ICNRG K. Pentikousis, Ed. Internet-Draft Huawei Technologies Intended Status: Informational B. Ohlman Expires: September 12, 2013 Ericsson D. Corujo Universidade de Aveiro G. Boggia Politecnico di Bari G. Tyson Queen Mary College, London E. Davies Trinity College Dublin D. Gellert InterDigital P. Mahadevan PARC March 11, 2013 ICN Baseline Scenarios draft-pentikousis-icn-scenarios-02 Abstract This document aims at establishing a common understanding about potential experimental setups where different information-centric networking (ICN) approaches can be tested and compared against each other while showcasing their advantages. Towards this end, we develop several scenarios in an iterative fashion, starting by reviewing pertinent ICN evaluations from the published literature. That is, the document includes scenarios which have all been considered in one or more performance evaluation studies and are already available to the community. The scenarios selected aim to exercise a variety of aspects that an ICN solution can address. On the one hand, we consider general aspects, such as, network efficiency, reduced complexity, increased scalability and reliability, mobility support, multicast and caching performance, real-time communication efficacy, energy consumption frugality, and disruption and delay tolerance. On the other hand, we focus on ICN- specific aspects, such as, information security and trust, persistence, availability, provenance, and location independence. Status of this Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Pentikousis & Ohlman Expires September 12, 2013 [Page 1] INTERNET DRAFT ICN Baseline Scenarios March 11, 2013 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/1id-abstracts.html The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html Copyright and License Notice Copyright (c) 2013 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Table of Contents 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2 Toward ICN Baseline Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.1 Social Networking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.2 Real-time A/V Communications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.3 Mobile Networking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.4 Infrastructure Sharing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2.5 Content Dissemination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2.6 Network Interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 2.7 Energy Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 2.8 Delay and Disruption Tolerance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 2.9 Internet of Things . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 2.10 Smart City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 3 Evaluation Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 3.1 ICN Simulators and Testbeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 3.1.1 CCN and NDN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Pentikousis & Ohlman Expires September 12, 2013 [Page 2] INTERNET DRAFT ICN Baseline Scenarios March 11, 2013 3.1.2 Publish/Subscribe Internet Architecture . . . . . . . . 21 3.1.3 NetInf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 3.2 Topology Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 3.3 Traffic Load . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 3.4 Choosing Relevant Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 3.4.1 Traffic Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 3.4.2 System Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 3.5 Resource Equivalence and Tradeoffs . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 3.6 Technology Evolution Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 4 Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 5 IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 6 Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 7 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 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 "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. Any-, multi-, and broadcasting are supported by default, and energy efficiency is a design consideration from the beginning. Although interest in ICN is growing rapidly, ongoing work on different architectures, such as, for example, NetInf [NetInf], CCN and NDN [CCN], the publish-subscribe Internet (PSI) architecture [PSI], and the data-oriented architecture [DONA] is far from being completed. The development phase that ICN is going through and the plethora of approaches to tackle the hardest problems make this a very active and appealing research area but, on the downside, it also makes it more difficult to compare different proposals on an equal footing. Ahlgren et al. note [SoA] that describing ICN architectures is akin to shooting a moving target. We find that comparing these different approaches is often even more tricky. It is not uncommon that different researchers select different performance evaluation scenarios, typically with good reasons, in order to highlight the advantages of their approach. This should be expected to some degree at this early stage of development. Nevertheless, we argue that Pentikousis & Ohlman Expires September 12, 2013 [Page 3] INTERNET DRAFT ICN Baseline Scenarios March 11, 2013 certain scenarios seem to emerge where ICN architectures could showcase their superiority over current systems, in general, and against each other, in particular. This document starts in Section 2 by collecting several scenarios from the published ICN literature and aims to use them as foundation for the baseline scenarios to be considered by the IRTF Information- Centric Networking Research Group (ICNRG) in its future work. The list of scenarios can obviously change, as input from the research group is received. For example, this revision adds scenarios stemming from recent work exploring "Network Interaction" in ICN. Furthermore, a first draft outline for an ICN evaluation methodology is introduced in Section 3. 2 Toward ICN Baseline Scenarios This section presents a number of scenarios grouped into several categories. Note that certain evaluation scenarios span across these categories, so the boundaries between them should not be considered rigid and inflexible. The goal is that each scenario should be described at a sufficient level of detail so that it can serve as the base for comparative evaluations of different approaches. This will need to include reference configurations, topologies, specifications of traffic mixes and traffic loads. These specifications (or configurations) should preferably come as sets that describe extremes as well as "typical" usage scenarios. 2.1 Social Networking Social networking applications proliferated over the past decade based on overlay content dissemination systems that require large infrastructure investments to rollout and maintain. Content dissemination is at the heart of the ICN paradigm and, therefore, we would expect that they are a "natural fit" for showcasing the superiority of ICN over traditional client-server TCP/IP-based systems. Mathieu et al. [ICN-SN], for instance, illustrate how an Internet Service Provider (ISP) can capitalize on CCN to deploy a short- message service akin to Twitter at a fraction of the complexity of today's systems. Their key observation is that such a service can be seen as a combination of multicast delivery and caching. That is, a single user addresses a large number of recipients, some of which receive the new message immediately as they are online at that instant, while others receive the message whenever they connect to the network. Pentikousis & Ohlman Expires September 12, 2013 [Page 4] INTERNET DRAFT ICN Baseline Scenarios March 11, 2013 Along similar lines, Kim et al. [VPC] present an ICN-based social networking platform in which a user shares content with her/his family and friends without the need for centralized content server; see also section 