Abstract
The IP-over-ICN strategy intends to establish islands of networks that internally route packets based on Information-Centric Networking (ICN) while maintaining IP-based protocols at the ingress and egress of the network. This strategy aims at benefits from the use of ICN-based routing while maintaining backward compatibility with IP-based services. In the long run, an ICN-based Internet architecture may emerge from the interconnection of these ICN-based islands. We assess the feasibility of this strategy by discussing the willingness of Internet stakeholders to adopt one particular IP-over-ICN implementation based on the Publish-Subscribe Internet Technologies (PURSUIT) for flow-based routing, multicast routing, and service routing. We suggest that the IP-over-PURSUIT solution offers viable mechanisms for IP interoperability and routing scalability as well as potential advantages in comparison to substitutes, including IP-based solutions, such as IPv6; Multiprotocol Level Switching; and hybrid ICN; as well as other IP-over-ICN implementations based on Content-Centric Networking. We indicate that triple play operators and micro-operators have a greater incentive to adopt IP-over-PURSUIT since they can maximize the utilization of the multicast and service routing, respectively. However, we argue that IP-over-PURSUIT requires new exterior inter-stakeholder interfaces for significant operator traffic to be delivered through its new and cost-efficient routing capabilities, thus increasing the likelihood of operator adoption. Finally, we suggest that the advent of an ICN-based Internet architecture might be delayed until Internet stakeholders can trustworthily delegate the delivery of valuable content and services via information-based exchange points.
Highlights
The Internet Protocol (IP) was designed in the 70s, implementing a host-centric communication model
+ Edge content is made directly available to Network Attachment Points (NAPs) avoiding DNS/Centric Networking (CCN) propagation delays. + Unlike IPv6, connections can be seamlessly switched between HTTP surrogate services. + Unlike IPv6, anchorless mobility and decoupling of IP addresses and User Equipment (UE) location. - Unlike hICN, rendezvous-based pub/sub matching is required for mobility
This article assesses the feasibility of IP-over-PURSUIT as single network routing solution for flow-based routing, multicast routing, and service routing use cases
Summary
The Internet Protocol (IP) was designed in the 70s, implementing a host-centric communication model. The feasibility of Internet architectures implementing Information-Centric Networking (ICN) has been analyzed by anticipating stakeholder conflicts or tussles [8]. Key design aspects remain unanswered, including the management of global content identifiers or the inter-domain routing of multisource content [9,10,11]. To address these challenges, two deployment strategies have been devised aiming for gradual ICN deployments that remain IP interoperable, namely ICN-over-IP and IP-over-ICN [12]. We study stakeholder adoption by (1) analyzing the IP-over-PURSUIT architecture, (2) comparing stakeholder-specific benefits across alternative value networks, and (3) comparing its technical implementation against substitute solutions, including IP-over-CCN, IPv6, Multiprotocol Level Switching (MPLS), and hybrid-ICN (hICN).
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.