modify the data or the metadata of a
published object either to rectify publication errors or to augment
the object. It is debatable whether the provider should address the
Corujo, et al. Expires January 2, 2015 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft ICN Management Considerations July 2014
later simply by creating a new object. Another use case for Update
comes from the need to rebrand or alias an object when its rights
have been sold to another party. Nevertheless, the Update operation
has received minimal attention in ICN research. The main problem is
one of consistency: once an update has been committed, an ICN network
with highly distributed name resolution and content delivery
(caching) would host both the old and new versions of the updated
content object for some time. Security concerns for the Update and
Create operations are similar. Update is normally rarer than Create,
but this will not be the case for collaborative media.
Content providers may occasionally need to remove a published object.
This is the goal of the Delete operation. An object might be deleted
when it was published by mistake, because it's no longer useful or
relevant, or because it's illegal. Consistency is a major challenge
for the Delete operation as well. The high degree of distribution in
ICN can sustain a network state where some data or metadata replicas
of an object have been deleted, while others persist. On the other
hand, this lag can be beneficial if deletion was initiated
erroneously or maliciously. Like with the Update operation, Delete
has not been properly investigated in ICN research. Deletes are
typically less often than updates.
From the point of view of content providers and end users, an ICN
network resembles a content directory and repository, with Create,
Read, Update, and Delete as typical operations. As with any database
system, the reliability of those operations (or transactions) depends
on the properties of atomicity, consistency, isolation, and
durability. The challenge for ICN research is to build systems at a
massive scale that employ those properties.
2.1.3. Network Policies
Currently this section addresses Network Policies under the scope of
NetInf. In future instantiations of this document, a more generic
approach will be provided, besides highlighting specific ICN
instantiations contributions.
2.1.3.1. NetInf Management Considerations
Early-phase work in NetInf management [NetInfSelfX] discussed a two-
fold problem. The first question that arises is whether it is
possible by adopting a new set of network primitives and in-network
storage to usher a new type of network management. In other words,
can network management become information-centric while handling
often host-centric data? The second question is whether an
information-centric network is more suitable for self-management
mechanisms than IP-based networks are. In particular with respect to
Corujo, et al. Expires January 2, 2015 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft ICN Management Considerations July 2014
the later, [NetInfSelfX] introduced some design considerations for
adding self-management mechanisms in NetInf.
Of interest from this early work are two examples where network
management can play a new role. First, network management can get
involved in decisions about caching and (re)distribution of content,
and not only whether an (inter)face is on or off, or what traffic
limits should be enforced. Moreover, network policies can be
distributed securely in the same way as other content in the network,
removing the need for centralized management, and enabling improved
recovery procedures. Second, network management can get involved in
more intricate processes such as controlling multiaccess support,
intermediating for content adaptation when deemed appropriate, and
enabling richer tools for traffic engineering.
2.1.4. Resource Management
While caching has been the focus of much of the attention in ICN, one
of the key advantages of the ICN architecture is that it allows a
fine grained allocation of content to resources. This has been
observed in [CB-TE] and [ICN-TE] for instance. Unlike IP, an ICN
packet carries specific, explicit information about the content it
carries. Further, this content is uniquely named, and different
versions of the content will have different names.
ICN enables a shift in how to manage resources: instead of allocating
open-ended flows to network resource, it allows to allocate well
defined objects. This requires new network management tools beyond
the current mechanisms which are specifically dedicated to ICN.
NetFlow or the current TE mechanism do not take advantage of the ICN
semantics, and of the benefits associated with these semantics.
In IP, a flow from a certain source address to a certain destination
address can correspond to myriad potential applications: web traffic,
video streaming, VoIP call all may use the same port 80 and be hosted
by same servers. Therefore, providing appropriate resource to such a
flow is a matter of guessing. The simple problem of identifying when
a flow terminates is made unnecessarily complex in ICN: a timer is
set-up, and when no packets match the flow filter, then the flow is
over. Of course, multiple packets from different applications may
match the same filter, and flows with different characteristics in
terms of inter-arrival times could be broken down into multiple flows
with an improper choice of time-out values.
In ICN, there is a unique mapping of the name to the content of the
data stream going through the network. If a content object is
requested, then it has well defined semantics, and the network
management layer can identify exactly when the data stream starts and
Corujo, et al. Expires January 2, 2015 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft ICN Management Considerations July 2014
ends based upon these semantics. Further, a content management layer
can also learn the properties of the stream associated with a given
identifier. [CB-TE] presented such a mechanism to learn the
properties associated with a name, either by counting the bytes on
the wire corresponding to this name, or by reading the footprint of
the content with this name when stored in a cache. It is therefore
possible for the management layer to gather meta-data pertaining to
the content that goes through the network, and to use this meta-data
to make proper resource allocations.