2.4, below, and [CBIS]. Based on the CCN naming scheme, [VPC] takes a user name to represent a set of devices that belong to the person. Other users in this in-network, serverless social sharing scenario can access the user's content not via a device name/address but with the user's name. In [VPC], signature verification does not require any centralized authentication server. Kim and Lee [VPC2] present a proof-of-concept evaluation in which users with ordinary smartphones can browse a list of members or content using a name, and download the content selected from the list. In short, in both evaluations there is no need for a classic client- server architecture (let alone a cloud-based infrastructure) to intermediate between content providers and consumers in a hub-and- spoke fashion. Earlier work by Arianfar et al. [CCR] considers a similar pull-based content retrieval scenario using a different architecture, pointing to significant performance advantages. Although the authors consider a network topology (redrawn in Fig. 1 for convenience) that has certain interesting characteristics, they do not explicitly address social networking in their evaluation scenario. Nonetheless, similarities are easy to spot: "followers" (such as C0, C1, ..., and Cz in Fig. 1) obtain content put "on the network" (I1, ..., Im, and B1, B2) by a single user (e.g. Px) relying solely on network primitives. \--/ |C0| /--\ +--+ +--+ +--+ +--+ *=== |I0| === |I1| ... |In| |P0| \--/ +--+ +--+ +--+ +--+ |C1| \ / o /--\ +--+ +--+ o o |B1| === |B2| o o o o o o +--+ +--+ o o / \ o o +--+ +--+ +--+ +--+ o *=== |Ik| === |Il| ... |Im| |Px| \--/ +--+ +--+ +--+ +--+ |Cz| /--\ Figure 1. Dumbbell with linear daisy chains Pentikousis & Ohlman Expires September 12, 2013 [Page 5] INTERNET DRAFT ICN Baseline Scenarios March 11, 2013 The social networking scenario aims to exercise each ICN architecture in terms of network efficiency, multicast support, caching performance and its reliance on centralized mechanisms (or lack thereof). 2.2 Real-time A/V Communications Real-time audio and video (A/V) communications include an array of services ranging from one-to-one voice calls to multi-party multi- media conferences with video and whiteboard support to augmented reality. Real-time communications have been studied and deployed in the context of packet- and circuit-switched networks for decades. The stringent quality of service requirements that this type of communication imposes on network infrastructure is well-known. Some could argue that network primitives which are excellent for information dissemination are not well-suited for conversational services. Notably, Jacobson et al. [VoCCN] presented an early evaluation where the performance of a VoIP call over an information-centric approach was compared with that of an off-the-shelf VoIP implementation using RTP/UTP. The results indicated that despite the extra cost of adding security support in the former case, performance was virtually identical in the two cases evaluated in a testbed. However, the experimental setup presented is quite rudimentary and the evaluation considered a single voice call only. This scenario does illustrate that quality telephony services are feasible with at least one ICN approach, but it would need to be further enhanced to include more comprehensive metrics as well as standardized call arrival patterns, for example, following well-established methodologies from the quality of service/experience (QoS/QoE) evaluation toolbox. Given the wide-spread deployment of real-time A/V communications, an ICN approach should demonstrate more than feasibility. For example, with respect to multimedia conferencing, Zhu et al. [ACT] describe the design of a distributed audio conference tool based on NDN. The design includes ICN-based conference discovery, speakers discovery and voice data distribution. The reported evaluation results point to gains in scalability and security. Moreover, Chen et al. [G- COPSS] explore the feasibility of implementing a Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game (MMORPG) based on CCNx and show that stringent temporal requirements can be met while scalability is significantly improved when compared to an IP client-server system. This type of work points to benefits both in the data path and the control path of a modern network infrastructure. All in all, however, the ICN research community has hitherto only Pentikousis & Ohlman Expires September 12, 2013 [Page 6] INTERNET DRAFT ICN Baseline Scenarios March 11, 2013 scratched the surface of this area with respect to illustrating the benefits of adopting an information-centric approach as opposed to a host-centric one. Arguably, more work is needed in this direction. In short, scenarios in this category should illustrate not only feasibility but reduced complexity, increased scalability, reliability, and capacity to meet stringent QoS/QoE requirements when compared to established host-centric solutions. 2.3 Mobile Networking IP mobility management relies on mobility anchors to provide ubiquitous connectivity to end-hosts as well as moving networks. This is a natural choice for a host-centric paradigm that requires end-to-end connectivity and continuous network presence [SCES]. An implicit assumption in host-centric mobility management frameworks is that the mobile node aims at connecting to a particular peer, not at retrieving information [EEMN]. However, with ICN new ideas about mobility management should come to the forefront, which capitalize on the different nature of the paradigm. For example, Dannewitz et al. [N-Scen], consider a scenario where a 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 [EEMN] argue that an information-centric architecture can avoid the complexity of having to manage tunnels to maintain end-to-end connectivity as is the case with mobile anchor- based protocols such as Mobile IP (and its variants). Overall, mobile networking scenarios have not been developed in detail, let alone evaluated in a wide scale. We expect that in the coming period more papers will address this topic, each perhaps proposing its own evaluation scenario. Earlier work [mNetInf] argues that for mobile and multiaccess networking scenarios we need go beyond the current mobility management mechanisms in order to capitalize on the core ICN features. They present a testbed setup (redrawn in Fig. 2) which can serve as the basis for other ICN evaluations. Lindgren [HybICN] explores this scenario further using simulation for an urban setting and reports sizable gains in terms of Pentikousis & Ohlman Expires September 12, 2013 [Page 7] INTERNET DRAFT ICN Baseline Scenarios March 11, 2013 reduction of object retrieval times and core network capacity use. 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 handling mobility, particularly in terms of maintaining service continuity. +-----------+ +-----------+ | Network 0 | | Network C | | | | | | +--+ | ==== | +--+ | | |I2| | | |P1| | | +--+ | | +--+ | | \--/ | | | +-----|C0|--+ | | | /--\ | | | | +--+ | | | | |I3| | | +--+ | | +--+ | ==== | |P2| | | | | +--+ | | Network 1 | | | +-----------+ +-----------+ Figure 2. Overlapping wireless multiaccess Mobile networking scenarios should aim to exercise service continuity for those applications that require it, decrease complexity and control signaling for the network infrastructure, as well as increase wireless capacity utilization by taking advantage of the broadcast nature of the medium. 