Dirk Kutscher

The ACM Information-Centric Networking 2022 Conference took place in Osaka from September 19 to 21 2022, hosted by Osaka University. It was a three-day conference with tutorials, one keynote, two panel session, and paper and poster/demo presentations. The highlights (with links to papers and presentations) from my perspective were the following:

Keynote by Dave Oran: Travels with ICN – The road traversed and the road ahead

Dave Oran presented an overview of his research experience over the last ten years that was informed by many seminal research contributions on ICN and his career in the network vendor sector as well as in standards and research bodies such as the IETF and IRTF.

The keynote's theme was about disentagling the application and network layer aspects of ICN, which led to interesting perspectives on some of the previous design decisions in CCNx and NDN.

As ilustrated in the figure below, the more networking-minded ICN topics are typically connected to features and challenges of building packet-forwarding networks based on the principle of accessing named data. The actual research questions are generally not different to those of IP networks (routing, mobility etc.), but ICN provides a significant potential to re-think and often improve over the specific approaches in IP networks due to its core properties such as object security and symmetric, stateful forwarding.

Information-centric applications development in contrast is often concerned with general naming concepts, namespace design, and security features that are enabled by namespace design and application layer object security such as trust schema and provenance.

The message in Dave's talk was not that these are completely disjunct areas that should best be investigated independent of each other, but rather that the ICN's fascination and disruptive potential is based on the potential for rethinking layer boundaries and contemplating a better function split between applications, network stacks on endpoints, and forwarding elements in the network. In his talk, Dave focused on

• the Interaction of consumers & networking producers of data;
• routing;
• forwarding; and
• congestion control.

He discussed many lessons learned as well as open research and new ideas for all of these topics – please refer to the presentation slides for details.

One particularly interesting current ICN research topic is distributed computing and ICN architectures & interaction models for that. ICN's name-based forwarding model and object security provide very interesting options for simplifying systems such as microservices, RESTful services and distributed application coordination. Alluding to our work on Reflexive Forwarding, Dave offered two main lessons learned from building corresponding communication abstractions:

1. Content fetch with two-way handshakes is a poor match for doing distributed computations.

2. Extensions to the base protocols can give a flexible underpinning for multiple interaction models

This raises the question of the slim waist of ICN, i.e., as research progresses, what should be the minimal feature set and what is the right extensibility model?

Dave concluded his talk with a few interesting questions:

• how can the networking insights we’ve gained from ICN protocols inform the construction of Information Centric systems and applications?

  • Whether and how to utilize name-based routing to achieve robustness and performance scaling for distributed applications?
  • Where does caching help or not help and how to best utilize caches?
  • Does pushing Names down to lower layers help latency? Resilience? Fairness?

• How can the insights we’ve gained from applying Information Centricity in applications inform what we bother to change the network to do, and what not?

  • Do things like multipath forwarding, in-network retransmission, or reflexive forwarding actually enable applications that are hard or infeasible to do without them?
  • Is there a big win for wireless networks in terms of optimizing a scarce resource or having more robust and responsive mobility characteristics?

More details in the presentation slides

Panel: ICN and the Metaverse – Challenges and Opportunities

I had the pleasure of being in a panel with Jeff Burke (UCLA) and Geoff Houston (APNIC), moderated by Alexander Afanasyev (Florida International University) discussing Metaverse challenges and opportunities for ICN.

Questions on Metaverse and ICN

Large-scale interactive and networked AR/VR/XR systems are now referred to as Metaverse, and the general assumption is that corresponding applications will be hosted on platforms, similar to those that are employed for web and social media applications today.

In the web, the platform approach has led to an accelerated development and growth of a few popular mainstream systems. On the other hand, several problems have been observed such as ubiquitous surveillance, lock-in effects, centralization, innovation stagnation, and cost overhead for achieving the required performance.

While these phenomena may have both technical and economic root causes, we would like to discuss:

• How should Metaverse systems be designed, and what would be important architectural pillars?
• What is the potential for re-imagining Metaverse with information-centric concepts and protocols?
• Would ICN enable or lead to profound architecturally unique approaches – or would protocols such as NDN be a drop-in replacement for QUIC, HTTP3 etc.?
• What are the challenges for building ICN-based Metaverse systems, and what it missing in today's ICN platforms?

