[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 05 draft-irtf-icnrg-deployment-guidelines

ICNRG                                                          A. Rahman
Internet-Draft                                                D. Trossen
Intended status: Informational                         InterDigital Inc.
Expires: December 31, 2017                                   D. Kutscher
                                                            R. Ravindran
                                                                  Huawei
                                                           June 29, 2017


   Deployment Considerations for Information-Centric Networking (ICN)
              draft-rahman-icnrg-deployment-guidelines-02

Abstract

   Information-Centric Networking (ICN) is now reaching technological
   maturity after many years of fundamental research and
   experimentation.  This document provides a number of deployment
   considerations in the interest of helping the ICN community move
   forward to the next step of live deployments.  The major deployment
   configurations for ICN are first described including the main overlay
   and underlay approaches.  Then proposed deployment migration paths
   are outlined to address major practical issues such as network and
   application migration.  Next, selected ICN trial experiences are
   summarized.  Finally, protocol areas that require further
   standardization are identified to facilitate future interoperable ICN
   deployments.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on December 31, 2017.








Rahman, et al.          Expires December 31, 2017               [Page 1]


Internet-Draft      Deployment Considerations for ICN          June 2017


Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Deployment Configurations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.1.  Wholesale Replacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.2.  ICN-as-an-Overlay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.3.  ICN-as-an-Underlay  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       3.3.1.  Core Network  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       3.3.2.  Edge Network  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.4.  ICN-as-a-Slice  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   4.  Deployment Migration Paths  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.1.  Application and Service Migration . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.2.  Content Delivery Network Migration  . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.3.  Edge Network Migration  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.4.  Core Network Migration  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   5.  Deployment Trial Experiences  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     5.1.  ICN-as-an-Overlay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       5.1.1.  FP7 PURSUIT Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       5.1.2.  FP7 SAIL Trial  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       5.1.3.  NDN Testbed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       5.1.4.  ICN2020 Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     5.2.  ICN-as-an-Underlay  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       5.2.1.  H2020 POINT and RIFE Efforts  . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       5.2.2.  H2020 FLAME Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       5.2.3.  CableLabs Content Delivery System . . . . . . . . . .  12
   6.  Deployment Issues Requiring Further Standardization . . . . .  12
     6.1.  Protocols for Application and Service Migration . . . . .  13
     6.2.  Protocols for Content Delivery Network Migration  . . . .  13
     6.3.  Protocols for Edge and Core Network Migration . . . . . .  13
     6.4.  Summary of ICN Protocol Gaps and Potential IETF Efforts .  14
   7.  Conclusion  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   8.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15



Rahman, et al.          Expires December 31, 2017               [Page 2]


Internet-Draft      Deployment Considerations for ICN          June 2017


   9.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   10. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   11. Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20

1.  Introduction

   The ICNRG charter identifies deployment guidelines as an important
   topic area for the ICN community.  Specifically, the charter states
   that defining concrete migration paths for ICN deployments which
   avoid forklift upgrades, and defining practical ICN interworking
   configurations with the existing Internet paradigm, are key topic
   areas that require further investigation.  Also, it is well
   understood that results and conclusions from any mid to large-scale
   ICN experiments in the live Internet will also provide useful
   guidance for deployments.

   However, so far outside of some preliminary investigations such as
   [I-D.paik-icn-deployment-considerations], there has not been much
   progress on this topic.  This draft attempts to fill some of these
   gaps by defining clear deployment configurations for ICN, and
   associated migration pathways for these configurations.  Also,
   selected deployment trial experiences of ICN technology are
   summarized.  Finally, recommendations are made for potential future
   IETF standardization of key protocol functionality that will
   facilitate interoperable ICN deployments going forward.

2.  Terminology

   This document assumes readers are, in general, familiar with the
   terms and concepts that are defined in [RFC7927].  In addition, this
   document defines the following terminology:

      Deployment - In the context of this document, deployment refers to
      the final stage of the process of setting up an ICN network that
      is (1) integrated and interoperable with the rest of the Internet,
      and (2) ready for useful work (e.g. transmission of end user video
      and text) in a live environment.

      Information-Centric Networking (ICN) - A data-centric network
      architecture where accessing data by name is the essential network
      primitive.  See [ICNterm] for further information.

      Network Function Virtualization (NFV): A networking approach where
      network functions (e.g. firewalls, load balancers) are modularized
      as software logic that can run on general purpose hardware, and
      thus are specifically decoupled from the previous generation of
      proprietary and dedicated hardware.  See



Rahman, et al.          Expires December 31, 2017               [Page 3]


Internet-Draft      Deployment Considerations for ICN          June 2017


      [I-D.irtf-nfvrg-gaps-network-virtualization] for further
      information.

      Software-Defined Networking (SDN) - A networking approach where
      the control and data plane for switches are separated, allowing
      for realizing capabilities such as traffic isolation and
      programmable forwarding actions.  See [RFC7426] for further
      information.

3.  Deployment Configurations

   In this section, we present various deployment options for ICN.
   These are presented as "configurations" that allow for studying these
   options further.  While this document will outline experiences with
   various of these configurations (in Section 5), we will not provide
   an in-depth technical or commercial evaluation for any of them - for
   this we refer to existing literature in this space such as [Tateson].

