





Internet Research Task Force (IRTF)                  K. Pentikousis, Ed.
Request for Comments: 7476                                          EICT
Category: Informational                                        B. Ohlman
ISSN: 2070-1721                                                 Ericsson
                                                               D. Corujo
                                                  Universidade de Aveiro
                                                               G. Boggia
                                                     Politecnico di Bari
                                                                G. Tyson
                                        Queen Mary, University of London
                                                               E. Davies
                                                  Trinity College Dublin
                                                             A. Molinaro
                                                                   UNIRC
                                                                  S. Eum
                                                                    NICT
                                                              March 2015


           Information-Centric Networking: Baseline Scenarios

Abstract

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

   This document is a product of the IRTF Information-Centric Networking
   Research Group (ICNRG).











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


Status of This Memo

   This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
   published for informational purposes.

   This document is a product of the Internet Research Task Force
   (IRTF).  The IRTF publishes the results of Internet-related research
   and development activities.  These results might not be suitable for
   deployment.  This RFC represents the consensus of the Information-
   Centric Networking Research Group of the Internet Research Task Force
   (IRTF).  Documents approved for publication by the IRSG are not a
   candidate for any level of Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC
   5741.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7476.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2015 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.






















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


Table of Contents

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

1.  Introduction

   Information-centric networking (ICN) marks a fundamental shift in
   communications and networking.  In contrast with the omnipresent and
   very successful host-centric paradigm, which is based on perpetual
   connectivity and the end-to-end principle, ICN changes the focal
   point of the network architecture from the end host to "named
   information" (or content, or data).  In this paradigm, connectivity
   may well be intermittent.  End-host and in-network storage can be
   capitalized upon transparently, as bits in the network and on storage
   devices have exactly the same value.  Mobility and multiaccess are
   the norm, and anycast, multicast, and broadcast are natively
   supported.

   It is also worth noting that with the transition from a host-centric
   to an information-centric communication model the security paradigm
   changes as well.  In a host-centric network, the basic idea is to
   create secure (remote-access) tunnels to trusted providers of data.
   In an information-centric network, on the other hand, any source
   (cache) should be equally usable.  This requires some mechanism for




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


   making each information item trustworthy by itself; this can be
   achieved, for example, by name-data integrity or by signing data
   objects.

   Although interest in ICN is growing rapidly, ongoing work on
   different architectures, such as NetInf [NetInf], the original
   Content-Centric Networking [CCN], and its successors, Project CCNx
   [CCNx] and Named Data Networking (NDN) [NDNP], the Publish-Subscribe
   Internet (PSI) architecture [PSI], and the Data-Oriented Network
   Architecture [DONA] is far from being completed.  One could think of
   ICN today as being at a stage of development similar to that of
   packet-switched networking in the late 1970s when different
   technologies, e.g., DECnet, Internetwork Packet Exchange (IPX), and
   IP, just to name a few, were being actively developed and put to the
   test.  As such, ICN's current development phase and the plethora of
   approaches to tackle the hardest problems make this a very active and
   growing research area, but, on the downside, it also makes it more
   difficult to compare different proposals on an equal footing.  This
   document aims to partially address this by establishing a common
   understanding about potential experimental setups where different ICN
   approaches can be tested and compared against each other while
   showcasing their advantages.

   The first draft version of this document appeared in November 2012.
   It was adopted by ICNRG at IETF 87 (July 2013) as the document to
   address the work item on the definition of "reference baseline
   scenarios to enable performance comparisons between different
   approaches".  Earlier draft versions of this document have been
   presented during the ICNRG meetings at IETF 85, IETF 86, IETF 87,
   IETF 88, IETF 89, and the ICNRG interim meeting in Stockholm in
   February 2013.  This document has been reviewed, commented, and
   discussed extensively for a period of nearly two years by the vast
   majority of ICNRG members, which certainly exceeds 100 individuals.
   It is the consensus of ICNRG that the baseline scenarios described in
   this document should be published in the IRTF Stream of the RFC
   series.  This document does not constitute a standard.

1.1.  Baseline Scenario Selection

   Earlier surveys [SoA1] [SoA2] note that describing ICN architectures
   is akin to shooting a moving target.  We find that comparing these
   different approaches is often even more tricky.  It is not uncommon
   that researchers devise different performance evaluation scenarios,
   typically with good reason, in order to highlight the advantages of
   their approach.  This should be expected to some degree at this early
   stage of ICN development.  Nevertheless, this document shows that





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


   certain baseline scenarios seem to emerge in which ICN architectures
   could showcase their comparative advantages over current systems, in
   general, and against each other, in particular.

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

1.2.  Document Goals and Outline

   This document incorporates input from ICNRG participants and their
   corresponding text contributions, has been reviewed by several ICNRG
   active participants (see Section 7), and represents the consensus of
   the research group.  However, this document does not constitute an
   IETF standard, but is an Informational document; see also [RFC5743].
   As mentioned above, these scenarios are intended to provide a
   framework for evaluating different ICN approaches.  The methodology
   for how to do these evaluations as well as definitions of metrics
   that should be used are described in a separate document
   [EVAL-METHOD].  In addition, interested readers should consider
   reviewing [CHALLENGES].

   The remainder of this document presents a number of scenarios grouped
   into several categories in Section 2, followed by a number of cross-
   scenario considerations in Section 3.  Overall, note that certain
   evaluation scenarios span across these categories, so the boundaries
   between them should not be considered rigid and inflexible.
   Section 4 summarizes the main evaluation aspects across the range of
   scenarios discussed in this document.







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


2.  Scenarios

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

2.1.  Social Networking

   Social-networking applications have proliferated over the past decade
   based on overlay content dissemination systems that require large
   infrastructure investments to roll out and maintain.  Content
   dissemination is at the heart of the ICN paradigm.  Therefore, we
   would expect that social-networking scenarios are a "natural fit" for
   comparing ICN performance with traditional client-server TCP/IP-based
   systems.  Mathieu et al. [ICN-SN], for instance, illustrate how an
   Internet Service Provider (ISP) can capitalize on CCN to deploy a
   short-message service akin to Twitter at a fraction of the complexity
   of today's systems.  Their key observation is that such a service can
   be seen as a combination of multicast delivery and caching.  That is,
   a single user addresses a large number of recipients, some of which
   receive the new message immediately as they are online at that
   instant, while others receive the message whenever they connect to
   the network.

   Along similar lines, Kim et al. [VPC] present an ICN-based social-
   networking platform in which a user shares content with her/his
   family and friends without the need for centralized content servers;
   see also Section 2.4, below, and [CBIS].  Based on the CCN naming
   scheme, [VPC] takes a user name to represent a set of devices that
   belong to the person.  Other users in this in-network, serverless
   social sharing scenario can access the user's content not via a
   device name/address but with the user's name.  In [VPC], signature
   verification does not require any centralized authentication server.
   Kim and Lee [VPC2] present a proof-of-concept evaluation in which
   users with ordinary smartphones can browse a list of members or
   content using a name, and download the content selected from the
   list.

   In other words, the above-mentioned evaluation studies indicate that
   with ICN there may be no need for an end-to-end system design that
   intermediates between content providers and consumers in a hub-and-
   spoke fashion at all times.

   Earlier work by Arianfar et al. [CCR] considers a similar pull-based
   content retrieval scenario using a different architecture, pointing
   to significant performance advantages.  Although the authors consider
   a network topology (redrawn in Figure 1 for convenience) that has
   certain interesting characteristics, they do not explicitly address
   social networking in their evaluation scenario.  Nonetheless,



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


   similarities are easy to spot: "followers" (such as C0, C1, ..., and
   Cz in Figure 1) obtain content put "on the network" (I1, ..., Im, and
   B1, B2) by a single user (e.g., Px) relying solely on network
   primitives.

   \--/
   |C0|
   /--\     +--+     +--+     +--+               +--+
       *=== |I0| === |I1| ... |In|               |P0|
   \--/     +--+     +--+     +--+               +--+
   |C1|                           \             / o
   /--\                            +--+     +--+  o
    o                              |B1| === |B2|  o
    o              o o o o         +--+     +--+  o
    o                             /             \ o
    o       +--+     +--+     +--+                +--+
    o  *=== |Ik| === |Il| ... |Im|                |Px|
   \--/     +--+     +--+     +--+                +--+
   |Cz|
   /--\

   Figure 1.  Dumbbell with Linear Daisy Chains

   In summary, the social-networking scenario aims to exercise each ICN
   architecture in terms of network efficiency, multicast support,
   caching performance and its reliance on centralized mechanisms (or
   lack thereof).

2.2.  Real-Time Communication

   Real-time audio and video (A/V) communications include an array of
   services ranging from one-to-one voice calls to multiparty multimedia
   conferences with support ranging from whiteboards to augmented
   reality.  Real-time communications have been studied and deployed in
   the context of packet- and circuit-switched networks for decades.
   The stringent Quality of Service (QoS) requirements that this type of
   communication imposes on network infrastructure are well known.
   Since one could argue that network primitives that are excellent for
   information dissemination are not well-suited for conversational
   services, ICN evaluation studies should consider real-time
   communication scenarios in detail.

   Notably, Jacobson et al. [VoCCN] presented an early evaluation where
   the performance of a VoIP (Voice over IP) call using an information-
   centric approach was compared with that of an off-the-shelf VoIP
   implementation using RTP/UDP.  The results indicated that despite the
   extra cost of adding security support in the ICN approach,
   performance was virtually identical in the two cases evaluated in



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


   their testbed.  However, the experimental setup presented is quite
   rudimentary, while the evaluation considered a single voice call
   only.  Xuan and Yan [NDNpb] revisit the same scenario but are
   primarily interested in reducing the overhead that may arise in one-
   to-one communication employing an ICN architecture.  Both studies
   illustrate that quality telephony services are feasible with at least
   one ICN approach.  That said, future ICN evaluations should employ
   standardized call arrival patterns, for example, following well-
   established methodologies from the QoS and QoE (Quality of
   Experience) evaluation toolbox and would need to consider more
   comprehensive metrics.

   Given the widespread deployment of real-time A/V communications, an
   evaluation of an ICN system should demonstrate capabilities beyond
   feasibility.  For example, with respect to multimedia conferencing,
   Zhu et al. [ACT] describe the design of a distributed audio
   conference tool based on NDN.  Their system includes ICN-based
   conference discovery, speaker discovery, and voice data distribution.
   The reported evaluation results point to gains in scalability and
   security.  Moreover, Chen et al. [G-COPSS] explore the feasibility of
   implementing a Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game
   (MMORPG) based on CCNx code and show that stringent temporal
   requirements can be met, while scalability is significantly improved
   when compared to a host-centric (IP-based) client-server system.
   This type of work points to benefits for both the data and control
   path of a modern network infrastructure.

   Real-time communication also brings up the issue of named data
   granularity for dynamically generated content.  In many cases, A/V
   data is generated in real-time and is distributed immediately.  One
   possibility is to apply a single name to the entire content, but this
   could result in significant distribution delays.  Alternatively,
   distributing A/V content in smaller "chunks" that are named
   individually may be a better option with respect to real-time
   distribution but raises naming scalability concerns.

