ICN Research Group Y. Zhang Internet-Draft D. Raychadhuri Intended status: Informational WINLAB, Rutgers University Expires: September 29, 2017 L. Grieco Politecnico di Bari (DEI) E. Baccelli INRIA J. Burke UCLA REMAP R. Ravindran G. Wang Huawei Technologies A. Lindren B. Ahlgren RISE SICS O. Schelen Lulea University of Technology March 28, 2017 Design Considerations for Applying ICN to IoT draft-zhang-icnrg-icniot-00 Abstract The Internet of Things (IoT) promises to connect billions of objects to the Internet. After deploying many stand-alone IoT systems in different domains, the current trend is to develop a common, "thin waist" of protocols forming a horizontal unified, defragmented IoT platform. Such a platform will make objects accessible to applications across organizations and domains. Towards this goal, quite a few proposals have been made to build an application-layer based unified IoT platform on top of today's host-centric Internet. However, there is a fundamental mismatch between the host-centric nature of todays Internet and the information-centric nature of the IoT system. To address this mismatch, we propose to build a common set of protocols and services, which form an 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 naming, security, seamless mobility support, scalability, and efficient content and service delivery. This draft describes representative IoT requirements, ICN challenges and design considerations to realize a unified ICN-IoT framework. Towards this, we first motivate ICN for IoT using specific use case scenarios. Then taking a general IoT perspective, we discuss the IoT requirements generally applicable to many well known scenarios. We then discuss how the current application layer unified IoT Zhang, et al. Expires September 29, 2017 [Page 1] Internet-Draft ICN based Architecture for IoT March 2017 architecture fails to meet these requirements, followed by discussion on suitability of ICN for IoT. Though we see most of the IoT requirements can be met by ICN, we discuss specific design challenges ICN has to address to satisfy them. 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 September 29, 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. IoT Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2. Motivating ICN for IoT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3. IoT Architectural Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.1. Naming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.2. Security and Privacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.3. Scalability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.4. Resource Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.5. Traffic Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.6. Contextual Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Zhang, et al. Expires September 29, 2017 [Page 2] Internet-Draft ICN based Architecture for IoT March 2017 3.7. Handling Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.8. Storage and Caching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.9. Communication Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3.10. Self-Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3.11. Ad hoc and Infrastructure Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3.12. Unified Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3.13. IoT Platform Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4. State of the Art . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 4.1. Silo IoT Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 4.2. Application-Layer Unified IoT Solutions . . . . . . . . . 15 4.2.1. Weaknesses of the Application-Layer Approach . . . . 16 4.2.2. Suitability of Delay Tolerant Networking(DTN) . . . . 18 5. Advantages of using ICN for IoT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 6. ICN Design Considerations for IoT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 6.1. Naming Devices, Data, and Services . . . . . . . . . . . 20 6.2. Name Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 6.3. Security and Privacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 6.4. Caching/Storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 6.5. Routing and Forwarding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 6.6. Mobility Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 6.7. Contextual Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 6.8. In-network Computing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 6.9. Self-Orgnization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 6.10. Communications Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 6.11. Resource Constraints and Heterogeneity . . . . . . . . . 30 7. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 1. IoT Motivation 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. In addition, IoT applications are inherently information centric (e.g., data consumers usually need data sensed from the environment without any reference to the sub-set of motes that will provide the asked information). Taking a general IoT perspective, we first motivate the discussion of ICN for IoT using well known scenarios. Then we Zhang, et al. Expires September 29, 2017 [Page 3] Internet-Draft ICN based Architecture for IoT March 2017 discuss the IoT requirements generally applicable to many well known IoT scenarios. We then discuss how the current application-layer unified IoT architectures fail to meet these requirements. We follow this by key ICN features that makes it a better candidate to realize an unified IoT framework. We then discuss IoT design challenges from an ICN perspective and requirements posed towards its design. 2. Motivating ICN for IoT ICN offers many features including name-based networking,content object level security, caching, computing and storage, mobility, contextual networking and support for ad hoc networking features, all of which have to be realized in an application-specific means in the context of IP-IoT. These compelling features enable a distributed and intelligent data distribution platform to support heterogeneous IoT services with features like device bootstrapping with minimal configuration, simpler protocols to aid self-organizing among the IoT elements, natural support for compute and caching logic at strategic points in the network. We discuss these features through the following scenarios that are difficult to realize over IP today, and whose requirements match the features offered by ICN. o Smart Mobility: It is well known that IoT technologies can play a pivotal role in Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) [33][34]. In particular, Traffic Management Systems (TMS) aided by IoT technologies are creating novel approaches to traffic modeling [37]. Moreover, such features enable advanced design paradigms (e.g., Mobility as a Service (MaaS) [35]) with huge implications in systems architectures [38]. It is worth to note that ITS services are information centric by design [88]. As a consequence, smart mobility support can be a killer domain of ICN- IoT [37][38][35]. Moreover, the experimental evidence demonstrates that ICN can significantly magnify the effectiveness of IoT deployments, in terms of: energy efficiency and bandwidth usage [48] [70][71]; scalability [72]; and flexibility of the name scheme [82][83]. In the ITS use case, we expect multi-modal transportation means that embrace public and private municipal, regional, national, trans-national fleets. This rich eco-system of transportation means is made available to users and citizens through advanced services that are able to fulfill user requirements while pursuing system level objectives, including the reduction of the CO2 footprint, the real-time delivery of some goods, the reduction of traffic within urban areas, the provisioning of pleasant journeys to tourists, and the general commitment of satisfactory travel time and experience [88]. From a technological perspective, the challenges to face are: (i) interoperability across different IoT technologies; (ii) design of a namespace that is able to harmonize ITS standards; (iii) Zhang, et al. Expires September 29, 2017 [Page 4] Internet-Draft ICN based Architecture for IoT March 2017 provisioning of a scalable data-sharing model across real-time (and non real-time) traffic sources; (iv) definition of travel- centric services based on ICN-IoT; (v) seamless support to mobility; (vi) content authentication and cryptography. o Smart Building: Smart Building is a complex ecosystem in which many different IoT devices manufacturers, protocols and applications are collaborating to manage domestic environment in an efficient and safe way [74], minimizing the number of intervention requested. Buildings account for a very relevant quota of energy consumption; if not optimized, such a quantity might become even higher than that used in industrial field. The use of renewable energy sources can only mitigate the problem. Efficient resources management is a rising task for Industrial IoT applications. Many industrial companies have been working on the topic. Anyway, this is leading to a highly fragmented market, with many vertical solutions designed independently for different applications, which unavoidably hinder a large-scale M2M deployment [75]. Both academic and industrial research has produced some standards (namely, ETSI M2M [76] and oneM2M [77]) built as an overlay and application-layer networks of the current Internet, exploiting the functionalities offered by M2M technologies intensively. The current version of these architectures is strongly centralized [73], thus requiring new enhancements to grant its scalability, fault tolerance, and flexibility. This results in overhead due to impaired and network inefficiencies. A unified ICN-IoT platform would inter-connect these systems through the Internet, thus enabling interaction with and between each other and taking decisions at an aggregated level efficiently, thanks to the embedded capability of ICN paradigm, such as native multicast, data-centric security, and data in- network aggregation and caching. The main research challenges aim at defining a generic and incremental ICN-based platform supporting data collection and edge-cloud services. From a technological perspective, in fact, this requires some intermediate steps: (i) design of a scalable namespace for uniquely identifying the