3.1.  Wholesale Replacement

   ICN has often been described as a "clean-slate" approach with the
   goal to renew or replace the current IP routing fabric of the
   Internet.  As such, existing routing hardware as well as ancillary
   services are not taken for granted.  This clean-slate view is
   reflected as deployment configurations we label as "wholesale
   replacement" of large part of the existing Internet infrastructure.
   For instance, such configuration would see existing IP routers being
   replaced by ICN-specific forwarding and routing elements, such as NFD
   (Named Data Networking Forwarding Daemon) [NFD], CCN routers
   [Jacobson] or PURSUIT forwarding nodes [IEEE_Communications].  All
   major ICN approaches have explored this option as one of their paths
   to deployment.

   While such replacement could be seen as exclusive for ICN
   deployments, some ICN approaches [POINT] rely on the deployment of
   infrastructure upgrades, here SDN switches.  Such upgrades, while
   being possibly utilized for a "clean slate" ICN deployment would not
   necessary be used exclusively for an ICN deployment.  Different
   proposals have been made for various ICN approaches to enable the
   operation over an SDN transport [Reed][CONET][C_FLOW].

3.2.  ICN-as-an-Overlay

   Similar to other significant changes to the Internet routing fabric,
   particularly the transition from IPv4 to IPv6 or the introduction of
   IP multicast, this deployment configuration foresees the creation of
   an ICN overlay.  Note that this overlay approach is sometimes,
   informally, also referred to as a tunneling approach.  The overlay



Rahman, et al.          Expires December 31, 2017               [Page 4]


Internet-Draft      Deployment Considerations for ICN          June 2017


   approach could be done directly such as ICN-over-UDP as described in
   [CCNx_UDP].  Alternatively, the overlay could be done via ICN-in-L2-
   in-IP as in [IEEE_Communications] which describes a recursive
   layering process.

   Another flavor of overlay would be embedding ICN semantics into
   existing protocols.  A recently announced approach is [Hybrid_ICN]
   where the ICN names are mapped to IPv6 addresses.  Another approach
   used in the Network of Information (NetInf) is to define a
   convergence layer to map NetInf semantics to HTTP
   [I-D.kutscher-icnrg-netinf-proto].  Regardless of the flavor,
   however, the overlay approach results in islands of ICN deployments
   over existing IP-based infrastructure.

3.3.  ICN-as-an-Underlay

   Proposals such as [POINT] and [White] outline the deployment option
   of using an ICN underlay that would integrate with existing IP-based
   services by deploying application layer gateways at appropriate
   locations, while possibly still allowing for native ICN applications
   to emerge.  The main reasons for such configuration option is the
   backward-compatible introduction of ICN technology, while reaping the
   benefits of ICN in terms of multicast delivery, mobility support,
   fast indirection due to location independence, in-network computing
   and possibly more.

3.3.1.  Core Network

   In this sub-option, a core network would utilize edge-based protocol
   mapping onto the native ICN underlay.  For instance, [POINT] proposes
   to map HTTP transactions, or some other IP based transactions such as
   CoAP, directly onto an ICN-based message exchange.  This mapping is
   realized at the network attachment point, such as realized in access
   points or customer premise equipment, which in turn provides a
   standard IP interface to existing user devices.  Towards peering
   networks, such network attachment point turns into a modified border
   gateway/proxy, preserving the perception of an IP-based core network
   towards any peering network.

   The work in [White] proposes a similar deployment configuration.
   Here, the target is the use of ICN for content distribution within
   CDN server farms, i.e., the protocol mapping is realized at the
   ingress of the server farm where the HTTP-based retrieval request is
   served, while the response is delivered through a suitable egress
   node translation.






Rahman, et al.          Expires December 31, 2017               [Page 5]


Internet-Draft      Deployment Considerations for ICN          June 2017


3.3.2.  Edge Network

   Native ICN networks may be found at the edge of the network, mostly
   proposed for Internet of Things (IoT) deployments, which allows the
   possibility of introducing new network architectures and protocols,
   and in this context ICN can be a possible candidate considering its
   suitability for IoT and fixed network scenarios
   [I-D.zhang-icnrg-icniot].  The integration with the current IP
   protocol suite takes place at an application gateway/proxy at the
   edge network boundary, e.g., translating incoming CoAP request/
   response transactions [RFC7252] into ICN message exchanges or vice
   versa.  Furthermore, ICN will allow us to evolve the role of
   gateways/proxies as ICN message security should be preserved through
   the protocol translation function of a gateway/proxy and thus offer a
   substantial gain.

   The work in [VSER] positions ICN as an edge service gateway driven by
   an generalized ICN based service orchestration system with its own
   compute and network virtualization controllers to manage an ICN
   infrastructure.  The platform also offers service discovery
   capabilities to enable user applications to discover appropriate ICN
   service gateways.  To exemplify a use case scenario, the platform
   shows the realization of a multi-party audio/video conferencing
   service over such a edge cloud deployment of ICN routers realized
   over commodity hardware platforms.  This platform has also been
   extended to offer seamless mobility and mobility as a service [VSER-
   Mob] features.

3.4.  ICN-as-a-Slice

   The objective of Network slicing [NGMN]is to multiplex a general pool
   of compute, storage and bandwidth resources among multiple services
   with exclusive SLA requirements on transport level QoS and security.
   These services could include both connectivity services like LTE-as-
   a-service or OTT services like VoD or other IoT services.  Such a
   framework can also be used to realize ICN slices with its own control
   and forwarding plane over which one or more end-user services can be
   delivered.

