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

Versions: 00 01

ICN Research Group                                              Y. Zhang
Internet-Draft                                            D. Raychadhuri
Intended status: Informational                WINLAB, Rutgers University
Expires: December 5, 2014                                   R. Ravindran
                                                                 G. Wang
                                                     Huawei Technologies
                                                            June 3, 2014


                     ICN based Architecture for IoT
                  draft-zhang-iot-icn-architecture-01

Abstract

   Internet of Things (IoT) promises to connect billions of objects to
   Internet.  After deploying many stand-alone IoT systems in different
   domains, the current trend is to develop a unified IoT platform so
   that objects can be made accessible to applications across
   organizations and domains.  Towards this goal, quite a few proposals
   have been made to build a unified IoT platform as an overlay on
   today's Internet.  Such an overlay solution, however, is inadequate
   to address the important challenges posed by a unified IoT system,
   especially in terms of mobility, scalability, and communication
   reliability, due to the inherent inefficiencies of the current
   Internet.  To address this problem, we propose to build a unified IoT
   platform based on the Information Centric Network (ICN) architecture,
   which we call ICN-IoT.  ICN-IoT leverages the salient features of
   ICN, and thus provides seamless mobility support, scalability, and
   efficient content and service delivery.

   In this proposal, we first present a few popular IoT scenarios in
   smart homes, smart grid, smart transportation, and smart healthcare.
   Then we identify a list of important requirements with the unified
   IoT architecture that promises to support tens of billions of
   objects.  After discussing the weaknesses of the current overlay-
   based IoT solution, we propose an ICN-based solution, ICN-IoT, which
   can sufficiently satisfy these requirements.  We present an example
   ICN-IoT architecture and discuss how it supports efficient data
   discovery, data processing and data distribution.  Finally, we show
   that ICN-IoT efficiently supports context- based scenarios, which are
   very common for many IoT applications.

Status of This Memo

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





Zhang, et al.           Expires December 5, 2014                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft       ICN based Architecture for IoT            June 2014


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

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

   This Internet-Draft will expire on December 5, 2014.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

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

Table of Contents

   1.  IoT Motivation and Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.1.  Popular scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
       1.1.1.  Smart Homes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
       1.1.2.  Smart Grid  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
       1.1.3.  Smart Transportation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
       1.1.4.  Smart Healthcare  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   2.  IoT Architectural Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.1.  Naming  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     2.2.  Scalability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.3.  Resource Constraints  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.4.  Traffic Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     2.5.  Contextual Communication  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     2.6.  Handling Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     2.7.  Storage and Caching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     2.8.  Security and Privacy  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     2.9.  Communication Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     2.10. Self-Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     2.11. Ad hoc and Infrastructure Mode  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   3.  State of the Art  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8



Zhang, et al.           Expires December 5, 2014                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft       ICN based Architecture for IoT            June 2014


     3.1.  Silo IoT Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     3.2.  Overlay Based Unified IoT Solutions . . . . . . . . . . .  10
       3.2.1.  Weaknesses of the Overlay-based Approach  . . . . . .  10
   4.  Proposed ICN-Centric Unified IoT Platform . . . . . . . . . .  12
     4.1.  Strengths of ICN-IoT  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     4.2.  Example ICN-IoT Architecture  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     4.3.  ICN-IoT Scenario  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
   5.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22

1.  IoT Motivation and Challenges

   During the past decade, many standalone Internet of Things (IoT)
   systems have been developed and deployed in different domains.  The
   recent trend, however, is to evolve towards a globally unified IoT
   platform, in which billions of objects connect to the Internet,
   available for interactions among themselves, as well as interactions
   with many different applications across boundaries of administration
   and domains.  Building a unified IoT platform, however, poses great
   challenges on the underlying network and systems.  To name a few, it
   needs to support 50-100 Billion networked objects [1], many of which
   are mobile.  The objects will have extremely heterogeneous means of
   connecting to the Internet, often with severe resource constraints.
   Interactions between the applications and objects are often real-time
   and dynamic, requiring strong security and privacy protections.Before
   we present our solution to such a unified platform, we first describe
   a few popular IoT scenarios to motivate this proposal.

1.1.  Popular scenarios

   Several types of IoT applications exists, where the goal is efficient
   and secure management and communication among objects in the system
   and with the physical world through sensors, RFIDs and other devices.
   Below we list a few popular IoT applications.

1.1.1.  Smart Homes

   Home is a complex ecosystem for smart systems such as climate
   control, home security monitoring, smoke detection, or smart meters.
   In a unified IoT platform, we would inter-connect these systems
   through the Internet, such that they can interact with each other and
   make decisions at an aggregated level.  Also, the systems can be
   accessed and manipulated remotely.  The challenges for smart home
   include topology independent service discovery, common protocol for
   heterogeneous device/application/service interaction, policy based
   routing/forwarding, service mobility as well as privacy protection.





Zhang, et al.           Expires December 5, 2014                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft       ICN based Architecture for IoT            June 2014


1.1.2.  Smart Grid

   Central to smart grid is data flow and information management,
   achieved by using sensors and actuators, which enables important
   capabilities such as substation and distribution automation.  In a
   unified IoT platform, data collected from different smart grids can
   be integrated to reach more significant optimizations.  The
   challenges for smart grid include reliability, real-time control,
   secure communications, and data privacy.

