Experimental Scenarios of ICN Integration in 4G Mobile Networks
draft-irtf-icnrg-icn-lte-4g-09
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft that was ultimately published as RFC 9269.
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Prakash Suthar , Milan Stolic , Anil Jangam , Dirk Trossen | ||
| Last updated | 2021-02-22 | ||
| Replaces | draft-suthar-icnrg-icn-lte-4g | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) | ||
| Formats | |||
| IETF conflict review | conflict-review-irtf-icnrg-icn-lte-4g, conflict-review-irtf-icnrg-icn-lte-4g, conflict-review-irtf-icnrg-icn-lte-4g, conflict-review-irtf-icnrg-icn-lte-4g, conflict-review-irtf-icnrg-icn-lte-4g, conflict-review-irtf-icnrg-icn-lte-4g | ||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | IRTF state | Waiting for Document Shepherd | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Yes | ||
| Document shepherd | David R. Oran | ||
| Shepherd write-up | Show Last changed 2020-01-16 | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Became RFC 9269 (Informational) | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | David Oran <daveoran@orandom.net> |
draft-irtf-icnrg-icn-lte-4g-09
ICN Research Group Prakash Suthar
Internet-Draft Google Inc.
Intended status: Informational Milan Stolic
Expires: August 26, 2021 Anil Jangam, Ed.
Cisco Systems Inc.
Dirk Trossen
Huawei Technologies
February 22, 2021
Experimental Scenarios of ICN Integration in 4G Mobile Networks
draft-irtf-icnrg-icn-lte-4g-09
Abstract
4G mobile network uses IP-based transport for the control plane to
establish the data session at the user plane for the actual data
delivery. In the existing architecture, IP-based unicast is used for
the delivery of multimedia content to a mobile terminal, where each
user is receiving a separate stream from the server. From a
bandwidth and routing perspective, this approach is inefficient.
Evolved multimedia broadcast and multicast service (eMBMS) provides
capabilities for delivering contents to multiple users
simultaneously, but its deployment is very limited or at an
experimental stage due to numerous challenges. The focus of this
draft is to list the options for use of Information centric
technology (ICN) in 4G mobile networks and elaborate the experimental
setups for its further evaluation. The experimental setups discussed
provide for using ICN either natively or with existing mobility
protocol stack. With further investigations based on the listed
experiments, ICN with its inherent capabilities such as, network-
layer multicast, anchorless mobility, security, and optimized data
delivery using local caching at the edge may provide a viable
alternative to IP transport in 4G mobile networks.
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 https://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
Prakash Suthar, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft draft-irtf-icnrg-icn-lte-4g-09 February 2021
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 August 26, 2021.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2021 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
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. 3GPP Terminology and Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. 4G Mobile Network Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1. Network Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2. Mobile Network Quality of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.3. Data Transport Using IP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.4. Virtualized Mobile Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4. Data Transport Using ICN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5. Experimental Scenarios for ICN Deployment . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.1. General Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.2. Scenarios of ICN Integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.3. Integration of ICN in 4G Control Plane . . . . . . . . . 17
5.4. Integration of ICN in 4G User Plane . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.4.1. Dual Transport (IP/ICN) Mode in Mobile Terminal . . . 19
5.4.2. Using ICN in Mobile Terminal . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5.4.3. Using ICN in eNodeB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5.4.4. Using ICN in Packet Core (SGW, PGW) Gateways . . . . 26
6. ICN Deployment Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
6.1. An Experimental Test Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
6.2. Open Questions to be Addressed . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
7. Security and Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
7.1. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
7.2. Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
8. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
9. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
10. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Prakash Suthar, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft draft-irtf-icnrg-icn-lte-4g-09 February 2021
10.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
10.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
1. Introduction
4G mobile technology is built as an all-IP network using routing
protocols (OSPF, ISIS, BGP, etc.) to establish network routes.
Stickiness of an IP address to a device is the key to get connected
to a mobile network. The same IP address is maintained through the
session until the device gets detached or moves to another network.
Key protocols used in 4G networks are GPRS Tunneling protocol (GTP),
DIAMETER, and other protocols that are built on top of IP. One of
the biggest challenges with IP-based routing in 4G is that it is not
optimized for data transport. As an alternative to IP routing, this
draft presents and list the possible options for integration of
Information Centric Networking (ICN) in 3GPP 4G mobile network,
offering an opportunity to leverage inherent ICN capabilities such as
in-network caching, multicast, anchorless mobility management, and
authentication. This draft also discuss how those options affect
mobile providers and end users.
The goal of the proposed experiments is to present possibilities to
create simulated environments for evaluation of the benefits of ICN
protocol deployment in a 4G mobile network in different scenarios
that have been analyzed in this document. The consensus of the
Information-Centric Networking Research Group (ICNRG) is to publish
this document in order to facilitate experiments to show deployment
options and qualitative and quantitative benefits of ICN protocol
deployment in 4G mobile networks.
2. 3GPP Terminology and Concepts
1. Access Point Name
The Access Point Name (APN) is a Fully Qualified Domain Name
(FQDN) and resolves to a set of gateways in an operator's
network. APN identifies the packet data network (PDN) with
which a mobile data user wants to communicate. In addition to
identifying a PDN, an APN may also be used to define the type of
service, QoS, and other logical entities inside GGSN, PGW.
2. Control Plane
The control plane carries signaling traffic and is responsible
for routing between eNodeB and MME, MME and HSS, MME and SGW,
SGW and PGW, etc. Control plane signaling is required to
Prakash Suthar, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft draft-irtf-icnrg-icn-lte-4g-09 February 2021
authenticate and authorize the mobile terminal and establish a
mobility session with mobile gateways (SGW/PGW). Control plane
functions also include system configuration and management.
3. Dual Address PDN/PDP Type
The dual address Packet Data Network/Packet Data Protocol (PDN/
PDP) Type (IPv4v6) is used in 3GPP context, in many cases as a
synonym for dual stack; i.e., a connection type capable of
serving IPv4 and IPv6 simultaneously.
4. eNodeB
The eNodeB is a base station entity that supports the Long-Term
Evolution (LTE) air interface.
5. Evolved Packet Core
The Evolved Packet Core (EPC) is an evolution of the 3GPP GPRS
system characterized by a higher-data-rate, lower-latency,
packet-optimized system. The EPC comprises some sub components
of the EPS core such as Mobility Management Entity (MME),
Serving Gateway (SGW), Packet Data Network Gateway (PDN-GW), and
Home Subscriber Server (HSS).
6. Evolved Packet System
The Evolved Packet System (EPS) is an evolution of the 3GPP GPRS
system characterized by a higher-data-rate, lower-latency,
packet-optimized system that supports multiple Radio Access
Technologies (RATs). The EPS comprises the EPC together with
the Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (E-UTRA) and the
Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access Network (E-UTRAN).
7. Evolved UTRAN
The E-UTRAN is a communications network sometimes referred to as
4G, and consists of eNodeB (4G base stations). The E-UTRAN
allows connectivity between the User Equipment and the core
network.
8. GPRS Tunneling Protocol
The GPRS Tunneling Protocol (GTP) [TS29.060] [TS29.274]
[TS29.281] is a tunneling protocol defined by 3GPP. It is a
network-based mobility protocol, working similar to Proxy Mobile
IPv6 (PMIPv6). However, GTP also provides functionality beyond
Prakash Suthar, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft draft-irtf-icnrg-icn-lte-4g-09 February 2021
mobility, such as in-band signaling related to QoS and charging,
among others.
9. Gateway GPRS Support Node
The Gateway GPRS Support Node (GGSN) is a gateway function in
the GPRS and 3G network that provides connectivity to the
Internet or other PDNs. The host attaches to a GGSN identified
by an APN assigned to it by an operator. The GGSN also serves
as the topological anchor for addresses/prefixes assigned to the
User Equipment.
10. General Packet Radio Service
The General Packet Radio Service (GPRS) is a packet-oriented
mobile data service available to users of the 2G and 3G cellular
communication systems--the GSM--specified by 3GPP.
11. Home Subscriber Server
The Home Subscriber Server (HSS) is a database for a given
subscriber and was introduced in 3GPP Release-5. It is the
entity containing subscription-related information to support
the network entities that handle calls/sessions.
12. Mobility Management Entity
The Mobility Management Entity (MME) is a network element
responsible for control plane functionalities, including
authentication, authorization, bearer management, layer-2
mobility, and so on. The MME is essentially the control plane
part of the SGSN in the GPRS. The user plane traffic bypasses
the MME.
13. Public Land Mobile Network
The Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN) is a network operated by a
single administration. A PLMN (and, therefore, also an
operator) is identified by the Mobile Country Code (MCC) and the
Mobile Network Code (MNC). Each (telecommunications) operator
providing mobile services has its own PLMN.
14. Policy and Charging Control
The Policy and Charging Control (PCC) framework is used for QoS
policy and charging control. It has two main functions: flow-
based charging (including online credit control), and policy
control (for example, gating control, QoS control, and QoS
Prakash Suthar, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft draft-irtf-icnrg-icn-lte-4g-09 February 2021
signaling). It is optional to 3GPP EPS but needed if dynamic
policy and charging control by means of PCC rules based on user
and services are desired.
15. Packet Data Network
The Packet Data Network (PDN) is a packet-based network that
either belongs to the operator or is an external network such as
the Internet or a corporate intranet. The user eventually
accesses services in one or more PDNs. The operator's packet
core networks are separated from packet data networks either by
GGSNs or PDN Gateways (PGWs).
16. Serving Gateway
The Serving Gateway (SGW) is a gateway function in the EPS,
which terminates the interface towards the E-UTRAN. The SGW is
the Mobility Anchor point for layer-2 mobility (inter-eNodeB
handovers). For each mobile terminal connected with the EPS,
there is only one SGW at any given point in time. The SGW is
essentially the user plane part of the GPRS's SGSN.