   An ICN slice can itself be overlaid over IP or can be underlaid using
   generalized programmable data planes like P4/POF.  Such a generalized
   network slicing framework should be able to offer service slices to
   be realized over both IP and ICN.  Network slicing will rely heavily
   on network softwarization and programmability using SDN/NFV
   technologies for efficient utilization of available resources without
   compromising on the slice requirements.  Coupled with the view of ICN
   functions as being "chained service functions" [RFC7665], an ICN
   deployment within such a slice could be realized within the emerging



Rahman, et al.          Expires December 31, 2017               [Page 6]


Internet-Draft      Deployment Considerations for ICN          June 2017


   control plane that is targeted for adoption in future (e.g., 5th
   generation mobile) network deployments.  Finally, it should be noted
   that ICN is not creating the network slice, but instead that the
   slice is created to run a 5G-ICN instance [Ravindran].

   At the level of the specific technologies involved, the 5G-ICN slice
   requires compatibility for instance at the level of the forwarding/
   data plane depending on if it is realized as an overlay or using
   programmable data planes.  With SDN emerging for new network
   deployments, some ICN approaches will need to integrate with SDN as a
   data plane forwarding function, as briefly discussed in Section 3.1.

4.  Deployment Migration Paths

   After outlining the various ICN deployment configurations in
   Section 3, we now focus on the various migration paths that will have
   importance to the various stakeholders that are usually involved in
   the deployment of a technology at (ultimately) large scale.  We can
   identify these stakeholders as:

   o  Application developers and service providers

   o  ISPs, both as core as well as access network providers, and also
      ICN network providers

   o  CDN providers (due to the strong relation of the ICN proposition
      to content delivery)

   Note that our presentation purely focuses on technological aspects of
   such migration.  Economic or regulatory aspects, such as studied in
   [Tateson], [Techno_Economic] and [Internet_Pricing] are left out of
   our discussion.

4.1.  Application and Service Migration

   The internet is full of applications and services, utilizing the
   innovation capabilities of the many protocols defined over the packet
   level IP service.  HTTP provides one convergence point for these
   services with many web development frameworks based on the semantics
   provided by the hypertext transfer protocol.  In recent years, even
   services such as video delivery have been migrating from the
   traditional RTP-over-UDP delivery to the various HTTP-level streaming
   solutions, such as DASH [DASH] and others.  Nonetheless, many non-
   HTTP services exist, all of which need consideration when migrating
   from the IP-based internet to an ICN-based one.

   The underlay deployment configuration options presented in
   Section 3.3.1 and Section 3.3.2 aim at providing some level of



Rahman, et al.          Expires December 31, 2017               [Page 7]


Internet-Draft      Deployment Considerations for ICN          June 2017


   backward compatibility to this existing ecosystem through a proxy
   based message flow mapping mechanism (e.g., mapping of existing
   HTTP/TCP/IP message flows to HTTP/TCP/IP/ICN message flows).  A
   related approach of mapping TCP/IP to TCP/ICN message flows is
   described in [Moiseenko]

   Alternatively, ICN as an overlay (Section 3.2), as well as ICN-as-
   a-Slice (Section 3.4), allow for the introduction of the full
   capabilities of ICN through new service interfaces as well as
   operations in the network.  With that, these approaches of deployment
   are likely to aim at introducing new services capitalizing on those
   ICN capabilities.

4.2.  Content Delivery Network Migration

   A significant number of services and applications are devoted to
   content delivery in some form, either as video delivery services,
   social media platforms, and many others.  Content delivery networks
   (CDNs) are deployed to assist these services through localizing the
   content requests and therefore reducing latency and possibly increase
   utilization of available bandwidth as well as reducing the load on
   origin servers.  Similar to the previous sub-section, the underlay
   deployment configurations presented in Section 3.3.1 and
   Section 3.3.2 aim at providing a migration path for existing CDNs.
   This is also highlighted in the BIER WG use case draft
   [I-D.ietf-bier-use-cases], specifically with potential benefits in
   terms of utilizing multicast in the delivery of content but also
   reducing load on origin as well as delegation server.  We return to
   this benefit in the trial experiences in Section 5.

4.3.  Edge Network Migration

   Edge networks often see the deployment of novel network level
   technology, e.g., in the space of IoT.  Such IoT deployments have for
   many years relied, and often still do, on proprietary protocols for
   reasons such as increased efficiency, lack of standardization
   incentives and others.  Utilizing the underlay deployment
   configuration in Section 3.3.2, application gateways/proxies can
   integrate such edge deployments into IP-based services, e.g.,
   utilizing CoAP [RFC7252] based machine-to-machine (M2M) platforms
   such as oneM2M [oneM2M] or others.

   Another area of increased edge network innovation is that of mobile
   (access) networks, particularly in the context of the 5th generation
   of mobile networks (often called "5G").  With the proliferation of
   network softwarization (using technologies like service orchestration
   frameworks leveraging NFV and SDN concepts) access networks and other
   network segments, the ICN-as-a-Slice deployment configuration in



Rahman, et al.          Expires December 31, 2017               [Page 8]


Internet-Draft      Deployment Considerations for ICN          June 2017


   Section 3.4 provides a suitable migration path for integration non-
   IP-based edge networks into the overall system through virtue of
   realizing the relevant (ICN) protocols in an access network slice.