Of course, the resource manager should only acquire meta-data about
content that is likely to be seen again (i.e., popular) or specific
in any way (for instance, the name of an elephant flow). This
considerably simplifies the task as the data of interest is
concentrated on a few items. One potential usage of this meta-data
is to keep track of what content is going through which link. In
this scenario, each link keeps an aggregate tally of the amount of
data that has been assigned to this link and subtracts the amount
that has gone through. The resulting backlog can be then used to
allocate new data streams to this or another link.
In [ICN-TE], it was shown that such a policy would significantly
reduce the time spent in the network by content streams when
considering a WAN topology and its corresponding end-to-end traffic
matrix. The network load would stay the same when comparing with a
min-MLU policy, but by splitting elephant flows across different
paths, the completion time would be reduced. In the simulations of
[ICN-TE], min-MLU is roughly 50% slower than a content-based policy.
This is an encouraging result and a step towards a management
framework that assigns resource to content in a deterministic and
fine-grained manner, unlike the probabilistic allocation of IP. The
ICNRG should consider such a management framework, and evaluate the
different proposals in light of this opportunity. For instance, an
ICN architecture such as [PURSUIT] contains a natural mechanism to
perform such allocation of content to paths as it assigns a source
route to the content. On the other hand, an ICN architecture such as
[NDN] needs to be expanded as the link allocation semantics are, in
the current proposal, tied to the content resolution process: the
interest homes into the content, and lays the reverse path for the
content delivery at the same time. This semantics make the
management for multiple link selection more difficult, as multiple
interests would have to be sent over multiple links to provide path
diversity. However, it could be an area of study for the ICNRG as
solving such resource management problem would provide significant
benefits to ICN architectures.
Corujo, et al. Expires January 2, 2015 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft ICN Management Considerations July 2014
2.2. Management for ICN Aspects
This section will address management aspects for intrinsic ICN
procedures.
2.2.1. Caching
Caching is a hot topic research nowadays in ICN. The challenges of
caching in ICN are different than those of web caching, mainly
because the former has to deal with high line rates and with a huge
amount of content. Some ICN works propose to cache content in all
ICN routers traversed by the data packet, in an LCE (Leave Copy
Everywhere) fashion as in [NDN]. Some studies, like [L4M-ICN], have
shown that other cache decision policies, focused to reduce the cache
redundancy, may increase the overall caching performance. Some of
these decision policies only use the local information available at
the ICN routers, but others use the information available at other
nodes to cache or not the incoming content. This is known as
explicit cache coordination decision, and there are several proposals
around this concept [ICN-CACHING]. The idea behind the explicit
coordination is to exchange topological information, individual
cache's state and content popularity view among a set of ICN routers,
in order to coordinate caching decisions.
ICN may benefit of in-network caching, which consists of introducing
content stores in ICN routers. The benefits are twofold: (1)
improving the end-user experience by reducing the delay to retrieve
content, and (2) reducing the overall aggregated bandwidth per
request. On the other hand, caching in ICN presents several
challenges like (1) centralized vs distributed management of the
caches, (2) cache scalability, reducing the impact of the size of the
total content catalog, (3) routing based on cache contents, (4)
considering the different requirements imposed by different types of
traffic (web/multimedia/IoT/etc.), etc. Most of these challenges can
be solved, or at least minimized, by introducing management
considerations in ICN proposals.
This way, a given ICN router may forward a request towards another
router storing the requested content. In this context, the routing
protocol is affected by the cache's state of surrounding neighbours.
For example, in [CATT] the authors propose to distinguish between the
source(s) and routers' caches that hold a copy of that content: the
former paths are globally advertised, while the latter are only
advertised within the router's neighbourhood. In all these cases,
the use of a management framework may bring significant advantages,
providing standard interfaces that allow the routers to dynamically
manage their caches.