   We observe that, all in all, the ICN research community has hitherto
   only scratched the surface of illustrating the benefits of adopting
   an information-centric approach as opposed to a host-centric one, and
   thus more work is recommended in this direction.  Scenarios in this
   category should illustrate not only feasibility but reduced
   complexity, increased scalability, reliability, and capacity to meet
   stringent QoS/QoE requirements when compared to established host-
   centric solutions.  Accordingly, the primary aim of this scenario is
   to exercise each ICN architecture in terms of its ability to satisfy
   real-time QoS requirements and provide improved user experience.





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


2.3.  Mobile Networking

   IP mobility management relies on anchors to provide ubiquitous
   connectivity to end-hosts as well as moving networks [MMIN].  This is
   a natural choice for a host-centric paradigm that requires end-to-end
   connectivity and a continuous network presence for hosts [SCES].  An
   implicit assumption in host-centric mobility management is therefore
   that the mobile node aims to connect to a particular peer, as well as
   to maintain global reachability and service continuity [EEMN].
   However, with ICN, new ideas about mobility management should come to
   the fore, capitalizing on the different nature of the paradigm, such
   as native support for multihoming, abstraction of network addresses
   from applications, less dependence on connection-oriented sessions,
   and so on [MOBSURV].

   Dannewitz et al. [N-Scen] illustrate a scenario where a multiaccess
   end-host can retrieve email securely using a combination of cellular
   and Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN) connectivity.  This scenario
   borrows elements from previous work, e.g., [DTI], and develops them
   further with respect to multiaccess.  Unfortunately, Dannewitz et al.
   [N-Scen] do not present any results demonstrating that an ICN
   approach is, indeed, better.  That said, the scenario is interesting
   as it considers content specific to a single user (i.e., her mailbox)
   and does point to reduced complexity.  It is also compatible with
   recent work in the Distributed Mobility Management (DMM) Working
   Group within the IETF.  Finally, Xylomenos et al. [PSIMob] as well as
   Pentikousis [EEMN] argue that an information-centric architecture can
   avoid the complexity of having to manage tunnels to maintain end-to-
   end connectivity as is the case with mobile anchor-based protocols
   such as Mobile IP (and its variants).  Similar considerations hold
   for a vehicular (networking) environment, as we discuss in Section
   2.6.

   Overall, mobile networking scenarios have not been developed in
   detail, let alone evaluated at a large scale.  Further, the majority
   of scenarios discussed so far have related to the mobility of the
   information consumer, rather than the source.  We expect that in the
   coming period more papers will address this topic.  Earlier work
   [mNetInf] argues that for mobile and multiaccess networking scenarios
   we need to go beyond the current mobility management mechanisms in
   order to capitalize on the core ICN features.  They present a testbed
   setup (redrawn in Figure 2) that can serve as the basis for other ICN
   evaluations.  In this scenario, node "C0" has multiple network
   interfaces that can access local domains N0 and N1 simultaneously,
   allowing C0 to retrieve objects from whichever server (I2 or I3) can
   supply them without necessarily needing to access the servers in the
   core network "C" (P1 and P2).  Lindgren [HybICN] explores this




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


   scenario further for an urban setting.  He uses simulation and
   reports sizable gains in terms of reduction of object retrieval times
   and core network capacity use.

   +------------+      +-----------+
   | Network N0 |      | Network C |
   |            |      |           |
   | +--+       | ==== |    +--+   |
   | |I2|       |      |    |P1|   |
   | +--+       |      |    +--+   |
   |     \--/   |      |           |
   +-----|C0|---+      |           |
   |     /--\   |      |           |
   | +--+       |      |           |
   | |I3|       |      |      +--+ |
   | +--+       | ==== |      |P2| |
   |            |      |      +--+ |
   | Network N1 |      |           |
   +------------+      +-----------+

   Figure 2.  Overlapping Wireless Multiaccess

   The benefits from capitalizing on the broadcast nature of wireless
   access technologies has yet to be explored to its full potential in
   the ICN literature, including quantifying possible gains in terms of
   energy efficiency [E-CHANET].  Obviously, ICN architectures must
   avoid broadcast storms.  Early work in this area considers
   distributed packet suppression techniques that exploit delayed
   transmissions and overhearing; examples can be found in [MobiA] and
   [CCNMANET] for ICN-based mobile ad-hoc networks (MANETs), and in
   [RTIND] and [CCNVANET] for vehicular scenarios.

   One would expect that mobile networking scenarios will be naturally
   coupled with those discussed in the previous sections, as more users
   access social-networking and multimedia applications through mobile
   devices.  Further, the constraints of real-time A/V applications
   create interesting challenges in handling mobility, particularly in
   terms of maintaining service continuity.  This scenario therefore
   spans across most of the others considered in this document with the
   likely need for some level of integration, particularly considering
   the well-documented increases in mobile traffic.  Mobility is further
   considered in Section 2.7 and the economic consequences of nodes
   having multiple network interfaces is explored in Section 3.1.

   Host-centric mobility management has traditionally used a range of
   metrics for evaluating performance on a per-node and network-wide
   level.  The first metric that comes to mind is handover latency,
   defined in [RFC5568] as the "period during which the mobile node is



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


   unable to send or receive packets".  This metric should be considered
   in ICN performance evaluation studies dealing with mobility.  Note
   that, in IP-based networks, handover latency has been addressed by
   the introduction of mobility management protocols that aim to hide
   node mobility from the correspondent node, and often follow a make-
   before-break approach in order to ensure seamless connectivity and
   minimize (or eliminate altogether) handover latency.  The "always-on"
   and "always best connected" [ABC] paradigms have guided mobility
   management research and standardization for a good decade or so.  One
   can argue that such mechanisms are not particularly suited for ICN.
   That said, there has been a lot of interest recently in distributed
   mobility management schemes (see [MMIN] for a summary), where
   mobility management support is not "always on" by default.  Such
   schemes may be more suitable for ICN.  As a general recommendation,
   ICN designs should aim to minimize handover latency so that the end-
   user and service QoE is not affected adversely.

   Network overhead, such as the amount of signaling necessary to
   minimize handover latency, is also a metric that should be considered
   when studying ICN mobility management.  In the past, network overhead
   has been seen as one of the main factors hindering the deployment of
   various mobility solutions.  In IP-based networks, network overhead
   includes, but is not limited to, tunneling overhead, in-band control
   protocol overhead, mobile terminal and network equipment state
   maintenance and update.  ICN designs and evaluation studies should
   clearly identify the network overhead associated with handling
   mobility.  Alongside network overhead, deployment complexity should
   also be studied.

   To summarize, mobile networking scenarios should aim to provide
   service continuity for those applications that require it, decrease
   complexity and control signaling for the network infrastructure, as
   well as increase wireless capacity utilization by taking advantage of
   the broadcast nature of the medium.  Beyond this, mobile networking
   scenarios should form a cross-scenario platform that can highlight
   how other scenarios can still maintain their respective performance
   metrics during periods of high mobility.

2.4.  Infrastructure Sharing

   A key idea in ICN is that the network should secure information
   objects per se, not the communications channel that they are
   delivered over.  This means that hosts attached to an information-
   centric network can share resources on an unprecedented scale,
   especially when compared to what is possible in an IP network.  All
   devices with network access and storage capacity can contribute their
   resources thereby increasing the value of an information-centric




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


   network, although compensation schemes motivating users to contribute
   resources remain a research challenge primarily from a business
   perspective.

   For example, Jacobson et al. [CBIS] argue that in ICN the "where and
   how" of obtaining information are new degrees of freedom.  They
   illustrate this with a scenario involving a photo-sharing application
   that takes advantage of whichever access network connectivity is
   available at the moment (WLAN, Bluetooth, and even SMS) without
   requiring a centralized infrastructure to synchronize between
   numerous devices.  It is important to highlight that since the focus
   of communication changes, keep-alives in this scenario are simply
   unnecessary, as devices participating in the testbed network
   contribute resources in order to maintain user content consistency,
   not link state information as is the case in the host-centric
   paradigm.  This means that the notion of "infrastructure" may be
   completely different in the future.

   Muscariello et al. [SHARE], for instance, presented early work on an
   analytical framework that attempts to capture the storage/bandwidth
   tradeoffs that ICN enables and can be used as the foundation for a
   network planning tool.  In addition, Chai et al. [CL4M] explore the
   benefits of ubiquitous caching throughout an information-centric
   network and argue that "caching less can actually achieve more."
   These papers also sit alongside a variety of other studies that look
   at various scenarios such as caching HTTP-like traffic [CCNCT] and
   BitTorrent-like traffic [BTCACHE].  We observe that much more work is
   needed in order to understand how to make optimal use of all
   resources available in an information-centric network.  In real-world
   deployments, policy and commercial considerations are also likely to
   affect the use of particular resources, and more work is expected in
   this direction as well.

   In conclusion, scenarios in this category would cover the
   communication-computation-storage tradeoffs that an ICN deployment
   must consider.  This would exercise features relating to network
   planning, perhaps capitalizing on user-provided resources, as well as
   operational and economical aspects of ICN, and contrast them with
   other approaches.  An obvious baseline to compare against in this
   regard is existing federations of IP-based Content Distribution
   Networks (CDNs), such as the ones discussed in the IETF Content
   Delivery Networks Interconnection Working Group.









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


2.5.  Content Dissemination

   Content dissemination has attracted more attention than other aspects
   of ICN.  Scenarios in this category abound in the literature,
   including stored and streaming A/V distribution, file distribution,
   mirroring and bulk transfers, versioned content services (cf.
   Subversion-type revision control), as well as traffic aggregation.

   Decentralized content dissemination with on-the-fly aggregation of
   information sources was envisaged in [N-Scen], where information
   objects can be dynamically assembled based on hierarchically
   structured subcomponents.  For example, a video stream could be
   associated with different audio streams and subtitle sets, which can
   all be obtained from different sources.  Using the topology depicted
   in Figure 1 as an example, an application at C1 may end up obtaining,
   say, the video content from I1, but the user-selected subtitles from
   Px.  Semantics and content negotiation, on behalf of the user, were
   also considered, e.g., for the case of popular tunes that may be
   available in different encoding formats.  Effectively, this scenario
   has the information consumer issuing independent requests for content
   based on information identifiers, and stitching the pieces together
   irrespective of "where" or "how" they were obtained.

   A case in point for content dissemination are vehicular ad hoc
   networks (VANETs), as an ICN approach may address their needs for
   information dissemination between vehicles better than today's
   solutions, as discussed in the following section.  The critical part
   of information dissemination in a VANET scenario revolves around
   "where" and "when".  For instance, one may be interested in traffic
   conditions 2 km ahead while having no interest in similar information
   about the area around the path origin.  VANET scenarios may provide
   fertile ground for showcasing the ICN advantage with respect to
   content dissemination especially when compared with current host-
   centric approaches.  That said, information integrity and filtering
   are challenges that must be addressed.  As mentioned above, content
   dissemination scenarios in VANETs have a particular affinity to the
   mobility scenarios discussed in Section 2.3.