4.4.  Core Network Migration

   Migrating the core network of the Internet requires not only
   significant infrastructure renewal but also the fulfillment of the
   significant performance requirements, particularly in terms of
   throughput.  For those parts of the core network that would see a
   migration to an SDN-based optical transport, such as proposed by
   major operators such as AT&T, the ICN-as-a-Slice deployment
   configuration in Section 3.4 could see the introduction of native ICN
   solutions within slices provided by the SDN-enabled transport network
   or as virtual network functions, allowing for isolating the ICN
   traffic while addressing the specific ICN performance benefits and
   constraints within such isolated slice.  For ICN solutions that
   natively work on top of SDN, the underlay deployment configuration in
   Section 3.3.1 provides an additional migration path, preserving the
   IP-based services and applications at the edge of the network, while
   realizing the core network routing through an ICN solution (possibly
   itself realized in a slice of the SDN transport network).

5.  Deployment Trial Experiences

   In this section, we will outline trial experiences, often conducted
   within international collaborative project efforts.  Our focus here
   is on the realization of the various deployment configurations in
   Section 3, and we therefore categorize the trial experiences
   according to these deployment configurations.  While a large body of
   work exists at the simulation or emulation level, we specifically
   exclude these studies from our presentation to retain the focus on
   real life experiences.

5.1.  ICN-as-an-Overlay

5.1.1.  FP7 PURSUIT Efforts

   Although the FP7 PURSUIT [IEEE_Communications] efforts were generally
   positioned as a wholesale replacement of IP (Section 3.1), the
   project realized its experimental test bed as an L2 VPN-based overlay
   between several European, US as well as Asian sites, i.e., following
   the overlay deployment configuration presented in Section 3.2.
   Software-based forwarders were utilized for the ICN message exchange,
   while native ICN applications, e.g., for video transmissions, were
   showcased.  At the height of the project efforts, about 70+ nodes
   were active in the (overlay) network with presentations given at
   several conferences as well as to the ICNRG.



Rahman, et al.          Expires December 31, 2017               [Page 9]


Internet-Draft      Deployment Considerations for ICN          June 2017


5.1.2.  FP7 SAIL Trial

   The Network of Information (NetInf) is the approach to Information-
   Centric Networking developed by the European Union (EU) FP7 SAIL
   project (http://www.sail-project.eu/).  NetInf provides both name-
   based forwarding with CCNx-like semantics and name resolution (for
   indirection and late-binding).  The NetInf architecture supports
   different deployment options through its convergence layer
   abstraction.  In its first prototypes and trials, NetInf was deployed
   mostly in an HTTP embedding and in a UDP overlay following the
   overlay deployment configuration in Section 3.2.  Reference
   [SAIL_NetInf] describes several trials including a stadium
   environment large crowd scenario and a multi-site testbed, leveraging
   NetInf's Routing Hint approach for routing scalability.

5.1.3.  NDN Testbed

   The Named Data Networking (NDN) is one of the research projects
   funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) of the USA as part of
   the Future Internet Architecture Program.  The original NDN proposal
   was positioned as a wholesale replacement of IP (Section 3.1).
   However, in several trials, NDN generally follows the overlay
   deployment configuration of Section 3.2 to connect institutions over
   the public Internet across several continents.  The use cases covered
   in the trials include real-time video-conferencing, geo-locating, and
   interfacing to consumer applications.  Typical trials involve several
   hundred NDN enabled nodes (https://named-data.net/ndn-testbed/).

5.1.4.  ICN2020 Efforts

   ICN2020 is an ICN related research project funded by the EU as part
   of the H2020 research and innovation program
   (http://www.icn2020.org/).  ICN2020 has a specific focus to advance
   ICN towards real-world deployments through innovative applications
   and global scale experimentation.  Both NDN and CCN approaches are
   within the scope of the project.

   ICN2020 was kicked off in late 2016 and so has not yet published
   results relating to deployment trials.  The plan, however, is to
   involve ICN testbeds in EU, Japan and the USA and federate them.  The
   GEANT testbed (https://www.geant.org/) is being considered as one
   means to federate the different ICN testbeds in the overlay
   deployment configuration of Section 3.2 over the public Internet.








Rahman, et al.          Expires December 31, 2017              [Page 10]


Internet-Draft      Deployment Considerations for ICN          June 2017


5.2.  ICN-as-an-Underlay

5.2.1.  H2020 POINT and RIFE Efforts

   POINT and RIFE are two more ICN related research projects funded by
   the EU as part of the H2020 effort.  The efforts in the H2020
   POINT+RIFE projects follow the underlay deployment configuration in
   Section 3.3.1, although this is mixed with utilizing an overlay
   deployment to provide multi-national connectivity.  However, underlay
   SDN-based deployments do exist at various project partner sites,
   e.g., at Essex University, without any overlaying being realized.
   Edge-based network attachment points (NAPs) provide the IP/HTTP-level
   protocol mapping onto ICN protocol exchanges, while the SDN underlay
   (or the VPN-based L2 underlay) is used as a transport network.

   The multicast as well as service endpoint surrogate benefits in HTTP-
   based scenarios, such as for HTTP-level streaming video delivery,
   have been demonstrated in the deployed POINT test bed with 80+ nodes
   being utilized.  Demonstrations of this capability have been given to
   the ICNRG in 2016, while public demonstrations were also provided at
   events such as Mobile World Congress in 2016 [MWC_Demo].  The trial
   has also been accepted by the ETSI MEC group as a proof-of-concept
   with a demonstration at the ETSI MEC World Congress in 2016.