1.1.3.  Smart Transportation

   We are currently witnessing the increasing integration of sensors
   into cars.  Current production cars already carry many sensors
   ranging from rain gauges and accelerometers over wheel rotation/
   traction sensors, to cameras.  While intended for internal vehicle
   functions, these could also be networked and leveraged for
   applications such as monitoring external traffic/road conditions.
   Further, we can build vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I) and vehicle-to-
   vehicle (V2V) communications that enable many more applications for
   safety, convenience, entertainment, etc.  The challenges for smart
   transportation include fast data/device/service discovery and
   association, efficient communications with mobility, trustworthy data
   collection and exchange.

1.1.4.  Smart Healthcare

   As more embedded medical devices, or devices that can monitor human
   health become increasingly deployed, smart healthcare is becoming a
   viable alternative to traditional healthcare solutions.  For smart
   health applications, a unified IoT platform is critical for sharing
   data and enabling timely actuations.  The challenges in smart
   healthcare include real-time interactions, high reliability, short
   communication latencies, trustworthy, security and privacy.

2.  IoT Architectural Requirements

   A unified IoT platform has to support interactions among a large
   number of mobile devices across the boundaries of organizations and
   domains.  As a result, it naturally poses stringent requirements in
   every aspect of the system design.  Below, we outline a few important
   requirements that a unified IoT platform has to address.

2.1.  Naming

   The first step towards realizing a unified IoT platform is the
   ability to assign names that are unique within the scope/lifetime of
   each device, data items generated by these devices, or a group of



Zhang, et al.           Expires December 5, 2014                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft       ICN based Architecture for IoT            June 2014


   devices.  Naming has the following requirements.  First, names need
   to be application-centric, i.e., solely serving the purpose of an
   application or service.  Second, names need to be persistent against
   dynamic attributes that are common in IoT systems, such as mobility
   or migration.  Third, names need to be secure based on application
   requirement.

2.2.  Scalability

   Cisco predicts there will be around 50 Billion IoT devices such as
   sensors, RFID tags, and actuators, on the Internet by 2020 [1].  As
   mentioned above, a unified IoT platform needs to name every
   informational entity such as data, devices, etc.  To deal with
   scalability, the name-locator separation is the basic requirement,
   implying that it is necessary to have a name resolution service.  The
   requirement on such a resolution service is thus clear: the system
   should be able to insert/update/look up a name within a short
   latency.  To satisfy this requirement, decentralization of the name
   resolution is the key.

2.3.  Resource Constraints

   IoT devices can be broadly classified into two groups: resource-
   sufficient and resource-constrained.  In general, there are the
   following types of resources: power, computing, storage, and
   bandwidth.

   Power constraints of the IoT devices limit how much data these
   devices can communicate, as it has been shown that communications
   consume more power than other activities for embedded devices.
   Flexible techniques to collect the relevant information are required,
   and uploading every single produced data to a central server is
   undesirable.  Computing constraints limit the type and amount of
   processing these devices can perform, also information needs to be
   available where it is more likely to be consumed.  As a result, more
   complex processing needs to be conducted elsewhere, example at the
   network edge, which makes it important to balance local computation
   versus communication.

   Storage constraints of the IoT devices limit the amount of data that
   can be stored on the devices.  This constraint means that unused
   sensor data may need to be discarded from time to time.  Bandwidth
   constraints of the IoT devices limit the amount of communication
   these devices can have, which will have the same implication on the
   system architecture as the power constraints; namely, we cannot
   afford to communicate with every single sensor data generated by the
   device.




Zhang, et al.           Expires December 5, 2014                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft       ICN based Architecture for IoT            June 2014


2.4.  Traffic Characteristics

   IoT traffic can be broadly classified into local area traffic and
   wide area traffic.  Local area traffic is between nearby devices.
   For example, neighboring cars may work together to detect potential
   hazards on the highway, sensors deployed in the same room may
   collaborate to determine how to adjust the heating level in the room.
   These local area communications often involve data aggregation and
   filtering, have real time constraints, and require fast device/data/
   service discovery and association.  At the same time, the IoT
   platform has to also support wide area communications.  For example,
   commuters can find out real-time traffic and road information and
   then decide which commuting route to take.  Wide area communications
   require efficient data/service discovery and resolution services.

   While traffic characteristics for different IoT systems are expected
   to different, certain IoT systems have been analyzed and shown to
   have comparable uplink and downlink traffic volume in some
   applications such as [2], which means that we have to optimize the
   bandwidth/energy consumption in both directions.  Further, IoT
   traffic demonstrates certain periodicity and burstiness [2].  As a
   result, when provisioning the system, peak traffic volume has to be
   considered.

2.5.  Contextual Communication

   Many IoT applications shall rely on contextual information such as
   social, grouping, location, type of ecosystem (home, grid, transport
   etc.) of devices and data (which are referred to as contexts in this
   document) to initiate dynamic relationship and communication.  For
   example, cars travelling on the highway may form a "cluster" based
   upon their temporal physical proximity as well as the detection of
   the same event.  These temporary groups are referred to as contexts.
   IoT applications need to support interactions among the members of a
   context, as well as interactions across contexts.