   Content dissemination scenarios, in general, have a large overlap
   with those described in the previous sections and are explored in
   several papers, such as [DONA], [PSI], [PSIMob], [NetInf], [CCN],
   [CBIS], and [CCR], just to name a few.  In addition, Chai et al.
   [CURLING] present a hop-by-hop hierarchical content resolution
   approach that employs receiver-driven multicast over multiple
   domains, advocating another content dissemination approach.  Yet,
   largely, work in this area did not address the issue of access
   authorization in detail.  Often, the distributed content is mostly
   assumed to be freely accessible by any consumer.  Distribution of



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


   paid-for or otherwise restricted content on a public ICN network
   requires more attention in the future.  Fotiou et al. [ACDICN]
   consider a scheme to this effect, but it still requires access to an
   authorization server to verify the user's status after the
   (encrypted) content has been obtained.  This may effectively negate
   the advantage of obtaining the content from any node, especially in a
   disruption-prone or mobile network.

   In summary, scenarios in this category aim to exercise primarily
   scalability and the cost and performance attributes of content
   dissemination.  Particularly, they should highlight the ability of an
   ICN to scale to billions of objects, while not exceeding the cost of
   existing content dissemination solutions (i.e., CDNs) and, ideally,
   increasing performance.  These should be shown in a holistic manner,
   improving content dissemination for both information consumers and
   publishers of all sizes.  We expect that in particular for content
   dissemination, in both extreme as well as typical scenarios, can be
   specified by drawing data from current CDN deployments.

2.6.  Vehicular Networking

   Users "on wheels" are interested in road safety, traffic efficiency,
   and infotainment applications that can be supported through vehicle-
   to-vehicle (V2V) and vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I) wireless
   communications.  These applications exhibit unique features in terms
   of traffic generation patterns, delivery requirements, and spatial
   and temporal scope, which pose great challenges to traditional
   networking solutions.  VANETs, by their nature, are characterized by
   challenges such as fast-changing topology, intermittent connectivity,
   and high node mobility, but also by the opportunity to combine
   information from different sources as each vehicle does not care
   about "who" delivers the named data objects.

   ICN is an attractive candidate solution for vehicular networking, as
   it has several advantages.  First, ICN fits well to the nature of
   typical vehicular applications that are geography- and time-dependent
   (e.g., road traveler information, accident warning, point-of-interest
   advertisements) and usually target vehicles in a given area,
   regardless of their identity or IP address.  These applications are
   likely to benefit from in-network and decentralized data caching and
   replication mechanisms.  Second, content caching is particularly
   beneficial for intermittent on-the-road connectivity and can speed up
   data retrieval through content replication in several nodes.  Caching
   can usually be implemented at relatively low cost in vehicles, as the
   energy demands of the ICN device are likely to be a negligible
   fraction of the total vehicle energy consumption, thus allowing for
   sophisticated processing, continuous communication, and adequate
   storage in the vehicle.  Finally, ICN natively supports asynchronous



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


   data exchange between end-nodes.  By using (and redistributing)
   cached named information objects, a mobile node can serve as a link
   between disconnected areas.  In short, ICN can enable communication
   even under intermittent network connectivity, which is typical of
   vehicular environments with sparse roadside infrastructure and fast-
   moving nodes.

   The advantages of ICN in vehicular networks were preliminarily
   discussed in [EWC] and [DMND], and additionally investigated in
   [DNV2V], [RTIND], [CCNHV], [CCDIVN], [CCNVANET], and [CRoWN].  For
   example, Bai and Krishnamachari [EWC] take advantage of the localized
   and dynamic nature of a VANET to explore how a road congestion
   notification application can be implemented.  Wang et al. [DMND]
   consider data collection where Road-Side Units (RSUs) collect
   information from vehicles by broadcasting NDN-like Interest packets.
   The proposed architecture is evaluated using simulation in a grid
   topology and is compared against a host-centric alternative based on
   Mobile IP.  See Figure 3 for an indicative example of an urban VANET
   topology.  Their results indicate high efficiency for ICN even at
   high speeds.  That said, this work is a preliminary exploration of
   ICN in vehicular environments, so various issues remain for
   evaluation.  They include system scalability to large numbers of
   vehicles and the impact of vehicles that forward Interest packets or
   relay data to other vehicles.

      + - - _- - -_- - - -_- - _- - - +
      |    /_\   /_\     /_\  /_\     |
      |    o o   o o     o o  o o     |
      |    +-------+     +-------+ _  |
      |    |       |     |       |/_\ |
      |  _ |       |     |       |o o |
      | /_\|       |    |       |     |
      | o o+--_----+\===/+--_----+    |
      |      /_\    |RSU|  /_\        |
      |      o o    /===\  o o        |
      |    +-------+     +-------+ _  |
      |    |       |     |       |/_\ |
      | _  |       |     |       |o o |
      |/_\ |       |     |       |    |
      |o o +_-----_+     +_-----_+    |
      |    /_\   /_\     /_\   /_\    |
      +_ _ o_o_ _o_o_ _ _o_o_ _o_o_ _ +

   Figure 3.  Urban Grid VANET Topology

   As mentioned in the previous section, due to the short communication
   duration between a vehicle and the RSU, and the typically short time
   of sustained connectivity between vehicles, VANETs may be a good



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


   showcase for the ICN advantages with respect to content
   dissemination.  Wang et al. [DNV2V], for instance, analyze the
   advantages of hierarchical naming for vehicular traffic information
   dissemination.  Arnould et al. [CCNHV] apply ICN principles to safety
   information dissemination between vehicles with multiple radio
   interfaces.  In [CCDIVN], TalebiFard and Leung use network coding
   techniques to improve content dissemination over multiple ICN paths.
   Amadeo et al. [CCNVANET] [CRoWN] propose an application-independent
   ICN framework for content retrieval and distribution where the role
   of provider can be played equivalently by both vehicles and RSUs.
   ICN forwarding is extended through path-state information carried in
   Interest and Data packets, stored in a new data structure kept by
   vehicular nodes, and exploited also to cope with node mobility.

   Typical scenarios for testing content distribution in VANETs may be
   highways with vehicles moving in straight lines, with or without RSUs
   along the road, as shown in Figure 4.  With an NDN approach in mind,
   for example, RSUs may send Interest packets to collect data from
   vehicles [DMND], or vehicles may send Interest packets to collect
   data from other peers [RTIND] or from RSUs [CCNVANET].  Figure 2
   applies to content dissemination in VANET scenarios as well, where C0
   represents a vehicle that can obtain named information objects via
   multiple wireless peers and/or RSUs (I2 and I3 in the figure).  Grid
   topologies such as the one illustrated in Figure 3 should be
   considered in urban scenarios with RSUs at the crossroads or
   co-located with traffic lights as in [CRoWN].

        \___/                    \___/
        |RSU|                    |RSU|
      ================================
           _     _     _     _
          /_\   /_\   /_\   /_\
      _ _ o_o_ _o_o_ _o_o_ _o_o_ _ _ _
           _     _     _     _
          /_\   /_\   /_\   /_\
          o o   o o   o o   o o
      ================================

   Figure 4.  Highway VANET Topology

   To summarize, VANET scenarios aim to exercise ICN deployment from
   various perspectives, including scalability, caching, transport, and
   mobility issues.  There is a need for further investigation in (i)
   challenging scenarios (e.g., disconnected segments); (ii) scenarios
   involving both consumer and provider mobility; (iii) smart caching
   techniques that take into consideration node mobility patterns,
   spatial and temporal relevance, content popularity, and social
   relationships between users/vehicles; (iv) identification of new



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


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

2.7.  Delay- and Disruption-Tolerance

   Delay- and Disruption-Tolerant Networking (DTN) originated as a means
   to extend the Internet to interplanetary communications [DTN].
   However, it was subsequently found to be an appropriate architecture
   for many terrestrial situations as well.  Typically, this was where
   delays were greater than protocols such as TCP could handle, and
   where disruptions to communications were the norm rather than
   occasional annoyances, e.g., where an end-to-end path does not
   necessarily exist when communication is initiated.  DTN has now been
   applied to many situations, including opportunistic content sharing,
   handling infrastructural issues during emergency situations (e.g.,
   earthquakes) and providing connectivity to remote rural areas without
   existing Internet provision and little or no communications or power
   infrastructure.

   The DTN architecture [RFC4838] is based on a "store, carry, and
   forward" paradigm that has been applied extensively to situations
   where data is carried between network nodes by a "data mule", which
   carries bundles of data stored in some convenient storage medium
   (e.g., a USB memory stick).  With the advent of sensor and peer-to-
   peer (P2P) networks between mobile nodes, DTN is becoming a more
   commonplace type of networking than originally envisioned.  Since ICN
   also does not rely on the familiar end-to-end communications
   paradigm, there are clear synergies [DTNICN].  It could therefore be
   argued that many of the key principles embodied within DTN also exist
   in ICN, as we explain next.

   First, both approaches rely on in-network storage.  In the case of
   DTN, bundles are stored temporarily on devices on a hop-by-hop basis.
   In the case of ICN, information objects are also cached on devices in
   a similar fashion.  As such, both paradigms must provision storage
   within the network.

   Second, both approaches espouse late binding of names to locations
   due to the potentially large interval between request and response
   generation.  In the case of DTN, it is often impossible to predict
   the exact location (in a disconnected topology) where a node will be
   found.  Similarly, in the case of ICN, it is also often impossible to
   predict where an information object might be found.  As such, the
   binding of a request/bundle to a destination (or routing locator)
   must be performed as late as possible.





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


   Finally, both approaches treat data as a long-lived component that
   can exist in the network for extended periods of time.  In the case
   of DTN, bundles are carried by nodes until appropriate next hops are
   discovered.  In the case of ICN, information objects are typically
   cached until storage is exhausted.  As such, both paradigms require a
   direct shift in the way applications interact with the network.

   Through these similarities, it becomes possible to identify many DTN
   principles that are already in existence within ICN architectures.
   For example, ICN nodes will often retain information objects locally,
   making them accessible later on, much as DTN bundles are handled.
   Consequently, these synergies suggest strong potential for marrying
   the two technologies.  This could include, for instance, building new
   integrated Information-Centric Delay Tolerant Network (ICDTN)
   protocols or, alternatively, building ICN schemes over existing DTN
   protocols (and vice versa).

   The above similarities suggest that integration of the two principles
   would be feasible.  Beyond this, there are also a number of
   identifiable direct benefits.  Through caching and replication, ICN
   offers strong information resilience, whilst, through store-and-
   forward, DTN offers strong connectivity resilience.  As such, both
   architectures could benefit greatly from each other.  Initial steps
   have already been taken in the DTN community to integrate ICN
   principles, e.g., the Bundle Protocol Query Block [BPQ] has been
   proposed for the DTN Bundle Protocol [RFC5050].  Similarly, initial
   steps have also been taken in the ICN community, such as [SLINKY].
   In fact, the Scalable and Adaptive Internet Solutions (SAIL) project
   has developed a prototype implementation of NetInf running over the
   DTN Bundle Protocol.

   Of course, in many circumstances, information-centricity is not
   appropriate for use in delay- and disruption-tolerant environments.
   This is particularly the case when information is not the key
   communications atom transmitted.  Further, situations where a single
   sink is always used for receiving information may not warrant the
   identification and routing of independent information objects.
   However, there are a number of key scenarios where clear benefits
   could be gained by introducing information-centric principles into
   DTNs, two of which we describe later in this section.