information of interest, (ii) data- sharing model across heterogeneous systems, (iii) self-organizing functionalities for improving network connections between end- nodes, utilities and the control center, (iv) authentication procedures to grant data confidentiality and integrity. o Smart Grid: Smart Grids are increasingly deployed cyber-physical systems [16] that have the capabilities such as substation and distribution automation. Data flow and information management is also very important to smart grids. In a unified IoT platform, data collected from different smart grids can be integrated to achieve more optimizations that include reliability, real-time Zhang, et al. Expires September 29, 2017 [Page 5] Internet-Draft ICN based Architecture for IoT March 2017 control, secure communications, and data privacy. Deployment of the smart grid [20] [24] faces the following issues that are hard to address with IP-based overlay solutions: (1) scalability: future electrical grids must be able to scale gracefully to manage a large number of heterogeneous devices; (2) real time: grids must be able to perform real-time data collection, data processing and control; (3) reliability: grids must be resilient to hardware/software/networking failures; (4) security: grids and associated systems are often considered critical infrastructure -- they must be able to defend against malicious attacks, detect intrusion, and route around disruption. Smart grids have the following specific requirements for the underlying IoT architecture: * Smart grids require names and name resolution system that can enable networked control loops, real-time control, and security. * Smart grids may use in-network caching to back up valuable data improving reliability. * In smart grids, we often require very timely data delivery. Therefore, it is important to be able to locate the closest information. In addition, routing/forwarding robustness and resilience is also critical. * In smart grids, contextual information such as location, time, voltage fluctuations, depending on the specific segment of the grid, can be used to optimize several power distribution objectives. * In smart grids, we often rely on in-network computing to increase the scalability and efficiency of the system, putting computation closer to the data sources. * In smart grids, energy consumptions profiles should never be disclosed at a fine granularity as it can be used to violate user privacy. o Smart Industry: In a Smart Industry/Industry 4.0 environment, there is a multitude of equipment with sensors that generate large volumes of data during normal operation. This range from highly time-critical data for real-time control of production processes, to less time-critical data that is collected to central cloud environment for control room monitoring, to pure log data without latency requirements that is mainly kept for a posteriori analysis. Industrial wireless networks are harsh environments with lots of potential interference at the same time as hard Zhang, et al. Expires September 29, 2017 [Page 6] Internet-Draft ICN based Architecture for IoT March 2017 reliability and real-time requirements are placed by many applications. This means that available network capacity is not always high, so congestion is likely to be experienced by traffic with less stringent timing requirements. The network need to support a mobile workforce in a smart industry automation scenario where users get access to data flows based on their physical location and task requirements. Usually in an automation scenario the mobile workforce will locally perform diagnostics or maintenance and they rely on the information from the production system both for safety and to solve any issues in the plant. The mobile workforce relies on both historical data in order to pinpoint the root cause of the problems, as well as the current data flows in order to assess the present state of the equipment under control. High resolution measurements are generated close to the mobile workforce while the historic data has to be retrieved from the historian servers. Furthermore, even if the mobile workforce is located next to the equipment under control, the data generated is usually transmitted to different control systems due to availability reasons as well as for capacity reasons due to the high traffic demands close to the processes. To realize this in current IP based systems require an excessive amount of traffic to and from the central control system for both data and coordination messages, which can have an adverse effect on the operational requirements of the factory. Most importantly the additional traffic introduced by the mobile workforce should not interfere with the control traffic making the situation worse. Introducing ICN functionality into the system can introduce several benefits that will enhance the working experience and productivity for the mobile workforce. * When using ICN, naming of data is simpler than knowing the address of the node that stores that data. * ICN provides the possibility to get newest data without knowing the location of the caches or whether a particular piece of data is available locally or in a central repository. * Possibility to get either local high-resolution data or remote low-resolution data (no need to store all data centrally, which is maybe not even possible due to large data volumes). * Workforce mobility between different access points in the factory is inherently supported without the need to maintain connection state. * Removing tedious configurations in clients since that is provided by the infrastructure. Zhang, et al. Expires September 29, 2017 [Page 7] Internet-Draft ICN based Architecture for IoT March 2017 * Allow sharing of large data volumes between users that are in physical proximity without introducing additional traffic on the backbone. * Caching of data means avoiding database accesses to a distributed redundant database in the central infrastructure with consistency requirements. 3. 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. 3.1. Naming The first step towards realizing a unified IoT platform is the ability to assign names that are unique to each device, data items generated by these devices, or a group of devices towards a common objective. Naming has the following requirements: first, names need to be persistent against dynamic features that are common in IoT systems, such as lifetime, mobility or migration; second, names need to be secure based on application requirements; third, names should offer semantic meanings to applications in comparison with traditional host address based schemes; finally, names should be able to help realize scalable IoT system architecture and high performance network platform. 3.2. Security and Privacy In addition to the fundamental challenge of trust management, a variety of security and privacy concerns also exist in ICNs. The unified IoT platform makes physical objects accessible to applications across organizations and domains. Further, it often integrates with critical infrastructure and industrial systems with life safety implications, bringing with it significant security challenges and regulatory requirements [11]. Security and privacy thus become a serious concern, as does the flexibility and usability of the design approaches. Beyond the overarching trust management challenge, security includes data integrity, authentication, 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 Zhang, et al. Expires September 29, 2017 [Page 8] Internet-Draft ICN based Architecture for IoT March 2017 will be driven by various stake holders such as industry, government, consumers etc. In order to ensure the trustworthiness of the names, a name certificate service (NCS) needs to be considered. Such a service acts as a certificate authority in assigning names, which are themselves public keys or appropriately bound to the name for verification at the consumer's end. In short, the NCS must provide services analogous to those provided by a Public Key Infrastructure (PKI). In ICN, users may either generate their own public keys and submit them to the NCS for registration, or may contact the NCS to acquire public keys. Consequently, the NCS publishes approved cryptographic suites, object categories and object description formats, as well as allows users to self-certify themselves themselves when public keys are used as names. 3.3. 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 entity such as data, device, service etc. Scalability has to be addressed at multiple levels of the IoT architecture including naming, security, name resolution, routing and forwarding level. In addition, mobility adds further challenge in terms of scalability. Particularly with respect to name resolution the system should be able to register/update/resolve a name within a short latency. 3.4. Resource Constraints IoT devices can be broadly classified as type 1, type 2, and type 3 devices, with type 1 the most resource-constrained and type 3 the most resource-rich [36]. In general, there are the following types of resources: power, computing, storage, bandwidth, and user interface. Power constraints of 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. As a result, more complex processing needs to be conducted in cloud servers or at opportunistic points, example at the network edge, hence it is important to balance local computation versus communication cost. Zhang, et al. Expires September 29, 2017 [Page 9] Internet-Draft ICN based Architecture for IoT March 2017 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 or stored in aggregated compact form time to time. Bandwidth constraints of the IoT devices limit the amount of communication. Such devices will have the same implication on the system architecture as with the power constraints; namely, we cannot afford to collect single sensor data generated by the device and/or use complex signaling protocols. User interface constraints refer to whether the device is itself capable of directly interacting with a user should the need arise (e.g., via a display and keypad or LED indicators) or requires the network connectivity, either global or local, to interact with humans. The above discussed device constraints also affect application performance with respect to latency and jitter. This in particular applies to satellite or other space based devices. 3.5. 