2.4 Infrastructure Sharing A key idea in ICN is that the network should secure information objects per se, not the communications channel that they are delivered over. This means that hosts attached to an information- centric network can share resources 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 increasing the value of an information-centric network (perhaps) much faster than Metcalfe's law. For example, Jacobson et al. [CBIS] argue that in ICN the "where and how" to obtain information are new degrees of freedom. They illustrate this with a scenario involving a photo sharing application Pentikousis & Ohlman Expires September 12, 2013 [Page 8] INTERNET DRAFT ICN Baseline Scenarios March 11, 2013 which takes advantage of whichever access network connectivity is available at the moment (WLAN, Bluetooth, and even SMS) without requiring a centralized infrastructure to synchronize between numerous devices. It is important to highlight that since the focus of the communication changes, keep-alives in this scenario are simply unnecessary, as devices participating in the testbed network contribute resources in order to maintain user content consistency, not link state information as is the case in the host-centric paradigm. This means that the notion of "infrastructure" may be completely different in the future. Carofiglio et al., for instance, present early work on an analytical framework that attempts to capture the storage/bandwidth tradeoffs that ICN enables and can be used as foundation for a network planning tool [SHARE]. In addition, Chai et al. [CL4M] explore the benefits of ubiquitous caching throughout an information-centric network and argue that "caching less can actually achieve more." These two papers indicate that there is a lot of work to be done in the area of how to use optimally all resources available to an information- centric network. Scenarios in this category, therefore, would cover the communication/computation/storage tradeoffs that an ICN deployment must consider, including network planning, perhaps capitalizing on user-provided resources, as well as operational and economical aspects to illustrate the superiority of ICN over other approaches, including federations of IP-based Content Distribution Networks (CDNs). 2.5 Content Dissemination Content dissemination has attracted more attention than other aspects of ICN, perhaps due to a misunderstanding of what the first "C" in CCN stands for. Decentralized content dissemination with on-the-fly aggregation of information sources was envisaged in [N-Scen] where information objects can be dynamically assembled based on hierarchically structured subcomponents. For example, a video stream could be associated with different audio streams and subtitle sets, which can all be obtained from different sources. Using the topology depicted in Fig. 1 as an example, an application at C1 may end up obtaining, say, the video content from I1, but the user-selected subtitles from Px. Semantics and content negotiation, on behalf of the user, were also considered, e.g. for the case of popular tunes which may be available in different encoding formats. Effectively this scenario has the information consumer issuing independent requests for content based on information identifiers, and stitching the pieces together irrespective of "where" or "how" they were Pentikousis & Ohlman Expires September 12, 2013 [Page 9] INTERNET DRAFT ICN Baseline Scenarios March 11, 2013 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. VANETs, by nature, are characterized by intermittent connectivity, mobility, and the possibility to combine information from different sources as each vehicle does not care about "who" originated the named data objects. Typical applications include road safety data and infotainment. 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- Site 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 indicating high efficiency even at high speeds. Fig. 2 could apply to VANET scenarios where C0 represents a vehicle which can obtain named information objects via multiple wireless peers and/or RSUs (I2 and I3 in the figure). Recently, Amadeo et al. [CRoWN] used a Manhattan grid in their evaluation of an ICN framework for VANETs on top of IEEE 802.11p. 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. We argue that, due to the short sojourn time between a vehicle and the RSU and the short time of sustained connectivity between vehicles, 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. Content dissemination scenarios, in general, have a large overlap with the scenarios described in the previous sections and are explored in several papers, such as [DONA] [PSI] [PSIMob] [NetInf] [CCN] [CBIS] [CCR], just to name a few. In addition, Chai et al. present a hop-by-hop hierarchical content resolution approach [CURLING], which employs receiver-driven multicast over multiple domains, advocating another content dissemination approach. Scenarios in this category abound in the literature, including stored and streaming A/V distribution, file distribution, mirroring and bulk transfers, SVN-type of services, as well as traffic aggregation. We expect that in particular for content dissemination both extreme as well as typical scenarios can be specified drawing data from current Pentikousis & Ohlman Expires September 12, 2013 [Page 10] INTERNET DRAFT ICN Baseline Scenarios March 11, 2013 CDN deployments. 2.6 Network Interaction As ICN shifts the focus from nodes to information objects, the interaction between networks evolves to capitalize on data location independence, efficient and scalable in-network named object availability and multi-access functionality. These interactions become critical in evaluating the technical and economic impact of ICN architecture choices, as noted in [ArgICN]. Additional challenges are presented by the emergence of new types of networks, such as Small Cell Networks (SCN), Heterogeneous Networks (HetNet), virtual and overlay networks. 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 inter-network 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. [OptSC] [FEMTO]. 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 requestor of the content. The availability of such contextual information across diverse networks can lead to network inefficiencies and data management issues that can benefit from an information-centric approach. 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 (AS). For example, a BGP extension for domain-level content prefix advertisement can be used to enable efficient interconnection between AS's. 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 as well in [NCOA], which also notes 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 Pentikousis & Ohlman Expires September 12, 2013 [Page 11] INTERNET DRAFT ICN Baseline Scenarios March 11, 2013 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). DiBenedetto et al. [RP-NDN] study policy knobs made available by NDN to network operators. New policies, which 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 Fig. 3. (based on Fig. 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. +---------------+ +---------->| Popular Video | | +---------------+ | ^ ^ | | | | +-+-+ $0/MB +-+-+ | | A +-------+ B | | ++--+ +-+-+ | | ^ ^ | | $8/MB | | | | $10/MB | v | | v +-+-+ $0/MB +--+---------+--+ | D +---------+ C | +---+ +---------------+ Figure 3. Relationships and transit costs between networks A to D Ahlgren 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. Fig. 4 illustrates a typical scenario topology from this work which involves an interconnectivity provider. 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 Pentikousis & Ohlman Expires September 12, 2013 [Page 12] INTERNET DRAFT ICN Baseline Scenarios March 11, 2013 architecture based on similar principles; notably, it 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 overlay routing node load distribution. +----------+ +-----------------+ +------+ | Content | | Access Network/ | | End | | Provider +---->| ICN Provider +---->| User | +----------+ +-+-------------+-+ +------+ | | | | v v +-------------------+ +----------------+ +------+ | Interconnectivity | | Access Network | | End | | Provider +---->| Provider +------>| User | +-------------------+ +----------------+ +------+ Figure 4. Setup and operating costs of network entities 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, which includes a network model describing the relationship between AS 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 Fig. 5, redrawn here based on Fig. 1 of [ICCP]. Note that it relates well with the topology illustrated in Fig. 1 of this document. The evaluation of ICN architectures across multiple network types should include a combination of technical and economic aspects. 