# Twenty years of research on information-centric networking: which conclusions for the next version of the Internet?

Mohamed Bobo Diallo, Vazoumana Fofana, Abderrahmane Maaradji, Nada Sbihi, Fatimatou Coulibaly, Jean Cyrille Koffi Angaman, Issagha Bah, Déthié Dione, Joseph Ndong, Tounwendyam Frédéric Ouédraogo

► To cite this version:

Mohamed Bobo Diallo, Vazoumana Fofana, Abderrahmane Maaradji, Nada Sbihi, Fatimatou Coulibaly, et al.. Twenty years of research on information-centric networking: which conclusions for the next version of the Internet?. EAI AFRICOMM 2024 - 16th EAI International Conference on Africa Internet infrastructure and Services, Nov 2024, Abidjan, Côte d'Ivoire. hal-05046101

HAL Id: hal-05046101

https://hal.science/hal-05046101v1

Submitted on 30 Apr 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

Public Domain
Twenty years of research on information-centric
networking: which conclusions for the next
version of the Internet ?

Mohamed Bobo Diallo¹[0000-0002-9872-2479],
Vazoumana Fofana²[0009-0007-3400-1959],
Abdourrahmane Maaradji³[0000-0002-7969-2825],
Nada Sbihi⁴[0000-0001-9541-9987],
Fatimatou Coulibaly¹[0009-0007-3294-5462],
Jean Cyrille Koffi Angaman¹[0000-0002-7969-2825],
Issagha Bah⁵[0009-0003-1456-4982],
Déthié Dione⁶[0000-0002-6308-7276],
Joseph Ndong⁷[0000-0001-6108-6934], and
Tounwendyam Frédéric Ouédraogo⁸[0000-0002-7340-1150]

¹ Université Félix Houphouët-Boigny (Cames)
mohamedbobod.africa

² CNRS/École polytechnique
vazoumana.fofana@polytechnique.edu

³ University of Doha for Science and Technology (UDST)
a.maaradji@gmail.com

⁴ Université Internationale de Rabat

⁵ Internet Society, Côte d'Ivoire

⁶ Université Gaston Berger (Cames)

⁷ Université Cheick Anta Diop (Cames)

⁸ Université Norbert Zongo (Cames)

**Abstract.** It has been nearly two decades that the networking research community is striving to solve internetworking at global scale with a new clean slate architecture that would better fit contemporary **Internet** business requirements, and workloads, largely dominated by video streaming traffic flows; rather than incrementally improving it, with *sophisti-cating* patches. In fact, the current **Internet** evolvable architecture over-relies on the **CDN** global infrastructure of hundreds of thousands of servers. **ICN** (*Information-centric networking*) is a promising breakthrough alternative to contemporary **CDN**-backed large-scale **IP** internetworking. It promises **built-in** effective and efficient capabilities to handle content distribution traffic at **Internet** scale, backed by enhanced routers packaged with additional well-provisioned memory and behaving natively as content caches. To its full potential, the almighty lord enabling, it will support a smart **GPT**-like enhanced service operating over an **Internet-scale** distributed cache of arbitrary topology, able to locate strategically, copies of information binaries, matching information consumers interest predicates. This paper reports key conclusions from the **ICN** reported research haystack, to consider in future steps towards the next **Internet**
architecture and protocol stack, integrating in-networking caching along
with forwarding based on binary content names instead of contemporary
address-based IP forwarding. We conclude by sketching directions not to
overlook in future research on ICN, from our african glasses.

**Keywords:** information centric networking · content-centric networking · data-centric networking · network of information

# 1 Introduction

The TCP/IP based Internet [9] is a five-decade-old solution to internetworking that has prospered to become a global critical infrastructure connecting most cities of the earth with low latencies highways of information. It has been designed to fit several conceptual objectives as reported by sir David Clark, part of the early Internet engineering teams along with sir Vinton Cerf and sir Robert Kahn [13][14][15].

The primary goal of the DARPA Internetworking was to devise a packet-switching technology that would allow exchanging packets between existing packet-switching networks. Secondary objectives included surviving major disasters, supporting a variety of networks, enabling a variety of services, permitting distributed management of its resources and being cost-effective, among other goals. These objectives led to the design of a datagram-based best-effort architecture with stateless packet switches enabling a decentralized infrastructure supporting host-to-host based communications. Reliability is offered as a transport layer service through the TCP protocol.