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, in Intelligent Transportation Systems, re-routing operations may require a broad knowledge of the status of the system, traffic load, availability of freights, whether forecasts and so on. Wide area communications require efficient data/service discovery and resolution services. While traffic characteristics for different IoT systems are expected to be 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, the shape of the traffic volume has to be properly accounted for. Zhang, et al. Expires September 29, 2017 [Page 10] Internet-Draft ICN based Architecture for IoT March 2017 3.6. Contextual Communication Many IoT applications shall rely on dynamic contexts in the IoT system to initiate communication between IoT devices. Here, we refer to a context as attributes applicable to a group of devices that share some common features, such as their owners may have a certain social relationship or belong to the same administrative group, or the devices may be present in the same location. For example, cars traveling 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. 3.7. Handling Mobility There are several degrees of mobility in a unified IoT platform, ranging from static as in fixed assets to highly dynamic in vehicle- to-vehicle environments. 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 (e.g., a body-area network in motion as a person is walking); and 4) 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's acceptable delay constraint in all of the above cases, and if necessary to negotiate different connectivity or security constraints specific to each mobile context. 3.8. Storage and Caching Storage and caching plays a very significant role depending on the type of IoT ecosystem, also a function subjected to privacy and security guidelines. In a unified IoT platform, depending on application requirements, content caching may or may not be policy driven. If caching is pervasive, intermediate nodes don't need to always forward a content request to its original creator; rather, locating and receiving a cached copy is sufficient for IoT Zhang, et al. Expires September 29, 2017 [Page 11] Internet-Draft ICN based Architecture for IoT March 2017 applications. This optimization can greatly reduce the content access latencies. Furthermore considering hierarchical nature of IoT systems, ICN architectures enable flexible heterogeneous and potentially fault- tolerant approach to storage providing persistence at multiple levels. Hence in the context of IoT while ICN allows resolution to replicated cached copies, it should also strive for the balance between content security/privacy and regulations considering application requirements. 3.9. 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 such as low latency and probability of error during information transfer. To summarize, reliable communication requires the following capabilities for the underlying system: (1) seamless mobility support in the face of extreme disruptions, (2) efficient routing in the presence of intermittent disconnection, (3) QoS aware routing, (4) support for redundancy at all levels of a system (device, service, network, storage etc.), and (5) support for rich and diverse communication patterns, including both communications within an IoT domain and communications cross different domains. 3.10. 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 (local or global) 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. Another aspect of self-organization is decoupling the sensing Infrastructure from applications. In a unified IoT platform, various applications run on top of a vast number of IoT devices. Upgrading the firmware of the IoT devices is a difficult work. It is also not practical to reprogram the IoT devices to accommodate every change of Zhang, et al. Expires September 29, 2017 [Page 12] Internet-Draft ICN based Architecture for IoT March 2017 the applications. The infrastructure and the application specific logics need to be decoupled. A common interface is required to dynamically configure the interactions between the IoT devices and easily modify the application logics on top of the sensing infrastructure [26] [27]. 3.11. Ad hoc and Infrastructure Mode Depending upon whether there is communication infrastructure, an IoT system can operate either in 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 unified IoT platform needs to design a common protocol that serves both modes. Such a protocol should address the challenges that arise in these two modes: (1) scalability and low latency for the infrastructure mode and (2) efficient neighbor discovery and ad- hoc communication for the ad-hoc mode. Finally we note that hybrid modes are very common in realistic IoT systems. 3.12. Unified Architecture General IoT applications involve sensing, processing, and secure content distribution occurring at various timescales and at multiple levels of hierarchy depending on the application requirements. This requires the system to adopt a unified architecture providing pull, push and publish/subscribe mechanisms using application abstractions, common naming, payload, encryption and signature schemes. This requires open APIs to be generic enough to support commonly used interactions between consumers, content producer, and IoT services, as opposed to proprietary APIs that are common in today's systems. 3.13. IoT Platform Management An IoT platforms' service, control and data plane will be governed by its own management infrastructure which includes distributed and centralized middleware, discovery, naming, self-configuring, analytic functions, and information dissemination to achieve specific IoT system objectives [21][22][23]. Towards this new IoT management mechanisms and service metrics need to be developed to measure the success of an IoTdeployment. Considering an IoT systems' defining characteristics such as, its potential large number of IoT devices, ephemeral nature to save power, mobility, and ad hoc communication, Zhang, et al. Expires September 29, 2017 [Page 13] Internet-Draft ICN based Architecture for IoT March 2017 autonomic self-management mechanisms become very critical. Further considering its hierarchical information processing deployment model, the platform needs to orchestrate computational tasks according to the involved sensors and the available computation resources which may change over time. An efficient computation resource discovery and management protocol is required to facilitate this process. The trade-off between information transmission and processing is another challenge. 4. 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 a unified IoT platform in which the existing silo IoT systems, as well as new systems that are rapidly deployed. This will make their data and services accessible to general Internet applications (as in ETSI- M2M and oneM2M standards). In such a unified platform, resources can be accessed over Internet and shared across the physical boundaries of the enterprise. However, current approaches to achieve this objective are based upon Internet overlays, whose inherent inefficiencies due to IP protocol [8] hinders the platform from satisfying the IoT requirements outlined earlier (particularly in terms of scalability, security, mobility, and self-organization) 4.1. 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.) Zhang, et al. Expires September 29, 2017 [Page 14] Internet-Draft ICN based Architecture for IoT March 2017 protocols. Therefore they use the IoT gateway to the server. Through the IoT server, applications can subscribe to data collected by devices, or interact with 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 operating at the device-level abstraction, instead of information driven, leading to a highly fragmented protocol space with limited interoperability. 4.2. Application-Layer 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 this application-layer unified IoT architecture is the most practical approach towards a unified IoT platform. Towards this, there are ongoing standardization efforts including ETSI[3], oneM2M[4]. Network operators can use frameworks to build common IOT gateways and servers for their customers. In addition, IETF's CORE working group [5] is developing a set of protocols like CoAP (Constrained Application Protocol) [59], that is a lightweight protocol modeled after HTTP [60] and adapted specifically for the Internet of Things (IoT). CoAP adopts the Representational State Transfer (REST) architecture with Client-Server interactions. It uses UDP as the underlying transport protocol with reliability and multicast support. Both CoAP and HTTP are considered as the suitable application level protocols for Machine-to-Machine communications, as well as IoT. For example, oneM2M (which is one of leading standards for unified M2M platform) has both the protocol bindings to HTTP and CoAP for its primitives. Figure 2 shows the architecture adopted in this approach. Zhang, et al. Expires September 29, 2017 [Page 15] Internet-Draft ICN based Architecture for IoT March 2017 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 4.2.1. Weaknesses of the Application-Layer Approach The above application-layer approach can work with many different protocols, but the system is built upon today's IP network, which has inherent weaknesses towards supporting a unified IoT system. As a result, it cannot satisfy some of the requirements we outlined in Section 2: o Naming. In current application-layer IoT systems the naming scheme is host centric, i.e., the name of a given resource/service is linked to the device that can provide it. In turn, device names are coupled to IP addresses, which are not persistent in mobile scenarios. On the other side, in IoT systems the same service/ resource could be provided by many different devices thus requiring a different design rationale. o Security and Trust. In IP, the security and trust model is based on session established between two hosts. Session-based protocols rely on the exchange of several messages before a secure session is established. Use of such protocols in constrained IoT devices can have serious consequences in terms of energy efficiency because transmission and reception of messages is often more costly than the cryptographic operations. The problem is amplified with the number of nodes the constrained device has to interact