Delay-Tolerant Networking Y. W. Chung
Internet-Draft M. W. Kang
Intended status: Informational Y. Kim
Expires: January 2, 2019 Soongsil University
July 2, 2018
Extension of Probabilistic Routing Protocol using History of
Encounters and Transitivity for Information Centric Network
draft-chung-dtn-extension-prophet-icn-02.txt
Abstract
This document proposes extension of probabilistic routing protocol
using history of encounters and transitivity (PRoPHET) for
information centric network.
Status of This memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents
at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as
reference material or to cite them other than as "work in
progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 2, 2019.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2018 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
Chung, et al. Expires January 2, 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Extension of PRoPHET for ICN July 2018
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with
respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this
document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in
Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without
warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ................................................ 2
2. Conventions and Terminology ................................. 3
2.1. Conventions ............................................ 3
2.2. Terminology ............................................ 3
3. Forwarding of Interest and Data for ICN ..................... 3
3.1. Delivery predictability of PRoPHET ..................... 3
3.2. Extension for Interest forwarding ...................... 4
3.3. Extension for Data forwarding .......................... 5
3.4. Extension for caching .................................. 6
3.5. Operation of the proposed extension .................... 7
4. Security Considerations .................................... 13
5. IANA Considerations ........................................ 13
6. References ................................................. 13
6.1. Normative References .................................. 13
6.2. Informative References ................................ 13
1. Introduction
In Information centric network (ICN), a node requests Data by
sending Interest packet and this Interest packet is forwarded
through ICN routers. A router with the requested Data replies to the
Interest to the requester and the Interest is delivered through a
reverse path of the forwarded Interest. ICN router manages content
store (CS), pending interest table (PIT), and forwarding information
base (FIB) [George2014]. In CS, cached data is stored for future use.
In PIT, the information of Interest, the incoming and outgoing faces
of the Interest are stored, and this information is used to deliver
Data to the requester using the reverse path of forwarded Interest.
FIB is used to forward Interest to appropriate faces.
ICN is considered important for communication of urgent messages in
disaster situations [Edo2014]. In disaster situations, communication
infrastructure is destroyed and networks are fragmented. In
Chung, et al. Expires January 2, 2019 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Extension of PRoPHET for ICN July 2018
fragmented networks where connectivity between the nodes at
different fragmented networks is not possible, opportunistic network
such as delay tolerant networks (DTN) can be used to deliver
messages. In DTN, a message is delivered to a destination node via
opportunistic contacts between intermediate nodes in a store-carry-
forward way.
Since forwarding of Interest and Data should be carried out
opportunistically using DTN in fragmented networks, forwarding
schemes of Interest and Data in connected ICN networks should be
extended to accommodate the disruptive characteristics of DTN. In
this draft, we consider probabilistic routing protocol using history
of encounters and transitivity (PRoPHET)[RFC6693] for extension.
Then, we propose forwarding schemes for Interest and Data of ICN.
2. Conventions and Terminology
2.1. Conventions
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
2.2. Terminology
TBD
3. Forwarding of Interest and Data for ICN
3.1. Delivery predictability of PRoPHET
In PRoPHET, delivery predictability is defined between any two nodes.
The delivery predictability between node A and node B i.e., P(A,B),
increases whenever node A and node B contact as follows:
P(A,B)=P(A,B)_old+(1-delta-P(A,B)_old)*P_encounter,(1)
where delta sets an upper bound for P(A,B) and P_encounter is a
scaling factor to control the rate of increase [RFC6693].
Also, it decreases as time elapses since the last contact as
follows:
P(A,B)=P(A,B)_old*gamma^K,(2)
Chung, et al. Expires January 2, 2019 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Extension of PRoPHET for ICN July 2018
where 0<=gamma<=1 is an aging constant and K is the elapsed time.