   Temporal context can be broadly categorized into two classes, long-
   term contexts such as those that are based upon social contacts as
   well as stationary physical locations (e.g., sensors in a car/
   building), and short-term contexts such as those that are based upon
   temporary proximity (e.g., all taxicabs within half a mile of the
   Time Square at noon on Oct 1, 2013).  Between these two classes,
   short-term contexts are more challenging to support, requiring fast
   formation, update, lookup and association of these contexts.







Zhang, et al.           Expires December 5, 2014                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft       ICN based Architecture for IoT            June 2014


2.6.  Handling Mobility

   Mobility in the IoT platform can mean 1) the data producer mobility
   (i.e., location change), 2) the data consumer mobility, 3) IoT
   Network mobility; and 3) disconnection between the data source and
   destination pair (e.g., due to unreliable wireless links).  The
   requirement on mobility support is to be able to deliver IoT data
   below an application acceptable delay constraint in all of the above
   three cases.

   There are varying degrees of mobility in a unified IoT platform,
   ranging from static as in fixed assets to highly dynamic in vehicle-
   to-vehicle environments.

2.7.  Storage and Caching

   Storage and caching plays a very significant role depending on the
   type of IoT ecosystem with the fact that data generated is also
   subjected to privacy and security guidelines.  In a unified IoT
   platform, depending on content caching requirements can be cached at
   will or at service authorized points, and thus we don't need to
   always forward a content request to its original creator.  Rather,
   locating and receiving a cached copy is sufficient for IoT
   applications.  This optimization can greatly reduce the content
   access latencies.

   In network storage and caching, however, has the following
   requirements on the IoT platform.  First, the platform needs to
   support the efficient resolution of cached copies.  Second, certain
   content should not be cached anywhere, and the service platform
   should be able to enforce this.  Third, the platform should strive
   for the balance between caching, content security/privacy, and
   regulations.

2.8.  Security and Privacy

   The unified IoT platform makes physical objects accessible to
   applications across organizations and domains, and security and
   privacy thus become a serious concern.  Security includes data
   integrity, authentication, trust management, and access control at
   different layers of the IoT platform.  Privacy means that both the
   content and the context around IoT data need to be protected.  These
   requirements will be driven by various stake holders such as
   industry, government, consumers etc.







Zhang, et al.           Expires December 5, 2014                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft       ICN based Architecture for IoT            June 2014


2.9.  Communication Reliability

   IoT applications can be broadly categorized into mission critical and
   non-mission critical.  For mission critical applications, reliable
   communication is one of the most important features as these
   applications have strong QoS requirements.  Reliable communication
   requires the following capabilities for the underlying system: (1)
   seamless mobility support to support for extreme disruptions (DTN),
   (2) efficient routing in the presence of intermittent disconnection,
   and (3) QoS aware routing.

2.10.  Self-Organization

   The unified IoT platform should be able to self-organize to meet
   various application requirements, especially the capability to
   quickly discover heterogeneous and relevant devices/data/services
   based on the context.  This discovery can be achieved through an
   efficient platform-wide publish-subscribe service, or through private
   community grouping/clustering based upon trust and other security
   requirements.  In the former case, the publish-subscribe service must
   be efficiently implemented, able to support seamless mobility, in-
   network caching, name-based routing, etc.  In the latter case, the
   IoT platform needs to discover the private community groups/clusters
   efficiently.

2.11.  Ad hoc and Infrastructure Mode

   Depending upon whether there is communication infrastructure, an IoT
   system can be classified as either ad-hoc or infrastructure mode.
   For example, a vehicle may determine to report its location and
   status information to a server periodically through cellular
   connection, or, a group of vehicles may form an ad-hoc network that
   collectively detect road conditions around them.  In the cases where
   infrastructure is unavailable, one of the participating nodes may
   choose to become the temporary gateway.  The open IoT platform needs
   to be able to handle both situations.

   The unified IoT platform needs to design a common protocol that
   serves both modes.  Such a protocol should be able to provide: (1)
   energy-efficient topology discovery and data forwarding in the ad-hoc
   mode, and (2) scalable name resolution in the infrastructure mode.

3.  State of the Art

   Over the years, many stand-alone IoT systems have been deployed in
   various domains.  These systems usually adopt a vertical silo
   architecture and support a small set of pre-designated applications.
   A recent trend, however, is to move away from this approach, towards



Zhang, et al.           Expires December 5, 2014                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft       ICN based Architecture for IoT            June 2014


   a unified IoT platform in which the existing silo IoT systems, as
   well as new systems that are rapidly deployed, will make their data
   and services accessible to general Internet applications.  In such a
   unified platform, physical world resources can be accessed over
   Internet and shared across the boundaries of physical, enterprise and
   application.  However, current approaches to achieving this objective
   are based upon Internet overlays, whose inherent inefficiencies
   hinders the platform from satisfying the IoT requirements outlined
   earlier (particularly in terms of scalability, security, mobility,
   and self-organization)

3.1.  Silo IoT Architecture


                          [IoT Server]
                               |
                               |
                         ______|_______
    _______             {              }
   {       }            {              }
   {IoT Dev}\           {   Internet   }---[IoT Application]
   {_______}  [IoTGW]---{              }
                        {              }
                        {______________}


        Figure 1:Silo architecture of standalone IoT systems


   A typical standalone IoT system is illustrated in Figure 1, which
   includes devices, a gateway, a server and applications.  Many IoT
   devices have limited power and computing resources, unable to
   directly run normal IP access network (Ethernet, WIFI, 3G/LTE etc.)
   protocols.  Therefore, we use the IoT gateway to connect these
   devices to the server.  Through the IoT server, applications can
   subscribe to the data collected by the devices, or interact with the
   devices.