As input to the discussion, Jeff Burke and myself (together with Dave Oran) submitted two papers:

• Jeff Burke: Statement: As TCP/IP is to the web, ICN is to the…?
• Dirk Kutscher and David Oran: RESTful information-centric networking: statement

Research Directions

Jeff offered a list of really interesting research directions based on the notion that in the Metaverse, host-based identifiers and end-to-end connections between hosts would be abstracted even further away than in today’s web. Client devices would fade into the background in favor of the data supplanting or augmenting the real world. Thus, a metaverse consisted of information not associated with the physical world unless it needed to describe or provide interaction with it. The experiential semantics were viscerally information-centric, which would help to motivate the ICN research opportunities such as:

• Persistence: The information forming a metaverse persists across sessions and users.

• “Content” and Interoperability: Designing the relationships among metaverse-layer objects and the named packets that an ICN network moves and stores.

• Naming and Spatial Organization: How to best integrate knowledge from research in databases and related fields where these challenges have been considered for decades.

• Trust, Provenance, and Transactions: Using ICN to disentangle metaverse objects from the security provided by a source or a given channel of communication, with the named data representation secured at the time of publication instead.

RESTful ICN

In our paper on RESTFul ICN, Dave Oran and I asked the question: given that most web applications are concerned with transferring named units of data (web resources, video chunks etc.), can the REST paradigm be married with the data-oriented, receiver-driven operation of Information-Centric Networking (ICN), leveraging attractive ICN benefits such as consumer anonymity, stateful and symmetric forwarding, flow-balance in-network caching, and implicit object security?

We argue that this is feasible given some of the recent advances in ICN protocol development and that the resulting suite is simpler and potentially having better performance and robustness properties. Our sketch of an ICN based protocol framework addresses secure and efficient establishment and continuation of REST communication sessions, without giving up key ICN properties, such as consumer anonymity and flow balance.

Panel Discussion

The panel discussed the current socio-economic realities in the Internet and the Web and explored opportunities (and non-opportunities) for redesigns, and how ICN could be a potential enabler for that.

My personal view is that most of the potential dystopian outcomes of future Metaverse applications are independent from the enabling networking technology and the technology stack at large (security, naming etc.). It is really important to understand the actual objectives of a specific systems, i.e., who operates to which ends, similar to so-called social networks today. If the main objective is to create a more powerful advertising and manipulation platform, then such as system will exhibit yet unimaginable surveillance and tracking mechanisms – independent of the underlying network stack.

With respect to the technical design, I agree to Jeff Burke's proposed research directions. One particularly interesting question will be how to design a Information-Centric communication stack and corresponding APIs. I argued that it is not necessary to replicate existing interaction styles and protocol stacks from the TCP/IP (or QUIC) world. Instead it should be more interesting and productive to discuss the fundamentally needed interaction classes such as

• High-performance multi-destination transfer
• Group communication and synchronization
• High-performance session-oriented communication with servers and peers (for which we proposed RESTful ICN).

The panel then also discussed how likely non-mainstream Metaverse systems would be adopted and whether the current socio-economic environment actually allows for that level of permissionless innovation – considering the network effects that Metaverse systems would be subjected to, much in the same way as so-called social networks.

Panel: Hard Lessons for ICN from IP Multicast?

Thomas Schmidt (HAW Hamburg) moderated a panel discussion with Jon Crowcroft (University of Cambridge), Dave Oran, and George Xylomenos (Athens University of Economics and Business) as panelists.

With the continued shift towards more and more live video streaming services over the Internet, scalable multi-destination delivery has become more relevant again. For example, the recently chartered IETF Working Group on Media over QUIC (MOQ), is addressing the need for scalable multi-destination delivery and the unavailability of IP multicast as a platform by developing a QUIC-based overlay system that essentially uses information-centric concepts, albeit in a QUIC overlay network. Such system would consist of a network of QUIC proxies, connected via individual QUIC connections to emulate request forwarding and chunk-based video data distribution. Considering the non-negligible overhead and complexity one might ask the question whether live video streaming over the Internet could be served by a better approach. Questions like this are being asked by the network service provider community (ISPs have to bear a lot of the overhead and overlay complexity) as well, for example in this APNIC blog posting by Jake Holland titled Why inter-domain multicast now makes sense.

This panel was inspired by a statement paper submitted by Jon Crowcroft titled [Hard lessons for ICN from IP multicast (https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3517212.3558086). In this brief statement, Jon traced the line of thought from Internet multicast through to Information Centric Networking, and used this to outline what he thinks should have been the priorities in ICN work from the start.