   For the purpose of evaluating the use of ICNs in a DTN setting, two
   key scenarios are identified in this document.  (Note the rest of
   this section uses the term "ICDTN".)  These are both prominent use
   cases that are currently active in both the ICN and DTN communities.
   The first is opportunistic content sharing, whilst the second is the
   use of ad hoc networks during disaster recovery (e.g., earthquakes).
   We discuss both types of scenarios in the context of a simulation-



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


   based evaluation: due to the scale and mobility of DTN-like setups,
   this is the primary method of evaluation used.  Within the DTN
   community, the majority of simulations are performed using the
   Opportunistic Network Environment (ONE) simulator [ONE], which is
   referred to in this document.  Before exploring the two scenarios,
   the key shared components of their simulation are discussed.  This is
   separated into the two primary inputs that are required: the
   environment and the workload.

   In both types of scenarios the environment can be abstractly modeled
   by a time series of active connections between device pairs.  Unlike
   other scenarios in this document, an ICDTN scenario therefore does
   not depend on (relatively) static topologies but, rather, a set of
   time-varying disconnected topologies.  In opportunistic networks,
   these topologies are actually products of the mobility of users.  For
   example, if two users walk past each other, an opportunistic link can
   be created.  There are two methods used to generate these mobility
   patterns and, in turn, the time series of topologies.  The first is
   synthetic, whereby a (mathematical) model of user behavior is created
   in an agent-based fashion, e.g., random waypoint, Gauss-Markov.  The
   second is trace-driven, whereby the mobility of real users is
   recorded and used.  In both cases, the output is a sequence of time-
   stamped "contacts", i.e., periods of time in which two devices can
   communicate.  An important factor missing from typical mobility
   traces, however, is the capacity of these contacts: how much data can
   be transferred?  In both approaches to modeling mobility, links are
   usually configured as Bluetooth or Wi-Fi (ONE easily allows this,
   although lower-layer considerations are ignored, e.g., interference).
   This is motivated by the predominance of these technologies on mobile
   phones.

   The workload in an ICDTN is modeled much like the workload within the
   other scenarios.  It involves object creation/placement and object
   retrieval.  Object creation/placement can either be done statically
   at the beginning of the simulations or, alternatively, dynamically
   based on a model of user behavior.  In both cases, the latter is
   focused on, as it models far better the characteristics of the
   scenarios.

   Once the environment and workload have been configured, the next step
   is to decide the key metrics for the study.  Unlike traditional
   networking, the QoS expectation is typically far lower in an ICDTN,
   thereby moving away from metrics such as throughput.  At a high
   level, it is of clear interest to evaluate different ICN approaches
   with respect to both their delay- and disruption-tolerance (i.e., how
   effective is the approach when used in an environment subject to
   significant delay and/or disruption) and to their active support for
   operations in a DTN environment.



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


   The two most prominent metrics considered in a host-centric DTN are
   delivery probability and delivery delay.  The former relates to the
   probability by which a sent message will be received within a certain
   delay bound, whilst the latter captures the average length of time it
   takes for nodes to receive the message.  These metrics are similarly
   important in an ICDTN, although they are slightly different due to
   the request-response nature of ICN.  Therefore, the two most
   prominent evaluative metrics are satisfaction probability and
   satisfaction delay.  The former refers to the probability by which an
   information request (e.g., Interest) will be satisfied (i.e., how
   often a Data response will be received).  Satisfaction delay refers
   to the length of time it takes an information request to be
   satisfied.

   Note that the key difference between the host-centric and
   information-centric metrics is the need for a round-trip rather than
   a one-way communication.  Beyond this, depending on the focus of the
   work, other elements that may be investigated include name
   resolution, routing, and forwarding in disconnected parts of the
   network; support for unidirectional links; number of round trips
   needed to complete a data transfer; long-term content availability
   (or resilience); efficiency in the face of disruption; and so on.  It
   is also important to weigh these performance metrics against the
   necessary overheads.  In the case of an ICDTN, this is generally
   measured by the number of message replicas required to access
   content.  Note that routing in a DTN is often replication based,
   which leads to many copies of the same message.

2.7.1.  Opportunistic Content Sharing

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





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


   In terms of the environment (i.e., mobility patterns), the Haggle
   project produced contact traces based on conference attendees using
   Bluetooth.  These traces are best targeted at application scenarios
   in which a small group of (50-100) people are in a relatively
   confined space.  In contrast, larger-scale traces are also available,
   most notably MIT's Reality Mining project.  These are better suited
   for cases where longer-term movement patterns are of interest.

   The second input, workload, relates to the creation and consumption
   of microblogs (e.g., tweets).  This can be effectively captured
   because subscriptions conveniently formalize who consumes what.  For
   bespoke purposes, specific data can be directly collected from
   Twitter for trace-driven simulations.  Several Twitter datasets are
   already available to the community containing a variety of data,
   ranging from Tweets to follower graphs.  See
   <http://www.tweetarchivist.com> and
   <http://socialcomputing.asu.edu/datasets/Twitter>.  These datasets
   can therefore be used to extract information production, placement,
   and consumption.

2.7.2.  Emergency Support and Disaster Recovery

   The second key baseline scenario in this context relates to the use
   of ICDTNs in emergency scenarios.  In these situations, it is typical
   for infrastructure to be damaged or destroyed, leading to the
   collapse of traditional forms of communications (e.g., cellular
   telephone networks).  This has been seen in the recent North Indian
   flooding, as well as the 2011 Tohoku earthquake and tsunami.  Power
   problems often exacerbate the issue, with communication failures
   lasting for days.  Therefore, in order to address this, DTNs have
   been used due to their high levels of resilience and independence
   from fixed infrastructure.  The most prominent use of DTNs in
   disaster areas would be the dissemination of information, e.g.,
   warnings and evacuation maps.  Unlike the previous scenario, it can
   be assumed that certain users (e.g., emergency responders) are highly
   altruistic.  However, it is likely many other users (e.g., endangered
   civilians) might become far more conservative in how they use their
   devices for battery-conserving purposes.  Here, we focus on the
   dissemination of standard broadcast information that should be
   received by all parties; generally, this is something led by
   emergency responders.

   For the environmental setup, there are no commonly used mobility
   traces for disaster zones, unlike in the previous scenario.  This is
   clearly due to the difficultly (near impossibility) of acquiring them
   in a real setting.  That said, various synthetic models are
   available.  The Post-Disaster Mobility Model [MODEL1] models
   civilians and emergency responders after a disaster has occurred,



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


   with people attempting to reach evacuation points (this has also been
   implemented in the ONE simulator).  Aschenbruck et al. [MODEL2] focus
   on emergency responders, featuring the removal of nodes from the
   disaster zone, as well as things like obstacles (e.g., collapsed
   buildings).  Cabrero et al. [MODEL3] also look at emergency
   responders but focus on patterns associated with common procedures.
   For example, command and control centers are typically set up with
   emergency responders periodically returning.  Clearly, the mobility
   of emergency responders is particularly important in this setting
   because they usually are the ones who will "carry" information into
   the disaster zone.  It is recommended that one of these emergency-
   specific models be used during any evaluations, due to the inaccuracy
   of alternate models used for "normal" behavior.

   The workload input in this evaluative scenario is far simpler than
   for the previous scenario.  In emergency cases, the dissemination of
   individual pieces of information to all parties is the norm.  This is
   often embodied using things like the Common Alert Protocol (CAP),
   which is an XML standard for describing warning message.  It is
   currently used by various systems, including the Integrated Public
   Alert & Warning System and Google Crisis Response.  As such, small
   objects (e.g., 512 KB to 2 MB) are usually generated containing text
   and images; note that the ONE simulator offers utilities to easily
   generate these.  These messages are also always generated by central
   authorities, therefore making the placement problem easier (they
   would be centrally generated and given to emergency responders to
   disseminate as they pass through the disaster zone).  The key
   variable is therefore the generation rate, which is synonymous with
   the rate that microblogs are written in the previous scenario.  This
   will largely be based on the type of disaster occurring; however,
   hourly updates would be an appropriate configuration.  Higher rates
   can also be tested, based on the rate at which situations change
   (landslides, for example, can exhibit highly dynamic properties).

   To summarize, this section has highlighted the applicability of ICN
   principles to existing DTN scenarios.  Two evaluative setups have
   been described in detail, namely, mobile opportunistic content
   sharing (microblogging) and emergency information dissemination.

2.8.  Internet of Things

   Advances in electronics miniaturization combined with low-power
   wireless access technologies (e.g., ZigBee, Near Field Communication
   (NFC), Bluetooth, and others) have enabled the coupling of
   interconnected digital services with everyday objects.  As devices
   with sensors and actuators connect into the network, they become
   "smart objects" and form the foundation for the so-called Internet of




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


   Things (IoT).  IoT is expected to increase significantly the amount
   of content carried by the network due to machine-to-machine (M2M)
   communication as well as novel user-interaction possibilities.

   Yet, the full potential of IoT does not lie in simple remote access
   to smart object data.  Instead, it is the intersection of Internet
   services with the physical world that will bring about the most
   dramatic changes.  Burke [IoTEx], for instance, makes a very good
   case for creating everyday experiences using interconnected things
   through participatory sensing applications.  In this case, inherent
   ICN capabilities for data discovery, caching, and trusted
   communication are leveraged to obtain sensor information and enable
   content exchange between mobile users, repositories, and
   applications.

   Kutscher and Farrell [IWMT] discuss the benefits that ICN can provide
   in these environments in terms of naming, caching, and optimized
   transport.  The Named Information URI scheme (ni) [RFC6920], for
   instance, could be used for globally unique smart object
   identification, although an actual implementation report is not
   currently available.  Access to information generated by smart
   objects can be of varied nature and often vital for the correct
   operation of large systems.  As such, supporting timestamping,
   security, scalability, and flexibility need to be taken into account.

   Ghodsi et al. [NCOA] examine hierarchical and self-certifying naming
   schemes and point out that ensuring reliable and secure content
   naming and retrieval may pose stringent requirements (e.g., the
   necessity for employing PKI), which can be too demanding for low-
   powered nodes, such as sensors.  That said, earlier work by Heidemann
   et al. [nWSN] shows that, for dense sensor network deployments,
   disassociating sensor naming from network topology and using named
   content at the lowest level of communication in combination with in-
   network processing of sensor data is feasible in practice and can be
   more efficient than employing a host-centric binding between node
   locator and the content existing therein.

   Burke et al. [NDNl] describe the implementation of a building
   automation system for lighting control where the security, naming,
   and device discovery NDN mechanisms are leveraged to provide
   configuration, installation, and management of residential and
   industrial lighting control systems.  The goal is an inherently
   resilient system, where even smartphones can be used for control.
   Naming reflects fixtures with evolved identification and node-
   reaching capabilities, thus simplifying bootstrapping, discovery, and
   user interaction with nodes.  The authors report that this ICN-based
   system requires less maintenance and troubleshooting than typical
   IP-based alternatives.