   There have been quite a few popular protocols for standalone IoT
   systems, such as DF-1, MelsecNet, Honeywell SDS, BACnet, etc.
   However, these protocols are host-driven, instead of information
   driven, leading to a highly fragmented protocol space with limited
   interoperability.








Zhang, et al.           Expires December 5, 2014                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft       ICN based Architecture for IoT            June 2014


3.2.  Overlay Based Unified IoT Solutions

   The current approach to a unified IoT platform is to make IoT
   gateways and servers adopt standard APIs.  IoT devices connect to the
   Internet through the standard APIs and IoT applications subscribe and
   receive data through standard control and data APIs.  Building on top
   of today's Internet as an overlay, this is the most practical
   approach towards a unified IoT platform.  There are ongoing
   standardization efforts including ETSI[3], and CORE[4].  Network
   operators can use standard API to build common IOT gateways and
   servers for their customers.  Figure 2 shows the architecture adopted
   in this approach.


                 Publishing----[IoT Server]----Subscribing--
                     |        /    |       \                |
                     |       /     |        \               |
                     |      /______|_______  \              |
    ___________      |     /{              }  publishing    |
   {           }     |    | {              }     |          |
   {Smart Homes}\    |    | {   Internet   }---------[IoT Application]
   {___________}  [IoTGW]---{              }\    |     ________________
                          | {              } \   |    {                }
                          | {______________}  [IoTGW]-{Smart Healthcare}
                          |        |                  {________________}
                     Publishing [IoTGW]
                          |    ____|_____
                          |   {          }
                           ---{Smart Grid}
                              {__________}


   Figure 2: Implementing an open IoT platform through standarized APIs
                on the IoT gateways and the server


3.2.1.  Weaknesses of the Overlay-based Approach

   The above overlay-based approach can work with many different
   protocols, but the system is not designed in a holistic manner.
   Another limiting factor is that it is built upon today's IP network,
   which has a few inherent weaknesses towards supporting a unified IoT
   system.  As a result, it cannot satisfy some of the requirements we
   outlined in Section 3:

   o  Naming.  The overlay-based approach uses IP addresses as names at
      the network layer, which are not persistent for mobile devices/
      services.



Zhang, et al.           Expires December 5, 2014               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft       ICN based Architecture for IoT            June 2014


   o  Scalability.  The overlay-based approach uses IP addresses as
      names at the network layer, which does not provide the scalability
      needed to support device/service mobility or flexible name
      resolution.

   o  Resource constraints.  The overlay-based approach requires every
      device to send data to the IoT server.  Resource constraints of
      the IoT devices, especially in power and bandwidth, will seriously
      limit the performance of this approach.

   o  Traffic Characteristics.  In this approach, applications are
      written in a host-centric manner, instead of being information-
      centric.  As a result, it is challenging for the underlying system
      to satisfy the communication patterns of the applications.
      Further, characteristics of today's Internet, such as the lack of
      multicast, will make the matters worse.

   o  Contextual Communications.  This overlay-based approach cannot
      react to dynamic contextual changes in a timely fashion.  The main
      reason is that context lists are kept at the IoT server in this
      approach, and they cannot help efficiently route requests/
      information at the network layer.

   o  Mobility.  The overlay-based approach cannot seamlessly support
      device mobility.  In this approach, communications are IP driven,
      which is inefficient for mobility support.

   o  Storage and Caching.  The overlay-based approach does not provide
      efficient storage/caching support.  Also, applications are written
      in a host-centric manner, wherein network requests are bound to a
      specific destination host/server instead of a specific piece of
      content.

   o  Communication Reliability.  The overlay-based approach offers
      insufficient communication reliability when the devices/services/
      data are mobile.

   o  Self-Organization.  The overlay-based approach is topology-based
      as it is bound to IP semantics, and thus does not sufficiently
      satisfy the self-organization requirement.

   o  Ad-hoc and infrastructure mode.  As mentioned above, the overlay-
      based approach lacks self-organization, and thus does not provide
      efficient support for the ad-hoc mode.







Zhang, et al.           Expires December 5, 2014               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft       ICN based Architecture for IoT            June 2014


4.  Proposed ICN-Centric Unified IoT Platform


               ______________   __________   __________
              |IoT Smart Home| |IoT Smart | |IoT Smart |
              |Management    | |Transport | |Healthcare|
              |______________| |Management| |Management|
                   \           |__________| |__________|
                    \               |             /
                     \ _____________|___________ /
                      {                         }
                      {                         }
                      {           ICN           }
                      {                         }
                      {_________________________}
                        /           |         \
                       /            |          \
             _________/     ________|______   __\_____________
            {          }   {               } {                }
            {Smart home}   {Smart Transport} {Smart Healthcare}
            {__________}   {_______________} {________________}
              |      |          |      |         |          |
           ___|__  __|___     __|__  __|__   ____|____  ____|____
          |Home-1||Home-2|   |Car-1||Car-2| |Medical  ||Medcical |
          |______||______|   |_____||_____| |Devices-1||Devices-2|
                                            |_________||_________|


         Figure 3: The proposed ICN-centric IoT unified platform.