Internet has been evolving since its original inception by a series of patches to deal with new issues such as security (IPSec [31]), mobility (Mobile IP [48]) or performances (TCP congestion control [26][38]). Also, progressively new applications have emerged such as HTTP web browsing, P2P video downloading, and notably web-based video streaming dominant in contemporary Internet traffic according to reliable sources. Consequently, since the early years of the millenary, CDN content distribution networks have become incontrovertible to handle this multimedia streaming traffic from popular content providers. For instance, Akamai [16] [42] leader of the CDN business is reported having hundreds of thousands of servers deployed over hundreds of countries and as for 2023, a revenue of 3.8 billion dollars is reported on the AKAMAI website. It is not that CDN have not been a necessary praiseworthy solution for Internet content-related services successful deployment at the Internet scale, but there is a concern in the networking research community since the early 2000 to re-engineer the Internet on new engineering principles rather than relying on an architecture patched incrementally to satisfy the Internet evolving business requirements, scale and workloads. This is known as a *clean-slate* scientific effort. TRIAD [11] is very frequently mentioned as the first reported contribution to this effort, and it advertises the original idea of *name-based routing*, when humanity was relying essentially on routing based on locators (i.e. *addresses*), while remaining an incremental proposal to solve *NAT* complications in the *Internet*.
It is within this context that information-centric networking (ICN) has emerged as one of the major research topics in the networking community over the last twenty years. The term ICN has been coined to federate all research efforts sharing the vision of a network directly servicing users’ information needs rather than achieving this through layers of indirections (Fig. 2 vs Fig. 1). This is a revolution in Internet history, shifting it from a network enabling host-to-host packet exchange between remote hosts identified by reachable addresses, to a vision where the network infrastructure behaves as a distributed database serving efficiently and effectively information consumers requests, wherever there is an available trusted copy of matching content binaries. Such ICN network to its highest level of versatility and expressiveness will support a full-capacity and efficient content-based publish/subscribe [59] service as envisioned incrementally by few pioneers [22] [19] [8].

Several approaches and frameworks have been federated under the ICN banner including DONA data-oriented networking [34], content-based networking based on publish/subscribe interactions promoted pioneeringly by sir Antonio Carzaniga [8] [18], CCN content-centric networking [28] [3] further investigated as part of the US(NDN) named-data networking project [64], the EU PSIRP/Pursuit attempt to solve Internetworking interactions using the *publish/subscribe* communication style [29] and finally the EU NetInf framework [17]. However, the CCN framework developed at PARC and advocated by sir Van Jacobson, the father of TCP congestion control mechanisms, has been the most emblematic ICN framework and has received further attention from the networking research community.

Since 2015, the IETF is visibly striving to frame the conversation on ICN research and a few RFCs have been drafted since. We can expect with confidence that the next release of the Internet will implement ICN-related ideas such as caching and networking of named data. Yet, rigorous studies are required to discover the best policies, mechanisms, strategies, and protocol options to adopt in a wide-area ICN network that will efficiently and effectively contribute to satisfying Internet users (*latency*) and network operators (*management/costs* in future deployments).

The ambition of the research early reported in this article is to identify lasting conclusions, meaning definitive conclusions from the haystack of ICN research which is huge. We report in this paper important conclusions documented in the ICN literature related mainly to caching (section 4). Other significant aspects also are discussed (section 5) such as security, applicability to applications other than multimedia content distribution, and also the potential benefit of programmability. The above is preceded by a synthetic overview of ICN (section 2) as an alternative to contemporary host-centric communications for the Internet and by a synthetic overview of CCN (section 3) which is the framework that has received the most attention and that has potentially the best future in the perspective of progressive improvements towards an IETF Internet standard to be merged and deployed with other innovations in the next release of the Internet after the three decades old IPv6 and five decades old IPv4.
## 2 What is Information-centric networking ?

Information-centric networking (ICN) [35] is a relatively recent paradigm in networking studied for almost two decades since the pioneering TRIAD [24] proposal in the early years of the 21st century.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 1. ICN approach of networking</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 2. DNS approach of networking</figcaption></figure>

It is an established label for several conversations labeled differently, as they have followed different trajectories, but that share in common receiver-driven interactions, where typically requested content is delivered on the reverse-path set by the corresponding request often named an interest and using content names as predicates to be solutionated by the network that handle the named interest. With receiver-driven interactions, one receives only what he requested and no longer needs to trust sources of binary content but the data itself. Reverse-path forwarding is commonly used to implement ICN receiver-driven interactions similarly to packet-based multicast forwarding. This communication style requires storing interest messages as soft-states until the content request is satisfied.

ICN is a broad concept that can be applied to various contexts including the Internet, as well as mobile radio networks, and situated and challenging
communication scenarios. When it has come to ICN as an alternative paradigm for Internet-scale communications, *caching-enabled* routers are an incontrovertible building block of the ICN solution. In the context of the Internet, research marketed *content-based networking* [8], *data-oriented networking* [34], developed priorily the ICN term became a consensus label, should rigorously be classified as ICN related research.

From all ICN frameworks proposed as alternatives to the TCP/IP host-centric Internet, the CCN framework has gathered the most attention. Researchers world-wide have studied how to implement efficiently caching, to design effective for-warding strategies and resilient routing protocols using the building blocks and assumptions of the CCN framework. It has thus been the reference model for most of the research and contributions on ICN. A methodical comparison of ICN and IP can be contemplated here referenced [4]. It includes also paragraphs on the main known architectural frameworks of the ICN philosophy, and on different context of applications of ICN included for connecting devices within the IoT marketed ecosystem of connected things.

The IETF is progressively framing the ICN conversation and publishing standards for the next ICN colored Internet. A series of RFCs discussing different aspects of ICN including management and control protocols have been released [41] [39][5] [40][58] [44] [61][49] [36] [21] [43].