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. Pentikousis & Ohlman Expires September 12, 2013 [Page 13] INTERNET DRAFT ICN Baseline Scenarios March 11, 2013 +-----+ ------+ J +------ | +--+--+ | | * | +--+--+ * +--+--+ | H +-----------+ I | **+-----+ ** * ** +-----+*** * * * * * * * * * * +--+--+ ++-+-++ +--+--+ | E +--------+ F +---------+ G + **+-----+*** +-----+ **+-----+** * * * * * * * * +--+--+ +--+--+ +--+--+ +--+--+ | A | | B +-----------+ C | | D | +-----+ +--+--+ +--+--+ +----++ | | ^^ | route data | data | data || | to v v || v data +----+ +----+ +++--+ |User| |User| |Data| +----+ +----+ +----+ Legend: +***+ Transit link +---+ Peering link +---> Data delivery or route to data Figure 5. Tier-based set of interconnections between AS A to J 2.7 Energy Efficiency As mentioned earlier, energy efficiency can be tackled by different ICN approaches in ways that it cannot in a host-centric paradigm. We already mentioned that in ICN perpetual connectivity is not necessary, therefore mechanisms that capitalize on powering down network interfaces are easier to accommodate. For example, the work by Guan et al. [EECCN] indicates that CCN may be much more energy- efficient than traditional CDNs for delivering popular content given the current networking equipment energy consumption levels. Evaluating energy efficiency does not require the definition of new scenarios, but does require the establishment of clear guidelines so that different ICN approaches can be compared not only in terms of scalability, for example, but also in terms to power consumption. Pentikousis & Ohlman Expires September 12, 2013 [Page 14] INTERNET DRAFT ICN Baseline Scenarios March 11, 2013 2.8 Delay and Disruption Tolerance Delay- and Disruption-Tolerant Networking (DTN) [DTN] [DTNICN] originated as a means to extend the Internet to interplanetary communications. 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. 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, thus, clear synergies [DTN]. First, both approaches rely on in-network storage. Second, both approaches espouse late binding of names to locations and, third, both approaches treat data as a long-term component that can exist in the network for extended periods of time. Through these similarities, it becomes possible to identify many DTN principles already in existence within ICN architectures. For example, ICN nodes will often retain publications locally, making them accessible later on, much like DTN bundles do. Consequently, these synergies suggest strong potential for marrying the two technologies. This, for instance, could include building new integrated Information-Centric Delay Tolerant Network (ICDTN) protocols or, alternatively, building ICN schemes over existing DTN protocols (or vice versa). The above similarities suggest that integration of the two principles would be certainly feasible. Beyond this, there are also a number of direct benefits identifiable. 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]. Whilst, similarly, initial steps have been taken in the ICN community too, Pentikousis & Ohlman Expires September 12, 2013 [Page 15] INTERNET DRAFT ICN Baseline Scenarios March 11, 2013 such as [SLINKY]. A 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, this might occur on an underground train, in which people 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). Another key example of what is essentially the same scenario is use in emergency and disaster situations where the local infrastructure has either been destroyed or is otherwise inaccessible to first responders. Being able to exchange and cache information without the need for any installed infrastructure could greatly improve the effectiveness of emergency responders. These kind of scenarios bode well with those introduced earlier in Section 2.4 about (re)defining what "infrastructure" may mean in practice in an information-centric network. Especially in the context of the scenarios discussed above, it is of clear interest to evaluate different ICN approaches with respect both to their delay- and disruption-tolerance, i.e., how effective is the approach when used in a delay tolerant network situation; and to their active support for operations in a DTN environment. Important aspects to be evaluated in support of this application include, but are not limited to, name resolution, routing and forwarding in disconnected parts of the network; support for unidirectional links; number of round trips needed to complete a data transfer; efficiency in the face of disruption, and so on. To assist in this evaluation, within the DTN community, a number of important contact traces have emerged as de-facto evaluative tools. They include Haggle's INFOCOM traces and MIT's Reality Mining. Typically, these are used with the Opportunistic Network Environment (ONE) simulator [ONE] to evaluate the above types of metrics. Based on this, and with proper extensions, a strong platform for evaluating the delay and disruption tolerance properties of different ICN approaches could be developed. 2.9 Internet of Things Advances in electronics miniaturization combined with low-power wireless access technologies (e.g., ZigBee, NFC, Bluetooth and others) have enabled the coupling of interconnected digital services with everyday objects. As devices with sensors and actuators connect into the network, they become "smart objects" and form the foundation for the so-called Internet of Things (IoT). IoT is expected to Pentikousis & Ohlman Expires September 12, 2013 [Page 16] INTERNET DRAFT ICN Baseline Scenarios March 11, 2013 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 on simple remote access to smart object data. Instead, it is the intersection of Internet services with the physical world that will bring about the most dramatic changes. Burke [IoTEx], for instance, makes a very good case for creating everyday experiences using interconnected things through participatory sensing applications. In this case, inherent ICN capabilities for data discovery, caching, and trusted communication are leveraged to obtain sensor information and enable content 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 Identifier scheme (ni) [NI] could be used for globally unique smart object identification, although an actual implementation report is not currently available. Access to information generated by smart objects can be of varied nature and often vital for the correct operation of large systems. As such, supporting timestamping, security, scalability, and flexibility need to be taken into account. Ghodsi et al. [NCOA] examine hierarchical and self-certifying naming schemes and point out that ensuring reliable and secure content naming and retrieval may pose stringent requirements (e.g., necessity for employing PKI), which can be too demanding for low-powered nodes, such as sensors. That said, earlier work by Heidemann et al. [nWSN] shows that, for dense sensor network deployments, disassociating sensor naming from network topology and using named content at the lowest level of communication in combination with in-network processing of sensor data is feasible in practice and can be more efficient than employing a host-centric binding between node locator and the content existing therein. J. Burke et al. [NDNl] describe the implementation of a lighting control building automation system where the security, naming and device discovery NDN mechanisms are leveraged to provide configuration, installation and management of residential and industrial lighting control systems. The goal is an inherently resilient system, where even smartphones can be used for control. Naming reflects