Corujo, et al. Expires January 2, 2015 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft ICN Management Considerations July 2014
2.2.2. Information Freshness
One of the prime contributions of ICN-based designs, is the ability
for the networking entities in charge of exercising the routing of
the content, to actually store it, allowing it to serve content
requests in a more readily fashion. However, there are scenarios
where such facilities can raise issues, such as Internet of Things
and Machinte-to-Machine scenarios. Concretely, despite the caching
capabilities of ICN contributing for, as an example, reducing the
amount of networking stack fabric to be implemented in low-powered
nodes and sensors, it can cause that the information consumed from
caches is not up-to-date comparing to the information currently
existing at the source. As an example, consider an accelerometer
sensor which is providing the acceleration value of a car, and
disseminates it via a ICN network towards different uses. When a
consumer (e.g., a road traffic monitoring infrastructure) wishes to
know the current speed of the car by requesting its name, it can be
served by a stale content residing in a cache between the consumer
and the information source.
These kinds of situations demand facilities and mechanisms to avoid
the provision of stale content. For example, [ICN-FRESHNESS]
considers the realization of an agreement mechanism, using ICN
messaging exchanges, where both the source and the consumer agree on
the minimal content freshness values for the information.
Concretely, when the network entity determines that it has the
content referring to a received name request, it will also evaluate
the freshness value. If it is lower than the one previously agreed,
it will then discard the content and rather forward the content
request back to the source.
2.3. Hybrid Approaches
This section will analyse how ICN procedures can be used to manage
ICN operations.
2.3.1. Face Management
The Named Data Networking [NDN] ICN architecture provides a new
communication framework built on named data. Like other ICN
counterparts, such as [NetInf], [PURSUIT] and [DONA], NDN
intrinsically supports security, routing/forwarding, reliability,
caching and even mobility, aiming at scalable and more efficient
content-distribution than today's IP-based approaches. Fostered by
an open-source implementation [CCNx], NDN has been at the heart of an
active topic with several research contributions evaluating its
deployment feasibility and performance in a number of scenarios
[ICN-Scenarios].
Corujo, et al. Expires January 2, 2015 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft ICN Management Considerations July 2014
NDN introduces the concept of a Strategy Layer, which can control
Interest packet forwarding behavior. It basically determines which
is the best interface (or set of interfaces) to send an Interest
packet. The "strategy" component establishes a pre-configured
algorithm for tackling Interest packet decisions, ranging from
sending it sequentially on each interface until a Data packet is
received, to evaluating which interfaces provide better performance
(i.e., lower average RTT) in retrieving certain content (as discussed
in [NDN]).
It is important to keep in mind that NDN replaces the commonly used
term "interface" with the term "face", since packets can be forwarded
over hardware network interfaces as well as between application
interfaces, further acknowledging the information dissemination
capabilities of ICN. This aspect is considered in [NDN] and [NDN-R],
where programs can be associated to the NDN governing structures
(like the FIB), defining configurations such as "sendToAll" and
"sendToBest" with respect to managing the content reaching process.
Corujo et al. [NDN-MGMT] exploit these concepts enabling management
mechanisms to be deployed, and steer network operations and NDN
operation, as described in the following section.
An important aspect supporting network management procedures is the
interaction of network information residing at the network side with
information about the network from the perspective of clients
connected to it. The former includes, for instance, information
stored in the network operator core about user profiles, associated
policies, or data collected by the access network equipment, such as
current and past traffic load levels, active flows, and maintenance
information. Today, such information can be retrieved for management
and operation support through dedicated signaling protocols (e.g.,
[RFC1157], [RFC6733]), or Operation Support Services (OSS) web
services. The client point of view of the network includes
information that, for example, a wireless terminal can provide,
indicating wireless link quality, average return-trip times (RTT) or
perceived Quality of Experience (QoE).
Both types of information can be capitalized upon allowing, for
example, the network to coordinate network management procedures,
considering as input information obtained from other network elements
as well as from user nodes. One way to generate management
information in network entities and at client nodes, as well as to
consume and act upon it (i.e., using the management information
exchange as a control channel) is to couple NDN nodes with Management
Agent (MA) entities.
Fig. 1 (redrawn here from [NDN-MGMT] for convenience) illustrates how
a MA can be deployed in both network and client entities, interfacing
Corujo, et al. Expires January 2, 2015 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft ICN Management Considerations July 2014
with different operational aspects and protocol layers of an NDN
node. By using NDN content reaching and disseminating mechanisms,
management information can be consumed by the MA to steer not only
the behavior of application processes and network interfaces, but
also to interface with NDN supporting structures (i.e. Content Store
(CS), Forward Information Base (FIB) and Pending Interest
Table (PIT). Effectively, different kinds of information can be
conveyed to a network node responsible for managing the network
(under different perspectives and processes), and resubmitted back
towards client nodes, affecting the way applications interface with
network interfaces and the NDN fabric.