   While the afore-mentioned demonstrations all use the overlay
   international deployment, both H2020 efforts plan ICN underlay trials
   in the summer and fall of 2017.  One such trial will involve
   commercial end users located in the Primetel network in Cyprus with
   the use case centered on IPTV and HLS video dissemination.  Another
   trial is planned for fall 2017 in the community network of
   "guifi.net" in the Barcelona region, where the solution will be
   deployed in 40 households, providing general Internet connectivity to
   the residents.  Standard IPTV STBs as well as HLS video players will
   be utilized in accordance with the aim of this deployment
   configuration, namely to provide application and service migration.

5.2.2.  H2020 FLAME Efforts

   Starting in January 2017, the H2020 FLAME efforts aims at providing
   an experimental ground for the aforementioned POINT/RIFE solution in
   initially two city-scale locations, namely in Bristol and Barcelona.
   This trial will again follow the underlay deployment configuration in
   Section 3.3.1 as per POINT/RIFE approach.  Currently, experiments are
   ongoing,conducted by the city/university joint venture Bristol-is-
   Open (BIO), to ensure the readiness of the city-scale SDN transport
   network for such experiments.  A third trial of the aforementioned
   ETSI MEC PoC is planned for mid 2017.  This trial will showcase
   operational benefits provided by the ICN underlay for the scenario of



Rahman, et al.          Expires December 31, 2017              [Page 11]


Internet-Draft      Deployment Considerations for ICN          June 2017


   a location-based game.  These benefits aim at reduced network
   utilization through improved video delivery performance (multicast of
   all captured videos to the service surrogates deployed in the city at
   six locations) as well as reduced latency through the playout of the
   video originating from the local NAP instead of a remote server.

   Ensuring the technology readiness and the early trialing of the ICN
   capabilities lays the ground for the goal of the H2020 FLAME efforts
   to conduct 23 large-scale experiments in the area of Future Media
   Internet (FMI) throughout 2018 and 2019.  Standard media service
   functions as well as applications will ultimately utilize the ICN
   underlay in the delivery of their experience.  The platform, which
   includes the ICN capabilities, will utilize concepts of SFC,
   integrated with NFV and SDN capabilities of the infrastructure.  The
   ultimate goal of these platform efforts is the full integration of
   ICN into the overall media function platform for the provisioning of
   advanced (media-centric) internet services.

5.2.3.  CableLabs Content Delivery System

   The work in [White] proposes an underlay deployment configuration
   based on Section 3.3.1.  The use case is ICN for content distribution
   within CDN server farms (which can be quite large and complex) to
   leverage ICN's superior in-network caching properties.  This "island
   of ICN" based CDN is then used to service standard HTTP/IP-based
   content retrieval request coming from the general Internet.  This
   approach acknowledges that whole scale replacement (see Section 3.1)
   of existing HTTP/IP end user applications and related Web
   infrastructure is a difficult proposition.  [White] does not yet
   provide results but indicated that experiments will be forthcoming.

6.  Deployment Issues Requiring Further Standardization

   The ICN Research Challenges [RFC7927] describes key ICN principles
   and technical research topics.  As the title suggests, [RFC7927] is
   research oriented without a specific focus on deployment or
   standardization issues.  This section addresses this open area by
   identifying key protocol functionality that that may be relevant for
   further standardization effort in IETF.  The focus is specifically on
   identifying protocols that will facilitate future interoperable ICN
   deployments correlating to the scenarios identified in the deployment
   migration paths in Section 4.  The identified list of potential
   protocol functionality is not exhaustive.








Rahman, et al.          Expires December 31, 2017              [Page 12]


Internet-Draft      Deployment Considerations for ICN          June 2017


6.1.  Protocols for Application and Service Migration

   End user applications and services need a standardized approach to
   trigger ICN transactions.  For example, in Internet and Web
   applications today, there are established socket APIs, communication
   paradigms such as REST, common libraries, and best practices.  We see
   a need to study application requirements in an ICN environment
   further and, at the same time, develop new APIs and best practices
   that can take advantage of ICN communication characteristics.

6.2.  Protocols for Content Delivery Network Migration

   A key issue in CDNs is to quickly find a location of a copy of the
   object requested by an end user.  In ICN, a Named Data Object (NDO)
   is typically defined by its name.  There already exists [RFC6920]
   that is suitable for static naming of ICN data objects.  Other ways
   of encoding and representing ICN names have been described in
   [I-D.irtf-icnrg-ccnxmessages] and [I-D.mosko-icnrg-ccnxurischeme].
   Naming dynamically generated data requires different approaches (for
   example, hash digest based names would normally not work), and there
   is lack of established conventions and standards.

   Another CDN issue for ICN is related to multicast distribution of
   content.  Existing CDNs have started using multicast mechanisms for
   certain cases such as for broadcast streaming TV.  However, as
   discussed in Section 5.2.1, certain ICN approaches provide
   substantial improvements over IP multicast, such as the implicit
   support for multicast retrieval of content in all ICN flavours.

   Caching is an implicit feature in many ICN architectures that can
   improve performance and availability in several scenarios.  The ICN
   in-network caching can augment managed CDN and improve its
   performance.  The details of the interplay between ICN caching and
   managed CDN need further consideration.