   In recent years, the current Internet has become inefficient in
   supporting rapidly emerging Internet use cases, e.g., mobility,
   content retrieval, IoT, context, etc.  As a result, Information
   Centric Network [5] has been proposed as a future Internet design to
   address these inefficiencies.  ICN has the following main features:
   (1) it identifies a network object (including a mobile device, a
   content, a service, or a context) by its name instead of its IP
   address, (2) a hybrid name/address routing, and (3) a delay-tolerant
   transport.  These features make it easy to realize many in-network
   functions, such as mobility support, multicasting, content caching,
   cloud/edge computing and security.

   Considering these salient features of ICN, we propose to build a
   unified IoT platform using ICN, in which the overlay IoT services are
   only needed for administrative purposes, while the publishing,
   discovery, and delivery of the IoT data/services is directly
   implemented within the ICN network.  Figure 3 shows the proposed ICN-



Zhang, et al.           Expires December 5, 2014               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft       ICN based Architecture for IoT            June 2014


   centric IoT approach, which is centered around the ICN network
   instead of today's Internet.

4.1.  Strengths of ICN-IoT

   Our proposed ICN-IoT is a network-layer IoT solution, which can
   satisfy the requirements of the open IoT platform:

   o  Naming.  In ICN-IoT, we assign a unique name to an IoT object, an
      IoT service, or even a context.  These names are persistent
      throughout their scopes.

   o  Scalability.  In ICN-IoT, the name resolution is performed at the
      network layer, distributed within the entire network.  Thus, it
      can achieve high degree of scalability exploiting features like
      content locality, local computing, and multicasting.

   o  Resource constraints.  In ICN-IoT, mobile devices only need to
      upload their data to the gateway when some applications subscribe
      to the data.  Thus, it offers a resource-efficient solution.

   o  Local traffic Pattern.  In ICN-IoT, we can easily cache data/
      services in the network, facilitating local communications.

   o  Context-aware communications.  In ICN-IoT, we assign unique names
      to contexts, which are then mapped to the devices that are
      involved in the context by the name resolution service.  The
      support of multicast can greatly ease the communications to these
      devices.

   o  Seamless mobility handling.  In ICN-IoT, ICN's name resolution
      layer allows multiple levels of mobility relying on receiver-
      oriented nature for self-recovery for consumers, to multi-casting
      and late-binding techniques to realize seamless mobility support
      of producing nodes.

   o  Data storage.  In ICN-IoT, data are stored locally, either by the
      mobile device or by the gateway nodes or at service points.  We
      also implement in-network storage/caching [6] to speed up data
      delivery.

   o  Security and privacy.  In ICN-IoT, secure binding between names
      and content instead of IP addresses to identify devices/data/
      services, is inherently more secure allowing pervasive caching.

   o  Communication reliability.  In ICN-IoT, we support seamless
      mobility, which in turn guarantees reliable communications.




Zhang, et al.           Expires December 5, 2014               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft       ICN based Architecture for IoT            June 2014


   o  Ad hoc and infrastructure mode.  ICN-IoT support both ad-hoc and
      infrastructure modes.


              +-[Host]-[Sensors]-[Content]-[Context]-+
              |Name Assignment Service(Semantic->UID)|
              +======================================+
              | Delay Tolerant Network(DTN)Transport |--+
              |            (Storage-aware)           |  |
              +======================================+  |
              |      Hybrid UID/Address Routing      |--|--+
              +======================================+  |  |
          +---|Name Resolution Service(UID->Address) |  |  |
          |   +======================================+  |  |
          |    _________                    _________   |  |
          |   [ Routing ]..................[ Routing ]--+  |
          |   +=========+..................+=========+     |
          |   [ Storage ]..................[ Storage ]     |
          |   +=========+..................+=========+     |
          |   [Computing]..................[Computing]     |
          +---[  Plane  ]..................[  Plane  ]-----+
              +---------+                  +---------+
               ICN Router                   ICN Router


               Figure 4: An Example ICN-IoT Architecture


4.2.  Example ICN-IoT Architecture

   The design of ICN-IoT is to support a scalable, unified IoT
   architecture with tens of billions of devices.  The ICN-IoT
   introduces a unique identifier (UID) for every network object,
   separated from its dynamic access network locations represented by
   network addresses.  The separation of naming and addressing allows
   ICN-IoT to support identity based routing, which provides seamless
   mobility support.  Multicast and anycast can then become a native
   network capability since a UID can be bound to multiple addresses.

   Figure 4 depicts the example ICN-IoT core network architecture.  The
   assumption is that ICN routers have a sizeable storage and a
   computing plane in addition to the basic routing function.  The
   proposed ICN-IoT network includes the following three basic services:

   o  Name Resolution Service (NRS): A core ICN-IoT function that
      maintains mappings between UID to network address (NA).  This can
      be a logically centralized service distributed on all ICN routers.




Zhang, et al.           Expires December 5, 2014               [Page 14]


Internet-Draft       ICN based Architecture for IoT            June 2014


   o  Hybrid UID/network address routing: An ICN router makes routing
      decisions for UID identified data blocks.  It uses NRS to find the
      network address(s) for a UID.  In case an explicit network address
      cannot be obtained from NRS, it may route based on intermediate
      network address and use "late-biding" from UID to its actual
      network address.

   o  Delay-tolerant network (DTN) transport: An ICN router can deliver
      UID-only identified data blocks from/to a networked object.  The
      transport performs a cache and forward (CNF) style, hop-by-hop
      delivery.  The data block is cached in router storage and forward
      to next hop based on routing decisions.

   o  In addition to baseline services, ICN-IoT assumes there is a name
      assignment service (NAS) chosen by the owner of a networked
      object.  Through the NAS, the owner assigns and publishes a UID
      with its semantic descriptions for his networked object to a
      searchable space, such as google or semantic Linked-data space
      [1].