with because a secure session would have to be established with every node. Also the trust management schemes Zhang, et al. Expires September 29, 2017 [Page 16] Internet-Draft ICN based Architecture for IoT March 2017 are still relatively weak, focusing on securing communication channels rather than managing the data that needs to be secured directly. o Mobility. The application-layer approach uses IP addresses as names at the network layer, which hinders the support for device/ service mobility or flexible name resolution. Further the Layer 2/3 management, and application-layer addressing and forwarding required to deploy current IoT solutions limit the scalability and management of these systems. o Resource constraints. The application-layer approach requires every device to send data to an aggregator, gateway or to the IoT server. Resource constraints of the IoT devices, especially in power and bandwidth, could seriously limit the performance of this approach. o Traffic Characteristics. In this approach, applications are written in a host-centric manner suitable for point-to-point communication. IoT requires multicast support that is challenging the application-layer based IoT systems today. o Contextual Communications. This application-layer based IoT approach may not react to dynamic contextual changes in a timely fashion. The main reason is that context lists are usually kept at the IoT server in this approach, and they cannot help efficiently route requests information at the network layer. o Storage and Caching. The application-layer approach supports application-centric storage and caching but not what ICN envisions at the network layer, or flexible storage enabled via name-based routing or name-based lookup. o Self-Organization. The application-layer approach is topology- based as it is bound to IP semantics, and thus does not sufficiently satisfy the self-organization requirement. In addition to topological self-organization, IoT also requires data- and service-level self-organization [74], which is not supported by this approach. 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 of communication. Zhang, et al. Expires September 29, 2017 [Page 17] Internet-Draft ICN based Architecture for IoT March 2017 4.2.2. Suitability of Delay Tolerant Networking(DTN) In [17][18], delay-tolerant networking (DTN) has been considered to support future IoT architecture. DTN was created to support information delivery in the presence of network disruptions and disconnections, which has been extended to support heterogeneous networks and name-based routing. The DTN Bundle Protocol is able to achieve some of these same advantages and could be beneficially used in an IoT network to, for example, decouple sender and receiver. The DTN architecture is however still host centric and is mainly a way to transport data, while ICN provides a different paradigm centered around named data that addresses additional issues for IoT applications [19] through features such as information naming, information discovery, information request and dissemination. Hence, in the rest of this draft, we focus on an ICN-based network-layer unified IoT architecture for IoT, i.e., ICN-IoT. 5. Advantages of using ICN for IoT A key concept of ICN is the ability to name data independently from the current location at which it is stored, which simplifies caching and enables decoupling of sender and receiver. Using ICN to design an architecture for IoT data potentially provides many such advantages compared to using traditional host-centric networks and other new architectures. This section highlights general benefits that ICN could provide to IoT networks. o Naming of Devices, Data and Services. The heterogeneity of both network equipment deployed and services offered by IoT networks leads to a large variety of data, services and devices. While using a traditional host-centric architecture, only devices or their network interfaces are named at the network level, leaving to the application layer the task to name data and services. In many common applications of IoT networks, data and services are the main goal, and specific communication between two devices is secondary. The network distributes content and provides a service, instead of establishing a communication link between two devices. In this context, data content and services can be provided by several devices, or group of devices, hence naming data and services is often more important than naming the devices. This naming mechanism also enables self-configuration of the IoT system. o Security and privacy. ICN advocates the model of trust in content rather than trust in network hosts. This brings in the concept of Object Security which is based on the idea of securing information objects unlike session-based security mechanisms which secure the communication channel between a pair of nodes. ICN provides data Zhang, et al. Expires September 29, 2017 [Page 18] Internet-Draft ICN based Architecture for IoT March 2017 integrity through Name-Data Integrity, i.e., the guarantee that the given data corresponds to the name with which it was addressed. Signature-based schemes can additionally provide data authenticity, meaning establishing the origin, or provenance, of the data, for example, by cryptographically linking a data object to the identity of a publisher. Confidentiality can be handled on a per object basis based on keys established at the application level. In an ICN network, an IoT client expects the network to deliver the requested content without concerning itself with the location of the content. This could potentially mean that each individual object within a stream of immutable objects is retrieved from a different location. Having a trust relationship with each of these different sources is not realistic. Through Name-Data Integrity, ICN automatically guarantees data integrity to the requester regardless of the source from where it is delivered. The Object Security model also ensures that the content is readily available in a secure state in the network. IoT devices producing data can secure it with regard to all the intended consumers and start transmitting it right away. If the device constraints are severe enough that it is not able to perform the required cryptographic operations for Object Security, it may be possible to offload this operation to a trusted gateway to which only a single secure channel needs to be established. ICN can also derive a name from a public key; cryptographic hash of a public key also enables them to be self-certifying, i.e., authenticating the resource object does not require an external authority [21][22]. o Distributed Caching and Processing. While caching mechanisms are already used by other types of overlay networks, IoT networks can potentially benefit even more from caching and in-network processing systems, because of their resource constraints. Wireless bandwidth and power supply can be limited for multiple devices sharing a communication channel, and for small mobile devices powered by batteries. In this case, avoiding unnecessary transmissions with IoT devices to retrieve and distribute IoT data to multiple places is important, hence processing and storing such content in the network can save wireless bandwidth and battery power. Moreover, as for other types of networks, applications for IoT networks requiring shorter delays can benefit from local caches and services to reduce delays between content request and delivery. o Decoupling between Sender and Receiver. IoT devices may be mobile and face intermittent network connectivity. When specific data is requested, such data can often be delivered by ICN without any consistent direct connectivity between devices. Apart from using Zhang, et al. Expires September 29, 2017 [Page 19] Internet-Draft ICN based Architecture for IoT March 2017 structured caching systems as described previously, information can also be spread by forwarding data opportunistically. 6. ICN Design Considerations for IoT This section outlines some of the ICN specific design considerations and challenges that must be considered when defining an IoT framework over ICN, and describes some of the trade offs that will be involved. Though ICN integrates content/service/host abstraction, name-based routing, compute, caching/storage as part of the network infrastructure, IoT requires special considerations given heterogeneity of devices and interfaces such as for constrained networking [48][90][91], data processing, and content distribution models to meet specific application requirements which we identify as challenges in this section. 6.1. Naming Devices, Data, and Services The ICN approach of named data and services (i.e., device independent naming) is typically desirable when retrieving IoT data. However, data centric naming may also pose challenges. o Naming of devices: Naming devices is often important in an IoT network. The presence of actuators requires clients to act specifically on a device, e.g. to switch it on or off. Also, managing and monitoring the devices for administration purposes requires devices to have a specific name allowing to identify them uniquely. There are multiple ways to achieve device naming, even in systems that are data centric by nature. For example, in systems that are addressable or searchable based on metadata or sensor content, the device or service identifier can be included as a special kind of metadata or sensor reading. o Size of data/service name: In information centric applications, the size of the data is typically larger than its name. For the IoT, sensors and actuators are very common, and they can generate or use data as small as a short integer containing a temperature value, or a one-byte instruction to switch off an actuator. The name of the content for each of these pieces of data has to uniquely identify the content. For this reason, many existing naming schemes have long names that are likely to be longer than the actual data content for many types of IoT applications. Furthermore, naming schemes that have self certifying properties (e.g., by creating the name based on a hash of the content), suffer from the problem that the object can only be requested when the object has been created and the content is already known, thus requiring some form of indexing service. While this is an Zhang, et al. Expires September 29, 2017 [Page 20] Internet-Draft