6.3.  Protocols for Edge and Core Network Migration

   ICN provides the potential to redesign current edge and core network
   computing approaches.  Leveraging ICN's inherent security and its
   ability to make name data and dynamic computation results available
   independent of location, can enable a secure, yet light-weight
   insertion of traffic into the network without relying on redirection
   of DNS requests.  For this, proxies that translate from commonly used
   protocols in the general Internet to ICN message exchanges in the ICN
   domain could be used for the migration of application and services
   within deployments at the network edge but also in core networks.
   This is similar to existing approaches for IoT scenarios where a
   proxy translates CoAP request/responses to other message formats.



Rahman, et al.          Expires December 31, 2017              [Page 13]


Internet-Draft      Deployment Considerations for ICN          June 2017


   For example, [RFC8075] specifies proxy mapping between CoAP and HTTP
   protocols.  However, as mentioned previously, ICN will allow us to
   evolve the role of gateways/proxies as ICN message security should be
   preserved through the protocol translation function of a thus offer a
   substantial gain.  Another area is integration of ICN into networks
   that support virtualized infrastructure in the form of NFV/SDN.
   Further work is required to validate this idea and document best
   practices.

6.4.  Summary of ICN Protocol Gaps and Potential IETF Efforts

   Without claiming completeness, Table 1 maps the open the open ICN
   issues identified in this document to potential protocol efforts that
   could address some aspects of the gap.

   +--------------+----------------------------------------------------+
   | ICN Gap      | Potential Protocol Effort                          |
   +--------------+----------------------------------------------------+
   | 1-Support of | HTTP/CoAP support of ICN semantics                 |
   | REST APIs    |                                                    |
   |              |                                                    |
   | 2-Naming     | Dynamic naming of ICN data objects                 |
   |              |                                                    |
   | 3-Multicast  | Multicast enhancements for ICN                     |
   | distribution |                                                    |
   |              |                                                    |
   | 4-In-network | ICN Cache placement and sharing                    |
   | caching      |                                                    |
   |              |                                                    |
   | 5-NFV/SDN    | Integration of ICN with NFV/SDN                    |
   | Support      |                                                    |
   |              |                                                    |
   | 6-ICN        | Mapping of HTTP and other protocols onto ICN       |
   | mapping      | message exchanges (and vice-versa) while           |
   |              | preserving ICN message security                    |
   |              |                                                    |
   +--------------+----------------------------------------------------+

        Table 1: Mapping of ICN Gaps to Potential Protocol Efforts

7.  Conclusion

   This document provides high level deployment considerations for the
   ICN community.  Specifically, the major configurations of possible
   ICN deployments are identified as (1) wholesale replacement of
   existing Internet infrastructure; (2) ICN-as-an-Overlay; (3) ICN-as-
   an-Underlay; and (4) ICN-as-a-Slice.  Existing ICN trial systems




Rahman, et al.          Expires December 31, 2017              [Page 14]


Internet-Draft      Deployment Considerations for ICN          June 2017


   mainly fall either under the ICN-as-an-Overlay or ICN-as-an-Underlay
   configuration.

   In terms of deployment migration paths, ICN-as-an-Underlay offers a
   clear migration path for existing CDN, edge and core networks to go
   to an ICN paradigm.  ICN-as-a-Slice is an attractive deployment
   option for future 5G systems (i.e., for 5G radio and core networks)
   which will naturally support network slicing, but this still has to
   be validated through actual trial experiences.  Finally, for the
   crucial issue of existing application and service migration to ICN,
   various mapping schemes are possible to mitigate impacts.  For
   example, HTTP/TCP/IP flows may be mapped to ICN message flows at a
   proxy in the ICN-as-an-Underlay configurations leaving the massive
   number of existing end point applications/services untouched or
   minimally impacted.

   Finally, this document describes a set of technical features in ICN
   that warrant potential future IETF specification work.  This will aid
   initial and incremental deployments to proceed in an interoperable
   manner.  The fundamental details of the potential protocol
   specification effort, however, are best left for future study by the
   appropriate WGs and/or BoFs.

8.  IANA Considerations

   This document requests no IANA actions.

9.  Security Considerations

   ICN was purposefully designed from the start to have certain
   intrinsic security properties.  The most well known of which are
   authentication of delivered content and (optional) encryption of the
   content.  [RFC7945] has an extensive discussion of various aspects of
   ICN security including many which are relevant to deployments.
   Specifically, [RFC7945] points out that ICN access control, privacy,
   security of in-network caches, and protection against various network
   attacks (e.g.  DoS) have not yet been fully developed due to the lack
   of real deployments.  [RFC7945] also points out relevant advances
   occurring in the ICN research community that hold promise to address
   each of the identified security gaps.  Lastly, [RFC7945] points out
   that as secure communications in the existing Internet (e.g.  HTTPS)
   becomes the norm, that major gaps in ICN security will inevitably
   slow down the adoption of ICN.

   In addition to the security findings of [RFC7945], this document has
   highlighted that all anticipated ICN deployment configurations will
   involve co-existence with existing Internet infrastructure and
   applications.  Thus even the basic authentication and encryption



Rahman, et al.          Expires December 31, 2017              [Page 15]


Internet-Draft      Deployment Considerations for ICN          June 2017


   properties of ICN content will need to account for interworking with
   non-ICN content to preserve end-to-end security.  For example, in the
   edge network underlay deployment configuration described in
   Section 3.3.2, the gateway/proxy that translates HTTP or CoAP
   request/responses into ICN message exchanges will need to support a
   model to preserve end-to-end security.