   In Figure 5, we summarize the ICN-IoT milddleware into three service
   categories: 1) Data Discovery Service, 2) Data Processing Service and
   3) Data (Re)Distribution Service.  These services span both in Ad hoc
   and Infrastructure settings.

   Data Discovery Service: Discovery service allows applications finding
   things/services/data through certain semantic / syntactic resolution.
   In ICN-IoT, each data/service has both a user-readable name with
   certain semantic structures and unique identifiers (UID).  Based on
   the human readable names, the data discovery service can help
   discover the requested data/services.

   Data Processing Service: The data processing service generates new
   knowledge or information through applying knowledge and/or rules on
   existing data.  Data processing can be distributed based on its scope
   and relevance as in the local node, versus edge service routers, or
   in data centers.  Data processing procedures are often defined by the
   applications/services.













Zhang, et al.           Expires December 5, 2014               [Page 15]


Internet-Draft       ICN based Architecture for IoT            June 2014


              _______________________________________________
    Things   |                 IoT MIDDLEWARE                | APPS/
    ________ |            (Ad-hoc/Infrastructure)            | Services
   |Sensors ||              ___________________              | ________
   |--------||      +------|Discovery Service  |-----+       ||APP1    |
   |________|| _____|_____ |(Semantic/Syntactic| ____|______ ||--------|
   | Tags   |||Resource   ||Resolution)        ||Application|||________|
   |--------|||Abstraction|+-------------------+|Abstraction|||APP2    |
   |________||+-----------+|Data Analysis      |+-----------+||--------|
   |Feeds   ||     |       |Event Detection    |      |      ||________|
   |--------||     |       |Context Reasoning  |      |      ||Service1|
   |________||     |       |Security/privacy   |      |      ||--------|
   |Actuator||     |       |control            |      |      ||________|
   |--------||     |       |(Knowledge,Rules)  |      |      ||Service2|
   |________||     |       +-------------------+      |      ||--------|
   |Database||     |       |(Re)-distribution  |      |      ||________|
   +--------+|     |       |Service(CDN,Cloud) |      |      |     |
         |   |     |       +-------------------+      |      |     |
         |   +-----+--------|-----------------|-------+------+     |
         |         |        |                 |       |            |
         |         |        |                 |       |            |
         |   +-----------------------------------------------+     |
         +---|        Information Centric Network(ICN)       |-----+
             +-----------------------------------------------+

               Figure 5: The ICN-IoT Service Middleware


   Data Re-distribution Service: The (re)distribution service delivers
   data from their sources to different locations for better
   accessibility.  These services will be directly supported by the ICN.
   Firstly, ICN can cache data/content on forwarding ICN routers, and
   secondly, these routers will be added to the NRS service so that
   requests for the cached data/content can be forwarded to them, thus
   reducing the data/content retrieval latencies.

   Figure 5 shows how the ICN-IoT middleware services (identified in
   Figure 4) integrated into the ICN infrastructure.  The components of
   the IoT middleware can be described with respect the services
   identified before.

   o  Realizing Data discovery Service.  Two tasks are involved in
      achieving this.  First is a way to name services/content/devices
      of interest within the IoT application scope.  Each network entity
      that is registered at the Name Assignment Service (NAS) has both a
      human readable name and a unique identifier (UID).  The human
      readable name includes semantic key words that characterize the
      entity.  Once the entities are named, applications based on its



Zhang, et al.           Expires December 5, 2014               [Page 16]


Internet-Draft       ICN based Architecture for IoT            June 2014


      policy requirements make it accessible considering access control
      policies.  To enable accessibility a discovery function is
      required, which is enabled through NAS.  Figure 5 shows an example
      with sensor SID and service CID.  Both SID and CID are published
      to the searchable name space through NAS, which can be efficiently
      discovered later by the applications.

   o  Realizing Data processing Service.  ICN-IoT uses the in-network
      storage and computing capability to cache and execute data
      processing service, such as a context reasoning service,
      traditionally implemented on overlay servers.  Having the context
      reasoning service within the network, however, requires additional
      computing capabilities offered by routers or separate computing
      facilities in the network.  In Figure 5, the service, identified
      by CID, is cached and executed on an ICN router.

   o  Realizing Data (re)distribution Service.  ICN-IoT performs
      distribution or re-distribution of IoT data and service through
      its native support of in-network caching and multicast based on
      identity based routing.

4.3.  ICN-IoT Scenario

   We will use a context-aware IoT application as an example from
   UbiCab[8] to demonstrate how IoT middleware service is enabled inside
   the proposed ICN-IoT core network.  This example is based on
   MobilityFirst architecture [7] which is based on secured names and
   off-path name resolution infrastructure.