NDN Fabric
+------------------------------------------+
| Face 0 |
| +--------------+ +---+ | +------+
| |Content Store | ptr/type | <---->|WLAN |
| +------------^-+ +-+----+ +---+ | +------+
| +---------+| | Face 1 |
| +--------------+ +------+ +---+ | +------+
| |Pending <--------+| | | <---->|LTE |
| |Interest Table| +------+ +---+ | +------+
| +--------------+ | | | Face i |
| +------+ +---+ | +------+
| +--------------+ | | | | <---->| MA |
| |Forward | +------+ +---+ | +------+
| |Information <---------+| | Face j |
| |Base | +-+----+ +---+ | +------+
| +--------------+ | <---->|VoIP |
| +---+ | |Video |
+------------------------------------------+ +------+
Figure 1. NDN Management Framework
MA can interface with the PIT and FIB structures, acting as a
dynamic, application- and/or network-controlled interface to the
strategy layer. This could also be used to direct how to forward NDN
Interest and Data packets, in a configurable manner. Regarding
network interfaces, the MA can interface with them not only to
control (i.e., initiate wireless access scanning procedures), but
also to collect information (i.e., an informational event regarding
detected access points). Finally, the MA can also interface with
application processes, drawing out information about the perceived
QoS/QoE (e.g., lost packets or delay from a real-time video feed) and
also to execute commands, such as selecting a better video codec when
the network commands the video flow to be accessed from a different
wireless access interface.
Corujo, et al. Expires January 2, 2015 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft ICN Management Considerations July 2014
Conversely, MA entities residing in network equipment can provide
informational events as well, but related to network-side link layer
characteristics (such as number of attached nodes or load), as well
as accepting commands from the network (i.e., activate maintenance
procedures). Management processes residing in the network core can
leverage information collected from applications, client terminals
and network equipment, to drive optimization procedures. Such
optimization procedures can also tap into other entities, containing
complementary information such as policies and subscription
information, and use it to produce an overall network decision, which
can then be forwarded to multiple client nodes, in a policy enforcing
way.
An important consideration from the NDN architecture, is the
hierarchical namespace, allowing nodes to request and convey
management data, by simply using an appropriate prefix (e.g.,
ccn://domain/management/ME).
By leveraging the NDN information-centric dissemination mechanisms to
convey management information and commands as content, these
management extensions inherit the intrinsic capabilities of the NDN
architecture, including security and reliability, which are
fundamental for management procedures.
3. Acknowledgements
This document has benefited from comments and/or text provided by the
following members of ICNRG: TBD
4. IANA Considerations
This memo includes no request to IANA.
5. Security Considerations
TBD
6. Informative References
[AdaptCCN]
Lederer, S., Mueler, C., Rainer, B., Timmerer, C., and H.
Hellwagner, "Adaptive Streaming over Content Centric
Networks in Mobile Networks using Multiple Links",
Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on
Communication (ICC), Budapest, Hungary , June 2013.
Corujo, et al. Expires January 2, 2015 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft ICN Management Considerations July 2014
[CATT] Eum, S., Nakauchi, K., Murata, M., Shoji, Y., and N.
Nishinaga, "CATT: potential based routing with content
caching for ICN", Workshop on Information-centric
networking, pp 49-54 , 2012.
[CB-TE] Chanda, A. et al., "Content Based Traffic Engineering in
Software Defined Information Centric Networks", IEEE
INFOCOM Workshop NOMEN , April 2013.
[CCNx] PARC, "CCNx Project", 2013, <http://www.ccnx.org>.
[DONA] Koponen, T. et al., "A Data-Oriented (and Beyond) Network
Architecture", SIGCOMM, ACM , 2007.
[GIPR2013]
Sandivine, , "Global Internet Phenomena Report 1H 2013",
Sandvine Intelligent Broadband Networks , 2013.
[ICN-CACHING]
Zhang, G., Li, Y., and T. Lin, "Caching in information
centric networking: A survey", Computer Networks, vol. 57,
no. 16, pp. 3128-3141, Nov , 2013.
[ICN-FRESHNESS]
Quevedo, J., Corujo, D., and R. Aguiar, "Consumer Driven
Information Freshness Approach for Content Centric
Networking", IEEE INFOCOM Workshop on Name-Oriented
Mobility, Toronto, Canada, May , 2014.
[ICN-Scenarios]
Pentikousis, K., Ohlman, B., Corujo, D., and G. Boggia,
"ICN Baseline Scenarios", draft-pentikousis-icn-scenarios
(work in progress), February 2013.