fixtures with evolved identification and node reaching capabilities thus simplifying bootstrapping, discovery, and user interaction with nodes. The authors report that this ICN-based system requires less maintenance and troubleshooting than typical IP- based alternatives. Pentikousis & Ohlman Expires September 12, 2013 [Page 17] INTERNET DRAFT ICN Baseline Scenarios March 11, 2013 IoT exposes ICN concepts to a stringent set of requirements which are exacerbated by the amount of nodes, as well as by the type and volume of information that must be handled. A way to address this is [IoTScope], which tackles the problem of mapping named information to an object, diverting from the currently typical centralized discovery services and leveraging the intrinsic ICN scalability capabilities for naming. It extends the base [PURSUIT] design with hierarchically-based scopes, facilitating lookup, access, and modifications of only the part of the object information that the user is interested in. Another important aspect is how to efficiently address resolution and location of the information objects, particularly when large numbers of nodes are connected, as in IoT deployments. In [ICN-DHT], Katsaros et al. propose a Distributed Hash Table (DHT) which is compared with DONA [DONA]. Their results show how topological routing information has a positive impact on resolution, at the expense of memory and processing overhead. ICN approaches, therefore, should be evaluated with respect to their capacity to handle the content produced and consumed by extremely large numbers of diverse devices. IoT scenarios aim to exercise ICN deployment from different aspects, including ICN node design requirements, scalability, efficient naming, transport, and caching of time-restricted data. 2.10 Smart City The rapid increase in urbanization sets the stage for the most compelling and challenging environments for networking. By 2050 the global population will reach nine billion people, 75% of which will dwell in urban areas. In order to cope with this influx, many cities around the world started their transformation toward the Smart City vision. Smart cities will be based on the following innovation axes: smart mobility, smart environment, smart people, smart living, and smart governance. In development terms, the core goal of a smart city is to become a business-competitive and attractive environment, while serving citizen well being [CPG]. In a smart city, ICT plays a leading role and acts as the glue bringing together all actors, services, resources (and their interrelationships), that the urban environment is willing to host and provide [MVM]. ICN appears particularly suitable for these scenarios. Domains of interest include intelligent transportation systems, health care, A/V communications, peer-to-peer and collaborative platforms for citizens, social inclusion, active participation in public life, e-government, safety and security, sensor networks, and IoT. Pentikousis & Ohlman Expires September 12, 2013 [Page 18] INTERNET DRAFT ICN Baseline Scenarios March 11, 2013 Nevertheless, the road to build a real information-centric digital ecosystem will be long and more coordinated effort is required to drive innovation in this domain. We argue that smart city needs and ICN technologies can trigger a virtuous innovation cycle toward future ICT platforms. Recent concrete ICN-based contributions have been formulated for home energy management [iHEMS], geo-localized services [ACC], smart city services [IB], and traffic information dissemination in vehicular scenarios [WAK]. Some of the proposed ICN-based solutions are implemented in real 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 test- bed for their proof-of-concept evaluation, exploiting open source code for the ICN implementation, and emulating some node functionality in order to facilitate system operation. A different scenario is considered in [ACC], where 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 realized with simple embedded PCs or specific hardware boards (e.g., for some sensor nodes); other nodes realizing the network connecting the principal actors of the tests are emulated with workstations. The proposal in [IB] draws from a smart city scenario (mainly oriented towards waste collection management) 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 which is publicly available. Some software applications are designed on real systems (e.g., PCs and smartphones). Finally, Wang et al. [WAK] discuss the adoption of named data networking in vehicular (V2V) communication systems. They validate their work using simulation based on a freely available network simulator but consider rather simple traffic patterns. Smart city scenarios aim to exercise several ICN aspects in an urban environment. In particular, they can be useful to (i) analyze the capacity of using ICN for managing extremely large data sets; (ii) study ICN performance in terms of scalability in distributed services; (iii) verify the feasibility of ICN in a very complex application like vehicular communication systems; and (iv) examine the possible drawbacks related to privacy and security issues in complex networked environments. Pentikousis & Ohlman Expires September 12, 2013 [Page 19] INTERNET DRAFT ICN Baseline Scenarios March 11, 2013 3 Evaluation Methodology As we have seen in the previous section, different ICN approaches have already been evaluated in the peer-reviewed literature using a mixture of theoretical analysis, simulation studies, and empirical (testbed) measurements. These are all popular techniques for evaluating network protocols, architectures, and services in the networking community. Typically, researchers follow a specific methodology based on the goal of their experiment, e.g. whether they want to evaluate scalability, quantify resource utilization, analyze economic incentives, and so on, as we have discussed earlier. In addition, though, we often observe that ease and convenience of setting up and running experiments can sometimes be a factor in published evaluations. It is worth pointing out that for well-established protocols, such as TCP, for example, performance evaluation using actual network deployments has the benefit of realistic workloads and reflects the environment where the service or protocol will be deployed. However, sometimes results obtained in this environment are often difficult to replicate independently. Moreover, for ICN in particular, it is not yet clear what qualifies as a "realistic workload". Trace-based analysis of ICN is at its infancy, and more work is needed towards defining characteristic workloads for ICN evaluation studies. This document recommends that attention must be paid while choosing the evaluation methodology as well as the experimental setup process. Numerous factors affect experimental results, including, for instance, the topology selected, the background traffic that an application is being subjected to, the available bandwidth, the link delay and loss-rate characteristics throughout the selected topology, the node mobility patterns, as well as practical aspects such as the diversity of devices used, and so on, as we explain in the remainder of this section. 3.1 ICN Simulators and Testbeds Since ICN is still an emerging area the community is still in the process of developing effective evaluation environments, including simulators emulators, and testbeds. To date, none of the available simulators can be seen as the one and only reference evaluation tool. Furthermore, no single environment supports all well known ICN approaches. Simulators and emulators should be able to capture faithfully all features and operations of the respective ICN architecture(s). It is also essential that these tools and environments come with adequate logging facilities so that one can use them for in-depth analysis as well as debugging. Additional Pentikousis & Ohlman Expires September 12, 2013 [Page 20] INTERNET DRAFT ICN Baseline Scenarios March 11, 2013 requirements include the ability to support mid- to large-scale experiments, the ability to quickly and correctly set various configurations and parameters, as well as to support the playback of traffic traces captured on a real testbed or network. The rest of this subsection summarizes the ICN simulators and testbeds currently available to the community. 