The statement paper discusses a few problems with IP multicast that have been largely acknowledged such as difficulties in creating viable business models, unsolved security problems such as IP multicast being used as a DDOS platform, and interdomain multicast that proven difficult to establish due multicast routing scaling problems and the lack of robust pricing models. The second part of the paper is then some ICN work that has been addressing some of the mentioned issued.

The paper gave rise to an interesting and controversial discussion at the panel. The most important point is IMO to characterize ICN communication model correctly: it is correct that the combination of stateful forwarding, Interest aggregation, and caching enables an implicit multi-destination delivery service. It is implicit, because consumers that ask for the same units of named data within a time frame at the order of the network RTT will send equivalent Interest messages so that forwarders can multicast the data delivery to the faces they received such Interests from. In conjunction with opportunistic (or managed) caching by forwarders this would enable a very elegant multi-destination delivery services that can even cater to a wider variation of Interest sending times, as "late" Interest would be answered from caches.

This is a different service model compared to the push-based IP multicast model. ICN does not provide such as service in the first place, but is just applying its regular receiver-driven mode of operation which elegantly works well in the case of multiple consumers asking for the same data. It is probably fair to say that the ICN model caters to media-delivery use cases (one stream delivered to multiple consumers) but does not try to provide the more general IP multicast service model (Any Source Multicast). However, by extension, the ICN approach could be applied to multi-source scenarios as well – the system would build implicit delivery trees from any source to current consumers, without requiring extra machinery.

With this, if you like, simpler service model, ICN does fundamentally not inherit many of the problems that prohibit IP multicast in the Internet: the system is receiver-driven which simply eliminates DDOS threats (on the packet level). It is also not clear, whether ICN would need anything special to provide this service in inter-domain settings (except for general ICN routing in the Internet, which is a general,
but different research question).

Acknowledging this conceptual and practical difference, there are obviously other interesting research questions that ICN multi-destination delivery entails, for example performance and jitter reduction in the presence of caching and other transport questions.

Overall, a good time to talk about multi-destination delivery and to keep thinking about missing pieces and potential future work in ICN.

Enabling Distributed Applications

One paper presentation session was focused on distributed applications – a very interesting and relevant ICN research area. It featured three great papers:

SoK: The evolution of distributed dataset synchronization solutions in NDN

This paper by Philipp Moll, Varun Patil, Lan Wang, and Lixia Zhang systemizes the knowledge about distributed dataset synchronisation in ICN, or Sync in short, which, according to the authors, plays the role of a transport service in the Named Data Networking (NDN) architecture. A number of NDN Sync protocols have been developed over the last decade. For this paper, they conducted a systematic examination of NDN Sync protocol designs, identified common design patterns, revealed insights behind different design approaches,
and collected lessons learned over the years.

Sync enables new ways of thinking about coordination and general communication in distributed ICN systems, and I encourage everyone to read this for a good overview of the different proposed systems and their properties.

There are also some open research questions around Sync, such as large-scale applicability, alternative to using Interest multicast for discovery and more – a good topic to work on!

DICer: distributed coordination for in-network computations

This paper by Uthra Ambalavanan, Dennis Grewe, Naresh Nayak, Liming Liu, Nitinder Mohan, and Jörg Ott is a nice product of the Piccolo project that had the pleasure to set up and co-lead.

Application domains such as automotive and the Internet of Things may benefit from in-network computing to reduce the distance data travels through the network and the response time. Information Centric Networking (ICN) based compute frameworks such as Named Function Networking (NFN) are promising options due to their location independence and loosely-coupled communication model.

However, unlike current operations, such solutions may benefit from orchestration across the compute nodes to use the available resources in the network better. In this paper, the authors adopted the State Vector Synchronization (SVS), an application dataset synchronization protocol in ICN, to enhance the neighborhood knowledge of in-network compute nodes in a distributed fashion. They designed distributed coordination for in-network computation (DICer) that assists the service deployments by improving the resolution of compute requests.

Kua: a distributed object store over named data networking

This paper by Varun Patil, Hemil Desai, and Lixia Zhang decribes a distributed object store in NDN.