17. Packet Data Network Gateway
The Packet Data Network Gateway (PGW) is a gateway function in
the Evolved Packet System (EPS), which provides connectivity to
the Internet or other PDNs. The host attaches to a PGW
identified by an APN assigned to it by an operator. The PGW
also serves as the topological anchor for addresses/prefixes
assigned to the User Equipment.
18. Packet Data Protocol Context
A Packet Data Protocol (PDP) context is the equivalent of a
virtual connection between the mobile terminal (MT) and a PDN
using a specific gateway.
19. Packet Data Protocol Type
A Packet Data Protocol Type (PDP Type) identifies the used/
allowed protocols within the PDP context. Examples are IPv4,
IPv6, and IPv4v6 (dual-stack).
20. Serving GPRS Support Node
The Serving GPRS Support Node (SGSN) is a network element
located between the radio access network (RAN) and the gateway
(GGSN). A per-MT point-to-point (p2p) tunnel between the GGSN
Prakash Suthar, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft draft-irtf-icnrg-icn-lte-4g-09 February 2021
and SGSN transports the packets between the mobile terminal and
the gateway.
21. Mobile Terminal/User Equipment
The terms User Equipment (UE), Mobile Station (MS), Mobile Node
(MN), and mobile refer to the devices that are hosts with the
ability to obtain Internet connectivity via a 3GPP network. An
MS comprises the Terminal Equipment (TE) and a Mobile Terminal
(MT). The terms MT, MS, MN, and mobile are used interchangeably
within this document.
22. User Plane
The user plane refers to data traffic and the required bearers
for the data traffic. In practice, IP is the only data traffic
protocol used in the user plane.
3. 4G Mobile Network Architecture
This section provide a high-level overview of typical 4G mobile
network architecture and their key functions related to a possibility
of using of ICN technology.
3.1. Network Overview
4G mobile networks are designed to use IP transport for communication
among different elements such as eNodeB, MME, SGW/PGW, HSS, PCRF, etc
[GRAYSON]. For backward compatibility with 3G, it has support for
legacy Circuit Switch features such as voice and SMS through
transitional CS fallback and flexible IMS deployment. For each
mobile device attached to the radio (eNodeB), there is a separate
overlay tunnel (GPRS Tunneling Protocol, GTP) between eNodeB and
Mobile gateways (i.e., SGW, PGW).
When any mobile terminal is powered up, it attaches to a mobile
network based on its configuration and subscription. After a
successful attachment procedure, the mobile terminal registers with
the mobile core network using IPv4 and/or IPv6 address based on
request and capabilities offered by mobile gateways.
The GTP tunnel is used to carry user traffic between gateways and
mobile terminal, therefore using the unicast delivery for any data
transfer. It is also important to understand the overhead of GTP and
IPSec protocols. All mobile backhaul traffic is encapsulated using a
GTP tunnel, which has overhead of 8 bytes on top of IP and UDP
[NGMN]. Additionally, if IPSec is used for security (which is often
required if the Service Provider is using a shared backhaul), it adds
Prakash Suthar, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft draft-irtf-icnrg-icn-lte-4g-09 February 2021
overhead based on the IPSec tunneling model (tunnel or transport) as
well as the encryption and authentication header algorithm used. If
we consider as an example an Advanced Encryption Standard (AES)
encryption, the overhead can be significant [OLTEANU], particularly
for smaller payloads.
+-------+ Diameter +-------+
| HSS |------------| SPR |
+-------+ +-------+
| |
+------+ +------+ S4 | +-------+
| 3G |---| SGSN |----------------|------+ +------| PCRF |
^ |NodeB | | |---------+ +---+ | | +-------+
+-+ | +------+ +------+ S3 | | S6a | |Gxc |
| | | +-------+ | | |Gx
+-+ | +------------------| MME |------+ | | |
MT v | S1MME +-------+ S11 | | | |
+----+-+ +-------+ +-------+
|4G/LTE|------------------------------| SGW |-----| PGW |
|eNodeB| S1U +-------+ +--| |
+------+ | +-------+
+---------------------+ | |
S1U GTP Tunnel traffic | +-------+ | |
S2a GRE Tunnel traffic |S2A | ePDG |-------+ |
S2b GRE Tunnel traffic | +-------+ S2B |SGi
SGi IP traffic | | |
+---------+ +---------+ +-----+
| Trusted | |Untrusted| | CDN |
|non-3GPP | |non-3GPP | +-----+
+---------+ +---------+
| |
+-+ +-+
| | | |
+-+ +-+
MT MT
Figure 1: 4G Mobile Network Overview
If we consider the combined impact of GTP, IPSec and unicast traffic,
the data delivery is not efficient because of overhead. The IETF has
developed various header compression algorithms to reduce the
overhead associated with IP packets. Some techniques are robust
header compression (ROHC) and enhanced compression of the real-time
transport protocol (ECRTP) so that the impact of overhead created by
GTP, IPsec, etc., is reduced to some extent [BROWER]. For commercial
mobile networks, 3GPP has adopted different mechanisms for header
compression to achieve efficiency in data delivery [TS25.323]; those
Prakash Suthar, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft draft-irtf-icnrg-icn-lte-4g-09 February 2021
solutions can be adapted to other data protocols, such as ICN, too
[ICNLOWPAN] [TLVCOMP].
3.2. Mobile Network Quality of Service
During the mobile terminal attachment procedure, a default bearer is
created for each mobile terminal and it is assigned to the default
Access Point Name (APN), which provides the default transport. For
any QoS-aware application, one or more new dedicated bearers are
established between eNodeB and Mobile Gateway. Dedicated bearer can
be requested either by mobile terminal or mobile gateway based on
direction of first data flow. There are many bearers (logical paths)
established between eNodeB and mobile gateway for each mobile
terminal catering to different data flow simultaneously.
While all traffic within a certain bearer receives the same
treatment, QoS parameters supporting these requirements can be very
granular in different bearers. These values vary for the control,
management and user traffic, and can be very different depending on
application key parameters such as latency, jitter (important for
voice and other real-time applications), packet loss, and queuing
mechanism (strict priority, low-latency, fair, and so on).
Implementation of QoS for mobile networks is done at two stages: at
content prioritization/marking and transport marking, and congestion
management. From the transport perspective, QoS is defined at layer
2 as class of service (CoS) and at layer 3 as Differentiated Services
(DS). The mapping of DSCP to CoS takes place at layer 2/3 switching
and routing elements. 3GPP has a specified a QoS Class Identifier
(QCI), which represents different types of content and equivalent
mappings to the DSCP at transport layer [TS23.401]. However, this
requires manual configuration at different elements and is therefore
prone to possible misconfigurations.
In summary, QoS configuration in mobile networks for user plane
traffic requires synchronization of parameters among different
platforms. Normally, QoS in IP is implemented using DiffServ, which
uses hop-by-hop QoS configuration at each router. Any inconsistency
in IP QoS configuration at routers in the forwarding path can result
in a poor subscriber experience (e.g., packet classified as high
priority can go to a lower priority queue). By deploying ICN, we
intend to enhance the subscriber experience using policy-based
configuration, which can be associated with the named contents
[ICNQoS] at the ICN forwarder. Further investigation is underway to
understand how QoS in ICN [I-D.anilj-icnrg-dnc-qos-icn] can be
implemented with reference to the ICN QoS guidelines
[I-D.oran-icnrg-qosarch] to meet the QoS requirements [RFC4594].
Prakash Suthar, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft draft-irtf-icnrg-icn-lte-4g-09 February 2021
3.3. Data Transport Using IP
The data delivered to mobile devices is sent in unicast semantic
inside the GTP tunnel from an eNodeB to a PDN gateway (PGW), as
described in 3GPP specifications [TS23.401]. While the technology
exists to address the issue of possible multicast delivery, there are
many difficulties related to multicast protocol implementations on
the RAN side of the network. By using eMBMS [EMBMS], multicast
routing can be enabled in mobile backhaul between eNodeB and Mobile
Gateways (SGW) however for radio interface it requires broadcast
which implies that we need dedicated radio channel. Implementation
of eMBMS in RAN is still lagging behind due to complexities related
to client mobility, handovers, and the fact that the potential gain
to Service Providers may not justify the investment, which explains
the prevalence of unicast delivery in mobile networks. Techniques to
handle multicast (such as LTE-B or eMBMS) have been designed to
handle pre-planned content delivery, such as live content, which
contrasts user behavior today, largely based on content (or video) on
demand model.
To ease the burden on the bandwidth of the SGi interface, caching is
introduced in a similar manner as with many Enterprises. In mobile
networks, whenever possible, cached data is delivered. Caching
servers are placed at a centralized location, typically in the
Service Provider's Data Center, or in some cases lightly distributed
in Packet Core locations with the PGW nodes close to the Internet and
IP services access (SGi interface). This is a very inefficient
concept because traffic must traverse the entire backhaul path for
the data to be delivered to the end user. Other issues, such as out-
of-order delivery, contribute to this complexity and inefficiency,
which needs to be addressed at the application level.
3.4. Virtualized Mobile Networks
The Mobile gateways deployed in a major Service Provider network are
either based on dedicated hardware or, commercially off the shelf
(COTS) based x86 technology. With the adoption of Mobile Virtual
Network Operators (MVNO), public safety networks, and enterprise
mobility networks, elastic mobile core architecture are needed. By
deploying the mobile packet core on COTS platform, using a
virtualized infrastructure (NFVI) framework and end-to-end
orchestration, new deployments can be simplified to provide optimized
total cost of ownership (TCO).
While virtualization is growing, and many mobile providers use a
hybrid architecture that consists of dedicated and virtualized
infrastructures, the control and data planes are still the same.