10.  Acknowledgments

   The authors want to thank Alex Afanasyev, Xavier de Foy, Hannu
   Flinck, Dave Oran, and Prakash Suthar for their very useful reviews
   and comments to the document.

11.  Informative References

   [C_FLOW]   Suh, J. and et al., "C_FLOW: Content-Oriented Networking
              over OpenFlow", Open Networking Summit, April, 2012,
              <http://opennetsummit.org/archives/apr12/site/pdf/
              snu.pdf>.

   [CCNx_UDP]
              PARC, "CCNx Over UDP", 2015,
              <https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/interim-2015-icnrg-
              04/slides/slides-interim-2015-icnrg-4-5.pdf>.

   [CONET]    Veltri, L. and et al., "CONET Project: Supporting
              Information-Centric Functionality in Software Defined
              Networks", Workshop on Software Defined Networks, , 2012,
              <http://netgroup.uniroma2.it/Stefano_Salsano/papers/
              salsano-icc12-wshop-sdn.pdf>.

   [DASH]     DASH, "DASH Industry Forum", 2017, <http://dashif.org/>.

   [Hybrid_ICN]
              Cisco, "Hybrid ICN: Cisco Announces Important Steps toward
              Adoption of Information-Centric Networking", 2017,
              <http://blogs.cisco.com/sp/cisco-announces-important-
              steps-toward-adoption-of-information-centric-networking>.

   [I-D.ietf-bier-use-cases]
              Kumar, N., Asati, R., Chen, M., Xu, X., Dolganow, A.,
              Przygienda, T., arkadiy.gulko@thomsonreuters.com, a.,
              Robinson, D., Arya, V., and C. Bestler, "BIER Use Cases",
              draft-ietf-bier-use-cases-04 (work in progress), January
              2017.






Rahman, et al.          Expires December 31, 2017              [Page 16]


Internet-Draft      Deployment Considerations for ICN          June 2017


   [I-D.irtf-icnrg-ccnxmessages]
              marc.mosko@parc.com, m., Solis, I., and C. Wood, "CCNx
              Messages in TLV Format", draft-irtf-icnrg-ccnxmessages-04
              (work in progress), March 2017.

   [I-D.irtf-nfvrg-gaps-network-virtualization]
              Bernardos, C., Rahman, A., Zuniga, J., Contreras, L.,
              Aranda, P., and P. Lynch, "Network Virtualization Research
              Challenges", draft-irtf-nfvrg-gaps-network-
              virtualization-05 (work in progress), March 2017.

   [I-D.kutscher-icnrg-netinf-proto]
              Kutscher, D., Farrell, S., and E. Davies, "The NetInf
              Protocol", draft-kutscher-icnrg-netinf-proto-01 (work in
              progress), February 2013.

   [I-D.mosko-icnrg-ccnxurischeme]
              marc.mosko@parc.com, m. and c. cwood@parc.com, "The CCNx
              URI Scheme", draft-mosko-icnrg-ccnxurischeme-01 (work in
              progress), April 2016.

   [I-D.paik-icn-deployment-considerations]
              Paik, E., Yun, W., Kwon, T., and h.
              hgchoi@mmlab.snu.ac.kr, "Deployment Considerations for
              Information-Centric Networking", draft-paik-icn-
              deployment-considerations-00 (work in progress), July
              2013.

   [I-D.zhang-icnrg-icniot]
              Zhang, Y., Raychadhuri, D., Grieco, L., Baccelli, E.,
              Burke, J., Ravindran, R., Wang, G., Lindgren, A., Ahlgren,
              B., and O. Schelen, "Design Considerations for Applying
              ICN to IoT", draft-zhang-icnrg-icniot-01 (work in
              progress), June 2017.

   [ICNterm]  Wissingh, B., "Information-Centric Networking (ICN):
              Terminology", 2017, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/
              draft-wissingh-icnrg-terminology/>.

   [IEEE_Communications]
              Trossen, D. and G. Parisis, "Designing and Realizing an
              Information-Centric Internet", Information-Centric
              Networking, IEEE Communications Magazine Special Issue,
              2012.







Rahman, et al.          Expires December 31, 2017              [Page 17]


Internet-Draft      Deployment Considerations for ICN          June 2017


   [Internet_Pricing]
              Trossen, D. and G. KBiczok, "Not Paying the Truck Driver:
              Differentiated Pricing for the Future Internet", ReArch
              Workshop in conjunction with ACM Context, December, 2010.

   [Jacobson]
              Jacobson, V. and et al., "Networking Named Content",
              Proceedings of ACM Context, , 2009.

   [Moiseenko]
              Moiseenko, I. and D. Oran, "TCP/ICN : Carrying TCP over
              Content Centric and Named Data Networks", 2016,
              <http://conferences2.sigcomm.org/acm-icn/2016/proceedings/
              p112-moiseenko.pdf>.

   [MWC_Demo]
              InterDigital, "InterDigital Demo at Mobile World Congress
              (MWC)", 2016, <http://www.interdigital.com/
              download/56d5c71bd616f892ba001861>.

   [NFD]      NDN, "NFD - Named Data Networking Forwarding Daemon",
              2017, <https://named-data.net/doc/NFD/current/>.

   [NGMN]     NGMN, "NGMN 5g Initiative White Paper", 2015,
              <https://www.ngmn.org/uploads/media/
              NGMN_5G_White_Paper_V1_0.pdf>.

   [oneM2M]   OneM2M, "oneM2M Service Layer Standards for M2M and IoT",
              2017, <http://www.onem2m.org/>.