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


   Biswas et al. [CIBUS] visualize ICN as a contextualized information-
   centric bus (CIBUS) over which diverse sets of service producers and
   consumers coexist with different requirements.  ICN is leveraged to
   unify different platforms to serve consumer-producer interaction in
   both infrastructure and ad hoc settings.  Ravindran et al. [Homenet]
   show the application of this idea in the context of a home network,
   where consumers (residents) require policy-driven interactions with
   diverse services such as climate control, surveillance systems, and
   entertainment systems.  Name-based protocols are developed to enable
   zero-configuration node and service discovery, contextual service
   publishing and subscription, policy-based routing and forwarding with
   name-based firewall, and hoc device-to-device communication.

   IoT exposes ICN concepts to a stringent set of requirements that are
   exacerbated by the quantity of nodes, as well as by the type and
   volume of information that must be handled.  A way to address this is
   proposed in [IoTScope], which tackles the problem of mapping named
   information to an object, diverting from the currently typical
   centralized discovery of services and leveraging the intrinsic ICN
   scalability capabilities for naming.  It extends the base [PURSUIT]
   design with hierarchically based scopes, facilitating lookup, access,
   and modifications of only the part of the object information that the
   user is interested in.  Another important aspect is how to
   efficiently address resolution and location of the information
   objects, particularly when large numbers of nodes are connected, as
   in IoT deployments.  In [ICN-DHT], Katsaros et al. propose a
   Distributed Hash Table (DHT) that is compared with the Data-Oriented
   Network Architecture described in [DONA].  Their results show how
   topological routing information has a positive impact on resolution,
   at the expense of memory and processing overhead.

   The use of ICN mechanisms in IoT scenarios faces the most dynamic and
   heterogeneous type of challenges, when taking into consideration the
   requirements and objectives of such integration.  The disparity in
   technologies (not only in access technologies, but also in terms of
   end-node diversity such as sensors, actuators, and their
   characteristics) as well as in the information that is generated and
   consumed in such scenarios, will undoubtedly bring about many of the
   considerations presented in the previous sections.  For instance, IoT
   shares similarities with the constraints and requirements applicable
   to vehicular networking.  Here, a central problem is the deployment
   of mechanisms that can use opportunistic connectivity in unreliable
   networking environments (similar to the vehicular networking and DTN
   scenarios).

   However, one important concern in IoT scenarios, also motivated by
   this strongly heterogeneous environment, is how content dissemination
   will be affected by the different semantics of the disparate



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


   information and content being shared.  In fact, this is already a
   difficult problem that goes beyond the scope of ICN [SEMANT].  With
   the ability of the network nodes to cache forwarded information to
   improve future requests, a challenge arises regarding whether the ICN
   fabric should be involved in any kind of procedure (e.g., tagging)
   that facilitates the relationship or the interpretation of the
   different sources of information.

   Another issue lies with the need for having energy-efficiency
   mechanisms related to the networking capabilities of IoT
   infrastructures.  Often, the devices in IoT deployments have limited
   battery capabilities, and thus need low power consumption schemes
   working at multiple levels.  In principle, energy efficiency gains
   should be observed from the inherent in-network caching capability.
   However, this might not be the most usual case in IoT scenarios,
   where the information (particularly from sensors or controlling
   actuators) is more akin to real-time traffic, thus reducing the scale
   of potential savings due to ubiquitous in-network caching.

   ICN approaches, therefore, should be evaluated with respect to their
   capacity to handle the content produced and consumed by extremely
   large numbers of diverse devices.  IoT scenarios aim to exercise ICN
   deployment from different aspects, including ICN node design
   requirements, efficient naming, transport, and caching of time-
   restricted data.  Scalability is particularly important in this
   regard as the successful deployment of IoT principles could increase
   both device and content numbers dramatically beyond all current
   expectations.

2.9.  Smart City

   The rapid increase in urbanization sets the stage for the most
   compelling and challenging environments for networking.  By 2050 the
   global population will reach nine billion people, 75% of which will
   dwell in urban areas.  In order to cope with this influx, many cities
   around the world have started their transformation toward the "smart
   city" vision.  Smart cities will be based on the following innovation
   axes: smart mobility, smart environment, smart people, smart living,
   and smart governance.  In development terms, the core goal of a smart
   city is to become a business-competitive and attractive environment,
   while serving citizen well-being [CPG].

   In a smart city, ICT plays a leading role and acts as the glue
   bringing together all actors, services, resources (and their
   interrelationships) that the urban environment is willing to host and
   provide [MVM].  ICN appears particularly suitable for these
   scenarios.  Domains of interest include intelligent transportation
   systems, energy networks, health care, A/V communications, peer-to-



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


   peer and collaborative platforms for citizens, social inclusion,
   active participation in public life, e-government, safety and
   security, and sensor networks.  Clearly, this scenario has close ties
   to the vision of IoT, discussed in the previous section, as well as
   to vehicular networking.

   Nevertheless, the road to build a real information-centric digital
   ecosystem will be long, and more coordinated effort is required to
   drive innovation in this domain.  We argue that smart-city needs and
   ICN technologies can trigger a virtuous innovation cycle toward
   future ICT platforms.  Recent concrete ICN-based contributions have
   been formulated for home energy management [iHEMS], geo-localized
   services [ACC], smart-city services [IB], and traffic information
   dissemination in vehicular scenarios [RTIND].  Some of the proposed
   ICN-based solutions are implemented in real testbeds, while others
   are evaluated through simulation.

   Zhang et al. [iHEMS] propose a secure publish-subscribe architecture
   for handling the communication requirements of Home Energy Management
   Systems (HEMS).  The objective is to safely and effectively collect
   measurement and status information from household elements, aggregate
   and analyze the data, and ultimately enable intelligent control
   decisions for actuation.  They consider a simple experimental testbed
   for their proof-of-concept evaluation, exploiting open source code
   for the ICN implementation, and emulating some node functionality in
   order to facilitate system operation.

   A different scenario is considered in [ACC], where DHTs are employed
   for distributed, scalable, and geographically aware service lookup in
   a smart city.  Also in this case, the ICN application is validated by
   considering a small-scale testbed: a small number of nodes are
   emulated with simple embedded PCs or specific hardware boards (e.g.,
   for some sensor nodes); other nodes (which connect the principal
   actors of the tests) are emulated with workstations.  The proposal in
   [IB] draws from a smart-city scenario (mainly oriented towards waste
   collection management) comprising sensors and moving vehicles, as
   well as a cloud-computing system that supports data retrieval and
   storage operations.  The main aspects of this proposal are analyzed
   via simulation using open source code that is publicly available.
   Some software applications are designed on real systems (e.g., PCs
   and smartphones).

   With respect to evaluating ICN approaches in smart-city scenarios, it
   is necessary to consider generic metrics useful to track and monitor
   progress on services results and also for comparing localities
   between themselves and learn from the best [ISODIS].  In particular,
   it is possible to select a specific set of Key Performance Indicators
   (KPIs) for a given project in order to evaluate its success.  These



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


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

   To sum up, smart-city scenarios aim to exercise several ICN aspects
   in an urban environment.  In particular, they can be useful to (i)
   analyze the capacity of using ICN for managing extremely large data
   sets; (ii) study ICN performance in terms of scalability in
   distributed services; (iii) verify the feasibility of ICN in a very
   complex application like vehicular communication systems; and (iv)
   examine the possible drawbacks related to privacy and security issues
   in complex networked environments.

3.  Cross-Scenario Considerations

   This section discusses considerations that span multiple scenarios.

3.1.  Multiply Connected Nodes and Economics

   The evolution of, in particular, wireless networking technologies has
   resulted in a convergence of the bandwidth and capabilities of
   various different types of network.  Today, a leading-edge mobile
   telephone or tablet computer will typically be able to access a Wi-Fi
   access point, a 4G cellular network, and the latest generation of
   Bluetooth local networking.  Until recently, a node would usually
   have a clear favorite network technology appropriate to any given
   environment.  The choice would, for example, be primarily determined
   by the available bandwidth with cost as a secondary determinant.
   Furthermore, it is normally the case that a device only uses one of
   the technologies at a time for any particular application.

   It seems likely that this situation will change so that nodes are
   able to use all of the available technologies in parallel.  This will
   be further encouraged by the development of new capabilities in
   cellular networks including Small Cell Networks [SCN] and
   Heterogeneous Networks [HetNet].  Consequently, mobile devices will
   have similar choices to wired nodes attached to multiple service
   providers allowing "multihoming" via the various different
   infrastructure networks as well as potential direct access to other
   mobile nodes via Bluetooth or a more capable form of ad hoc Wi-Fi.

   Infrastructure networks are generally under the control of separate
   economic entities that may have different policies about the
   information of an ICN deployed within their network caches.  As ICN
   shifts the focus from nodes to information objects, the interaction



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


   between networks will likely evolve to capitalize on data location
   independence, efficient and scalable in-network named object
   availability, and access via multiple paths.  These interactions
   become critical in evaluating the technical and economic impact of
   ICN architectural choices, as noted in [ArgICN].  Beyond simply
   adding diversity in deployment options, these networks have the
   potential to alter the incentives among existing (and future, we may
   add) network players, as noted in [EconICN].

   Moreover, such networks enable more numerous internetwork
   relationships where exchange of information may be conditioned on a
   set of multilateral policies.  For example, shared SCNs are emerging
   as a cost-effective way to address coverage of complex environments
   such as sports stadiums, large office buildings, malls, etc.  Such
   networks are likely to be a complex mix of different cellular and
   WLAN access technologies (such as HSPA, LTE, and Wi-Fi) as well as
   ownership models.  It is reasonable to assume that access to content
   generated in such networks may depend on contextual information such
   as the subscription type, timing, and location of both the owner and
   requester of the content.  The availability of such contextual
   information across diverse networks can lead to network
   inefficiencies unless data management can benefit from an
   information-centric approach.  The "Event with Large Crowds"
   demonstrator created by the SAIL project investigated this kind of
   scenario; more details are available in [SAIL-B3].

   Jacobson et al. [CCN] include interactions between networks in their
   overall system design and mention both "an edge-driven, bottom-up
   incentive structure" and techniques based on evolutions of existing
   mechanisms both for ICN router discovery by the end-user and for
   interconnecting between Autonomous Systems (ASes).  For example, a
   BGP extension for domain-level content prefix advertisement can be
   used to enable efficient interconnection between ASes.  Liu et al.
   [MLDHT] proposed to address the "suffix-hole" issue found in prefix-
   based name aggregation through the use of a combination of Bloom-
   filter-based aggregation and multi-level DHT.

   Name aggregation has been discussed for a flat naming design, for
   example, in [NCOA], in which the authors note that based on
   estimations in [DONA] flat naming may not require aggregation.  This
   is a point that calls for further study.  Scenarios evaluating name
   aggregation, or lack thereof, should take into account the amount of
   state (e.g., size of routing tables) maintained in edge routers as
   well as network efficiency (e.g., amount of traffic generated).