   The example is stated as: "James walks on NYC streets and wants to
   find an empty cab closest to his location".  In this example, we
   assume that James and taxi drivers have sensors on their phones,
   providing GPS location information as data.  The context of this
   application is the relative locations of James and taxi drivers.  A
   context service, as an IoT middleware, is needed to bridge sensors
   (providing GPS location) and the application (phone call program)
   automatically.

   We use a linked-data inspired approach to implement the middleware
   service for this location aware context.  First, a company
   GPSlocation.com offers this service at http://GPSlocation.com/
   nearbyCab, implemented in an RDF graph shown in Figure 7.  This
   context service has two attributes to describe itself, tagged as cab
   and location.  A taxi driver can query this RDF graph and joins as a
   member of the service by adding a link to its own URI http://NYCcab
   .com/cab1 in the RDF graph with a predicate "a:member".  The sensor
   data, taxi driver's GPS location, is linked to taxi driver's URI with
   a predicate "a:location" and the value is updated by his phone



Zhang, et al.           Expires December 5, 2014               [Page 17]


Internet-Draft       ICN based Architecture for IoT            June 2014


   periodically.  he database containing this RDF graph must be
   searchable by users in a searchable space, which we refer as IoT
   resource space in Figure 6.


                           ______________                    ______
                          {              }             +SID-(Sensor)
   +--------------------->{IoT Name Space}             |     ------
   |    +---------------->{______________}<--------------------+
   |    |                        |                     |       |
   |Lookup  _____________________|_____________________|_      |
   |Service|Add-on Protocols(Name Assignment Service,    |  Publish
   |   |   |                   Caching))                 |  (CID)
   | __|__ +=============================================+     |
   ||Apps ||Baseline ICN Protocols(Transport,Routing,Name|     |
   ||(ICN ||               Resolution)                   |     |
   ||Host)||_____________________________________________|  ___|_______
   ||_____|                    |                           |Overlay IoT|
   |   |  Get      ____________|____________               |Middleware |
   |   +--CID-----{                         }              |Service    |
   |    _______   {     ICN Core Network    }----CID------>|(ICN Host) |
   |   |Readers|  {_________________________}              |___________|
   +---|(ICN   |       |         |
       |Host)  |     Send   _____|_______
       +=======+     (SID) |Caching IoT  |
       {Local  }       |   |Middleware   |
       {IoT    }-------+   |Service      |
       {Network}           |(ICN Storage)|
       {_______}           |_____________|

                Figure 6: ICN-IoT Data and Services



   |8438435780327523478532,4530|   a:member---->|http://NYCcab.com/cab1|
               UID                 |
                |                  |a:member--->|http://NYCcab.com/cab2|
                |                  ||               |              |
   |http://GPSLocation.com/nearbtCab|             |UID_2|     a:location
   |Cab|        |          |Location|-a:attribute                  |
            a:Pubkey            |           +---->|Cab|       |GPSvalue|
                |               |                   |
                |               |                   |
   |8438435780327523478532|   a:attribute-->|Location|--->Linked-data

             Figure 7: Location context service in RDF





Zhang, et al.           Expires December 5, 2014               [Page 18]


Internet-Draft       ICN based Architecture for IoT            June 2014


   In ICN-IoT, we also add an additional 3-tuple or triple in the RDF
   graph with a predicate "UID".  CID is assigned to the context service
   and UID_2 is assigned to cab2.

   This context service can also run as an overlay to the Internet.
   Taxi drivers and passengers can directly call the URI of the context
   service to join the membership and get a nearby cab, respectively.
   As an Internet overlay, the location context service is subject to
   longer delay due to demands are overloaded or unbalanced.

   In this example, since the context service is implemented using an
   RDF graph, it can be cached on ICN routers in a similar way to
   caching content.  This RDF graph can be updated by taxi drivers by
   joining membership, current GPS location etc, since the context
   service is UID identified it can be routed efficiently by the ICN
   routers.  The utility of such information is determined by specific
   application requirements.

   The application scenario is comprised of the following steps,
   illustrated by Figure 8.

   o  Name Assignment.  The owner of the context service publishes its
      CID and the service description (RDF graph of Figure 7) through
      ICN-IoT NAS function, running on both service host and routers, to
      a searchable Link-data space.

   o  NRS Update.  When the context service connects to the ICN network,
      the access router calls NRS update to provide a UID to network
      address mapping.

   o  Service Discovery.  Taxi driver or James can find CID through an
      RDF query requesting services with tags "location" and "cab".

   o  Service Request.  Taxi driver makes a service request to CID with
      an RDF query to join the service membership.

   o  Routing and GNRS Lookup.  The service request toward CID is routed
      to the NA_c, obtained from a NRS lookup.

   o  Service Request Redirection.  James makes a service request to CID
      with an RDF query to match GPS location to a nearby taxi.  James'
      request to CID is redirected to UID_2, the driver of cab2.

   Note that in this example, no CDN overlay is needed to support multi-
   homing, multicasting for a location context service because these are
   embedded in the ICN core network.





Zhang, et al.           Expires December 5, 2014               [Page 19]


Internet-Draft       ICN based Architecture for IoT            June 2014


   As usual, the benefit of caching is more significant for location
   dependent services.  In our example, it is best to have the
   middleware service being offered at a server close to taxi drivers
   and passengers so that the traffic can be localized with lower
   latency.