Applications such as machine learning training systems or log collection generate and consume large amounts of data. Object storage systems provide a simple abstraction to store and access such large datasets. These datasets are typically larger than the capacities of individual storage servers, and require fault tolerance through replication. This paper presents Kua, a distributed object storage system built over Named Data Networking (NDN).

The data-centric nature of NDN helps Kua maintain a simple design while catering to requirements of storing large objects, providing fault tolerance, low latency and strong consistency guarantees, along with data-centric security.

ICN Applications and Wireless Networking

The session on ICN Applications and Wireless Networking features four papers:

N-DISE: NDN-based data distribution for large-scale data-intensive science

This paper by Yuanhao Wu, Faruk Volkan Mutlu, et al. describes an NDN for Data-Intensive Science Experiments (N-DISE).

To meet unprecedented challenges faced by the world’s largest data- and network-intensive science programs, the authors designed and implemented a new, highly efficient and field-tested data distribution, caching, access and analysis system for the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) high energy physics (HEP) network and other major science programs. They developed a hierarchical Named Data Networking (NDN) naming scheme for HEP data, implemented new consumer and producer applications to interface with the high-performance NDNDPDK forwarder, and buildt on recently developed high-throughput NDN caching and forwarding methods.

The experiemts in this paper include delivering LHC data over the wide area network (WAN) testbed at throughputs exceeding 31 Gbps between Caltech and StarLight, with dramatically reduced download time.

Building a secure mHealth data sharing infrastructure over NDN

In this paper Saurab Dulal, Nasir Ali, et al. describes an NDN-based mHealth system called mGuard.

Exploratory efforts in mobile health (mHealth) data collection and sharing have achieved promising results. However, fine-grained contextual access control and real-time data sharing are two of the remaining challenges in enabling temporally-precise mHealth intervention. The authors have developed an NDN based system called mGuard to address these challenges. mGuard provides a pub-sub API to let users subscribe to real-time mHealth data streams, and uses name-based access control policies and key-policy attribute-based encryption to grant fine-grained data access to authorized users based on contextual information.

Delay-tolerant ICN and its application to LoRa

I have co-authored this paper together with Peter Kietzmann, José Alamos, Thomas C. Schmidt, and Matthias Wählisch.

Connecting low-power long-range wireless networks, such as LoRa, to the Internet imposes significant challenges because of the vastly longer round-trip-times (RTTs) in these constrained networks. In our paper on "Delay-Tolerant ICN and Its Application to LoRa" we present an Information-Centric Networking (ICN) protocol framework that enables robust and efficient delay-tolerant communication to edge networks, including but not limited to LoRa. Our approach provides ICN-idiomatic communication between networks with vastly different RTTs for different use cases. We applied this framework to LoRa, enabling end-to-end consumer-to-LoRa-producer interaction over an ICN-Internet and asynchronous ("push") data production in the LoRa edge. Instead of using LoRaWAN, we implemented an IEEE 802.15.4e DSME MAC layer on top of the LoRa PHY layer and ICN protocol mechanisms in the RIOT operating system.

For our experiments, we connected constrained LoRa nodes and gateways on IoT hardware platforms to a regular, emulated ICN network and performed a series of measurements that demonstrate robustness and efficiency improvements compared to standard ICN.

iCast: dynamic information-centric cross-layer multicast for wireless edge network

This paper by Tianlong Li, Tian Song, Yating Yang, and Jike Yang presents iCast, short for dynamic information-centric multicast, to enable dynamic multicast in the link layer.

Native multicast support in Named Data Networking (NDN)
is an attractive feature, as multicast content delivery can reduce the redundant traffic and improve the network performance, especially in wireless edge networks. With their visibility into Interest and Data names, NDN routers automatically aggregate the same requests from different end hosts and establish network-layer multicast. However,
the current link-layer multicast based on host-centric MAC address management is inflexible. Consequently, supporting NDN dynamic multicast with the current link-layer architecture remains a challenge.

iCast enables dynamic multicast in the link layer based on three main contributions:

1. iCast integrates NDN native multicast with the host-centric link layer while maintaining the host-centric properties of the current link layer.
2. iCast achieves per-packet dynamic multicast in the link layer, and the authors further propose a hash-based iCast variant for dynamic connection.
3. iCast has been implemented in a real testbed, and the evaluation results show that iCast reduces up to 59.53% traffic compared with vanilla NDN. iCast bridges the gap between NDN multicast and the host-centric link-layer multicast.