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

Read more

Summary

Introduction

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).

PURSUIT ICN network
IP-over-PURSUIT architecture
IP interoperability
Handling specific IP-based protocols
Mobility management and service indirection
Routing scalability
Framework for the feasibility analysis of Internet protocols
Use case analysis
Objective
Technical architecture analysis
FWD function
Function deployment
Value network analysis
Deployment environment analysis
Advantages and drawbacks compared to IP-based solutions
Advantages and drawbacks compared to IP-over-CCN implementations
Feasibility analysis
Challenge 2: routing scalability
Is the implemented solution IP ?
Challenge 4 and 5: stakeholder benefits
Challenge 6
Solution analysis
IP-over-ICN deployment strategy
Conclusions
Compliance with ethical standards
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

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.