There is also work under way to separate the control and user plane
Prakash Suthar, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft draft-irtf-icnrg-icn-lte-4g-09 February 2021
for the network to scale better. Virtualized mobile networks and
network slicing with control and user plane separation provide a
mechanism to evolve the GTP-based architecture towards an Openflow
SDN-based signaling for 4G and proposed 5G core. Some early
architecture work for 5G mobile technologies provides a mechanism for
control and user plane separation and simplifies the mobility call
flow by introducing Openflow-based signaling [ICN5G]. This has been
considered by 3GPP [EPCCUPS] and is also described in [SDN5G].
4. Data Transport Using ICN
For mobile devices, the edge connectivity is between mobile terminal
and a router or mobile edge computing (MEC) [MECSPEC] element. Edge
computing has the capability of processing client requests and
segregating control and user traffic at the edge of radio, rather
than sending all requests to the mobile gateway.
+----------+
| Content +----------------------------------------+
| Publisher| |
+---+---+--+ |
| | +--+ +--+ +--+ |
| +--->|R1|------------>|R2|---------->|R4| |
| +--+ +--+ +--+ |
| | Cached |
| v content |
| +--+ at R3 |
| +========|R3|---+ |
| # +--+ | |
| # | |
| v v |
| +-+ +-+ |
+---------------| |-------------| |-------------+
+-+ +-+
Consumer-1 Consumer-2
Mobile Terminal Mobile Terminal
===> Content flow from cache
---> Content flow from publisher
Figure 2: ICN Architecture
Edge computing transforms radio access network into an intelligent
service edge capable of delivering services directly from the edge of
the network, while providing the best possible performance to the
client. Edge computing can be an ideal candidate for implementing
ICN forwarders in addition to its usual function of managing mobile
Prakash Suthar, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft draft-irtf-icnrg-icn-lte-4g-09 February 2021
termination. In addition to edge computing, other transport
elements, such as routers, can work as ICN forwarders.
Data transport using ICN is different to IP-based transport by
introducing uniquely named-data as a core design principle.
Communication in ICN takes place between the content provider
(producer) and the end user (consumer), as described in Figure 2.
Every node in a physical path between a client and a content provider
is called the ICN forwarder or router. It can route the request
intelligently and cache content so it can be delivered locally for
subsequent requests from any other client. For mobile networks,
transport between a client and a content provider consists of radio
network + mobile backhaul and IP core transport + Mobile Gateways +
Internet + content data network (CDN).
To understand the suitability of ICN for mobile networks, we will
discuss the ICN framework by describing its protocols architecture
and different types of messages to then consider how we can use this
in mobile networks for delivering content more efficiently. ICN uses
two types of packets called "interest packet" and "data packet" as
described in Figure 3.
+------------------------------------+
Interest | +------+ +------+ +------+ | +-----+
+-+ ---->| CS |---->| PIT |---->| FIB |--------->| CDN |
| | | +------+ +------+ +------+ | +-----+
+-+ | | Add | Drop | | Forward
MT <--------+ Intf v Nack v |
Data | |
+------------------------------------+
+------------------------------------+
+-+ | Forward +------+ | +-----+
| | <-------------------------------------| PIT |<---------| CDN |
+-+ | | Cache +--+---+ | Data +-----+
MT | +--v---+ | |
| | CS | v |
| +------+ Discard |
+------------------------------------+
Figure 3: ICN Interest, Data Packet and Forwarder
In an 4G network, when a mobile device wants to receive certain
content, it will send an Interest message to the closest eNodeB.
Prakash Suthar, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft draft-irtf-icnrg-icn-lte-4g-09 February 2021
Interest packets follow the TLV format [RFC8609] and contain
mandatory fields, such as name of the content and content matching
restrictions (KeyIdRestr and ContentObjectHashRestr), expressed as a
tuple [RFC8569]. The content matching tuple uniquely identifies the
matching data packet for the given Interest packet. Another
attribute called HopLimit is used to detect looping Interest
messages.
An ICN router will receive an Interest packet and lookup if a request
for such content has arrived earlier from another client. If so, it
may be served from the local cache; otherwise, the request is
forwarded to the next-hop ICN router. Each ICN router maintains
three data structures: Pending Interest Table (PIT), Forwarding
Information Base (FIB), and Content Store (CS). The Interest packet
travels hop-by-hop towards the content provider. Once the Interest
packet reaches the content provider, it will return a Data packet
containing information such as content name, signature, and the
actual data.
The data packet travels in reverse direction following the same path
taken by the Interest packet, maintaining routing symmetry. Details
about algorithms used in PIT, FIB, CS, and security trust models are
described in various resources [CCN]; here, we have explained the
concept and its applicability to the 4G network.
5. Experimental Scenarios for ICN Deployment
In 4G mobile networks, both user and control plane traffic have to be
transported from the edge to the mobile packet core via IP transport.
The evolution of the existing mobile packet core using Control and
User Plane Separation (CUPS) [TS23.714] enables flexible network and
operations by distributed deployment and the independent scaling of
control plane and user plane functions - while not affecting the
functionality of existing nodes subject to this split.
In this section, we analyze the potential impact of ICN on control
and user plane traffic for centralized and disaggregated CUPS-based
mobile network architecture. We list various experimental options
and opportunities to study the feasibility of the deployment of ICN
in 4G networks. The proposed experiments would help the network and
OEM designers to understand various issues, optimizations, and
advantages of deployment of ICN in 4G networks.
5.1. General Considerations
In the CUPS architecture, there is an opportunity to shorten the path
for user plane traffic by deploying offload nodes closer to the edge
[OFFLOAD]. With this major architecture change, a User Plane
Prakash Suthar, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft draft-irtf-icnrg-icn-lte-4g-09 February 2021
Function (UPF) node is placed close to the edge so traffic no longer
needs to traverse the entire backhaul path to reach the EPC. In many
cases, where feasible, the UPF can be collocated with the eNodeB,
which is also a business decision based on user demand. Placing a
Publisher close to the offload site, or at the offload site, provides
for a significant improvement in user experience, especially with
latency-sensitive applications. This capability allows for the
introduction of ICN and amplifies its advantages.
5.2. Scenarios of ICN Integration
The integration of ICN provides an opportunity to further optimize
the existing data transport in 4G mobile networks. The various
opportunities from the coexistence of ICN and IP transport in the
mobile network are somewhat analogous to the deployment scenarios
when IPv6 was introduced to interoperate with IPv4 except, with ICN,
the whole IP stack can be replaced. We have reviewed [RFC6459] and
analyzed the impact of ICN on control plane signaling and user plane
data delivery. In general, ICN can be used natively by replacing IP
transport (IPv4 and IPv6) or as an overlay protocol. Figure 4
describes a proposal to modify the existing transport protocol stack
to support ICN in 4G mobile network.
+----------------+ +-----------------+
| ICN App (new) | |IP App (existing)|
+---------+------+ +-------+---------+
| |
+---------+----------------+---------+
| Transport Convergence Layer (new) |
+------+---------------------+-------+
| |
+------+------+ +------+-------+
|ICN function | | IP function |
| (New) | | (Existing) |
+------+------+ +------+-------+
| |
(```). (```).
( ICN '`. ( IP '`.
( Cloud ) ( Cloud )
` __..'+' ` __..'+'
Figure 4: IP/ICN Convergence Scenarios
As shown in Figure 4, for applications - running either in the mobile
terminal or in the content provider system - to use the ICN transport
option, we propose a new transport convergence layer (TCL). The TCL
helps determine the type of transport (such as ICN or IP), as well as
Prakash Suthar, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft draft-irtf-icnrg-icn-lte-4g-09 February 2021
the type of radio interface (LTE or WiFi or both) used to send and
receive traffic based on preference (e.g., content location, content
type, content publisher, congestion, cost, QoS). It helps configure
and determine the type of connection (native IP or ICN) or the
overlay mode (ICNoIP or IPoICN) between application and the protocol
stack (IP or ICN).
Combined with the existing IP function, the ICN function provides
support for either native ICN and/or the dual transport (ICN/IP)
transport functionality. See Section 5.4.1 for elaborate
descriptions of these functional layers.
The TCL can use several mechanisms for transport selection. It can
use a per-application configuration through a management interface,
possibly a user-facing setting realized through a user interface,
like those used to select cellular over WiFi. In another option, it
might use a software API, which an adapted IP application could use
to specify the type of transport option (such as ICN) to take
advantage of its benefits.
Another potential application of TCL is in implementation of network
slicing, with a slice management capability locally or through an
interface to an external slice manager via an API [GALIS]. This
solution can enable network slicing for IP and ICN transport
selection from the mobile terminal itself. The TCL could apply slice
settings to direct certain applications traffic over one slice and
others over another slice, determined by some form of 'slicing
policy'. Slicing policy can be obtained externally from the slice
manager or configured locally on the mobile terminal.
From the perspective of applications either on the mobile terminal or
at a content provider, the following options are possible for
potential use of ICN natively and/or with IP.
1. IP over IP
In this scenario, the mobile terminal applications are tightly
integrated with the existing IP transport infrastructure. The
TCL has no additional function because packets are forwarded
directly using an IP protocol stack, which sends packets over the
IP transport.
2. ICN over ICN
Similar to case 1, ICN applications tightly integrate with the
ICN transport infrastructure. The TCL has no additional
responsibility because packets are forwarded directly using the
Prakash Suthar, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft draft-irtf-icnrg-icn-lte-4g-09 February 2021
native ICN protocol stack, which sends packets over the ICN
transport.