Finally, the delivery predictability has a transitive property i.e.,
if node A and B encounter frequently, and node B and node C
encounter frequently, then node A probably encounters node C as
follows:
P(A,C)= MAX(P(A,C)_old,P(A,B)*P(B,C)*beta),(3)
3.2. Extension for Interest forwarding
Conventional DTN routing protocol is based on push model and the
destination of a message is a specific node. However, pull model is
used in ICN and Interest is forwarded based on content name, rather
than node ID. In order to forward Interest to appropriate nodes
which have the requested Data in its CS, the delivery predictability
of a node A for the Interest i corresponding to the requested Data
is defined as P(A,N(d_i)), similar to Eq. (1) as follows:
P(A,N(d_i))
=P(A,N(d_i))_old+(1-delta-P(A,N(d_i)_old)*P_encounter,(4)
where N(d_i) represents a set of nodes with the Data corresponding
to Interest i in its CS.
In Eq. (4), P(A,N(d_i)) increases whenever node A contacts another
node which has d_i in its CS, where the number of nodes having Data
d_i is generally larger than 1, since d_i can be cached in multiple
nodes by adopting the ICN approach. Similar to Eq. (2), the delivery
predictability of a node to a node set N(d_i) decreases as time
elapses since the last contact. We note that if node A has Data d_i,
P(A,N(d_i))=1.
When node A and node B contact, Interest i stored in node A is
forwarded to node B, if P(A,N(d_i)) < P(B,N(d_i)), since node B is a
more probable node to deliver Interest i to a node having d_i than
node A. In this case, the information of requester nodes for
Interest i is also delivered to node B. The information of requester
nodes for the same Interest i stored in both node A and node B is
shared, irrespective of the comparison of delivery predictabilities.
For example, if node A has Interest i with requester R1 and if node
B has Interest i with requester R2, both node A and node B have
information of requesters R1 and R2 for Interest i after contact.
Chung, et al. Expires January 2, 2019 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Extension of PRoPHET for ICN July 2018
3.3. Extension for Data forwarding
For the delivery of Data in DTN, there is no known reverse path like
the one using PIT in ICN. Therefore, Data also should be delivered
using DTN routing protocol, too. In the proposed extension, the
information of requesters for the considered Data is used to forward
the Data. If the number of requesters for the Data corresponding to
Interest i is only one, the forwarding scheme of conventional
PRoPHET can be applied directly since the destination of the Data is
a requester node and forwarding is carried out based on node ID.
That is, if P(B,R(d_i)) is larger than P(A,R(d_i)), the Data d_i is
forwarded to node B, where R(d_i) is defined as the requester node
for the Data corresponding to Interest i.
If there are multiple requesters for the Data corresponding to
Interest i, current forwarding scheme of PRoPHET should be extended,
too, based on the delivery predictability relationship of two
contact nodes for each requester. In this draft, three forwarding
schemes for multiple requesters are presented in as examples. If
node A and B contact and node A has Data with multiple requesters,
the Data can be forwarded to node B if any of the following
condition is met depending on the selected policy:
1) if the delivery predictability between node B and a requester is
larger than that between node A and the corresponding requester for
any requester,
2) if the delivery predictability between node B and a requester is
larger than that between node A and the corresponding requester for
all requesters,
3) if the average of the delivery predictabilities of node B and
requesters are larger than that between node A and the corresponding
requesters.
For example, if node A has Data d_i with requesters R1 and R2 and if
node B does not have Data d_i already when node A and node B contact,
Data d_i in node A will be forwarded to node B depending on a Data
forwarding policy as follows:
1) if P(A,R1(d_i)) |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
Fig 1. Interest Forwarding Procedure (at time t)
Each node has a table for delivery predictability to a set of nodes
with Data corresponding to Interest in each node, as shown in Tables
1 and 2.
Table 1. Delivery predictability to a set of nodes with Data
corresponding to Interest in node A(at time t)
+==============================+
| Node | Delivery |
| set | Predictability |
+========+=====================+
| N(d 1) | 0.5 |
+--------+---------------------+
| N(d_2) | 0.6 |
+--------+---------------------+
| N(d_4) | 0.8 |
+==============================+
Table 2. Delivery predictability to a set of nodes with Data
corresponding to Interest in node B(at time t)
+==============================+
| Node | Delivery |
| set | Predictability |
+========+=====================+
Chung, et al. Expires January 2, 2019 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Extension of PRoPHET for ICN July 2018
| N(d_1) | 0.3 |
+--------+---------------------+
| N(d_2) | 0.7 |
+==============================+
After the contact of node A and node B, the requester information
for the same Data ID in Interest table is shared and thus requesters
R1 and R3 are stored in both node A and node B. Since the delivery
predictability of N(d_2) of node B is higher than that of node A,
requester information R2 is forwarded to node B.