[ICN-TE] Su, K. et al., "On the Benefit of Information Centric
Networks for Traffic Engineering", IEEE ICC , June 2014.
[InterAdaptCCN]
Grandl, R., Su, K., and C. Westphal, "On the Interaction
of Adaptive Video Streaming with Content-Centric
Networking", Proceedings of the 20th Packet Video Workshop
2013, San Jose, USA , December 2013.
[L4M-ICN] Chai, W., He, D., Psaras, I., and G. Pavlou, "Cache "less
for more" in information-centric networks", Lecture Notes
in Computer Science Vol. 7289, Springer, pp. 27-40 , 2012.
Corujo, et al. Expires January 2, 2015 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft ICN Management Considerations July 2014
[MPEG-DASH]
Sodagar, I., "The MPEG-DASH Standard for Multimedia
Streaming Over the Internet", IEEE MultiMedia, IEEE,
vol.18, no.4, pp.62-67 , 2011.
[NDN] Jacobson, V., Smetters, D., Thornton, J., Plass, M.,
Briggss, N., and R. Braynard, "Networking Named Content",
CoNEXT 2009, Rome , Dec 2009.
[NDN-MGMT]
Corujo, D., Vidal, I., Garcia-Reinoso, J., and R. Aguiar,
"A named data networking flexible framework for management
communications", Communications Magazine, IEEE , vol.50,
no.12, pp.36-43 , Dec 2012.
[NDN-R] Zhang, L. et al., "Named Data Networking (NDN) Project",
NDN Report ndn-0001, Tech Report, PARC , 2010,
<http://www.named-data.net/techreport/TR001ndn-proj.pdf>.
[NDN-VOIP]
Jacobson, V., Smetters, D., Briggss, N., Plass, M.,
Steward, P., and J. Thornton, "VoCCN: Voice Over Content-
Centric Networks", ReARCH 2009, Rome , Dec 2009.
[NDNFlexManager]
UC3M and ITAV, "Framework for Flexible NDN Management",
2013, <https://github.com/ndnflexmanager/framework>.
[NetInf] Ahlgren, B. et al., "Design considerations for a network
of information", CoNEXT, Re-Arch Workshop, ACM , 2008.
[NetInfSelfX]
Pentikousis, K. et al., "Self-Management for a Network of
Information", IEEE ICC Workshops 2009 , June 2009.
[PURSUIT] Fotiou, N. et al., "Developing Information Networking
Further: From PSIRP to PURSUIT", BROADNETS, ICST , 2010.
[RFC1157] Case, J., Fedor, M., Schoffstall, M., and J. Davin,
"Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)", STD 15, RFC
1157, May 1990.
[RFC3552] Rescorla, E. and B. Korver, "Guidelines for Writing RFC
Text on Security Considerations", BCP 72, RFC 3552, July
2003.
Corujo, et al. Expires January 2, 2015 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft ICN Management Considerations July 2014
[RFC5226] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
May 2008.
[RFC6733] Fajardo, V., Arkko, J., Loughney, J., and G. Zorn,
"Diameter Base Protocol", RFC 6733, October 2012.
Authors' Addresses
Daniel Corujo
Instituto de Telecomunicacoes
Campus Universitario de Santiago
Aveiro P-3810-193 Aveiro
Portugal
Phone: +351 234 377 900
Email: dcorujo@av.it.pt
Kostas Pentikousis
EICT GmbH
Torgauer Strabe 12-15
10829 Berlin
Germany
Email: k.pentikousis@eict.de
Ivan Vidal
UC3M
Av de la Universidad, 30
28911 Leganes, Madrid
Spain
Email: ividal@it.uc3m.es
Jaime Garcia-Reinoso
UC3M
Av de la Universidad, 30
28911 Leganes, Madrid
Spain
Email: jgr@it.uc3m.es
Corujo, et al. Expires January 2, 2015 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft ICN Management Considerations July 2014
Stefan Lederer
Alpen-Adria Universitat Klagenfurt
Universitatsstrasse 65-67
Klagenfurt
Austria
Email: stefan.lederer@itec.aau.at
Spiros Spirou
Intracom Telecom
19.7 km Markopoulou Avenue
Peania 19002
Greece
Email: spis@intracom.com
Cedric Westphal
Huawei
2330 Central Expressway
Santa Clara, CA95050
USA
Email: cedric.westphal@huawei.com
Corujo, et al. Expires January 2, 2015 [Page 18]