3. ICN over IP (ICNoIP)
In this scenario, the underlying IP transport infrastructure is
not impacted (that is, ICN is implemented as an IP overlay
between mobile terminal and content provider). IP routing is
used from the Radio Access Network (eNodeB) to the mobile
backhaul, the IP core, and the Mobile Gateway (SGW/PGW). The
mobile terminal attaches to the Mobile Gateway (SGW/PGW) using an
IP address. Also, the data transport between Mobile Gateway
(SGW/PGW) and content publisher uses IP. The content provider
can serve content either using IP or ICN, based on the mobile
terminal request.
One of the approaches to implement ICN in mobile backhaul
networks is described in [MBICN]. It implements a GTP-U
extension header option to encapsulate ICN payload in a GTP
tunnel. However, as this design runs ICN as an IP overlay, the
mobile backhaul can be deployed using native IP. The proposal
describes a mechanism where the GTP-U tunnel can be terminated by
hairpinning the packet before it reaches SGW, if an ICN-enabled
node is deployed in the mobile backhaul (that is, between eNodeB
and SGW). This could be useful when an ICN data packet is stored
in the ICN node (such as repositories, caches) in the tunnel path
so that the ICN node can reply without going all the way through
the mobile core. While a GTP-U extension header is used to carry
mobile terminal specific ICN payload, they are not visible to the
transport, including SGW. On the other hand, the PGW can use the
mobile terminal-specific ICN header extension and ICN payload to
set up an uplink transport towards a content provider in the
Internet. In addition, the design assumes a proxy function at
the edge, to perform ICN data retrieval on behalf of a non-ICN
end device.
4. IP over ICN (IPoICN)
[IPoICN] provides an architectural framework for running IP as an
overlay over ICN protocol. Implementing IP services over ICN
provides an opportunity to leverage the benefits of ICN in the
transport infrastructure while there is no impact on end devices
(MT and access network) as they continue to use IP. IPoICN
however, will require an inter-working function (IWF/Border
Gateway) to translate various transport primitives. The IWF
function will provide a mechanism for protocol translation
between IPoICN and the native IP. After reviewing [IPoICN], we
understand and interpret that ICN is implemented in the transport
Prakash Suthar, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft draft-irtf-icnrg-icn-lte-4g-09 February 2021
natively; however, IP is implemented in MT, eNodeB, and Mobile
gateway (SGW/PGW), which is also called as a network attach point
(NAP).
For this, said NAP receives an incoming IP or HTTP packet (the
latter through TCP connection termination) and publishes the
packet under a suitable ICN name (i.e., the hash over the
destination IP address for an IP packet or the hash over the FQDN
of the HTTP request for an HTTP packet) to the ICN network. In
the HTTP case, the NAP maintains a pending request mapping table
to map returning responses to the terminated TCP connection.
5. Hybrid ICN (hICN)
An alternative approach to implement ICN over IP is provided in
Hybrid ICN [HICN]. It describes a novel approach to integrate
ICN into IPv6 without creating overlays with a new packet format
as an encapsulation. hICN addresses the content by encoding a
location-independent name in an IPv6 address. It uses two name
components--name prefix and name suffix--that identify the source
of data and the data segment within the scope of the name prefix,
respectively.
At application layer, hICN maps the name into an IPv6 prefix and,
thus, uses IP as transport. As long as the name prefixes, which
are routable IP prefixes, point towards a mobile GW (PGW or local
breakout, such as CUPS), there are potentially no updates
required to any of the mobile core gateways (for example, SGW/
PGW). The IPv6 backhaul routes the packets within the mobile
core. hICN can run in the mobile terminal, in the eNodeB, in the
mobile backhaul, or in the mobile core. Finally, as hICN itself
uses IPv6, it cannot be considered as an alternative transport
layer.
5.3. Integration of ICN in 4G Control Plane
In this section, we analyze signaling messages that are required for
different procedures, such as attach, handover, tracking area update,
and so on. The goal of this analysis is to see if there are any
benefits to replacing IP-based protocols with ICN for 4G signaling in
the current architecture. It is important to understand the concept
of point of attachment (POA). When mobile terminal connects to a
network, it has the following POAs:
1. eNodeB managing location or physical POA
2. Authentication and Authorization (MME, HSS) managing identity or
authentication POA
Prakash Suthar, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft draft-irtf-icnrg-icn-lte-4g-09 February 2021
3. Mobile Gateways (SGW, PGW) managing logical or session management
POA
In the current architecture, IP transport is used for all messages
associated with the control plane for mobility and session
management. IP is embedded very deeply into these messages utilizing
TLV syntax for carrying additional attributes such as a layer 3
transport. The physical POA in the eNodeB handles both mobility and
session management for any mobile terminal attached to 4G network.
The number of mobility management messages between different nodes in
an 4G network per signaling procedure is shown in Table 1.
Normally, two types of mobile terminals attach to the 4G network: SIM
based (need 3GPP mobility protocol for authentication) or non-SIM
based (which connect to WiFi network). Both device types require
authentication. For non-SIM based devices, AAA is used for
authentication. We do not propose to change mobile terminal
authentication or mobility management messaging for user data
transport using ICN. A separate study would be required to analyze
the impact of ICN on mobility management messages structures and
flows. We are merely analyzing the viability of implementing ICN as
a transport for control plane messages.
It is important to note that, if MME and HSS do not support ICN
transport, they still need to support mobile terminal capable of dual
transport or native ICN. When mobile terminal initiates an attach
request using the identity as ICN, MME must be able to parse that
message and create a session. MME forwards mobile terminal
authentication to HSS, so HSS must be able to authenticate an ICN-
capable mobile terminal and authorize create session [TS23.401].
+---------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+------+
| 4G Signaling Procedures | MME | HSS | SGW | PGW | PCRF |
+---------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+------+
| Attach | 10 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| Additional default bearer | 4 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| Dedicated bearer | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| Idle-to-connect | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Connect-to-Idle | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| X2 handover | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| S1 handover | 8 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
| Tracking area update | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 34 | 2 | 14 | 6 | 3 |
+---------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+------+
Table 1: Signaling Messages in 4G Gateways
Prakash Suthar, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft draft-irtf-icnrg-icn-lte-4g-09 February 2021
Anchorless mobility [ALM] provides a fully decentralized, control-
plane agnostic solution to handle producer mobility in ICN. Mobility
management at layer-3 level makes it access agnostic and transparent
to the end device or the application. The solution discusses
handling mobility without having to depend on core network functions
(e.g. MME); however, a location update to the core network may still
be required to support legal compliance requirements such as lawful
intercept and emergency services. These aspects are open for further
study.
One of the advantages of ICN is in the caching and reusing of the
content, which does not apply to the transactional signaling
exchange. After analyzing 4G signaling call flows [TS23.401] and
messages inter-dependencies (see Table 1), our recommendation is that
it is not beneficial to use ICN for control plane and mobility
management functions. Among the features of ICN design, Interest
aggregation and content caching are not applicable to control plane
signaling messages. Control plane messages are originated and
consumed by the applications and they cannot be shared.
5.4. Integration of ICN in 4G User Plane
We will consider Figure 1 to discuss different mechanisms to
integrate ICN in mobile networks. In Section 5.2, we discussed
generic experimental setups of ICN integration. In this section, we
discuss the specific options of possible use of native ICN in 4G user
plane. We consider the following options:
1. Dual transport (IP/ICN) mode in Mobile Terminal
2. Using ICN in Mobile Terminal
3. Using ICN in eNodeB
4. Using ICN in mobile gateways (SGW/PGW)
5.4.1. Dual Transport (IP/ICN) Mode in Mobile Terminal
The control and user plane communications in 4G mobile networks are
specified in 3GPP documents [TS23.203] and [TS23.401]. It is
important to understand that mobile terminal can be either consumer
(receiving content) or publisher (pushing content for other clients).
The protocol stack inside the mobile terminal (MT) is complex because
it must support multiple radio connectivity access to eNodeB(s).
Figure 5 provides a high-level description of a protocol stack, where
IP is used at two layers: (1) user plane communication and (2) UDP
encapsulation. User plane communication takes place between Packet
Prakash Suthar, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft draft-irtf-icnrg-icn-lte-4g-09 February 2021
Data Convergence Protocol (PDCP) and Application layer, whereas UDP
encapsulation is at GTP protocol stack.
The protocol interactions and impact of supporting tunneling of ICN
packet into IP or to support ICN natively are described in Figure 5
and Figure 6, respectively.
+--------+ +--------+
| App | | CDN |
+--------+ +--------+
|Transp. | | | | |Transp. |
|Converg.|.|..............|...............|............|.|Converge|
+--------+ | | | +--------+ | +--------+
| |.|..............|...............|.| |.|.| |
| ICN/IP | | | | | ICN/IP | | | ICN/IP|
| | | | | | | | | |
+--------+ | +----+-----+ | +-----+-----+ | +-----+--+ | +--------+
| |.|.| | |.|.| | |.|.| | | | | |
| PDCP | | |PDCP|GTP-U| | |GTP-U|GTP-U| | |GTP-U| | | | L2 |
+--------+ | +----------+ | +-----------+ | +-----+ | | | |
| RLC |.|.|RLC | UDP |.|.| UDP | UDP |.|.|UDP |L2|.|.| |
+--------+ | +----------+ | +-----------+ | +-----+ | | | |
| MAC |.|.| MAC| L2 |.|.| L2 | L2 |.|.| L2 | | | | |
+--------+ | +----------+ | +-----------+ | +--------+ | +--------+
| L1 |.|.| L1 | L1 |.|.| L1 | L1 |.|.| L1 |L1|.|.| L1 |
+--------+ | +----+-----+ | +-----+-----+ | +-----+--+ | +--------+
MT | BS(eNodeB) | SGW | PGW |
Uu S1U S5/S8 SGi
Figure 5: Dual Transport (IP/ICN) mode in Mobile Terminal
The protocols and software stack used inside 4G capable mobile
terminal support both 3G and 4G software interworking and handover.