ICN based Architecture for IoT March 2017 acceptable overhead for larger data objects, it is infeasible for use when the object size is on the order of a few bytes. o Hash-based content name: Hash algorithms are commonly used to name content in order to verify that the content is the one requested. This is only possible in contexts where the requested object is already existing, and where there is a directory service to look up names. This approach is suitable for systems with large data objects where it is important to verify the content. o Metadata-based content name: Relying on metadata allows to generate a name for an object before it is created. However this mechanism requires metadata matching semantics. o Naming of services: Similarly to naming of devices or data, services can be referred to with a unique identifier, provided by a specific device or by someone assigned by a central authority as the service provider. It can however also be a service provided by anyone meeting some certain metadata conditions. Example of services include content retrieval, that takes a content name/ description as input and returns the value of that content, and actuation, that takes an actuation command as input and possibly returns a status code afterwards. o Trust: We need to ensure the name of a network element is issued by a trustworthy issuer in the context of the application, such as a trusted organization in [44]. Further the validity of each piece of data published by an authorized entity in the namespace should be verifiable - e.g., by following a hierarchical chain-of- trust to a root that is acceptable for the application, as in [65]. o Flexibility: Further challenges arise for hierarchical naming schema: referring to requirements on "constructible names" and "on-demand publishing" [31][32]. The former entails that each user is able to construct the name of a desired data item through specific algorithms and that it is possible to retrieve information also using partially specified names. The latter refers the possibility to request a content that has not yet been published in the past, thus triggering its creation. o Control/scoping : Some information could be accessible only within a given scope. This challenge is very relevant for smart home and health monitoring applications, where privacy issues play a key role and the local scope of a home or healthcare environment may be well-defined. However, perimeter- and channel-based access control is often violated in current networks to enable over-the- Zhang, et al. Expires September 29, 2017 [Page 21] Internet-Draft ICN based Architecture for IoT March 2017 wire updates and cloud-based services, so scoping is unlikely to replace a need for data-centric security in ICN. o Confidentiality: As names can reveal information about the nature of the communication, mechanisms for name confidentiality should be available in the ICN-IoT architecture. 6.2. Name Resolution Inter-connecting numerous IoT entities, as well as establishing reachability to them, requires a scalable name resolution system considering several dynamic factors like mobility of end points, service replication, in-network caching, failure or migration [46] [50] [51] [69]. The objective is to achieve scalable name resolution handling static and dynamic ICN entities with low complexity and control overhead. In particular, the main requirements/challenges of a name space (and the corresponding Name Resolution System where necessary) are [40] [42]: o Scalability: The first challenge faced by ICN-IoT name resolution system is its scalability. Firstly, the approach has to support billions of objects and devices that are connected to the Internet, many of which are crossing administrative domain boundaries. Second of all, in addition to objects/devices, the name resolution system is also responsible for mapping IoT services to their network addresses. Many of these services are based upon contexts, hence dynamically changing, as pointed out in [46]. As a result, the name resolution should be able to scale gracefully to cover a large number of names/services with wide variations (e.g., hierarchical names, flat names, names with limited scope, etc.). Notice that, if hierarchical names are used, scalability can be also supported by leveraging the inherent aggregation capabilities of the hierarchy. Advanced techniques such as hyperbolic routing [64] may offer further scalability and efficiency. o Deployability and interoperability: Graceful deployability and interoperability with existing platforms is a must to ensure a naming schema to gain success on the market [7]. As a matter of fact, besides the need to ensure coexistence between IP-centric and ICN-IoT systems, it is required to make different ICN-IoT realms, each one based on a different ICN architecture, to interoperate. o Latency: For real-time or delay sensitive M2M application, the name resolution should not affect the overall QoS. With reference to this issue it becomes important to circumvent too centralized resolution schema (whatever the naming style, i.e, hierarchical or Zhang, et al. Expires September 29, 2017 [Page 22] Internet-Draft ICN based Architecture for IoT March 2017 flat) by enforcing in-network cooperation among the different entities of the ICN-IoT system, when possible [73]. In addition, fast name lookup are necessary to ensure soft/hard real time services [78][79][80]. This challenge is especially important for applications with stringent latency requirements, such as health monitoring, emergency handling and smart transportation [81]. o Locality and network efficiency: During name resolution the named entities closer to the consumer should be easily accessible (subject to the application requirements). This requirement is true in general because, whatever the network, if the edges are able to satisfy the requests of their consumers, the load of the core and content seek time decrease, and the overall system scalability is improved. This facet gains further relevance in those domains where an actuation on the environment has to be executed, based on the feedbacks of the ICN-IoT system, such as in robotics applications, smart grids, and industrial plants [74]. o Agility: Some data items could disappear while some other ones are created so that the name resolution system should be able to effectively take care of these dynamic conditions. In particular, this challenge applies to very dynamic scenarios (e.g., VANETs) in which data items can be tightly coupled to nodes that can appear and disappear very frequently. 6.3. Security and Privacy Security and privacy is crucial to all the IoT applications applications including the use cases discussed in Section 5. In one recent demonstration,it was shown that passive tire pressure sensors in cars could be hacked and used as a gateway into the automotive system [55]. The ICN paradigm is information-centric as opposed to state-of-the-art host-centric internet. Besides aspects like naming, content retrieval and caching this also has security implications. ICN advocates the model of trust in content rather than trust in network hosts. This brings in the concept of Object Security which is contrary to session-based security mechanisms such as TLS/DTLS prevalent in the current host-centric internet. Object Security is based on the idea of securing information objects unlike session- based security mechanisms which secure the communication channel between a pair of nodes. This reinforces an inherent characteristic of ICN networks i.e. to decouple senders and receivers. In the context of IoT, the Object Security model has several concrete advantages. Many IoT applications have data and services are the main goal and specific communication between two devices is secondary. Therefore, it makes more sense to secure IoT objects instead of securing the session between communicating endpoints. Though ICN includes data-centric security features the mechanisms Zhang, et al. Expires September 29, 2017 [Page 23] Internet-Draft ICN based Architecture for IoT March 2017 have to be generic enough to satisfy multiplicity of policy requirements for different applications. Furthermore security and privacy concerns have to be dealt in a scenario-specific manner with respect to network function perspective spanning naming, name- resolution, routing, caching, and ICN-APIs. The work by the JOSE WG [61] provides solution approaches to address some of these concerns for object security for constrained devices and should be considered to see what can be applied to an ICN architecture. In general, we feel that security and privacy protection in IoT systems should mainly focus on the following aspects: confidentiality, integrity, authentication and non-repudiation, and availability. Implementing security and privacy methods faces different challenges in the constrained and infrastructure part of the network. o In the resource-constrained nodes, energy limitation is the biggest challenge. Moreover, it has to deliver its data over a wireless link for a reasonable period of time on a coin cell battery. As a result, traditional security/privacy measures are impossible to be implemented in the constrained part. In this case, one possible solution might be utilizing the physical wireless signals as security measures [56] [45]. o In the infrastructure part, we have several new threats introduced by ICN-IoT [63]. Below we list several possible attacks to a name resolution service that is critical to ICN-IoT: 1. Each IoT device is given an ICN name. The name spoofing attack is a masquerading threat, where a malicious user A claims another user B's name and attempts to associate it with A's own network address NA-A, by announcing the mapping (ID-B, NA-A). The consequence of this attack is a denial of service as it can cause traffic directed for B to be directed to A's network address. 2. The stale mapping attack is a message manipulation attack involving a malicious name resolution server. In this attack, if a device moves and issues an update, the malicious name resolution server can purposely ignore the update and claim it still has the most recent mapping. Perhaps worse, a name resolution server can selectively choose which (possibly stale) mapping to give out during queries. The result is a denial of service. 