Since node A contacts with node B which has Data d_3 in its cache,
delivery predictability of node A is updated, as shown in Table 3.
Since node B does not have delivery predictability to a node set
N(d_4) before contact, the delivery predictability of node B to a
node set is updated using transitivity property.
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
| +============================+ +============================+ |
| | Interest List in Node A | | Interest List in Node B | |
| +============================+ +============================+ |
| | ID | Data ID | Requester | | ID | Data ID | Requester | |
| +======+=========+===========+ +======+=========+===========+ |
| | i_1 | d_1 | R1, R3 | | i_3 | d_1 | R1, R3 | |
| +------+---------+-----------+ +------+---------+-----------+ |
| | i_2 | d_2 | R2 | | i_2 | d_2 | R2 | |
| +------+---------+-----------+ +============================+ |
| | i_4 | d_4 | R1 | +============================+ |
| +============================+ | Data List in B | |
| +============================+ |
| | ID | Requester | |
| +======+=====================+ |
| | d_3 | R4 | |
| +============================+ |
| ___ ___ |
| / \ / \ |
| ( A ) ( B ) |
| \___/ \___/ |
| |
| |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
Fig 2. Interest Forwarding Procedure (at time t+dt)
Chung, et al. Expires January 2, 2019 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Extension of PRoPHET for ICN July 2018
Table 3. Delivery predictability to a set of nodes with Data
corresponding to Interest in node A(at time t+dt)
+==============================+
| Node | Delivery |
| set | Predictability |
+========+=====================+
| N(d_1) | 0.5 |
+--------+---------------------+
| N(d_2) | 0.6 |
+--------+---------------------+
| N(d_4) | 0.8 |
+--------+---------------------|
| N(d_3) | 0.5 |
+==============================+
Table 4. Delivery predictability to a set of nodes with Data
corresponding to Interest in node B(at time t+dt)
+==============================+
| Node | Delivery |
| set | Predictability |
+========+=====================+
| N(d_1) | 0.3 |
+--------+---------------------+
| N(d_2) | 0.7 |
+--------+---------------------+
| N(d_4) | 0.36 |
+==============================+
For Data forwarding, node A checks Data list. If node A has only one
requester information for the considered Data, node A forwards Data
d_i, which corresponds to Interest i, if node B does not have the
Data and P(B,R(d_i)) is larger than P(A,R(d_i)). If node A has
multiple requesters information for the considered Data, Data can be
forwarded to node B if any of forwarding condition for multiple
requesters defined in this draft is met, as proposed in Eqns. (4)-
(6). Information on requesters is delivered if Data is forwarded. If
both node A and node B have the same Data, the information of
requesters is shared between node A and node B after the contact.
Figures 3 and 4 show an example of the proposed Data forwarding
procedure. Each node has a Data list table, where the information of
Data and requester who requested the Data is stored.
Chung, et al. Expires January 2, 2019 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Extension of PRoPHET for ICN July 2018
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
| +============================+ +============================+ |
| | Data List in Node C | | Data List in Node D | |
| +============================+ +============================+ |
| | ID | Requester | | ID | Requester | |
| +======+=====================+ +======+=====================+ |
| | d_1 | R1, R3 | | d_2 | R4 | |
| +------+---------------------+ +============================+ |
| | d_2 | R2 | |
| +============================+ |
| ___ ___ |
| / \/ \ |
| ( C () D ) |
| \___/\___/ |
| |
| |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
Fig 3. Data Forwarding Procedure (at time t)
Table 5 and Table 6 show delivery predictability to requester node
for corresponding data in each node.