3GPP Rel.13 onward specifications describe the use of IP and non-IP
protocols to establish logical/session connectivity. We can leverage
the non-IP protocol-based mechanism to deploy ICN protocol stack in
the mobile terminal, as well as in eNodeB and mobile gateways (SGW,
PGW). The following paragraphs describe per-layer considerations of
supporting tunneling of ICN packet into IP or to support ICN
natively.
1. An existing application layer can be modified to provide options
for a new ICN-based application and existing IP-based
applications. The mobile terminal can continue to support
existing IP-based applications or can develop new applications to
support native ICN, ICNoIP, or IPoICN-based transport. The
application layer can be provided with an option of selecting
Prakash Suthar, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft draft-irtf-icnrg-icn-lte-4g-09 February 2021
either ICN or IP transport, as well as radio interface, to send
and receive data traffic.
Our proposal is to provide an Application Programming Interface
(API) to the application developers so they can choose either ICN
or IP transport for exchanging the traffic with the network. As
mentioned in Section 5.2, the transport convergence layer (TCL)
function handles the interaction of applications with multiple
transport options.
2. The transport convergence layer helps determine the type of
transport (such as ICN, hICN, or IP) and type of radio interface
(LTE or WiFi, or both) used to send and receive traffic.
Application layer can make the decision to select a specific
transport based on preference, such as content location, content
type, content publisher, congestion, cost, QoS, and so on. There
can be an Application Programming Interface (API) to exchange
parameters required for transport selection. Southbound
interactions of Transport Convergence Layer (TCL) will be either
to IP or ICN at the network layer.
When selecting the IPoICN mode, the TCL is responsible for
receiving an incoming IP or HTTP packet and publishing the packet
to the ICN network under a suitable ICN name (that is, the hash
over the destination IP address for an IP packet, or the hash
over the FQDN of the HTTP request for an HTTP packet).
In the HTTP case, the TCL can maintain a pending request mapping
table to map returning responses to the originating HTTP request.
The common API will provide a 'connection' abstraction for this
HTTP mode of operation, returning the response over said
connection abstraction, akin to the TCP socket interface, while
implementing a reliable transport connection semantic over the
ICN from the mobile terminal to the receiving mobile terminal or
the PGW. If the HTTP protocol stack remains unchanged, therefore
utilizing the TCP protocol for transfer, the TCL operates in
local TCP termination mode, retrieving the HTTP packet through
said local termination.
Prakash Suthar, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft draft-irtf-icnrg-icn-lte-4g-09 February 2021
+----------------+ +-----------------+
| ICN App (new) | |IP App (existing)|
+---------+------+ +-------+---------+
| |
+---------+----------------+---------+
| Transport Convergence Layer (new) |
+------+---------------------+-------+
| |
+------+------+ +------+-------+
|ICN function | | IP function |
| (New) | | (Existing) |
+------+------+ +------+-------+
| |
+------+---------------------+-------+
| PDCP (updated to support ICN) |
+-----------------+------------------+
|
+-----------------+------------------+
| RLC (Existing) |
+-----------------+------------------+
|
+-----------------+------------------+
| MAC Layer (Existing) |
+-----------------+------------------+
|
+-----------------+------------------+
| Physical L1 (Existing) |
+------------------------------------+
Figure 6: Dual Stack ICN Protocol Interactions
3. The ICN function (forwarder) is proposed to run in parallel to
the existing IP layer. The ICN forwarder forwards the ICN
packets, such as an Interest packet to eNodeB or a response "data
packet" from eNodeB to the application.
4. For the dual-transport scenario, when mobile terminal is not
supporting ICN as transport, the TCL can use the IP underlay to
tunnel the ICN packets. The ICN function can use the IP
interface to send Interest and Data packets for fetching or
sending data respectively. This interface can use the ICN
overlay over IP.
5. To support ICN at network layer in mobile terminal, the PDCP
layer should be aware of ICN capabilities and parameters. PDCP
is located in the Radio Protocol Stack in the LTE Air interface,
Prakash Suthar, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft draft-irtf-icnrg-icn-lte-4g-09 February 2021
between IP (Network layer) and Radio Link Control Layer (RLC).
PDCP performs the following functions [TS36.323]:
1. Data transport by listening to upper layer, formatting and
pushing down to Radio Link Layer (RLC)
2. Header compression and decompression using Robust Header
Compression (ROHC)
3. Security protections such as ciphering, deciphering, and
integrity protection
4. Radio layer messages associated with sequencing, packet drop
detection and re-transmission, and so on.
6. No changes are required for lower layer such as RLC, MAC, and
Physical (L1) as they are not IP aware.
One key point to understand in this scenario is that ICN is deployed
as an overlay on top of IP.
5.4.2. Using ICN in Mobile Terminal
We can implement ICN natively in mobile terminal by modifying the
PDCP layer in 3GPP protocols. Figure 7 provides a high-level
protocol stack description where ICN can be used at the following
different layers:
1. User plane communication
2. Transport layer
ICN transport would be a substitute of the GTP protocol. The removal
of the GTP protocol stack is a significant change in the mobile
architecture and requires a through study mainly because it is used
not just for routing but for mobility management functions, such as
billing, mediation, and policy enforcement.
The implemention of ICN natively in the mobile terminal leads to a
changed communication model between mobile terminal and eNodeB.
Also, we can avoid tunneling the user plane traffic from eNodeB to
the mobile packet core (SGW, PGW) through a GTP tunnel.
For native ICN use, an application can be configured to use ICN
forwarder and it does not need the TCL layer. Also, to support ICN
at the network layer, the existing PDCP layer may need to be changed
to be aware of ICN capabilities and parameters.
Prakash Suthar, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft draft-irtf-icnrg-icn-lte-4g-09 February 2021
The native implementation can provide new opportunities to develop
new use cases leveraging ICN capabilities, such as seamless mobility,
mobile terminal to mobile terminal content delivery using radio
network without traversing the mobile gateways, and more.
+--------+ +--------+
| App | | CDN |
+--------+ +--------+
|Transp. | | | | | |Transp. |
|Converge|.|..............|..............|..............|.|Converge|
+--------+ | | | | +--------+
| |.|..............|..............|..............|.| |
| ICN/IP | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
+--------+ | +----+-----+ | +----------+ | +----------+ | | ICN/IP |
| |.|.| | | | | | | | | | | |
| PDCP | | |PDCP| ICN |.|.| ICN |.|.| ICN |.|.| |
+--------+ | +----+ | | | | | | | | | |
| RLC |.|.|RLC | | | | | | | | | | |
+--------+ | +----------+ | +----------+ | +----------+ | +--------+
| MAC |.|.| MAC| L2 |.|.| L2 |.|.| L2 |.|.| L2 |
+--------+ | +----------+ | +----------+ | +----------+ | +--------+
| L1 |.|.| L1 | L1 |.|.| L1 |.|.| L1 |.|.| L1 |
+--------+ | +----+-----+ | +----------+ | +----------+ | +--------+
MT | BS(eNodeB) | SGW | PGW |
Uu S1u S5/S8 SGi
Figure 7: Using Native ICN in Mobile Terminal
5.4.3. Using ICN in eNodeB
The eNodeB is a physical point of attachment for the mobile terminal,
where radio protocols are converted into IP transport protocol for
dual transport/overlay and native ICN, respectively (see Figure 6 and
Figure 7). When a mobile terminal performs an attach procedure, it
would be assigned an identity either as IP or dual transport (IP and
ICN), or ICN endpoint. Mobile terminal can initiate data traffic
using any of the following options:
1. Native IP (IPv4 or IPv6)
2. Native ICN
3. Dual transport IP (IPv4/IPv6) and ICN
The mobile terminal encapsulates a user data transport request into
PDCP layer and sends the information on the air interface to eNodeB,
Prakash Suthar, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft draft-irtf-icnrg-icn-lte-4g-09 February 2021
which in turn receives the information and, using PDCP [TS36.323],
de-encapsulates the air-interface messages and converts them to
forward to core mobile gateways (SGW, PGW). As shown in Figure 8, to
support ICN natively in eNodeB, it is proposed to provide transport
convergence layer (TCL) capabilities in eNodeB (similar to as
provided in MT), which provides the following functions:
1. It decides the forwarding strategy for a user data request coming
from mobile terminal. The strategy can decide based on
preference indicated by the application, such as congestion,
cost, QoS, and so on.
2. eNodeB to provide open Application Programming Interface (API) to
external management systems, to provide capability to eNodeB to
program the forwarding strategies.
+---------------+ |
| MT request | | ICN +---------+
+---> | content using |--+--- transport -->| |
| |ICN protocol | | | |
| +---------------+ | | |
| | | |
| +---------------+ | | |
+-+ | | MT request | | IP |To mobile|
| |---+---> | content using |--+--- transport -->| GW |
+-+ | | IP protocol | | |(SGW,PGW)|
MT | +---------------+ | | |
| | | |
| +---------------+ | | |
| | MT request | | Dual stack | |
+---> | content using |--+--- IP+ICN -->| |
|IP/ICN protocol| | transport +---------+
+---------------+ |
eNodeB S1u
Figure 8: Integration of Native ICN in eNodeB
3. eNodeB can be upgraded to support three different types of
transport: IP, ICN, and dual transport IP+ICN towards mobile
gateways, as depicted in Figure 8. It is also proposed to deploy
IP and/or ICN forwarding capabilities into eNodeB, for efficient
transfer of data between eNodeB and mobile gateways. Following
are choices for forwarding a data request towards mobile
gateways:
1. Assuming eNodeB is IP enabled and the MT requests an IP
transfer, eNodeB forwards data over IP.
