• http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kutscher-icnrg-challenges-00#page-4
• NDN discussion http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2014-September/069647.html

• http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dinh-icn-sensor-scenarios-03
• https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xuan-dmm-nemo-dmm-02

ICN

• Concep: flood request, responses are cached by any node.
• Benefit:
  • no IP management, stateless Sender (vs. TCP), optional Name resolution system (DNS)
  • Mobility support.
  • No MAC-IP binding, Wireless broadcast channel utilization.
• Problem:
  • Flow control: one data package per interest package. Multi-interest window acts like TCP window.

ICN vs DTN

• Naming: hierarchical vs flat. DTN

  • Name resolution & routing: coupled vs decoupled. DTN Flooding, hop to hop.
  • Caching: on-path vs off-path. DTN flooding.
  • Mobility: Subscriber (receiver) mobility vs Publisher (Sender) mobility.
  • Security: many problem, certification, authentication, trust

  IMA

• Naming: Platform, RSU, Vehicles, Traffic information, Sensor data.
• Routing: OLSR maintains updated topology information.
• Caching: cache traffic data, sensor data should not. Based on real-time, mobility.
• Mobility: Vehicle
  Related Projects

CCNx

• Scalability in CCNx: research a modified DHT, hierarchical DHT based on location, AS domain for Named routing.