        __________             _______     _______
       {          }           |Caching|   |NRS    |
       {RDF graphs}-RDF query-|Service|   |Service|
       {__________}           |_______|   |_______|
                                  ^           |
                                  |          NRS
                               Caching     Lookup
                       +----------+     +-----+
                       |                |
                       |                |  Name Assignment
    _______ Service   _|________________|     NRS       _______________
   |Taxi   |Discovery{ |                 }   Update    |               |
   |Drivers|-------->{ICN-IoT CoreNetwork}<------------|GPSLocation.com|
   |_______|Request  {_|_________________}-+           |_______________|
                       ^    |              |
    _________ Service  |   NAS             |
   |Passenger|Discovery| Discovery         |
   |James    |---------+    |   _______    |________________
   |_________|              |  |NAS    |  {                 }
                            +->|Service|  {Linked-Data Space}
                               |_______|  {_________________}
                                   |              ^
                                   |              |
                                   +---RDF Query--+

               Figure 8: Location context application scenario


   Traditionally, a service provider has to buy edge computing service
   from content distribution network (CDN); recently, cloud computing
   offers another alternative to deploy a distributed service.  The
   native support of caching in ICN provides with the ability to
   distribute a service directly through core network routers.  This
   option may not be suitable for heavyweight service requiring a high
   end web server.  Nevertheless, it could be particularly useful for
   lightweight IoT middleware service.  As shown in our example, when
   the context service is implemented in an RDF graph, caching a service
   is as simple as caching a data and service processing is as simple as



Zhang, et al.           Expires December 5, 2014               [Page 20]


Internet-Draft       ICN based Architecture for IoT            June 2014


   a database query.  The algorithms behind cache replacement can also
   be similar to what for data caching.

   Once, for example, the service CID is cached, any request to CID is
   intercepted by the ICN router.  In our example, when it is a request
   from taxi driver, it must contain an RDF query requesting either join
   membership or an updated GPS location.  The computing layer of ICN
   router runs a SPARQL engine to interpret the RDF query and makes a
   corresponding database operation.  When it is a request from James, a
   passenger, it must contain an RDF query containing its own GPS
   location and looking for the ID of a taxi with a GPS location nearby.

   Another benefit of ICN caching is that there is no need for end-to-
   end connectivity between the requester and the location context
   server, if the service is currently cached in an accessible ICN
   router.  This is especially useful for ad-hoc or DTN use cases, where
   the application network can be dynamically formed and isolated for a
   period of time.

   This UbiCab example has low data rate.  Next imagine a context
   service requires high data rate, for example, a person wants to see
   snapshots of the street nearby.  And these snapshots are uploaded by
   the people on the street.  Assuming every access network can get
   enough number of people uploading pictures, it is best for the
   network operator to cache the pictures as close to edge as possible.

   Through this location context service example, we can see ICN-IoT
   offers significant native supports for IoT data and services to be
   visible, routable, cacheable and executable in the core network of
   future Internet architecture.

5.  Informative References

   [1]        Cisco System Inc., CISCO., "Cisco visual networking index:
              Global mobile data traffic forecast update.", 2009-2014.

   [2]        Shafig, M., Ji, L., Liu, A., Pang, J., and J.  Wang, "A
              first look at cellular machine-to-machine traffic: large
              scale measurement and characterization.", Proceedings of
              the ACM Sigmetrics , 2012.

   [3]        The European Telecommunications Standards InstituteS,
              ETSI., "http://www.etsi.org/.", 1988.

   [4]        Constrained RESTful Environments, CoRE.,
              "https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/core/charter/.", 2013.





Zhang, et al.           Expires December 5, 2014               [Page 21]


Internet-Draft       ICN based Architecture for IoT            June 2014


   [5]        Ghodsi, A., Shenker, S., Koponen, T., Singla, A.,
              Raghavan, B., and J. Wilcox, "Information-Centric
              Networking: Seeing the Forest of the Trees.", Hot Topics
              in Networking , 2011.

   [6]        Dong, L., Zhang, Y., and D. Raychaudhuri, "Enhance Content
              Broadcast Efficiency in Routers with Integrated Caching.",
              Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Computers and
              Communications (ISCC) , 2011.

   [7]        NSF FIA project, MobilityFirst.,
              "http://www.nets-fia.net/", 2010.

   [8]        Kim, B., Lee, S., Lee, Y., Hwang, I., and Y. Rhee,
              "Mobiiscape: Middleware Support for Scalable Mobility
              Pattern Monitoring of Moving Objects in a Large-Scale
              City.", 2011.

Authors' Addresses

   Prof.Yanyong Zhang
   WINLAB, Rutgers University
   671, U.S 1
   North Brunswick, NJ  08902
   USA

   Email: yyzhang@winlab.rutgers.edu


   Prof. Dipankar Raychadhuri
   WINLAB, Rutgers University
   671, U.S 1
   North Brunswick, NJ  08902
   USA

   Email: ray@winlab.rutgers.edu


   Ravi Ravindran
   Huawei Technologies
   2330 Central Expressway
   Santa Clara, CA  95050
   USA

   Email: ravi.ravindran@huawei.com






Zhang, et al.           Expires December 5, 2014               [Page 22]


Internet-Draft       ICN based Architecture for IoT            June 2014


   Guoqiang Wang
   Huawei Technologies
   2330 Central Expressway
   Santa Clara, CA  95050
   USA

   Email: gq.wang@huawei.com












































Zhang, et al.           Expires December 5, 2014               [Page 23]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129d, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/