Prakash Suthar, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft draft-irtf-icnrg-icn-lte-4g-09 February 2021
2. Assuming eNodeB is ICN enabled and the MT requests an ICN
transfer, eNodeB forwards data over ICN.
3. Assuming eNodeB is IP enabled and the MT requests an ICN
transfer, eNodeB overlays ICN on IP and forwards user plane
traffic over IP.
4. Assuming eNodeB is ICN enabled and the MT requests an IP
transfer, eNodeB overlays IP on ICN and forwards user plane
traffic over ICN [IPoICN].
5.4.4. Using ICN in Packet Core (SGW, PGW) Gateways
Mobile gateways (a.k.a. Evolved Packet Core (EPC)) include SGW, PGW,
which perform session management for MT from the initial attach to
disconnection. When MT is powered on, it performs NAS signaling and
attaches to PGW after successful authentication. PGW is an anchoring
point for MT and responsible for service creations, authorization,
maintenance, and so on. The Entire functionality is managed using IP
address(es) for MT.
To implement ICN in EPC, the following functions are proposed:
1. Insert ICN attributes in session management layer as additional
functionality with IP stack. Session management layer is used
for performing attach procedures and assigning logical identity
to user. After successful authentication by HSS, MME sends a
create session request (CSR) to SGW and SGW to PGW.
2. When MME sends Create Session Request message (Step 12 in
[TS23.401]) to SGW or PGW, it includes a Protocol Configuration
Option Information Element (PCO IE) containing MT capabilities.
We can use PCO IE to carry ICN-related capabilities information
from MT to PGW. This information is received from MT during the
initial attach request in MME. Details of available TLV, which
can be used for ICN, are given in subsequent sections. MT can
support either native IP, ICN+IP, or native ICN. IP is referred
to as both IPv4 and IPv6 protocols.
3. For ICN+IP-capable MT, PGW assigns the MT both an IP address and
ICN identity. MT selects either of the identities during the
initial attach procedures and registers with the network for
session management. For ICN-capable MT, it will provide only ICN
attachment. For native IP-capable MT, there is no change.
4. To support ICN-capable attach procedures and use ICN for user
plane traffic, PGW needs to have full ICN protocol stack
functionalities. Typical ICN capabilities include functions such
Prakash Suthar, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft draft-irtf-icnrg-icn-lte-4g-09 February 2021
as content store (CS), Pending Interest Table (PIT), Forwarding
Information Base (FIB) capabilities, and so on. If MT requests
ICN in PCO IE, then PGW registers MT with ICN names. For ICN
forwarding, PGW caches content locally using CS functionality.
5. PCO IE described in [TS24.008] (see Figure 10.5.136 on page 598)
and [TS24.008] (see Table 10.5.154 on page 599) provide details
for different fields.
1. Octet 3 (configuration protocols define PDN types), which
contains details about IPv4, IPv6, both or ICN.
2. Any combination of Octet 4 to Z can be used to provide
additional information related to ICN capability. It is most
important that PCO IE parameters are matched between MT and
mobile gateways (SGW, PGW) so they can be interpreted
properly and the MT can attach successfully.
6. The ICN functionalities in SGW and PGW should be matched with MT
and eNodeB because they will exchange ICN protocols and
parameters.
7. Mobile gateways SGW, PGW will also need ICN forwarding and
caching capability. This is especially important if CUPS is
implemented. User Plane Function (UPF), comprising the SGW and
PGW user plane, will be located at the edge of the network and
close to the end user. ICN-enabled gateway means that this UPF
would serve as a forwarder and should be capable of caching, as
is the case with any other ICN-enabled node.
8. The transport between PGW and CDN provider can be either IP or
ICN. When MT is attached to PGW with ICN identity and
communicates with an ICN-enabled CDN provider, it will use ICN
primitives to fetch the data. On the other hand, for a MT
attached with an ICN identity, if PGW must communicate with an IP
enabled CDN provider, it will have to use an ICN-IP interworking
gateway to perform conversion between ICN and IP primitives for
data retrieval. In the case of CUPS implementation with an
offload close to the edge, this interworking gateway can be
collocated with the UPF at the offload site to maximize the path
optimization. Further study is required to understand how this
ICN-to-IP (and vice versa) interworking gateway would function.
6. ICN Deployment Goals
This section proposes an experimental lab setup and discusses the
open issues and questions that use of ICN protocol is intended to
address.
Prakash Suthar, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft draft-irtf-icnrg-icn-lte-4g-09 February 2021
6.1. An Experimental Test Setup
To further test the modifications proposed in different scenarios, a
simple lab can be set up, as shown in Figure 9.
+------------------------------------------+
| +-----+ +------+ (```). +------+ | (````). +-----+
| | SUB |-->| EMU |--(x-haul'.-->| EPC |--->( PDN ).-->| CDN |
| +-----+ +------+ `__..'' +------+ | `__...' +-----+
+------------------------------------------+
4G Mobile Network Functions
Figure 9: Native ICN Deployment Lab Setup
The following test scenarios can be set up with VM-based deployment:
1. SUB: ICN simulated client (using ndnSIM), a client application on
workstation requesting content.
2. EMU: test unit emulating eNodeB. This will be a test node
allowing for UE attachment and routing traffic subsequently from
the Subscriber to the Publisher.
3. EPC: Evolved Packet Core in a single instance (such as 5GOpenCore
[Open5GCore]).
4. CDN: content delivery by a Publisher server.
For the purpose of this testing, ICN emulating code can be inserted
in the test code in EMU to emulate ICN-capable eNodeB. An example of
the code to be used is NS3 in its LTE model. Effect of such traffic
on EPC and CDN can be observed and documented. In a subsequent
phase, EPC code supporting ICN can be tested when available.
Another option is to simulate the UE/eNodeB and EPC functions using
NS3's LTE [NS3LTE] and EPC [NS3EPC] models respectively. LTE model
includes the LTE Radio Protocol stack, which resides entirely within
the UE and the eNodeB nodes. This capability provides the simulation
of UE and eNodeB deployment use cases. Similarly, EPC model includes
core network interfaces, protocols and entities, which reside within
the SGW, PGW and MME nodes, and partially within the eNodeB nodes.
Even with its current limitations (such as IPv4 only, lack of
integration with ndnSIM, no support for UE idle state), LTE
simulation may be a very useful tool. In any case, both control and
user plane traffic should be tested independently according to the
deployment model discussed in Section 5.4.
Prakash Suthar, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft draft-irtf-icnrg-icn-lte-4g-09 February 2021
6.2. Open Questions to be Addressed
There are several open questions with ICN implementation scenarios in
4G mobile networks that the proposed experiments intend to address.
Some of these issues are.
1. Viability of ICN inclusion in the 3GPP protocol stack. How
realistic is it to succeed in modifying the stack, considering
the scenarios explained in Section 5.4, and complete the user
session without feature degradation?
2. Efficiency gained in terms of the amount of traffic in multicast
scenarios.
3. Efficiency gained in terms of latency for cached content, mainly
in the CDN use case.
4. Confirm how (in)adequate would be ICN implementation in control
plane (which this draft discourages).
7. Security and Privacy Considerations
This section will cover some security and privacy considerations in
mobile and 4G network because of introduction of ICN.
7.1. Security Considerations
To ensure only authenticated mobile terminals are connected to the
network, 4G mobile network implements various security mechanisms.
From the perspective of using ICN in the user plane, it needs to take
care of the following security aspects:
1. MT authentication and authorization
2. Radio or air interface security
3. Denial of service attacks on the mobile gateway, services either
by the MT or by external entities in the Internet
4. Content poisoning either in transport or servers
5. Content cache pollution attacks
6. Secure naming, routing, and forwarding
7. Application security
Prakash Suthar, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft draft-irtf-icnrg-icn-lte-4g-09 February 2021
Security over the LTE air interface is provided through cryptographic
techniques. When MT is powered up, it performs a key exchange
between MT's USIM and HSS/Authentication Center using NAS messages,
including ciphering and integrity protections between MT and MME.
Details for secure MT authentication, key exchange, ciphering, and
integrity protections messages are given in the 3GPP call flow
[TS23.401]. With ICN we are modifying protocol stack for user plane
and not control plane. The NAS signaling is exchanged between MT and
mobile gateways e.g. MME, using control plane, therefore there is no
adverse impact of ICN on MT.
4G uses IP transport in its mobile backhaul (between eNodeB and core
network). In case of provider-owned backhaul, service provider may
require to implement a security mechanism in the backhaul network.
The native IP transport continues to leverage security mechanism such
as Internet key exchange (IKE) and the IP security protocol (IPsec).
More details of mobile backhaul security are provided in 3GPP network
security specifications [TS33.310] and [TS33.320]. When mobile
backhaul is upgraded to support dual transport (IP+ICN) or native
ICN, it is required to implement security techniques that are
deployed in the mobile backhaul. When ICN forwarding is enabled on
mobile transport routers, we need to deploy security practices based
on [RFC7476] and [RFC7927].
4G mobile gateways (SGW, PGW) perform some of key functions such as
content based online/offline billing and accounting, deep packet
inspection (DPI), and lawful interception (LI). When ICN is deployed
in user plane , we need to integrate ICN security for sessions
between MT and gateway. If we encrypt user plane payload metadata
then it might be difficult to perform routing based on contents and
it may not work because we need decryption keys at every forwarder to
route the content. The content itself can be encrypted between
publisher and consumer to ensure privacy. Only the user with right
decryption key shall be able to access the content. We need further
research for ICN impact on LI, online/offline charging and
accounting.
7.2. Privacy Considerations
In 4G networks, two main privacy issues are [MUTHANA]
1. User Identity Privacy Issues. The main privacy issue within the
4G is the exposure of the IMSI. The IMSI can be intercepted by
adversaries. Such attacks are commonly referred to as "IMSI
catching".