   [POINT]    Trossen, D. and et al., "POINT: IP Over ICN - The Better
              IP?", European Conference on Networks and Communications
              (EuCNC), , 2015.

   [Ravindran]
              Ravindran, R., Chakraborti, A., Amin, S., Azgin, A., and
              G. Wang, "5G-ICN : Delivering ICN Services over 5G using
              Network Slicing", IEEE Communication Magazine, May, 2016,
              <https://arxiv.org/abs/1610.01182>.

   [Reed]     Reed, M. and et al., "Stateless Multicast Switching in
              Software Defined Networks", ICC 2016, Kuala Lumpur,
              Malaysia, 2016.

   [RFC6920]  Farrell, S., Kutscher, D., Dannewitz, C., Ohlman, B.,
              Keranen, A., and P. Hallam-Baker, "Naming Things with
              Hashes", RFC 6920, DOI 10.17487/RFC6920, April 2013,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6920>.



Rahman, et al.          Expires December 31, 2017              [Page 18]


Internet-Draft      Deployment Considerations for ICN          June 2017


   [RFC7252]  Shelby, Z., Hartke, K., and C. Bormann, "The Constrained
              Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7252,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7252, June 2014,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7252>.

   [RFC7426]  Haleplidis, E., Ed., Pentikousis, K., Ed., Denazis, S.,
              Hadi Salim, J., Meyer, D., and O. Koufopavlou, "Software-
              Defined Networking (SDN): Layers and Architecture
              Terminology", RFC 7426, DOI 10.17487/RFC7426, January
              2015, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7426>.

   [RFC7665]  Halpern, J., Ed. and C. Pignataro, Ed., "Service Function
              Chaining (SFC) Architecture", RFC 7665,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7665, October 2015,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7665>.

   [RFC7927]  Kutscher, D., Ed., Eum, S., Pentikousis, K., Psaras, I.,
              Corujo, D., Saucez, D., Schmidt, T., and M. Waehlisch,
              "Information-Centric Networking (ICN) Research
              Challenges", RFC 7927, DOI 10.17487/RFC7927, July 2016,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7927>.

   [RFC7945]  Pentikousis, K., Ed., Ohlman, B., Davies, E., Spirou, S.,
              and G. Boggia, "Information-Centric Networking: Evaluation
              and Security Considerations", RFC 7945,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC7945, September 2016,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7945>.

   [RFC8075]  Castellani, A., Loreto, S., Rahman, A., Fossati, T., and
              E. Dijk, "Guidelines for Mapping Implementations: HTTP to
              the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 8075,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC8075, February 2017,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8075>.

   [SAIL_NetInf]
              FP7, "SAIL Prototyping and Evaluation", 2013,
              <http://www.sail-project.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/
              SAIL_DB4_v1.1_Final_Public.pdf>.

   [Tateson]  Tateson, J. and et al., "Final Evaluation Report on
              Deployment Incentives and Business Models", 2010,
              <http://www.psirp.org/files/Deliverables/FP7-INFSO-ICT-
              216173-PSIRP-D4.6_FinalReportOnDeplIncBusinessModels.pdf>.

   [Techno_Economic]
              Trossen, D. and A. Kostopolous, "Techno-Economics Aspects
              of Information-Centric Networking", Journal for
              Information Policy, Volume 2, 2012.



Rahman, et al.          Expires December 31, 2017              [Page 19]


Internet-Draft      Deployment Considerations for ICN          June 2017


   [VSER]     Ravindran, R., Liu, X., Chakraborti, A., Zhang, X., and G.
              Wang, "Towards software defined ICN based edge-cloud
              services", CloudNetworking(CloudNet), IEEE Internation
              Conference on, IEEE Internation Conference on
              CloudNetworking(CloudNet), 2013.

   [VSER-Mob]
              Azgin, A., Ravindran, R., Chakraborti, A., and G. Wang,
              "Seamless Mobility as a Service in Information-centric
              Networks", ACM ICN Sigcomm, IC5G Workshop, 2016.

   [White]    White, G. and G. Rutz, "Content Delivery with Content
              Centric Networking, CableLabs White Paper", 2010,
              <http://www.cablelabs.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/
              Content-Delivery-with-Content-Centric-Networking-Feb-
              2016.pdf>.

Authors' Addresses

   Akbar Rahman
   InterDigital Inc.
   1000 Sherbrooke Street West, 10th floor
   Montreal  H3A 3G4
   Canada

   Email: Akbar.Rahman@InterDigital.com
   URI:   http://www.InterDigital.com/


   Dirk Trossen
   InterDigital Inc.
   64 Great Eastern Street, 1st Floor
   London  EC2A 3QR
   United Kingdom

   Email: Dirk.Trossen@InterDigital.com
   URI:   http://www.InterDigital.com/


   Dirk Kutscher
   Huawei German Research Center
   Riesstrasse 25
   Munich  80992
   Germany

   Email: ietf@dkutscher.net
   URI:   http://www.Huawei.com/




Rahman, et al.          Expires December 31, 2017              [Page 20]


Internet-Draft      Deployment Considerations for ICN          June 2017


   Ravi Ravindrna
   Huawei Research Center
   2330 Central Expressway
   Santa Clara  95050
   USA

   Email: ravi.ravindran@huawei.com
   URI:   http://www.Huawei.com/











































Rahman, et al.          Expires December 31, 2017              [Page 21]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.127, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/