Table 5. Delivery predictability to requester node for corresponding
Data in node C (at time t)
+==============================+
| Node | Delivery |
| ID | Predictability |
+========+=====================+
| R1 | 0.9 |
+--------+---------------------+
| R2 | 0.6 |
+--------+---------------------+
| R3 | 0.2 |
+--------+---------------------+
| R4 | 0.7 |
+==============================+
Table 6. Delivery predictability to requester node for corresponding
Data in node D (at time t)
+==============================+
| Node | Delivery |
| ID | Predictability |
+========+=====================+
| R1 | 0.7 |
+--------+---------------------+
| R2 | 0.7 |
+--------+---------------------+
Chung, et al. Expires January 2, 2019 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Extension of PRoPHET for ICN July 2018
| R3 | 0.6 |
+--------+---------------------+
| R4 | 0.9 |
+==============================+
As shown in Figure 4, requester information is shared between two
nodes. Thus requester information for Data d_2 is shared as R2 and
R4 and the requester information for Data d_1 of node A is
transferred to node B.
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
| +============================+ +============================+ |
| | Data List in Node C | | Data List in Node D | |
| +============================+ +============================+ |
| | ID | Requester | | ID | Requester | |
| +======+=====================+ +======+=====================+ |
| | d_1 | R1, R3 | | d_2 | R4, R2 | |
| +------+---------------------+ +------+---------------------+ |
| | d_2 | R2, R4 | | d_1 | R1, R3 | |
| +============================+ +============================+ |
| ___ ___ |
| / \ / \ |
| ( C ) ( D ) |
| \___/ \___/ |
| |
| |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
Fig 4. Data Forwarding Procedure (at time t+dt)
Table 7 and Table 8 show delivery predictability to requester node
for corresponding data in node A and node B, respectively after the
contact, where the delivery predictability is updated.
Table 7. Delivery Predictability to requester node for corresponding
data in node C (at time t+dt)
+==============================+
| Node | Delivery |
| ID | Predictability |
+========+=====================+
| R1 | 0.9 |
+--------+---------------------+
| R2 | 0.6 |
+--------+---------------------+
| R3 | 0.27 |
+--------+---------------------+
| R4 | 0.7 |
+--------+---------------------+
Chung, et al. Expires January 2, 2019 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Extension of PRoPHET for ICN July 2018
| D | 0.5 |
+==============================+
Table 8. Delivery Predictability to requester node for corresponding
data in node D (at time t+dt)
+==============================+
| Node | Delivery |
| ID | Predictability |
+========+=====================+
| R1 | 0.7 |
+--------+---------------------+
| R2 | 0.7 |
+--------+---------------------+
| R3 | 0.6 |
+--------+---------------------+
| R4 | 0.9 |
+--------+---------------------+
| C | 0.5 |
+==============================+
4. Security Considerations
TBD
5. IANA Considerations
TBD
6. References
6.1. Normative References
[RFC6693] Lindgren, A., Doria, A., Davies, E., Grasic, S,
"Probabilistic routing protocol for intermittently
connected networks", RFC 6693, August 2012.
6.2. Informative References
[Geroge2014]
Xylomenos, G. Ververidis, C. N., Siris, V. A., Fotiou, N.,
Tsilopoulos, C., Vasilakos, X., Katsaros, K. V. Polyzos, G.
C., "A Survey of Information-Centric Networking Research",
IEEE Communications Surveys and Tutorials, Vol. 16, No. 2,
2014.
Chung, et al. Expires January 2, 2019 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Extension of PRoPHET for ICN July 2018
[Edo2014] Monticelli, E., Schubert, B. M., Arumaithurai, M., Fu, X.,
Ramakrishnan, K. K., "An Information Centric Approach for
Communications in Disaster Situations," Proceedings of
IEEE Local & Metropolitan Area Networks, USA, May 2014.
Chung, et al. Expires January 2, 2019 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Extension of PRoPHET for ICN July 2018
Authors' Addresses
Yun Won Chung
Soongsil University
369, Sangdo-ro, Dongjak-gu,
Seoul, 06978, Korea
Email: ywchung@ssu.ac.kr
Min Wook Kang
Soongsil University
369, Sangdo-ro, Dongjak-gu,
Seoul, 06978, Korea
Email: goodlookmw@gmail.com
Younghan Kim
Soongsil University
369, Sangdo-ro, Dongjak-gu,
Seoul, 06978, Korea
Email: younghak@ssu.ac.kr
Chung, et al. Expires January 2, 2019 [Page 15]