3.1.1 CCN and NDN ndnSIM is a module that can be plugged into the ns-3 simulator and supports the core features of CCN. One can use ndnSIM to experiment with various CCN applications and services as well as components developed for CCN such as routing protocols, caching and forwarding strategies. The code for ns-3 and ndnSIM is openly available to the community and can be used as the basis for implementing ICN protocols or applications. For more details interested readers should consult http://www.nsnam.org and http://ndnsim.net. ccnSim [ccnSim] is another CCN-specific simulator that was specially designed to handle forwarding of a large number of CCN-chunks. ccnSim is written in C++ for the OMNeT++ simulation framework; see http://www.omnetpp.org for more details. Finally, a packet level simulator for CCN is the Content Centric Networking Packet Level Simulator [CCNPL]. An example of a testbed that supports CCN is the Open Network Lab (see https://onl.wustl.edu/). The ONL testbed currently comprises 18 extensible gigabit routers and over a 100 computers representing clients and is freely available to the public for running CCN experiments. Nodes in ONL are preloaded with CCNx software. ONL provides a graphical user interface for easy configuration and testbed set up as per the experiment requirements, and also serves as a control mechanism, allowing access to various control variables and traffic counters. It is also possible to run and evaluate CCN over popular testbeds such as PlanetLab (http://www.planet-lab.org/) and Deter (http://www.isi.deterlab.net) by directly running the CCNx open-source code on PlanetLab and Deter nodes, respectively. 3.1.2 Publish/Subscribe Internet Architecture The PSIRP project has open-sourced its Blackhawk publish-subscribe (Pub/Sub) implementation for FreeBSD; more details are available online at http://www.psirp.org/downloads.html. Despite the limitation to one operating system, it also provides a virtual image to allow its deployment into other environments through Pentikousis & Ohlman Expires September 12, 2013 [Page 21] INTERNET DRAFT ICN Baseline Scenarios March 11, 2013 virtualization. The code distribution features a kernel module, a file system and scope daemon, as well as a set of tools and test applications and scripts. 3.1.3 NetInf The EU FP7 4WARD and SAIL projects have made a set of open-source implementations available; see http://www.netinf.org/open-source for more details. Of note, two software packages are available. The first one is a set of tools for NetInf implementing different aspects of the protocol (e.g., NetInf URI format, HTTP and UDP convergence layer) using different programming languages. The Java implementation is a very rich one, providing as well a local caching proxy and client. The second one, is a OpenNetInf prototype from the 4WARD project. Besides a rich set of NetInf mechanisms implemented, it also provides a browser plug in and video streaming software. 3.2 Topology Selection Section 2 introduced several topologies that have been used in ICN studies so far but, to date and to the best of our understanding, there is no single topology that can can be used to easily evaluate all aspects of the ICN paradigm. There is rough consensus that the classic dumbbell topology cannot serve well future evaluations of ICN approaches. Therefore, one should consider a range of topologies, each of which would stress different aspects, as outlined earlier in this document. Besides defining the evaluation topology as a graph G = (V,E) where V is the set of vertices (nodes) and E is the set of edges (links), one should also clearly define and list the respective matrices that correspond to the network, storage and computation capacities available at each node as well as the delay characteristics of each link, so that the results obtained can be easily replicated in other studies. Recent work by Hussain and Chen [Montage], although currently addressing host-centric networks, could also be leveraged and be extended by the ICN community. Finally, the topology dynamic aspects, such as node and content mobility, packet loss rates as well as link and node failure rates, to name a few, should also be carefully considered. As mentioned in subsection 2.8, for example, contact traces from the DTN community could also be used in ICN evaluations. Pentikousis & Ohlman Expires September 12, 2013 [Page 22] INTERNET DRAFT ICN Baseline Scenarios March 11, 2013 3.3 Traffic Load As we are still missing ICN-specific traffic workloads we can currently only extrapolate from today's workloads. In this subsection we provide a first draft of a set of common guidelines, in the form of what we will refer to as a content catalog for different scenarios. This catalog, which is based on previously published work, could be used to evaluate different ICN proposals, for example, on routing, congestion control, and performance, and can be considered as other kinds of ICN contributions emerge. We take scenarios from today's Web, file sharing (BitTorrent-like) and User Generated Content (UGC) platforms (e.g., YouTube), as well as Video on Demand (VoD) services. The content catalog for each traffic is characterized by a specific set of parameters: the cardinality of the estimated content catalog, the average size of the exchanged contents (either chunks or entire named information objects), and the statistical distribution that best reflect the popularity of objects and their request frequency. Table I summarizes the content catalog. With this shared point of reference, the use of the same set of parameters (depending on the scenario of interest) among researchers will be eased, and different proposals could be compared on a common base. Table I. Content catalog Traffic | Catalog | Mean Object Size | Popularity Distribution Load | Size | [L4][L5][L7][L8] | [L3][L5][L6][L11][L12] | [L1][L2]| [L9][L10] | | [L3][L5]| | ==================================================================== Web | 10^12 | Chunk: 1-10 kB | Zipf, 0.64 <= alpha <= 0.83 -------------------------------------------------------------------- File | 5x10^6 | Chunk: 250-4096 kB | Zipf, 0.75 <= alpha<= 0.82 sharing | | Object: ~800 MB | -------------------------------------------------------------------- UGC | 10^8 | Object: ~10 MB | Zipf, alpha >= 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------- VoD | 10^4 | Object: ~100 MB | Zipf, 0.65 <= alpha <= 1 ==================================================================== * UGC = User Generated Content ** VoD = Video on Demand Several studies in the past years have stated that Zipf's law is the discrete distribution that best represents the request frequency in a number of application scenarios, ranging from the Web to VoD services. The key aspect of this distribution is that the frequency of a content request is inversely proportional to the rank of the Pentikousis & Ohlman Expires September 12, 2013 [Page 23] INTERNET DRAFT ICN Baseline Scenarios March 11, 2013 content itself, i.e., the smaller the rank, the higher the request frequency. If we denote with M the content catalog cardinality and with 1 <= i <= M the rank of the i-th most popular content, we can express the probability of requesting the content with rank "i" as: P(X=i) = ( 1/i^(alpha) ) / C, with C = SUM(1 / j^(alpha)), alpha > 0 where the sum is obtained considering all values of j, 1 <= j <= M. 3.4 Choosing Relevant Metrics Depending on the type of evaluation and the focal area of interest, e.g. name resolution vs. routing efficiency vs. congestion control and fair sharing of resources vs. QoS for A/V communications, the metrics that are of prime importance may vary. That said, we should in general consider two broad categories: traffic-related metrics and system metrics. 