3. The third potential attack, false announcement attack, is an information modification attack that results in illegitimate resource consumption. User A, which is in network NA1, claims its ID-A binds to a different network address, (ID-A, NA2). Zhang, et al. Expires September 29, 2017 [Page 24] Internet-Draft ICN based Architecture for IoT March 2017 Thus A can direct its traffic to network NA2, which causes NA2's network resources to be consumed. 4. The collusion attack is an example of an information modification attack in which a malicious user, its network and the location where the mapping is stored collude with each other. The objective behind the malicious collusion is to allow for a fake mapping involving a false network address to pass the verification and become stored in the storage place. 5. An intruder may insert fake/false sensor data into the network. The consequence might be an increase in delay and performance degradation for network services and applications. o As far as the IoT application server is concerned, data privacy is one of the biggest concerns. IoT data is collected and stored on such servers, which usually run learning algorithms to extract patterns from such data. In this case, it is important to adopt a framework that enables privacy-preserving learning techniques. The framework defines how data is collected, modified (to satisfy the privacy requirement), and transmitted to application developers. 6.4. Caching/Storage In-network caching helps bring data closer to consumers, but its usage differs in constrained and infrastructure part of the IoT network. Caching in ICN-IoT faces several challenges: o The main challenge is to determine which nodes on the routing path should cache the data. According to [42], caching the data on a subset of nodes can achieve a better gain than caching on every en-route routers. In particular, the authors propose a "selective caching" scheme to locate those routers with better hit probabilities to cache data. According to [43], selecting a random router to cache data is as good as caching the content everywhere. In [66], the authors suggest that edge caching provides most of the benefits of in-network caching typically discussed in NDN, with simpler deployment. However, it and other papers consider workloads that are analogous to today's CDNs, not the IoT applications considered here. Further work is likely required to understand the appropriate caching approach for IoT applications. o Another challenge in ICN-IoT caching is what to cache for IoT applications. In many IoT applications, customers often access a Zhang, et al. Expires September 29, 2017 [Page 25] Internet-Draft ICN based Architecture for IoT March 2017 stream of sensor data, and as a result, caching a particular sensor data item may not be beneficial. In [45], the authors suggest to cache IoT services on intermediate routers, and in [46], the authors suggest to cache control information such as pub/sub lists on intermediate nodes. In addition, it is yet unclear what caching means in the context of actuation in an IoT system. For example, it could mean caching the result of a previous actuation request (using other ICN mechanisms to suppress repeated actuation requests within a given time period), or have little meaning at all if actuation uses authenticated requests as in [67]. o Another challenge is that the efficiency of distributed caching may be application dependent. When content popularity is heterogeneous, some content is often requested repeatedly. In that case, the network can benefit from caching. Another case where caching would be beneficial is when devices with low duty cycle are present in the network and when access to the cloud infrastructure is limited. In [68], it is also shown that there are benefits to caching in the network when edge links are lossy, in particular if losses occur close to the content producer, as is common in wireless IoT networks. However, using distributed caching mechanisms in the network is not useful when each object is only requested at most once, as a cache hit can only occur for the second request and later. It may also be less beneficial to have caches distributed throughout ICN nodes in cases when there are overlays of distributed repositories, e.g., a cloud or a Content Distribution Network (CDN), from which all clients can retrieve the data. Using ICN to retrieve data from such services may add some efficiency, but in case of dense occurrence of overlay CDN servers the additional benefit of caching in ICN nodes would be lower. Another example is when the name refers to an object with variable content/state. For example, when the last value for a sensor reading is requested or desired, the returned data should change every time the sensor reading is updated. In that case, ICN caching may increase the risk that cache inconsistencies result in old data being returned. 6.5. Routing and Forwarding Routing in ICN-IoT differs from routing in traditional IP networks in that ICN routing is based upon names instead of locators. Broadly speaking, ICN routing can be categorized into the following two categories: direct name-based routing and indirect routing using a name resolution service (NRS). o In direct name-based routing, packets are forwarded by the name of the data [69][48][52] or the name of the destination node [53]. Zhang, et al. Expires September 29, 2017 [Page 26] Internet-Draft ICN based Architecture for IoT March 2017 Here, the main challenge is to keep the ICN router state required to route/forward data low. This challenge becomes more serious when a flat naming scheme is used due to the lack of aggregation capabilities. o In indirect routing, packets are forwarded based upon the locater of the destination node, and the locater is obtained through the name resolution service. In particular, the name-locater binding can be done either before routing (i.e., static binding) or during routing (i.e., dynamic binding). For static binding, the router state is the same as that in traditional routers, and the main challenge is the need to have fast name resolution, especially when the IoT nodes are mobile. For dynamic binding, ICN routers need to main a name-based routing table, hence the challenge of keeping the state information low. At the same time, the need of fast name resolution is also critical. 6.6. Mobility Management Related to this, the challenge is to quantify the cost associated with mobility management, especially static binding vs. dynamic binding. During a network transaction, either the data producer or the consumer may move away and thus we need to handle the mobility to avoid information loss. ICN may differentiate mobility of a data consumer from that of a producer: o When a consumer moves to a new location after sending out the request for Data, the Data may get lost, which requires the consumer to simply resend the request, a technique used by direct routing approach. Indirect routing approach doesn't differentiate between consumer and producer mobility [69], also network caching can improve data recovery for this approach. o If the data producer itself has moved, the challenge is to control the control overhead while searching for a new data producer (or for the same data producer in its new position) [47]. To this end, flooding techniques could be used, but an intra-domain level only, otherwise the network stability would be seriously impaired. 6.7. Contextual Communication Contextualization through metadata in ICN control or application payload allows IoT applications to adapt to different environments. This enables intelligent networks which are self-configurable and enable intelligent networking among consumers and producers [45]. For example, let us look at the following smart transportation Zhang, et al. Expires September 29, 2017 [Page 27] Internet-Draft ICN based Architecture for IoT March 2017 scenario: "James walks on NYC streets and wants to find an empty cab closest to his location." In this example, the context is the relative locations of James and taxi drivers. A context service, as an IoT middleware, processes the contextual information and bridges the gap between raw sensor information and application requirements. Alternatively, naming conventions could be used to allow applications to request content in namespaces related to their local context without requiring a specific service, such as /local/geo/ mgrs/4QFJ/123/678 to retrieve objects published in the 100m grid area 4QFJ 123 678 of the military grid reference system (MGRS). In both cases, trust providers may emerge that can vouch for an application's local knowledge. However, extracting contextual information on a real-time basis is very challenging: o We need to have a fast context resolution service through which the involved IoT devices can continuously update its contextual information to the application (e.g., each taxi's location and Jame's information in the above example). Or, in the namespace driven approach, mechanisms for continuous nearest neighbor queries in the namespace need to be developed. o The difficulty of this challenge grows rapidly when the number of devices involved in a context as well as the number of contexts increases. 6.8. In-network Computing In-network computing enables ICN routers to host heterogeneous services catering to various network functions and applications needs. Contextual services for IoT networks require in-network computing, in which each sensor node or ICN router implements context reasoning [45]. Another major purpose of in-network computing is to filter and cleanse sensed data in IoT applications, that is critical as the data is noisy as is [54]. Named Function Networking [84] describes an extension of the ICN concept to named functions processed in the network, which could be used to generate data flow processing applications well-suited to, for example, time series data processing in IoT sensing applications. Related to this, is the need to support efficient function naming. Functions, input parameters, and the output result could be encapsulated in the packet header, the packet body, or mixture of the two (e.g. [27]). If functions are encapsulated in packet headers, the naming scheme affects how a computation task is routed in the network, which IoT devices are involved in the computation task (e.g. Zhang, et al. Expires September 29, 2017 [Page 28] Internet-Draft ICN based Architecture for IoT March 2017 [44]), and how a name is decomposed into smaller computation tasks and deployed in the network for a better performance. Another is challenge is related to support computing-aware routing. Normal routing is for forwarding requests to the nearest source or cache and return the data to the requester, whereas the routing for in-network computation has a different purpose. If the computation task is for aggregating sensed data, the routing strategy is to route the data to achieve a better aggregation performance [41]. In-network computing also includes synchronization challenges. Some computation tasks may need synchronizations between sub-tasks or IoT devices, e.g. a device may not send data as soon as it is available because waiting for data from the neighbours may lead to a better aggregation result; some devices may choose to sleep to save energy while waiting for the results from the neighbours; while aggregating the computation results along the path, the intermediate IoT devices may need to choose the results generated within a certain time window. 