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


                 +---------------+
     +---------->| Popular Video |
     |           +---------------+
     |             ^           ^
     |             |           |
     |           +-+-+ $0/MB +-+-+
     |           | A +-------+ B |
     |           ++--+       +-+-+
     |            | ^         ^ |
     |      $8/MB | |         | | $10/MB
     |            v |         | v
   +-+-+  $0/MB  +--+---------+--+
   | D +---------+       C       |
   +---+         +---------------+

   Figure 5.  Relationships and Transit Costs between Networks A to D

   DiBenedetto et al. [RP-NDN] study policy knobs made available by NDN
   to network operators.  New policies that are not feasible in the
   current Internet are described, including a "cache sharing peers"
   policy, where two peers have an incentive to share content cached in,
   but not originating from, their respective network.  The simple
   example used in the investigation considers several networks and
   associated transit costs, as shown in Figure 5 (based on Figure 1 of
   [RP-NDN]).  Agyapong and Sirbu [EconICN] further establish that ICN
   approaches should incorporate features that foster (new) business
   relationships.  For example, publishers should be able to indicate
   their willingness to partake in the caching market, proper reporting
   should be enabled to avoid fraud, and content should be made
   cacheable as much as possible to increase cache hit ratios.

   Kutscher et al. [SAIL-B3] enable network interactions in the NetInf
   architecture using a name resolution service at domain edge routers
   and a BGP-like routing system in the NetInf Default-Free Zone.
   Business models and incentives are studied in [SAIL-A7] and
   [SAIL-A8], including scenarios where the access network provider (or
   a virtual CDN) guarantees QoS to end users using ICN.  Figure 6
   illustrates a typical scenario topology from this work that involves
   an interconnectivity provider.












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


   +----------+     +-----------------+     +------+
   | Content  |     | Access Network/ |     | End  |
   | Provider +---->|  ICN Provider   +---->| User |
   +----------+     +-+-------------+-+     +------+
                      |             |
                      |             |
                      v             v
   +-------------------+     +----------------+       +------+
   | Interconnectivity |     | Access Network |       | End  |
   |     Provider      +---->|     Provider   +------>| User |
   +-------------------+     +----------------+       +------+

   Figure 6.  Setup and Operating Costs of Network Entities

   Jokela et al. [LIPSIN] propose a two-layer approach where additional
   rendezvous systems and topology formation functions are placed
   logically above multiple networks and enable advertising and routing
   content between them.  Visala et al. [LANES] further describe an ICN
   architecture based on similar principles, which, notably, relies on a
   hierarchical DHT-based rendezvous interconnect.  Rajahalme et al.
   [PSIRP1] describe a rendezvous system using both a BGP-like routing
   protocol at the edge and a DHT-based overlay at the core.  Their
   evaluation model is centered around policy-compliant path stretch,
   latency introduced by overlay routing, caching efficacy, and load
   distribution.

   Rajahalme et al. [ICCP] point out that ICN architectural changes may
   conflict with the current tier-based peering model.  For example,
   changes leading to shorter paths between ISPs are likely to meet
   resistance from Tier-1 ISPs.  Rajahalme [IDMcast] shows how
   incentives can help shape the design of specific ICN aspects, and in
   [IDArch] he presents a modeling approach to exploit these incentives.
   This includes a network model that describes the relationship between
   Autonomous Systems based on data inferred from the current Internet,
   a traffic model taking into account business factors for each AS, and
   a routing model integrating the valley-free model and policy
   compliance.  A typical scenario topology is illustrated in Figure 7,
   which is redrawn here based on Figure 1 of [ICCP].  Note that it
   relates well with the topology illustrated in Figure 1 of this
   document.











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


                        o-----o
                  +-----+  J  +-----+
                  |     o--*--o     |
                  |        *        |
               o--+--o     *     o--+--o
               |  H  +-----------+  I  |
               o-*-*-o     *     o-*-*-o
                 * *       *       * *
            ****** ******* * ******* *******
            *            * * *             *
         o--*--o        o*-*-*o         o--*--o
         |  E  +--------+  F  +---------+  G  +
         o-*-*-o        o-----o         o-*-*-o
           * *                            * *
      ****** *******                 ****** ******
      *            *                 *           *
   o--*--o      o--*--o           o--*--o     o--*--o
   |  A  |      |  B  +-----------+  C  |     |  D  |
   o-----o      o--+--o           o--+--o     o----+o
                   |                 |         ^^  | route
             data  |            data |    data ||  | to
                   |                 |         ||  | data
               o---v--o          o---v--o     o++--v-o
               | User |          | User |     | Data |
               o------o          o------o     o------o

   Legend:
   *****  Transit link
   +---+  Peering link
   +--->  Data delivery or route to data

   Figure 7.  Tier-Based Set of Interconnections between AS A to J

   To sum up, the evaluation of ICN architectures across multiple
   network types should include a combination of technical and economic
   aspects, capturing their various interactions.  These scenarios aim
   to illustrate scalability, efficiency, and manageability, as well as
   traditional and novel network policies.  Moreover, scenarios in this
   category should specifically address how different actors have proper
   incentives, not only in a pure ICN realm, but also during the
   migration phase towards this final state.

3.2.  Energy Efficiency

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



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


   equipment due to the potentially higher energy demands for named-data
   processing en route.  On balance, however, ICN introduces an
   architectural approach that may compensate on the whole and can even
   achieve higher energy efficiency rates when compared to the host-
   centric paradigm.

   We elaborate on the energy efficiency potential of ICN based on three
   categories of ICN characteristics.  Namely, we point out that a) ICN
   does not rely solely on end-to-end communication, b) ICN enables
   ubiquitous caching, and c) ICN brings awareness of user requests (as
   well as their corresponding responses) at the network layer thus
   permitting network elements to better schedule their transmission
   patterns.

   First, ICN does not mandate perpetual end-to-end communication, which
   introduces a whole range of energy consumption inefficiencies due to
   the extensive signaling, especially in the case of mobile and
   wirelessly connected devices.  This opens up new opportunities for
   accommodating sporadically connected nodes and could be one of the
   keys to an order-of-magnitude decrease in energy consumption compared
   to the potential contributions of other technological advances.  For
   example, web applications often need to maintain state at both ends
   of a connection in order to verify that the authenticated peer is up
   and running.  This introduces keep-alive timers and polling behavior
   with a high toll on energy consumption.  Pentikousis [EEMN] discusses
   several related scenarios and explains why the current host-centric
   paradigm, which employs perpetual end-to-end connections, introduces
   built-in energy inefficiencies, and argues that patches to make
   currently deployed protocols energy-aware cannot provide for an
   order-of-magnitude increase in energy efficiency.

   Second, ICN network elements come with built-in caching capabilities,
   which is often referred to as "ubiquitous caching".  Pushing data
   objects to caches closer to end-user devices, for example, could
   significantly reduce the amount of transit traffic in the core
   network, thereby reducing the energy used for data transport.  Guan
   et al. [EECCN] study the energy efficiency of a CCNx architecture
   (based on their proposed energy model) and compare it with
   conventional content dissemination systems such as CDNs and P2P.
   Their model is based on the analysis of the topological structure and
   the average hop length from all consumers to the nearest cache
   location.  Their results show that an information-centric approach
   can be more energy efficient in delivering popular and small-size
   content.  In particular, they also note that different network-
   element design choices (e.g., the optical bypass approach) can be
   more energy efficient in delivering infrequently accessed content.





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


   Lee et al. [EECD] investigate the energy efficiency of various
   network devices deployed in access, metro, and core networks for both
   CDNs and ICN.  They use trace-based simulations to show that an ICN
   approach can substantially improve the network energy efficiency for
   content dissemination mainly due to the reduction in the number of
   hops required to obtain a data object, which can be served by
   intermediate nodes in ICN.  They also emphasize that the impact of
   cache placement (in incremental deployment scenarios) and
   local/cooperative content replacement strategies needs to be
   carefully investigated in order to better quantify the energy
   efficiencies arising from adopting an ICN paradigm.

   Third, ICN elements are aware of the user request and its
   corresponding data response; due to the nature of name-based routing,
   they can employ power consumption optimization processes for
   determining their transmission schedule or powering down inactive
   network interfaces.  For example, network coding [NCICN] or adaptive
   video streaming [COAST] can be used in individual ICN elements so
   that redundant transmissions, possibly passing through intermediary
   networks, could be significantly reduced, thereby saving energy by
   avoiding carrying redundant traffic.

   Alternatively, approaches that aim to simplify routers, such as
   [PURSUIT], could also reduce energy consumption by pushing routing
   decisions to a more energy-efficient entity.  Along these lines, Ko
   et al. [ICNDC] design a data center network architecture based on ICN
   principles and decouple the router control-plane and data-plane
   functionalities.  Thus, data forwarding is performed by simplified
   network entities, while the complicated routing computation is
   carried out in more energy-efficient data centers.

   To summarize, energy efficiency has been discussed in ICN evaluation
   studies, but most published work is preliminary in nature.  Thus, we
   suggest that more work is needed in this front.  Evaluating energy
   efficiency does not require the definition of new scenarios or
   baseline topologies, but does require the establishment of clear
   guidelines so that different ICN approaches can be compared not only
   in terms of scalability, for example, but also in terms of power
   consumption.

3.3.  Operation across Multiple Network Paradigms

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



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


   considered as one of the scenarios for the deployment in Section 2.7,
   but here we consider how ICN can operate in an integrated network
   that has essentially disjoint "domains" (a highly overloaded term!)
   or regions that use different network paradigms and technologies, but
   with gateways that allow interoperation.

   ICN operates in terms of named data objects so that requests and
   deliveries of information objects can be independent of the
   networking paradigm.  Some researchers have contemplated some form of
   ICN becoming the new waist of the hourglass as the basis of a future
   reincarnation of the Internet, e.g., [ArgICN], but there are a large
   number of problems to resolve, including authorization, access
   control, and transactional operation for applications such as
   banking, before some form of ICN can be considered as ready to take
   over from IP as the dominant networking technology.  In the meantime,
   ICN architectures will operate in conjunction with existing network
   technologies as an overlay or in cooperation with the lower layers of
   the "native" technology.

   It seems likely that as the reach of the "Internet" is extended,
   other technologies such as DTN will be needed to handle scenarios
   such as space communications where inherent delays are too large for
   TCP/IP to cope with effectively.  Thus, demonstrating that ICN
   architectures can work effectively in and across the boundaries of
   different networking technologies will be important.

   The NetInf architecture, in particular, targets the inter-domain
   scenario by the use of a convergence-layer architecture [SAIL-B3],
   and Publish-Subscribe Internet Routing Paradigm (PSIRP) and/or
   Publish-Subscribe Internet Technology (PURSUIT) is envisaged as a
   candidate for an IP replacement.

   The key items for evaluation over and above the satisfactory
   operation of the architecture in each constituent domain will be to
   ensure that requests and responses can be carried across the network
   boundaries with adequate performance and do not cause malfunctions in
   applications or infrastructure because of the differing
   characteristics of the gatewayed domains.