2. Location Privacy Issues. IMSI Catching is closely related to the
issue of location privacy. Knowing IMSI of user allows the
Prakash Suthar, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft draft-irtf-icnrg-icn-lte-4g-09 February 2021
attacker to track the user's movements and create profile about
the user and thus breaches the user's location privacy.
In any network, caching implies a trade-off between network
efficiency and privacy. The activity of users is exposed to the
scrutiny of cache owners with whom they may not have any
relationship. By monitoring the cache transactions, an attacker
could obtain significant information related to the objects accessed,
topology and timing of the requests [RFC7945]. Privacy concerns are
amplified by the introduction of new network functions such as
Information lookup and Network storage, and different forms of
communication [FOTIOU]. Privacy risks in ICN can be broadly divided
in the following categories [TOURANI]:
1. Timing attack
2. Communication monitoring attack
3. Censorship and anonymity attack
4. Protocol attack
5. Naming-signature privacy
Introduction of TCL effectively enables ICN at the application and/or
transport layer, depending on the scenario described in section 5.
Enabling ICN in 4G networks is expected to increase efficiency by
taking advantage of ICN's inherent characteristics. This approach
would potentially leave some of the above-mentioned privacy concerns
open as a consequence of using ICN transport and ICN inherent privacy
vulnerabilities.
1. IPoIP Section 5.2 would not be affected as TCL has no role in it
and ICN does not apply
2. ICNoICN scenario Section 5.2 has increased risk of a privacy
attack, and that risk is applicable to ICN protocol in general
rather than specifically to the 4G implementation. Since this
scenario describes communication over ICN transport, every
forwarder in the path could be a potential risk for privacy
attack
3. ICNoIP scenario Section 5.2 uses IP for transport, so the only
additional ICN-related potential privacy risk areas are the
endpoints (consumer and publisher) where, at the application
layer, content is being served
Prakash Suthar, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft draft-irtf-icnrg-icn-lte-4g-09 February 2021
4. IPoICN scenario Section 5.2 could have potentially increased risk
due to possible vulnerability of the forwarders in the path of
ICN transport
Privacy issues already identified in 4G remain a concern if ICN is
introduced in any of the scenarios described earlier and compound to
the new, ICN-related privacy issues. Many research papers have been
published proposing solutions to the privacy issues listed above.
For LTE-specific privacy issues, some of the proposed solutions
[MUTHANA] are IMSI encryption by a MT, mutual authentication,
concealing the real IMSI within a random bit stream of certain size
where only the subscriber and HSS could extract the respective IMSI,
IMSI replacement with a changing pseudonym that only the HSS server
can map it the UE's IMSI, and others. Similarly, some of the
proposed ICN-specific privacy concerns mitigation methods, applicable
where ICN transport is introduced as specified earlier in this
section, include [FOTIOU]:
Delay for the first, or first k interests on edge routers (timing
attack)
Creating a secure tunnel or clients flagging the requests as non-
cacheable for privacy (communication monitoring attack)
Encoding interest by mixing content and cover file or using
hierarchical DNS-based brokering model (censorship and anonymity
attack)
Use of rate-limiting requests for a specific namespace (protocol
attack)
Cryptographic content hash-based naming or digital identity in an
overlay network (naming-signature privacy)
Further research in this area is needed. Detailed discussion of
privacy is beyond the scope of this document.
8. Summary
In this draft, we have discussed the 4G networks and the experimental
setups to study the advantages of potential use of ICN for efficient
delivery of contents to mobile terminals. We have discussed
different options to try and test the ICN and dependencies such as
ICN functionalities and changes required in different 4G network
elements. In order to further explore potential use of ICN one can
devise an experimental set-up consisting of 4G network elements and
deploy ICN data transport in user plane. Different options can be
either overlay, dual transport (IP + ICN), hICN, or natively (by
Prakash Suthar, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft draft-irtf-icnrg-icn-lte-4g-09 February 2021
integrating ICN with CDN, eNodeB, SGW, PGW and transport network).
Note that, for the scenarios discussed above, additional study is
required for lawful interception, billing/mediation, network slicing,
and provisioning APIs.
Edge Computing [CHENG] provides capabilities to deploy
functionalities such as Content Delivery Network (CDN) caching and
mobile user plane functions (UPF) [TS23.501]. Recent research for
delivering real-time video content [MPVCICN] using ICN has also been
proven to be efficient [NDNRTC] and can be used towards realizing the
benefits of using ICN in eNodeB, edge computing, mobile gateways
(SGW, PGW) and CDN. The key aspect for ICN is in its seamless
integration in 4G and 5G networks with tangible benefits so we can
optimize content delivery using a simple and scalable architecture.
The authors will continue to explore how ICN forwarding in edge
computing could be used for efficient data delivery from the mobile
edge.
Based on our study of control plane signaling, it is not beneficial
to deploy ICN with existing protocols unless further changes are
introduced in the control protocol stack itself.
As a starting step towards use of ICN in user plane, it is proposed
to incorporate protocol changes in MT, eNodeB, SGW/PGW for data
transport. ICN has inherent capabilities for mobility and content
caching, which can improve the efficiency of data transport for
unicast and multicast delivery. The authors welcome contributions
and suggestions, including those related to further validations of
the principles by implementing prototype and/or proof of concept in
the lab and in the production environment.
9. Acknowledgements
We thank all contributors, reviewers, and the chairs for the valuable
time in providing comments and feedback that helped improve this
draft. We specially want to mention the following members of the
IRTF Information-Centric Networking Research Group (ICNRG), listed in
alphabetical order: Thomas Jagodits, Luca Muscariello, David R.
Oran, Akbar Rahman, Ravishankar Ravindran, Martin J. Reed, and
Thomas C. Schmidt.
The IRSG review was provided by Colin Perkins.
10. References
Prakash Suthar, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft draft-irtf-icnrg-icn-lte-4g-09 February 2021
10.1. Normative References
[TS24.008]
3GPP, "Mobile radio interface Layer 3 specification; Core
network protocols; Stage 3", 3GPP TS 24.008 3.20.0,
December 2005,
<http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/html-info/24008.htm>.
[TS25.323]
3GPP, "Packet Data Convergence Protocol (PDCP)
specification", 3GPP TS 25.323 3.10.0, September 2002,
<http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/html-info/25323.htm>.
[TS29.274]
3GPP, "3GPP Evolved Packet System (EPS); Evolved General
Packet Radio Service (GPRS) Tunneling Protocol for Control
plane (GTPv2-C); Stage 3", 3GPP TS 29.274 10.11.0, June
2013, <http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/html-info/29274.htm>.
[TS29.281]
3GPP, "General Packet Radio System (GPRS) Tunneling
Protocol User Plane (GTPv1-U)", 3GPP TS 29.281 10.3.0,
September 2011,
<http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/html-info/29281.htm>.
[TS36.323]
3GPP, "Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access
(E-UTRA); Packet Data Convergence Protocol (PDCP)
specification", 3GPP TS 36.323 10.2.0, January 2013,
<http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/html-info/36323.htm>.
10.2. Informative References
[ALM] Auge, J., Carofiglio, G., Grassi, G., Muscariello, L.,
Pau, G., and X. Zeng, "Anchor-Less Producer Mobility in
ICN", Proceedings of the 2Nd ACM Conference on
Information-Centric Networking, ACM-ICN'15, ACM DL,
pp.189-190, September 2013,
<https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2812601>.
[BROWER] Brower, E., Jeffress, L., Pezeshki, J., Jasani, R., and E.
Ertekin, "Integrating Header Compression with IPsec",
MILCOM 2006 - 2006 IEEE Military Communications
conference IEEE Xplore DL, pp.1-6, October 2006,
<https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4086687>.
[CCN] "Content Centric Networking", <http://www.ccnx.org>.
Prakash Suthar, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft draft-irtf-icnrg-icn-lte-4g-09 February 2021
[CHENG] Liang, C., Yu, R., and X. Zhang, "Information-centric
network function virtualization over 5g mobile wireless
networks", IEEE Network Journal vol. 29, number 3, pp.
68-74, June 2015,
<https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7113228>.
[EMBMS] Zahoor, K., Bilal, K., Erbad, A., and A. Mohamed,
"Service-Less Video Multicast in 5G: Enablers and
Challenges", IEEE Network vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 270-276, May
2020, <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9105941>.
[EPCCUPS] Schmitt, P., Landais, B., and F. Yong Yang, "Control and
User Plane Separation of EPC nodes (CUPS)", 3GPP The
Mobile Broadband Standard, July 2017,
<http://www.3gpp.org/news-events/3gpp-news/1882-cups>.
[FOTIOU] Fotiou, N. and G. Polyzos, "ICN privacy and name based
security", ACM-ICN '14: Proceedings of the 1st ACM
Conference on Information-Centric Networking ACM Digitial
Library, pp. 5-6, September 2014,
<https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2660129.2666711>.
[GALIS] Galis, A., Makhijani, K., Yu, D., and B. Liu, "Autonomic
Slice Networking", draft-galis-anima-autonomic-slice-
networking-05 (work in progress), September 2018.
[GRAYSON] Grayson, M., Shatzkamer, M., and S. Wainner, "Cisco Press
book "IP Design for Mobile Networks"", Cisco
Press Networking Technology series, June 2009,
<http://www.ciscopress.com/store/
ip-design-for-mobile-networks-9781587058264>.
[HICN] Muscariello, L., Carofiglio, G., Auge, J., and M.
Papalini, "Hybrid Information-Centric Networking", draft-
muscariello-intarea-hicn-04 (work in progress), May 2020.
[I-D.anilj-icnrg-dnc-qos-icn]
Jangam, A., suthar, P., and M. Stolic, "QoS Treatments in
ICN using Disaggregated Name Components", draft-anilj-
icnrg-dnc-qos-icn-02 (work in progress), March 2020.