6.9. Self-Orgnization General IoT deployments involves heterogeneous IoT systems or subsystems within a particular scenario. Here scope-based self- organization is required to ensure logical isolation between the IoT subsystems, which should be enabled at different levels -- device/ service discovery, naming, topology construction, routing over logical ICN topologies, and caching [89]. These challenges are extended to constrained devices as well and they should be energy and device capability aware. In the infrastructure part, intelligent name-based routing, caching, in-network computing techniques should be studied to meet the scope-based self-configuration needs of ICN- IoT. 6.10. Communications Reliability ICN offers many ingredients for reliable communication such as multi- home interest anycast over heterogeneous interfaces, caching, and forwarding intelligence for multi-path routing leveraging state- based forwarding in protocols like CCN/NDN. However these features have not been analyzed from the QoS perspective when heterogeneous traffic patterns are mixed in a router, in general QoS for ICN is an open area of research [91]. In-network reliability comes at the cost of a complex network layer; hence the research challenges here is to build redundancy and reliability in the network layer to handle a wide range of disruption scenarios such as congestion, short or long term disconnection, or last mile wireless impairments. Also an ICN network should allow features such as opportunistic store and forward Zhang, et al. Expires September 29, 2017 [Page 29] Internet-Draft ICN based Architecture for IoT March 2017 mechanism to be enabled only at certain points in the network, as these mechanisms also entail overheads in the control and forwarding plane overhead which will adversely affect application throughput. 6.11. Resource Constraints and Heterogeneity Even though today's IoT devices are becoming increasingly more powerful, their resource constraints remain a big issue. Many of the embedded devices still have very limited computation, memory, and communication capability. Moreover, embedded devices vary greatly in their capability. As a result, an IoT architecture should take into consideration these factors. Having globally unique IDs is a key feature in ICN, which may consist of tens of bytes. Each device would have a persistent and unique ID no matter when and where it moves. It is also important for ICN-IoT to keep this feature. However, always carrying the long ID in the packet header may not be always feasible over a low-rate layer-2 protocol such as 802.15.4. To solve this issue, ICN can operate using lighter-weight packet header and a much shorter locally unique ID (LUID in short). In this way, we map a device's long global ID to its short LUID when we reach the local area IoT domain. To cope with collisions that may occur in this mapping process, we let each domain have its own global ID to LUID mapping which is managed by a gateway deployed at the edge of the domain. Different from NAT and other existing domain-based or gateway-based solutions, ICN-IoT does not change the identity the application uses. The applications, either on constrained IoT devices or on the infrastructure nodes, still use the long global IDs to identify each other, while the network performs translation which is transparent to these applications. An IoT node carries its global ID no matter where it moves, even when it is relocated to another local IoT domain and is assigned with a new LUID. This ensures the global reach-ability and mobility handling yet still considers resource constraints of embedded devices. In addition, the optimizations for other components of the ICN-IoT system (described in earlier subsections) can lead to optimized energy efficiency. As a result, we refer the readers to read sections 6.1-6.9 for challenges associated with energy efficiency for ICN-IoT. 7. Informative References [1] Cisco System Inc., CISCO., "Cisco visual networking index: Global mobile data traffic forecast update.", 2009-2014. Zhang, et al. Expires September 29, 2017 [Page 30] Internet-Draft ICN based Architecture for IoT March 2017 [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 Institute, ETSI., "http://www.etsi.org/.", 1988. [4] Global Intiative for M2M Standardization, oneM2M., "http://www.onem2m.org/.", 2012. [5] Constrained RESTful Environments, CoRE., "https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/core/charter/.", 2013. [6] 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. [7] 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. [8] NSF FIA project, MobilityFirst., "http://www.nets-fia.net/", 2010. [9] 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.", Journal of Systems and Software, Elsevier, 2011. [10] Dietrich, D., Bruckne, D., Zucker, G., and P. Palensky, "Communication and Computation in Buildings: A Short Introduction and Overview", IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, 2010. [11] Keith, K., Falco, F., and K. Scarfone, "Guide to Industrial Control Systems (ICS) Security", NIST, Technical Report 800-82 Revision 1, 2013. [12] Darianian, M. and Martin. Michael, "Smart home mobile RFID-based Internet-of-Things systems and services.", IEEE, ICACTE, 2008. [13] Zhu, Q., Wang, R., Chen, Q., Chen, Y., and W. Qin, "IOT Gateway: Bridging Wireless Sensor Networks into Internet of Things", IEEE/IFIP, EUC, 2010. Zhang, et al. Expires September 29, 2017 [Page 31] Internet-Draft ICN based Architecture for IoT March 2017 [14] Biswas, T., Chakrabort, A., Ravindran, R., Zhang, X., and G. Wang, "Contextualized information-centric home network", ACM, Sigcomm, 2013. [15] Huang, R., Zhang, J., Hu, Y., and J. Yang, "Smart Campus: The Developing Trends of Digital Campus", 2012. [16] Yan, Y., Qian, Y., Hu, Y., and J. Yang, "A Survey on Smart Grid Communication Infrastructures: Motivations, Requirements and Challenges", IEEE Communications Survey and Tutorials, 2013. [17] Mael, A., Maheo, Y., and F. Raimbault, "CoAP over BP for a delay-tolerant internet of things", Future Internet of Things and Cloud (FiCloud), IEEE, 2015. [18] Patrice, R. and H. Rivano, "Tests Scenario on DTN for IOT III Urbanet collaboration", Dissertation, INRIA, 2015. [19] Kevin, F., "Comparing Information-Centric and Delay- Tolerant Networking", Local Computer Networks (LCN), 2012 IEEE 37th Conference on. IEEE, 2012.. [20] Miao, Y. and Y. Bu, "Research on the Architecture and Key Technology of Internet of Things (loT) Applied on Smart Grid", IEEE, ICAEE, 2010. [21] Castro, M. and A. Jara, "An analysis of M2M platforms: challenges and opportunities for the Internet of Things", IMIS, 2012. [22] Gubbi, J., Buyya, R., and S. Marusic, "Internet of Things (IoT): A vision, architectural elements, and future directions", Future Generation Computer Systems, 2013. [23] Vandikas, K. and V. Tsiatsis, "Performance Evaluation of an IoT Platform. In Next Generation Mobile Apps, Services and Technologies(NGMAST)", Next Generation Mobile Apps, Services and Technologies (NGMAST), 2014. [24] Zhang, Y., Yu, R., Nekovee, M., Liu, Y., Xie, S., and S. Gjessing, "Cognitive Machine-to-Machine Communications: Visions and Potentials for the Smart Grid", IEEE, Network, 2012. [25] Zhou, H., Liu, B., and D. Wang, "Design and Research of Urban Intelligent Transportation System Based on the Internet of Things", Springer Link, 2012. Zhang, et al. Expires September 29, 2017 [Page 32] Internet-Draft ICN based Architecture for IoT March 2017 [26] Alessandrelli, D., Petracca, M., and P. Pagano, "T-Res: enabling reconfigurable in-network processing in IoT-based WSNs.", International Conference on Distributed Computing in Sensor Systems (DCOSS) , 2013. [27] Kovatsch, M., Mayer, S., and B. Ostermaier, "Moving application logic from the firmware to the Cloud: towards the thin server architecture for the internet of things.", in Proc. 6th Int. Conf. on Innovative Mobile and Internet Services in Ubiquitous Computing (IMIS) , 2012. [28] Zhang, M., Yu, T., and G. Zhai, "Smart Transport System Based on the Internet of Things", Applied Mechanics and Materials, 2012. [29] Zhang, A., Yu, R., Nekovee, M., and S. Xie, "The Internet of Things for Ambient Assisted Living", IEEE, ITNG, 2010. [30] Savola, R., Abie, H., and M. Sihvonen, "Towards metrics- driven adaptive security management in E-health IoT applications.", ACM, BodyNets, 2012. [31] Jacobson, V., Smetters, D., Plass, M., Stewart, P., Thornton, J., and R. Braynard, "VoCCN: Voice-over Content- Centric Networks", ACM, ReArch, 2009. [32] Piro, G., Cianci, I., Grieco, L., Boggia, G., and P. Camarda, "Information Centric Services in Smart Cities", ACM, Journal of Systems and Software, 2014. [33] Gaur, A., Scotney, B., Parr, G., and S. McClean, "Smart City Architecture and its Applications Based on IoT - Smart City Architecture and its Applications Based on IoT", Procedia Computer Science, Volume 52, 2015, Pages 1089-1094. [34] Herrera-Quintero, L., Banse, K., Vega-Alfonso, J., and A. Venegas-Sanchez, "Smart ITS sensor for the transportation planning using the IoT and Bigdata approaches to produce ITS cloud services", 8th Euro American Conference on Telematics and Information Systems (EATIS), Cartagena, 2016, pp. 1-7. [35] Melis, A., Pardini, M., Sartori, L., and F. Callegati, "Public Transportation, IoT, Trust and Urban Habits", Internet Science: Third International