4.  Summary

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



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


   to the test in diverse application areas, the community will be
   better equipped to judge the potential of a given ICN proposal and
   therefore subsequently invest more effort in developing it further.
   It is worth noting that this document collected different kinds of
   considerations, as a result of our ongoing survey of the literature
   and the discussion within ICNRG, which we believe would have
   otherwise remained unnoticed in the wider community.  As a result, we
   expect that this document can assist in fostering the applicability
   and future deployment of ICN over a broader set of operations, as
   well as possibly influencing and enhancing the base ICN proposals
   that are currently available and possibly assist in defining new
   scenarios where ICN would be applicable.

   We conclude this document with a brief summary of the evaluation
   aspects we have seen across a range of scenarios.

   The scalability of different mechanisms in an ICN architecture stands
   out as an important concern (cf. Sections 2.1, 2.2, 2.5, 2.6, 2.8,
   2.9, and 3.1) as does network, resource, and energy efficiency (cf.
   Sections 2.1, 2.3, 2.4, 3.1, and 3.2).  Operational aspects such as
   network planing, manageability, reduced complexity and overhead (cf.
   Sections 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.8, and 3.1) should not be neglected
   especially as ICN architectures are evaluated with respect to their
   potential for deployment in the real world.  Accordingly, further
   research in economic aspects as well as in the communication,
   computation, and storage tradeoffs entailed in each ICN architecture
   is needed.

   With respect to purely technical requirements, support for multicast,
   mobility, and caching lie at the core of many scenarios (cf. Sections
   2.1, 2.3, 2.5, and 2.6).  ICN must also be able to cope when the
   Internet expands to incorporate additional network paradigms (cf.
   Section 3.3).  We have also seen that being able to address stringent
   QoS requirements and increase reliability and resilience should also
   be evaluated following well-established methods (cf. Sections 2.2,
   2.8, and 2.9).

   Finally, we note that new applications that significantly improve the
   end-user experience and forge a migration path from today's host-
   centric paradigm could be the key to a sustained and increasing
   deployment of the ICN paradigm in the real world (cf. Sections 2.2,
   2.3, 2.6, 2.8, and 2.9).

5.  Security Considerations

   This document does not impact the security of the Internet.





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


6.  Informative References

   [RFC5743]  Falk, A., "Definition of an Internet Research Task Force
              (IRTF) Document Stream", RFC 5743, December 2009,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5743>.

   [RFC5050]  Scott, K. and S. Burleigh, "Bundle Protocol
              Specification", RFC 5050, November 2007,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5050>.

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

   [RFC5568]  Koodli, R., Ed., "Mobile IPv6 Fast Handovers", RFC 5568,
              July 2009, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5568>.

   [RFC6920]  Farrell, S., Kutscher, D., Dannewitz, C., Ohlman, B.,
              Keranen, A., and P. Hallam-Baker, "Naming Things with
              Hashes", RFC 6920, April 2013,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6920>.

   [NetInf]   Ahlgren, B. et al., "Design considerations for a network
              of information", Proc. CoNEXT Re-Arch Workshop, ACM, 2008.

   [CCN]      Jacobson, V., et al., "Networking Named Content", Proc.
              CoNEXT, ACM, 2009.

   [CCNx]     Mosko, M.,  Solis, I., and E. Uzun, "CCN 1.0 Protocol
              Architecture", Project CCNx documentation, Xerox Palo Alto
              Research Center, 2013,
              <http://ccnx.org/pubs/ICN_CCN_Protocols.pdf>.

   [NDNP]     Zhang, L., et al., "Named Data Networking (NDN) Project",
              NDN Technical Report NDN-0001, Oct. 2010,
              <http://named-data.net/publications/techreports/>.

   [PSI]      Trossen, D. and G. Parisis, "Designing and realizing an
              information-centric internet", IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 50,
              no. 7, July 2012.

   [DONA]     Koponen, T., et al., "A Data-Oriented (and Beyond) Network
              Architecture", Proc. SIGCOMM, ACM, 2007.

   [SoA1]     Ahlgren, B., et al., "A survey of information-centric
              networking", IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 50, no. 7, July 2012.




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


   [SoA2]     Xylomenos, G., et al. "A survey of information-centric
              networking research", IEEE Communications Surveys and
              Tutorials (2013): 1-26.

   [ICN-SN]   Mathieu, B., et al., "Information-centric networking: a
              natural design for social network applications", IEEE
              Commun. Mag., vol. 50, no. 7, July 2012.

   [VPC]      Kim, J., et al., "Content Centric Network-based Virtual
              Private Community", Proc. ICCE, IEEE, 2011.

   [CBIS]     Jacobson, V., et al., "Custodian-Based Information
              Sharing", IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 50, no. 7, July 2012.

   [VPC2]     Kim, D. and J. Lee, "CCN-based virtual private community
              for extended home media service", IEEE Trans. Consumer
              Electronics, vol. 57, no. 2, May 2011.

   [CCR]      Arianfar, S., et al., "On content-centric router design
              and implications", Proc. CoNEXT Re-Arch Workshop, ACM,
              2010.

   [VoCCN]    Jacobson, V., et al., "VoCCN: Voice-over Content-Centric
              Networks", Proc. CoNEXT Re-Arch Workshop, ACM, 2009.

   [NDNpb]    Xuan, Y. and Z. Yan, "Enhancing Routing Efficiency in
              Named Data Network with Piggybacked Interest", Proc. CFI,
              ACM, 2013.

   [ACT]      Zhu, Z., et al., "ACT: Audio Conference Tool Over Named
              Data Networking", Proc. SIGCOMM ICN Workshop, ACM, 2011.

   [G-COPSS]  Chen, J., et al., "G-COPSS: A Content Centric
              Communication Infrastructure for Gaming Applications",
              Proc. ICDCS, IEEE, 2012.

   [MMIN]     Pentikousis, K., and P. Bertin., "Mobility Management in
              Infrastructure Networks", IEEE Internet Computing 17, no.
              5 (2013): 74-79.

   [SCES]     Allman, M., et al., "Enabling an Energy-Efficient Future
              Internet through Selectively Connected End Systems", Proc.
              HotNets-VI, ACM, 2007.

   [EEMN]     Pentikousis, K., "In Search of Energy-Efficient Mobile
              Networking", IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2010.





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


   [MOBSURV]  Tyson, G., et al., "A Survey of Mobility in Information-
              Centric Networks: Challenges and Research Directions",
              Proc. MobiHoc Workshop on Emerging Name-Oriented Mobile
              Networking Design, ACM, 2012.

   [N-Scen]   Dannewitz, C., et al., "Scenarios and research issues for
              a Network of Information", Proc. MobiMedia, ICST, 2012.

   [DTI]      Ott, J. and D. Kutscher, "Drive-thru Internet: IEEE
              802.11b for 'automobile' users", Proc. INFOCOM, IEEE,
              2004.

   [PSIMob]   Xylomenos, G., et al., "Caching and Mobility Support in a
              Publish-Subscribe Internet Architecture", IEEE Commun.
              Mag., vol. 50, no. 7, July 2012.

   [mNetInf]  Pentikousis, K. and T. Rautio, "A Multiaccess Network of
              Information", Proc. WoWMoM, IEEE, 2010.

   [HybICN]   Lindgren, A., "Efficient content distribution in an
              information-centric hybrid mobile networks", Proc. CCNC,
              IEEE, 2011.

   [E-CHANET] M. Amadeo, et al., "E-CHANET: Routing, Forwarding and
              Transport in Information-Centric Multihop Wireless
              Networks", Computer Communications, Elsevier, Jan. 2013
              online.

   [MobiA]    Meisel, M., et al., "Ad Hoc Networking via Named Data",
              Proc. MobiArch, ACM 2010.

   [CCNMANET] Oh, S. Y., et al., "Content Centric Networking in Tactical
              and Emergency MANETs", Proc. Wireless Days, IFIP, 2010.

   [RTIND]    Wang, L., et al., "Rapid Traffic Information Dissemination
              Using Named Data", Proc. MobiHoc NoM workshop, ACM, 2012.

   [CCNVANET] Amadeo, M., et al., "Content-Centric Networking: is that a
              Solution for Upcoming Vehicular Networks?", Proc. VANET,
              ACM, 2012.

   [ABC]      Gustafsson, E., and A. Jonsson. "Always best connected",
              Wireless Communications, IEEE 10.1 (2003): 49-55.

   [SHARE]    Muscariello, L., et al., "Bandwidth and storage sharing
              performance in information centric networking", Proc.
              SIGCOMM ICN Workshop, ACM, 2011.




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


   [CL4M]     Chai, W. K., et al., "Cache 'Less for More' in
              Information-centric Networks", Proc. Networking, IFIP,
              2012.

   [CCNCT]    Psaras, I., et al., "Modelling and Evaluation of CCN-
              Caching Trees", In Proc. of the 10th international IFIP
              conference on Networking, Valencia, Spain, May 2011.

   [BTCACHE]  Tyson, G., et al., "A Trace-Driven Analysis of Caching in
              Content-Centric Networks", Proc. ICCCN, IEEE, 2012.

   [CURLING]  Chai, W. K., et al., "CURLING: Content-Ubiquitous
              Resolution and Delivery Infrastructure for Next-Generation
              Services", IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 49, no. 3, Mar. 2011.

   [ACDICN]   Fotiou, N., et al., "Access control enforcement delegation
              for information-centric networking architectures", Proc.
              SIGCOMM ICN Workshop, ACM, 2012.

   [EWC]      Bai, F. and B. Krishnamachari, "Exploiting the wisdom of
              the crowd: localized, distributed information-centric
              VANETs", IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 48, no. 5, May 2010.

   [DMND]     Wang, J., R. Wakikawa, and L. Zhang, "DMND: Collecting
              data from mobiles using Named Data", Proc. Vehicular
              Networking Conference (VNC), IEEE, 2010.

   [DNV2V]    Wang, L., et al., "Data Naming in Vehicle-to-Vehicle
              Communications", Proc. INFOCOM NOMEN workshop, IEEE, 2012.

   [CCNHV]    Arnould, G., et al., "A Self-Organizing Content Centric
              Network Model for Hybrid Vehicular Ad-Hoc Networks". Proc.
              DIVANet, ACM, 2011.

   [CCDIVN]   TalebiFard, P. and V.C.M. Leung, "A Content Centric
              Approach to Dissemination of Information in Vehicular
              Networks", Proc. DIVANet, ACM, 2012.

   [CRoWN]    Amadeo, M., et al., "CRoWN: Content-Centric Networking in
              Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks", IEEE Communications Letters,
              vol. 16, no. 9, Sept. 2012.

   [SCN]      Hoydis, J., et al., "Green small-cell networks", IEEE
              Vehicular Technology Magazine, vol. 6, no.1, pp. 37-43,
              March 2011.






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


   [HetNet]   Li, H., et al. "Efficient HetNet implementation using
              broadband wireless access with fiber-connected massively
              distributed antennas architecture", IEEE Wireless
              Communications, vol. 18, no.3, pp. 72-78, June 2011.

   [ArgICN]   Trossen, D., et al., "Arguments for an information centric
              internetworking architecture", ACM SIGCOMM CCR, 40:26-33,
              Apr. 2010.

   [EconICN]  Agyapong, P. and M. Sirbu, "Economic Incentives in
              Information Centric Networking: Implications for Protocol
              Design and Public Policy", IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 50, no.
              12, Dec. 2012.