[I-D.oran-icnrg-qosarch]
Oran, D., "Considerations in the development of a QoS
Architecture for CCNx-like ICN protocols", draft-oran-
icnrg-qosarch-05 (work in progress), August 2020.
Prakash Suthar, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft draft-irtf-icnrg-icn-lte-4g-09 February 2021
[ICN5G] Ravindran, R., suthar, P., Trossen, D., and G. White,
"Enabling ICN in 3GPP's 5G NextGen Core Architecture",
draft-ravi-icnrg-5gc-icn-03 (work in progress), July 2020.
[ICNLOWPAN]
Gundogan, C., Schmidt, T., Waehlisch, M., Scherb, C.,
Marxer, C., and C. Tschudin, "ICN Adaptation to LowPAN
Networks (ICN LoWPAN)", draft-irtf-icnrg-icnlowpan-08
(work in progress), May 2020.
[ICNQoS] Al-Naday, M., Bontozoglou, A., Vassilakis, G., and M.
Reed, "Quality of Service in an Information-Centric
Network", 2014 IEEE Global Communications Conference IEEE
Xplore DL, pp. 1861-1866, December 2014,
<https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7037079>.
[IPoICN] Trossen, D., Read, M., Riihijarvi, J., Georgiades, M.,
Fotiou, N., and G. Xylomenos, "IP over ICN - The better
IP?", 2015 European Conference on Networks and
Communications (EuCNC) IEEE Xplore DL, pp. 413-417, June
2015, <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7194109>.
[MBICN] Carofiglio, G., Gallo, M., Muscariello, L., and D. Perino,
"Scalable mobile backhauling via information-centric
networking", The 21st IEEE International Workshop on Local
and Metropolitan Area Networks, Beijing, pp. 1-6, April
2015, <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7114719>.
[MECSPEC] "Mobile Edge Computing (MEC); Framework and Reference
Architecture", ETSI European Telecommunication Standards
Institute (ETSI) MEC specification, March 2016,
<https://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_gs/
MEC/001_099/003/01.01.01_60/gs_MEC003v010101p.pdf>.
[MPVCICN] Jangam, A., Ravindran, R., Chakraborti, A., Wan, X., and
G. Wang, "Realtime multi-party video conferencing service
over information centric network", IEEE International
Conference on Multimedia and Expo Workshops (ICMEW) Turin,
Italy, pp. 1-6, June 2015,
<https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7169810>.
[MUTHANA] Muthana, A. and M. Saeed, "Analysis of User Identity
Privacy in LTE and Proposed Solution", International
Journal of Computer Network and Information
Security(IJCNIS) MECS Press, pp. 54-63, January 2017,
<http://www.mecs-press.org/ijcnis/ijcnis-v9-n1/
v9n1-7.html>.
Prakash Suthar, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft draft-irtf-icnrg-icn-lte-4g-09 February 2021
[NDNRTC] Gusev, P., Wang, Z., Burke, J., Zhang, L., Yoneda, T.,
Ohnishi, R., and E. Muramoto, "Real-time Streaming Data
Delivery over Named Data Networking,", IEICE Transactions
on Communications vol. E99.B, pp. 974-991, May 2016,
<https://doi.org/10.1587/transcom.2015AMI0002>.
[NGMN] Robson, J., "Backhaul Provisioning for LTE-Advanced and
Small Cells", Next Generation Mobile Networks, LTE-
Advanced Transport Provisioning, V0.0.14, October 2015,
<https://www.ngmn.org/wp-content/uploads/
Publications/2015/150929_NGMN_P-
SmallCells_Backhaul_for_LTE-Advanced_and_Small_Cells.pdf>.
[NS3EPC] Baldo, N., "The ns-3 EPC module", NS3 EPC Model,
<https://www.nsnam.org/docs/models/html/
lte-design.html#epc-model>.
[NS3LTE] Baldo, N., "The ns-3 LTE module", NS3 LTE Model,
<https://www.nsnam.org/docs/models/html/
lte-design.html#lte-model>.
[OFFLOAD] Rebecchi, F., Dias de Amorim, M., Conan, V., Passarella,
A., Bruno, R., and M. Conti, "Data Offloading Techniques
in Cellular Networks: A Survey", IEEE Communications
Surveys and Tutorials, IEEE Xplore DL, vol:17, issue:2,
pp.580-603, November 2014,
<https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6953022>.
[OLTEANU] Olteanu, A. and P. Xiao, "Fragmentation and AES Encryption
Overhead in Very High-speed Wireless LANs", Proceedings of
the 2009 IEEE International Conference on Communications
ICC'09, ACM DL, pp.575-579, June 2009,
<http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1817271.1817379>.
[Open5GCore]
Open5GCore, M., "Open5GCore - Fundamental 4G Core Network
Functionality", Open5GCore, <https://www.open5gcore.org>.
[RFC4594] Babiarz, J., Chan, K., and F. Baker, "Configuration
Guidelines for DiffServ Service Classes", RFC 4594,
DOI 10.17487/RFC4594, August 2006,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4594>.
[RFC6459] Korhonen, J., Ed., Soininen, J., Patil, B., Savolainen,
T., Bajko, G., and K. Iisakkila, "IPv6 in 3rd Generation
Partnership Project (3GPP) Evolved Packet System (EPS)",
RFC 6459, DOI 10.17487/RFC6459, January 2012,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6459>.
Prakash Suthar, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft draft-irtf-icnrg-icn-lte-4g-09 February 2021
[RFC7476] Pentikousis, K., Ed., Ohlman, B., Corujo, D., Boggia, G.,
Tyson, G., Davies, E., Molinaro, A., and S. Eum,
"Information-Centric Networking: Baseline Scenarios",
RFC 7476, DOI 10.17487/RFC7476, March 2015,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7476>.
[RFC7927] Kutscher, D., Ed., Eum, S., Pentikousis, K., Psaras, I.,
Corujo, D., Saucez, D., Schmidt, T., and M. Waehlisch,
"Information-Centric Networking (ICN) Research
Challenges", RFC 7927, DOI 10.17487/RFC7927, July 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7927>.
[RFC7945] Pentikousis, K., Ed., Ohlman, B., Davies, E., Spirou, S.,
and G. Boggia, "Information-Centric Networking: Evaluation
and Security Considerations", RFC 7945,
DOI 10.17487/RFC7945, September 2016,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7945>.
[RFC8569] Mosko, M., Solis, I., and C. Wood, "Content-Centric
Networking (CCNx) Semantics", RFC 8569,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8569, July 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8569>.
[RFC8609] Mosko, M., Solis, I., and C. Wood, "Content-Centric
Networking (CCNx) Messages in TLV Format", RFC 8609,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8609, July 2019,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8609>.
[SDN5G] Page, J. and J. Dricot, "Software-defined networking for
low-latency 5G core network", 2016 International
Conference on Military Communications and Information
Systems (ICMCIS) IEEE Xplore DL, pp. 1-7, May 2016,
<https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7496561>.
[TLVCOMP] Mosko, M., "Header Compression for TLV-based Packets",
ICNRG Buenos Aires IETF 95, April 2016,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/interim-2016-icnrg-
02/materials/slides-interim-2016-icnrg-2-7>.
[TOURANI] Tourani, R., Misra, S., Mick, T., and G. Panwar,
"Security, Privacy, and Access Control in Information-
Centric Networking: A Survey", IEEE Communications Surveys
and Tutorials Volume 20, Issue 1, pp 566-600, September
2017, <https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8027034>.
Prakash Suthar, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft draft-irtf-icnrg-icn-lte-4g-09 February 2021
[TS23.203]
3GPP, "Policy and charging control architecture", 3GPP
TS 23.203 10.9.0, September 2013,
<http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/html-info/23203.htm>.
[TS23.401]
3GPP, "General Packet Radio Service (GPRS) enhancements
for Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access Network
(E-UTRAN) access", 3GPP TS 23.401 10.10.0, March 2013,
<http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/html-info/23401.htm>.
[TS23.501]
3GPP, "System Architecture for the 5G System", 3GPP
TS 23.501 15.2.0, June 2018,
<http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/html-info/23501.htm>.
[TS23.714]
3GPP, "Technical Specification Group Services and System
Aspects: Study on control and user plane separation of EPC
nodes", 3GPP TS 23.714 0.2.2, June 2016,
<http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/html-info/23714.htm>.
[TS29.060]
3GPP, "General Packet Radio Service (GPRS); GPRS Tunneling
Protocol (GTP) across the Gn and Gp interface", 3GPP
TS 29.060 3.19.0, March 2004,
<http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/html-info/29060.htm>.
[TS33.310]
3GPP, "Network Domain Security (NDS); Authentication
Framework (AF)", 3GPP TS 33.310 10.7.0, December 2012,
<http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/html-info/33310.htm>.
[TS33.320]
3GPP, "Security of Home Node B (HNB) / Home evolved Node B
(HeNB)", 3GPP TS 33.320 10.5.0, June 2012,
<http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/html-info/33320.htm>.
Authors' Addresses
Prakash Suthar
Google Inc.
Mountain View, California 94043
USA
Email: psuthar@google.com
Prakash Suthar, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft draft-irtf-icnrg-icn-lte-4g-09 February 2021
Milan Stolic
Cisco Systems Inc.
Naperville, Illinois 60540
USA
Email: mistolic@cisco.com
Anil Jangam (editor)
Cisco Systems Inc.
San Jose, California 95134
USA
Email: anjangam@cisco.com
Dirk Trossen
Huawei Technologies
Riesstrasse 25
Munich 80992
Germany
Email: dirk.trossen@huawei.com
Prakash Suthar, et al. Expires August 26, 2021 [Page 40]