Conference, INSCI 2016, Florence, Italy, September 12-14, 2016, Proceedings. Zhang, et al. Expires September 29, 2017 [Page 33] Internet-Draft ICN based Architecture for IoT March 2017 [36] Mavromoustakis, C., Mastorakis, G., and J. Batalla, "Internet of Things (IoT) in 5G Mobile Technologies", ISBN,3319309137,Springer. [37] Masek, P., Masek, J., Frantik, P., and R. Fujdiak, "A Harmonized Perspective on Transportation Management in Smart Cities: The Novel IoT-Driven Environment for Road Traffic Modeling", Sensors, Volume 16, Issue 11, 2016. [38] Abreu, D., Velasquez, K., Curado, M., and E. Monteiro, "A resilient Internet of Things architecture for smart cities", Annals of Telecommunications, Volume 72, Issue 1, Pages 19-30, 2017. [39] Ravindran, R., Biswas, T., Zhang, X., Chakrabort, A., and G. Wang, "Information-centric Networking based Homenet", IEEE/IFIP, 2013. [40] Dannewitz, C., D' Ambrosio, M., and V. Vercellone, "Hierarchical DHT-based name resolution for information- centric networks", 2013. [41] Fasoloy, E., Rossiy, M., and M. Zorziy, "In-network Aggregation Techniques for Wireless Sensor Networks: A Survey", IEEE Wireless Communications, 2007. [42] Chai, W., He, D., and I. Psaras, "Cache "less for more" in information-centric networks", ACM, IFIP, 2012. [43] Eum, S., Nakauchi, K., Murata, M., Shoji, Yozo., and N. Nishinaga, "Catt: potential based routing with content caching for icn", IEEE Communication Magazine, 2012. [44] Drira, W. and F. Filali, "Catt: An NDN Query Mechanism for Efficient V2X Data Collection", Eleventh Annual IEEE International Conference on Sensing, Communication, and Networking Workshops (SECON Workshops), 2014. [45] Eum, S., Shvartzshnaider, Y., Francisco, J., Martini, R., and D. Raychaudhuri, "Enabling internet-of-things services in the mobilityfirst future internet architecture", IEEE, WoWMoM, 2012. [46] Sun, Y., Qiao, X., Cheng, B., and J. Chen, "A low-delay, lightweight publish/subscribe architecture for delay- sensitive IOT services", IEEE, ICWS, 2013. Zhang, et al. Expires September 29, 2017 [Page 34] Internet-Draft ICN based Architecture for IoT March 2017 [47] Azgin, A., Ravindran, R., and GQ. Wang, "Mobility study for Named Data Networking in wireless access networks", IEEE, ICC, 2014. [48] Baccelli, E., Mehlis, C., Hahm, O., Schmidt, T., and M. Wahlisch, "Information Centric Networking in the IoT:Experiments with NDN in the Wild", ACM, ICN Siggcomm, 2014. [49] Gronbaek, I., "Architecture for the Internet of Things (IoT): API and interconnect", IEEE, SENSORCOMM, 2008. [50] Tian, Y., Liu, Y., Yan, Z., Wu, S., and H. Li, "RNS-A Public Resource Name Service Platform for the Internet of Things", IEEE, GreenCom, 2012. [51] Roussos, G. and P. Chartier, "Scalable id/locator resolution for the iot", IEEE, iThings,CPSCom, 2011. [52] Amadeo, M. and C. Campolo, "Potential of information- centric wireless sensor and actuator networking", IEEE, ComManTel, 2013. [53] Nelson, S., Bhanage, G., and D. Raychaudhuri, "GSTAR: generalized storage-aware routing for mobilityfirst in the future mobile internet", ACM, MobiArch, 2011. [54] Trappe, W., Zhang, Y., and B. Nath, "MIAMI: methods and infrastructure for the assurance of measurement information", ACM, DMSN, 2005. [55] Rouf, I., Mustafa, H., Taylor, T., Oh, S., Xu, W., Gruteser, M., Trappe, W., and I. Seskar, "Security and privacy vulnerabilities of in-car wireless networks: A tire pressure monitoring system case study", USENIX, 2010. [56] Liu, R. and W. Trappe, "Securing Wireless Communications at the Physical Layer", Springer, 2010. [57] Xiao, L., Greenstein, L., Mandayam, N., and W. Trappe, "Using the physical layer for wireless authentication in time-variant channels", IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, 2008. [58] Sun, S., Lannom, L., and B. Boesch, "Handle system overview", IETF, RFC3650, 2003. Zhang, et al. Expires September 29, 2017 [Page 35] Internet-Draft ICN based Architecture for IoT March 2017 [59] Shelby, Z., Hartke, K., and C. Bormann, "The Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP)", RFC 7252, DOI 10.17487/RFC7252, June 2014, . [60] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing", RFC 7230, DOI 10.17487/RFC7230, June 2014, . [61] Barnes, R., "Use Cases and Requirements for JSON Object Signing and Encryption (JOSE)", RFC 7165, DOI 10.17487/RFC7165, April 2014, . [62] Sun, S., "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing", 2014. [63] Liu, X., Trappe, W., and Y. Zhang, "Secure Name Resolution for Identifier-to-Locator Mappings in the Global Internet", IEEE, ICCCN, 2013. [64] Boguna, M., Fragkiskos, P., and K. Dmitri, "Sustaining the internet with hyperbolic mapping", Nature Communications, 2010. [65] Shang, W., "Securing building management systems using named data networking", IEEE Network 2014. [66] Fayazbakhsh, S. and et. et al, "Less pain, most of the gain: Incrementally deployable icn", ACM, Siggcomm, 2013. [67] Burke, J. and et. et al, "Securing instrumented environments over Content-Centric Networking: the case of lighting control", INFOCOM, Computer Communications Workshop, 2013. [68] Rao, A., Schelen, O., and A. Lindgren, "Performance Implications for IoT over Information Centric Networks", Performance Implications for IoT over Information Centric Networks, ACM CHANTS 2016. [69] Li, S., Zhang, Y., Dipankar, R., and R. Ravindran, "A comparative study of MobilityFirst and NDN based ICN-IoT architectures", IEEE, QShine, 2014. Zhang, et al. Expires September 29, 2017 [Page 36] Internet-Draft ICN based Architecture for IoT March 2017 [70] Chen, J., Li, S., Yu, H., Zhang, Y., and R. Ravindran, "Exploiting icn for realizing service-oriented communication in iot", IEEE, Communication Magazine, 2016. [71] Quevedo, J., Corujo, D., and R. Aguiar, "A Case for ICN usage in IoT environments", Global Communications Conference GLOBECOM, IEEE, Dec 2014, Pages 2770-2775. [72] Lindgren, A., Ben Abdesslem, F., Ahlgren, B., and O. Schelen, "Design Choices for the IoT in Information- Centric Networks", IEEE Annual Consumer Communications and Networking Conference (CCNC) 2016. [73] Grieco, L., Alaya, M., and K. Drira, "Architecting Information Centric ETSI-M2M systems", IEEE, Pervasive and Computer Communications Workshop (PERCOM), 2014. [74] Grieco, L., Rizzo, A., Colucci, R., Sicari, S., Piro, G., Di Paola, D., and G. Boggia, "IoT-aided robotics applications: technological implications, target domains and open issues", Elsevier Computer Communications, Volume 54, 1 December, 2014. [75] InterDigital, WhitePaper., "Standardized M2M Software Development Platform", 2011. [76] Boswarthick, D., "M2M Communications: A Systems Approach", 2012. [77] Swetina, J., Lu, G., Jacobs, P., Ennesser, F., and J. Song, "Toward a standardized common M2M service layer platform: Introduction to oneM2M", IEEE Wireless Communications, Volume 21, Number 3, June 2014. [78] Quan, Wei., Xu, C., Guan, J., Zhang, H., and L. Grieco, "Scalable Name Lookup with Adaptive Prefix Bloom Filter for Named Data Networking", IEEE Communications Letters, 2014. [79] Wang, Yi., Pan, T., Mi, Z., Dai, H., Guo, X., Zhang, T., Liu, B., and Q. Dong, "NameFilter: Achieving fast name lookup with low memory cost via applying two-stage Bloom filters", INFOCOM, 2013. [80] So, W., Narayanan, A., Oran, D., and Y. Wang, "Toward fast NDN software forwarding lookup engine based on Hash tables", ACM, ANCS, 2012. Zhang, et al. Expires September 29, 2017 [Page 37] Internet-Draft ICN based Architecture for IoT March 2017 [81] Amadeo, M., Campolo, C., Iera, A., and A. Molinaro, "Named data networking for IoT: An architectural perspective", IEEE, EuCNC, 2014. [82] Amadeo, M., Campolo, C., Iera, A., and A. Molinaro, "Information centric networking in iot scenarios: The case of a smart home", IEEE ICC, June 2015. [83] Blefari Melazzi, N., Detti, A., Arumaithurai, M., and K. Ramakrishnan, "Internames: A name-to-name principle for the future internet", QShine, August 2014. [84] Sifalakis, M., Kohler, B., Christopher, C., and C. Tschudin, "An information centric network for computing the distribution of computations", ACM, ICN Sigcomm, 2014. [85] Lu, R., Lin, X., Zhu, H., and X. Shen, "SPARK: a new VANET-based smart parking scheme for large parking lots", INFOCOM, 2009. [86] Wang, H. and W. He, "A reservation-based smart parking system", The First International Workshop on Cyber- Physical Networking Systems, 2011. [87] Qian, L., "Constructing Smart Campus Based on the Cloud Computing and the Internet of Things", Computer Science 2011. [88] Project, BonVoyage., "European Unions - Horizon 2020, http://bonvoyage2020.eu/", 2016. [89] Li, S., Zhang, Y., Raychaudhuri, D., Ravindran, R., Zheng, Q., Wang, GQ., and L. Dong, "IoT Middleware over Information-Centric Network", Global Communications Conference (GLOBECOM) ICN Workshop, 2015. [90] Li, S., Chen, J., Yu, H., Zhang, Y., Raychaudhuri, D., Ravindran, R., Gao, H., Dong, L., Wang, GQ., and H. Liu, "MF-IoT: A MobilityFirst-Based Internet of Things Architecture with Global Reachability and Communication Diversity", IEEE International Conference on Internet-of- Things Design and Implementation (IoTDI), 2016. [91] Campolo, C., Corujo, D., Iera, A., and R. Aguiar, "Information-centric Networking for Internet-of-things: Challenges and Opportunities", IEEE Networks, Jan , 2015. Zhang, et al. Expires September 29, 2017 [Page 38] Internet-Draft ICN based Architecture for IoT March 2017 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 Prof. Luigi Alfredo Grieco Politecnico di Bari (DEI) Via Orabona 4 Bari 70125 Italy Email: alfredo.grieco@poliba.it Prof. Emmanuel Baccelli INRIA Room 148, Takustrasse 9 Berlin 14195 France Email: Emmanuel.Baccelli@inria.fr Jeff Burke UCLA REMAP 102 East Melnitz Hall Los Angeles, CA 90095 USA Email: jburke@ucla.edu Zhang, et al. Expires September 29, 2017 [Page 39] Internet-Draft ICN based Architecture for IoT March 2017 Ravishankar Ravindran Huawei Technologies 2330 Central Expressway Santa Clara, CA 95050 USA Email: ravi.ravindran@huawei.com Guoqiang Wang Huawei Technologies 2330 Central Expressway Santa Clara, CA 95050 USA Email: gq.wang@huawei.com Andres Lindgren RISE SICS Box 1263 Kista SE-164 29 SE Email: andersl@sics.se Bengt Ahlgren RISE SICS Box 1263 Kista, CA SE-164 29 SE Email: bengta@sics.se Olov Schelen Lulea University of Technology Lulea SE-971 87 SE Email: lov.schelen@ltu.se Zhang, et al. Expires September 29, 2017 [Page 40]