   [SAIL-B3]  Kutscher, D., Ed., et al., "Final NetInf Architecture",
              SAIL Project Deliverable D-B.3, Jan. 2013,
              <http://www.sail-project.eu/deliverables/>.

   [MLDHT]    Liu, H., et al., "A multi-level DHT routing framework with
              aggregation", Proc. SIGCOMM ICN Workshop, ACM, 2012.

   [NCOA]     Ghodsi, A., et al., "Naming in Content-oriented
              Architectures", Proc. SIGCOMM ICN Workshop, ACM, 2011.

   [RP-NDN]   DiBenedetto, S., et al., "Routing policies in named data
              networking", Proc. SIGCOMM ICN Workshop, ACM, 2011.

   [SAIL-A7]  Salo, J., Ed., et al., "New business models and business
              dynamics of the future networks", SAIL Project Deliverable
              D-A.7, Aug. 2011,
              <http://www.sail-project.eu/deliverables/>.

   [SAIL-A8]  Zhang, N., Ed., et al., "Evaluation of business models",
              SAIL Project Deliverable D-A.8, Jan. 2013,
              <http://www.sail-project.eu/deliverables/>.

   [LIPSIN]   Jokela, P., et al., "LIPSIN: line speed publish/subscribe
              inter-networking", Proc. of ACM SIGCOMM 2009.

   [LANES]    Visala, K., et al., "LANES: An Inter-Domain Data-Oriented
              Routing Architecture", Proc. CoNEXT Re-Arch Workshop, ACM,
              2009.

   [PSIRP1]   Rajahalme, J., et al., "Inter-Domain Rendezvous Service
              Architecture", PSIRP Technical Report TR09-003, Dec. 2009.






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


   [ICCP]     Rajahalme J., et al., "Incentive-Compatible Caching and
              Peering in Data-Oriented Networks", Proc. CoNEXT Re-Arch
              Workshop, ACM, 2008.

   [IDMcast]  Rajahalme, J., "Incentive-informed Inter-domain
              Multicast", Proc. Global Internet Symposium 2010.

   [IDArch]   Rajahalme, J., "Inter-domain incentives and Internet
              architecture", PhD. Dissertation, Aalto University, Aug.
              2012.

   [PURSUIT]  Fotiou, N., et al., "Developing Information Networking
              Further: From PSIRP to PURSUIT", Proc. BROADNETS, ICST,
              2010.

   [EECCN]    Guan, K., et al., "On the Energy Efficiency of Content
              Delivery Architectures", Proc. ICC Workshops, IEEE, 2011.

   [EECD]     Lee, U., Rimac, I., Kilper, D., and V. Hilt, "Toward
              energy-efficient content dissemination", IEEE Network,
              vol. 25, no. 2, March-April 2011.

   [NCICN]    Montpetit, M. J., Westphal, C., and D. Trossen, "Network
              coding meets information-centric networking: an
              architectural case for information dispersion through
              native network coding", Proc. MOBIHOC NoM Workshop, ACM,
              2012.

   [COAST]    Gruneberg, K., et al., "File format specification and 3D
              video codec", COAST Project Deliverable D5.1, July 2011,
              <http://www.coast-fp7.eu/deliverables.html>.

   [ICNDC]    Ko, B. J., Pappas, V., Raghavendra, R., Song, Y.,
              Dilmaghani, R. B., Lee, K.-w., and D. Verma, "An
              information-centric architecture for data center
              networks", Proc. SIGCOMM ICN Workshop, ACM, 2012.

   [DTN]      Fall, K., "A delay-tolerant network architecture for
              challenged internets", Proc. SIGCOMM, ACM, 2003.

   [DTNICN]   Tyson, G., Bigham, J., and E. Bodanese, "Towards an
              Information-Centric Delay-Tolerant Network", Proc. IEEE
              INFOCOM NOMEN 2013, Turin, Italy.

   [BPQ]      Farrell, S., Lynch, A., Kutscher, D., and A. Lindgren,
              "Bundle Protocol Query Extension Block", Work in Progress,
              draft-irtf-dtnrg-bpq-00, May 2012.




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


   [SLINKY]   Kawadia, V., Riga, N., Opper, J., and D. Sampath, "Slinky:
              An adaptive protocol for content access in disruption-
              tolerant ad hoc networks", in Proc. MobiHoc Workshop on
              Tactical Mobile Ad Hoc Networking, 2011.

   [ONE]      "The Opportunistic Network Environment simulator",
              <http://www.netlab.tkk.fi/tutkimus/dtn/theone>.

   [TWIMIGHT] Hossmann, T., et al. "Twitter in disaster mode: smart
              probing for opportunistic peers", Proc. 3rd ACM
              International Workshop on Mobile Opportunistic Networks,
              ACM, 2012.

   [MODEL1]   Uddin, M.Y.S., Nicol, D.M., Abdelzaher, T.F., and R.H.
              Kravets, "A post-disaster mobility model for Delay
              Tolerant Networking", Simulation Conference (WSC),
              Proceedings of the 2009 Winter, pp. 2785-2796, 13-16 Dec.
              2009.

   [MODEL2]   Aschenbruck, N., Gerhards-Padilla, E., and P. Martini,
              "Modeling mobility in disaster area scenarios",
              Performance Evaluation 66, no. 12 (2009): 773-790.

   [MODEL3]   Cabrero, S., Paneda, X.G., Plagemann, T., Melendi, D., and
              R. Garcia, "An Overlay Routing Protocol for Video over
              sparse MANETs in Emergencies", Cadernos de Informatica 6,
              no. 1 (2011): 195-202.

   [IoTEx]    Burke, J., "Authoring Place-based Experiences with an
              Internet of Things: Tussles of Expressive, Operational,
              and Participatory Goals", Position Paper, Interconnecting
              Smart Objects with the Internet Workshop, IAB, 2011.

   [IWMT]     Kutscher, D. and S. Farrell, "Towards an Information-
              Centric Internet with more Things", Position Paper,
              Interconnecting Smart Objects with the Internet Workshop,
              IAB, 2011.

   [nWSN]     Heidemann, J., et al., "Building efficient wireless sensor
              networks with low-level naming", Proc. SOSP, ACM, 2001.

   [NDNl]     Burke, J., et al., "Authenticated Lighting Control Using
              Named Data Networking", NDN Technical Report NDN-0011,
              Oct. 2012.

   [CIBUS]    Biswas, T., et al., "Contextualized Information-Centric
              Home Network", Proc. ACM SIGCOMM, ACM, 2013.




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


   [Homenet]  Ravindran, R., et al., "Information-centric Networking
              based Homenet", Proc. International Workshop on Management
              of the Future Internet (ManFI), IFIP/IEEE, 2013.

   [IoTScope] Marias, G.F., et al., "Efficient information lookup for
              the Internet of Things", Proc. WoWMoM, IEEE, 2012.

   [ICN-DHT]  Katsaros, K., et al., "On inter-domain name resolution for
              information-centric networks", Proc. Networking, Springer,
              2012.

   [SEMANT]   Sheth, A., et al., "Semantic Sensor Web," Internet
              Computing, IEEE , vol. 12, no. 4, pp.78-83, July-Aug. 2008

   [CPG]      Cianci, I., et al., "Content Centric Services in Smart
              Cities", Proc. NGMAST, IEEE, 2012.

   [MVM]      Hernndez-Munoz, J.M., et al., "Smart cities at the
              forefront of the future Internet", The Future Internet,
              Springer, 2011.

   [iHEMS]    Zhang, J., et al., "iHEMS: An Information-Centric Approach
              to Secure Home Energy Management", Proc. SmartGridComm,
              IEEE, 2012.

   [ACC]      Andreini, F., et al., "A scalable architecture for geo-
              localized service access in smart cities", Proc. Future
              Network and Mobile Summit, IEEE, 2011.

   [IB]       Idowu, S. and N. Bari, "A Development Framework for Smart
              City Services, Integrating Smart City Service Components",
              Master's Thesis, Lulea University of Technology, 2012.

   [ISODIS]   ISO/DIS, "Sustainable development and resilience of
              communities --Indicators for city services and quality of
              life", ISO/DIS 37120, 2013.

   [EVAL-METHOD]
              Pentikousis, K., Ed., Ohlman, B., Davies, E., Spirou, S.,
              Boggia, G., and P. Mahadevan, "Information-centric
              Networking: Evaluation Methodology", Work in Progress,
              draft-irtf-icnrg-evaluation-methodology-00, July 2014.

   [CHALLENGES]
              Kutscher, D., Ed., Eum, S., Pentikousis, K., Psaras, I.,
              Corujo, D., Saucez, D., Schmidt, T., and M. Waehlisch,
              "ICN Research Challenges", Work in Progress, draft-irtf-
              icnrg-challenges-01, February 2015.



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


Acknowledgments

   Dorothy Gellert contributed to an earlier draft version of this
   document.

   This document has benefited from reviews, pointers to the growing ICN
   literature, suggestions, comments, and proposed text provided by the
   following members of the IRTF Information-Centric Networking Research
   Group (ICNRG), listed in alphabetical order: Marica Amadeo, Hitoshi
   Asaeda, Claudia Campolo, Luigi Alfredo Grieco, Myeong-Wuk Jang, Ren
   Jing, Will Liu, Hongbin Luo, Priya Mahadevan, Ioannis Psaras, Spiros
   Spirou, Dirk Trossen, Jianping Wang, Yuanzhe Xuan, and Xinwen Zhang.

   The authors would like to thank Mark Stapp, Juan Carlos Zuniga, and
   G.Q. Wang for their comments and suggestions as part of their open
   and independent review of this document within ICNRG.

Authors' Addresses

   Kostas Pentikousis (editor)
   EICT GmbH
   Torgauer Strasse 12-15
   10829 Berlin
   Germany

   EMail: k.pentikousis@eict.de


   Borje Ohlman
   Ericsson Research
   S-16480 Stockholm
   Sweden

   EMail: Borje.Ohlman@ericsson.com


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

   EMail: dcorujo@av.it.pt








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


   Gennaro Boggia
   Dep. of Electrical and Information Engineering
   Politecnico di Bari
   Via Orabona 4
   70125 Bari
   Italy

   EMail: g.boggia@poliba.it


   Gareth Tyson
   School and Electronic Engineering and Computer Science
   Queen Mary, University of London
   United Kingdom

   EMail: gareth.tyson@eecs.qmul.ac.uk


   Elwyn Davies
   Trinity College Dublin/Folly Consulting Ltd
   Dublin, 2
   Ireland

   EMail: davieseb@scss.tcd.ie


   Antonella Molinaro
   Dep. of Information, Infrastructures, and Sustainable
   Energy Engineering
   Universita' Mediterranea di Reggio Calabria
   Via Graziella 1
   89100 Reggio Calabria
   Italy

   EMail: antonella.molinaro@unirc.it


   Suyong Eum
   National Institute of Information and Communications Technology
   4-2-1, Nukui Kitamachi, Koganei
   Tokyo  184-8795
   Japan

   Phone: +81-42-327-6582
   EMail: suyong@nict.go.jp






Pentikousis, et al.           Informational                    [Page 45]