3.4.1 Traffic Metrics From the ICN application point of view, relevant metrics include goodput (i.e. the application payload divided by the time needed to deliver it) and delay, as well as more detailed quality of service (QoS) and quality of experience (QoE) metrics. Typical QoS/QoE metrics for A/V applications include Peak Signal to Noise Ratio (PSNR), R and Mean Opinion Scores (MOS), and others from the standardized A/V evaluation toolbox. From the network point of view, relevant metrics include resource efficiency and control plane overhead, among others. 3.4.2 System Metrics Overall system metrics that need to be considered include reliability, scalability, energy efficiency, and delay and disconnection tolerance. In deployments where ICN is addressing specific scenarios, system metrics could be derived from current experience. For example, in IoT scenarios, which were discussed earlier in subsection 2.9, it is reasonable to consider the current generation of sensor nodes, sources of information, and even measurement gateways (e.g., for smart metering at homes) or smartphones. In this case, ICN operation ought to be evaluated with respect not only to overall scalability and network efficiency, but also the impact on the nodes themselves. Karnouskos et al. [SensReqs] provide a comprehensive set of sensor and IoT-related Pentikousis & Ohlman Expires September 12, 2013 [Page 24] INTERNET DRAFT ICN Baseline Scenarios March 11, 2013 requirements, for example, which include aspects such as resource utilization, service life-cycle management and device management. Conversely, ther specific metrics are also risen in such stringent environments, such as CPU processing requirements, signaling overhead, and memory allocation for caching procedures. Also, in nodes acting as gateways, which typically not only act as point of service to a large number of nodes, but also have to satisfy the information requests from remote entities, need to consider scalability-related metrics, such as frequency and processing of successfully satisfied information requests. 3.5 Resource Equivalence and Tradeoffs As we have seen above, every ICN network is built from a set of resources, which include link capacities, different types of memory structures and repositories used for storing named information objects and chunks temporarily (i.e. caching) or persistently, as well as name resolution and other lookup services. Complexity and processing needs in terms of forwarding decisions, management (e.g. need for manual configuration, explicit garbage collection, and so on), and routing (i.e. amount of state needed, need for manual configuration of routing tables, support for mobility, etc.) set the stage for a range of engineering tradeoffs. In order to be able to compare different ICN approaches it would be beneficial to be able to define equivalence in terms of different resources which today are considered incomparable. For example, would provisioning an additional 5 Mb/s link capacity lead to better performance than adding 100 GB of in-network storage? Within this context one would consider resource equivalence (and the associated tradeoffs) for example for cache hit ratios per GB of cache, forwarding decision times, CPU cycles per forwarding decision, and so on. 3.6 Technology Evolution Assumptions TBD 4 Security Considerations TBD Pentikousis & Ohlman Expires September 12, 2013 [Page 25] INTERNET DRAFT ICN Baseline Scenarios March 11, 2013 5 IANA Considerations This document presents no IANA considerations. 6 Acknowledgments This document has benefited from comments and proposed text provided by the following members of the IRTF Information-Centric Networking Research Group (ICNRG): Section 2.1: Myeong-Wuk Jang (Samsung). Section 2.5: Ren Jing (University of Electronic Science and Technology of China), Will Liu (Huawei Technologies), and Jianping Wang (City University of Hong Kong). Section 2.10: Luigi Alfredo Grieco (Politecnico di Bari). 7 Informative References [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. [NetInf] Ahlgren, B. et al., "Design considerations for a network of information", Proc. CoNEXT Re-Arch Workshop. ACM, 2008. [CCN] Jacobson, V. et al., "Networking Named Content", Proc. CoNEXT. ACM, 2009. [PSI] Trossen, D. and G. Parisis, "Designing and realizing an information-centric internet", IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 50, no. 7, July 2012. [DONA] Koponen, T. et al., "A Data-Oriented (and Beyond) Network Architecture", Proc. SIGCOMM. ACM, 2007. [SoA] Ahlgren, B. et al., "A survey of information-centric networking", IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 50, no. 7, July 2012. [ICN-SN] Mathieu, B. et al., "Information-centric networking: a natural design for social network applications", IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 50, no. 7, July 2012. [VPC] Kim, J. et al., "Content Centric Network-based Virtual Pentikousis & Ohlman Expires September 12, 2013 [Page 26] INTERNET DRAFT ICN Baseline Scenarios March 11, 2013 Private Community", Proc. ICCE. IEEE, 2011. [VPC2] Kim, D. and J. Lee, "CCN-based virtual private community for extended home media service", IEEE Trans. Consumer Electronics, vol. 57, no. 2, May 2011. [CCR] Arianfar, S. et al., "On content-centric router design and implications", Proc. CoNEXT Re-Arch Workshop. ACM, 2010. [VoCCN] Jacobson, V. et al., "VoCCN: Voice-over Content-Centric Networks", Proc. CoNEXT Re-Arch Workshop. ACM, 2009. [ACT] Zhu, Z. et al., "ACT: Audio Conference Tool Over Named Data Networking", Proc. SIGCOMM ICN Workshop. ACM, 2011. [G-COPSS] Chen, J. et al., "G-COPSS: A Content Centric Communication Infrastructure for Gaming Applications", Proc. ICDCS. IEEE, 2012. [SCES] Allman, M. et al., "Enabling an Energy-Efficient Future Internet through Selectively Connected End Systems", Proc. HotNets-VI. ACM, 2007. [EEMN] Pentikousis, K., "In Search of Energy-Efficient Mobile Networking", IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2010. [N-Scen] Dannewitz, C. et al., "Scenarios and research issues for a Network of Information", Proc. MobiMedia. ICST, 2012. [DTI] Ott, J. and D. Kutscher, "Drive-thru Internet: IEEE 802.11b for 'automobile' users", Proc. INFOCOM. IEEE, 2004. [PSIMob] Xylomenos, G. et al., "Caching and Mobility Support in a Publish-Subscribe Internet Architecture", IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 50, no. 7, July 2012. [mNetInf] Pentikousis, K. and T. Rautio, "A Multiaccess Network of Information", Proc. WoWMoM. IEEE, 2010. [HybICN] Lindgren, A., "Efficient content distribution in an information-centric hybrid mobile networks", Proc. CCNC. IEEE, 2011. [CBIS] Jacobson, V. et al., "Custodian-Based Information Sharing", IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 50, no. 7, July 2012. [SHARE] Carofiglio, G. et al., "Bandwidth and storage sharing Pentikousis & Ohlman Expires September 12, 2013 [Page 27] INTERNET DRAFT ICN Baseline Scenarios March 11, 2013 performance in information centric networking", Proc. SIGCOMM ICN Workshop. ACM, 2011. [CL4M] Chai, W. K. et al., "Cache 'Less for More' in Information- centric Networks", Proc. Networking. IFIP, 2012. [CURLING] Chai, W. K. et al., "CURLING: Content-Ubiquitous Resolution and Delivery Infrastructure for Next-Generation Services", IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 49, no. 3, Mar. 2011. [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. [OptSC] Paolini, M. Optimizing the Small-Cell Business ROI, SmallCell Americas 2012, available online at www.smallcellsamericas.com/files/ monica_paolini_senza_fili_consulting.pdf [FEMTO] Rioridan, R. Using FemtoCloud technology to deliver femtocell-as-a-service, SmallCell Americas 2012, available online at www.smallcellsamericas.com/files/ 1110rob_riordan_femto_america_2012.pdf [MLDHT] Liu H. et al., "A multi-level DHT routing framework with aggregation", Proc. SIGCOMM ICN Workshop. ACM, 2012. [RP-NDN] DiBenedetto S. et al., "Routing policies in named data networking", Proc. SIGCOMM ICN Workshop. ACM, 2011. [LIPSIN] Jokela P. et al., "LIPSIN: line speed publish/subscribe inter-networking", Proc. of ACM SIG-COMM 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. [ICCP] Rajahalme J. et al., "Incentive-Compatible Caching and Peering in DataOriented Networks", Proc. CoNEXT Re-Arch Workshop. ACM, 2008. Pentikousis & Ohlman Expires September 12, 2013 [Page 28] INTERNET DRAFT ICN Baseline Scenarios March 11, 2013 [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. [SAIL-B3] SAIL, "Final NetInf Architecture", SAIL Project Deliverable D-B.3 , Jan. 2013. [SAIL-A7] SAIL, "New business models and business dynamics of the future networks", SAIL Project Deliverable D-A.7, Aug. 2011. [SAIL-A8] SAIL, "Evaluation of business models", SAIL Project Deliverable D-A.8, Jan. 2013 [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. [CRoWN] Amadeo, M., C. Campolo, and A. Molinaro, "CRoWN: Content- Centric Networking in Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks", IEEE Communications Letters, vol. 16, no. 9, Sept. 2012. [EECCN] Guan, K. et al., "On the Energy Efficiency of Content Delivery Architectures", Proc. ICC Workshops. IEEE, 2011. [DTN] Fall, K., "A delay-tolerant network architecture for challenged internets", Proc. SIGCOMM. ACM, 2003. [DTNICN] G. Tyson, J. Bigham and E. Bodanese, "Towards an Information-Centric Delay-Tolerant Network", Proc. IEEE INFOCOM NOMEN 2013, Turin, Italy. [SLINKY] V. Kawadia, N. Riga, J. Opper, 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. [BPQ] S. Farrell, A. Lynch, D. Kutscher, and A. Lindgren, "Bundle protocol query extension block", draft-irtf-dtnrg- bpq-00 (work in progress), May 2012. Pentikousis & Ohlman Expires September 12, 2013 [Page 29] INTERNET DRAFT ICN Baseline Scenarios March 11, 2013 [TWIMIGHT] Hossmann, Theus, et al. "Twitter in disaster mode: smart probing for opportunistic peers", Proc. of the third ACM international workshop on Mobile Opportunistic Networks. ACM, 2012. [ONE] The Opportunistic Network Environment simulator. Available at http://www.netlab.tkk.fi/tutkimus/dtn/theone [IoTEx] Burke, J., "Authoring Place-based Experiences with an Internet of Things: Tussles of Expressive, Operational, and Participatory Goals", Proc. Interconnecting Smart Objects with the Internet Workshop. IAB, 2011. [IWMT] Kutscher, D. and S. Farrell, "Towards an Information- Centric Internet with more Things", Proc. Interconnecting Smart Objects with the Internet Workshop. IAB, 2011. [NI] Farrell, S. et al., "Naming Things with Hashes", draft- farrell-decade-ni-10 (work in progress), August 2012. [NCOA] Ghodsi, A. et al., "Naming in Content-oriented Architectures", Proc. SIGCOMM ICN Workshop. ACM, 2011. [nWSN] Heidemann, J. et al., "Building efficient wireless sensor networks with low-level naming", Proc. SOSP. ACM, 2001. [NDNl] Burke, J. et al., "Authenticated Lighting Control Using Named Data Networking", NDN Technical Report NDN-0011, Oct. 2012. [IoTScope] Marias, G.F. et al., "Efficient information lookup for the Internet of Things", Proc. WoWMoM. IEEE, 2012. [PURSUIT] Fotiou, N. et al., "Developing Information Networking Further: From PSIRP to PURSUIT", Proc. BROADNETS. ICST, 2010. [ICN-DHT] Katsaros, K. et al., "On inter-domain name resolution for information-centric networks", Proc. Networking. Springer, 2012. [CPG] Cianci, I. et al., "Content Centric Services in Smart Cities", Proc. NGMAST. IEEE, 2012. [MVM] Hernndez-Muoz, J.M. et al., "Smart cities at the forefront of the future Internet", The Future Internet. Springer, 2011. Pentikousis & Ohlman Expires September 12, 2013 [Page 30] INTERNET DRAFT ICN Baseline Scenarios March 11, 2013 [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 Thesis. Lulea University of Technology, 2012. [WAK] Wang, L. et al., "Rapid Traffic Information Dissemination Using Named Data", Proc. MobiHoc NoM workshop. ACM, 2012. [ccnSim] Rossini, G. and D. Rossi, "Large scale simulation of CCN networks", Proc. Algotel 2012 , La Grande Motte, France, May 2012. [CCNPL] Muscariello, L., "Content centric networking packet level simulator", available online at http://perso.rd.francetelecom.fr/muscariello/sim.html [Montage] Hussain, A. and J. Chen, "Montage Topology Manager: Tools for Constructing and Sharing Representative Internet Topologies", DETER Technical Report, ISI-TR-684, Ag. 2012. [L1] http://googleblog.blogspot.it/2008/07/we-knew-web-was- big.html [L2] C. Zhang, P. Dhungel, and K. Di Wu. Unraveling the BitTorrent ecosystem. IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, pp. 1164-1177, 2010. [L3] M. Cha, H. Kwak, P. Rodriguez, Y.-Y. Ahn, and S. Moon, "I tube, you tube, everybody tubes: analyzing the world's largest user generated content video system", Proc. ACM SIGCOMM conference on Internet measurement (IMC), San Diego (CA), USA, Oct. 2007. [L4] J. Zhou, Y. Li, K. Adhikari, and Z.-L. Zhang. Counting YouTube videos via random prefix sampling. In Proc. of IMC'11, Berlin, Germany, Nov. 2011. [L5] C. Fricker, P. Robert, J. Roberts, and N. Sbihi. Impact of traffic mix on caching performance in a content-centric network. In Proc. of IEEE NOMEN 2012, Workshop on Emerging Design Choices in Name-Oriented Networking, Orlando, USA, Pentikousis & Ohlman Expires September 12, 2013 [Page 31] INTERNET DRAFT ICN Baseline Scenarios March 11, 2013 Mar. 2012. [L6] H. Yu, D. Zheng, B. Y. Zhao, and W. Zheng. Understanding user behavior in large-scale video-on-demand systems. In SIGOPS Oper. Syst. Rev., Vol. 40, pp. 333-344, April 2006. [L7] P. Marciniak, N. Liogkas, A. Legout, and E. Kohler. Small is not always beautiful. In Proc. of IPTPS, International Workshop of Peer-to-Peer Systems, Tampa Bay, Florida (FL), USA, Feb. 2008. [L8] A. Bellissimo, B. Levine, and P. Shenoy. Exploring the use of BitTorrent as the basis for a large trace repository. University of Massachusetts, Tech. Rep., 2004. [L9] I. Psaras, R. G. Clegg, R. Landa, W. K. Chai, and G. Pavlou. Modelling and Evaluation of CCN-Caching Trees. In Proc. of the 10th international IFIP conference on Networking, Valencia, Spain, May 2011. [L10] G. Carofiglio, M. Gallo, L. Muscariello, and D. Perino. Modeling Data Transfer in Content-Centric Networking. In Proc. of ITC, San Francisco, USA, Sep. 2011. [L11] L. Breslau, P. Cao, L. Fan, G. Phillips, and S. Shenker. Web caching and zipf-like distributions: evidence and implications. In Proc. of INFOCOM '99, New York (NY), USA, Mar. 1999. [L12] Mahanti, A., C. Williamson, and D. Eager. Traffic analysis of a web proxy caching hierarchy. IEEE Network, Vol.14, No.3, pp.16-23, May/June 2000. [SensReqs] Karnouskos, S. et al., "Requirement considerations for ubiquitous integration of cooperating objects", Proc. NTMS. IFIP, 2011. Authors' Addresses Kostas Pentikousis (editor) Huawei Technologies Carnotstrasse 4 10587 Berlin Germany Email: k.pentikousis@huawei.com Pentikousis & Ohlman Expires September 12, 2013 [Page 32] INTERNET DRAFT ICN Baseline Scenarios March 11, 2013 Borje Ohlman Ericsson Research S-16480 Stockholm Sweden Email: Borje.Ohlman@ericsson.com Daniel Corujo Instituto de Telecomunicacoes Campus Universitario de Santiago P-3810-193 Aveiro Portugal Email: dcorujo@av.it.pt Gennaro Boggia Dep. of Electrical and Information Engineering Politecnico di Bari Via Orabona 4 70125 Bari Italy Email: g.boggia@poliba.it 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 Dorothy Gellert InterDigital Communications, LLC 781 Third Avenue King Of Prussia, PA 19406-1409 USA Pentikousis & Ohlman Expires September 12, 2013 [Page 33] INTERNET DRAFT ICN Baseline Scenarios March 11, 2013 Email: dorothy.gellert@interdigital.com Priya Mahadevan Palo Alto Research Center 3333 Coyote Hill Rd Palo Alto, CA 94304 USA Email: Priya.Mahadevan@parc.com Pentikousis & Ohlman Expires September 12, 2013 [Page 34]