ICN research raises several interesting challenges:

**Naming and built-in security** There are two main schools opting either for flat self-certifying cryptographic identifiers (i.e. DONA [34]) or url-based names that similarly to IP addresses can be aggregated in routers tables for better scalability as CCN does.

**Routing and Forwarding** The challenge is how to discover cached resources efficiently in the network, to better benefit of the virtues of in-network caching including reduced latency, end-user traffic in the network. A good routing protocol for an Internet-scale ICN network should be *secure, reliable and scalable*. Scalability in particular is more challenging when routing is done based on names rather than on addresses due to the span of the corresponding namespace.

**Caching** In an Internet-based ICN, some designated routers may behave as caches that are parameterized with a *caching policy* and a *replacement policy*. The *caching policy* decides whether a transiting content object is cached for later service of the content locally than from remote cache routers or hosting servers for other requests. The *replacement policy* decides which content to evince first when the cache is full. Random and popularity-based caching policies have been studied. A simple caching policy is to store every transiting content in the cache. A random policy would decide with a probability *p* to engineer, other may infer sophistically the popularity of the content before deciding whether caching it or not.
# 3 The Content-centric networking (CCN) framework

CCN is the most popular framework from this ICN for Internet conversation [28]. It has been developed at PARC with the leadership of sir Van Jacobson which is also famous for the TCP congestion control mechanisms [26] that solved the very serious *congestion collapse* issue in the expanding Internet in the late eighties. The CCN framework make a few distinguishing decisions. Notably diving content in packet chunks so one can expect the well-established and appreciated properties of packet-switching that can achieve better latency and better usage of network resources.

The cache in CCN is called the *content store*. Each CCN router has caching capacities and can process *interest packet* and relay *content chunks* either from their *content store* or from transiting packets originating from remote servers hosting the content requested by the packet interest. *Receiver-driven* interactions in CCN require storing temporarily packet interests in a data structure named the *pending interests table (PIT)*, until requested content chunks become available at the CCN router relayed by neighbouring nodes. The cache (*content-store*) works with two policies the *caching policy* and the *replacement policy* as described in the previous section. The default replacement policy in CCN is *Least-Recently-Used (LRU)* by default.

*Funding of CCN research* Besides the contributions from PARC under the leadership of sir Van Jacobson, NDN [64] is a still active US NSF-funded project aiming at further investigating conceptual and practical issues within the CCN framework that received several Million dollars. In France the CONNECT project funded by the french ANR agency received one million euro. The project was funded for three years involving several academic institutions, telecommunications operators and manufacturers from France. Both projects NDN and CONNECT have contributed to the emergence of distinguished expertise on the topic and contributed in quality and quantity on better understanding the design space for good protocols, policies and practices within the CCN framework.

*The ecosystem of ICN tools, frameworks, Implementations and simulation environment* The CCNx project at PARC has released early its code base to the community that has been later acquired by the networking industry leader Cisco in 2017 [47]. The project is no longer publicly maintained but the code base is available online. Besides, still active and evolving, the CCNlite v2 initiative is worth mentioning [46].

ICN research has mainly been evaluated through simulations. The three main well-established simulators are : ndnsim [2], ccnsim [12] and Icarus [54]. ndnsim is integrated to the well-known NS3 simulator and has been widely used, followed in popularity by ccnsim integrated to the popular omnet++ simulator. On the other side, hands-on experience of Icarus has revealed a very interesting Python simulator with an extensive range of framework-independent simulation options available.
## 4 Caching related conclusions from ICN research from documented research

In this section, we discuss important conclusions from published research on ICN, including specific ones on CCN. First, it is expected within the CCN that chunk-level packet switching behaves better than file-level message switching from packet-switching theory and our experience of packet-switching in the history of the Internet. The benefits of packet-level switching are well-understood for almost six decades and the pioneering work of sir Leonhard Kleinrock [33]. Next, we can expect that control plane coordination can help reduce redundancy in the cache network and thus improve the diversity of available content in network caches, and thus improve overall performances at the cost of some overhead to engineer efficiently. Also, obviously higher cache sizes improve the hit ratio from the distributed storage of cache networks [19]. However, over-provisioning may be unnecessary as discussed below.

**Caching and replacement policies** In-networking caching is obviously effective in reducing traffic towards upstream servers and reduce latency for information consumers [19]. It is not always necessary that all routers cache all transiting content they relay downstream in the network. Notably, it has been reported that a LCE (*leave copy everywhere*) policy who systematically cache content at every hop of the content reverse path does not have always better performance compared to a naïve LCD (*leave copy down*) that cache content only at edge routers that relayed the content to the client software that initially requested the content [56]. In fact, LCE tends to over-replicate the same popular content and thus may reduce diversity in the distributed cache supported by the network. A notable mathematical analysis has found similarly that maximum throughput scale does not change when content is cached only on the last hop edge routers [6].

Also, it has been reported that often the caching policy doesn't drastically improve performance [19], except for prospective specific optimistic scenarios and it has also been reported that performances are neither sensitive to the topology nor the LRU replacement policy significantly better than a simple random policy [51]. The least recently used policy (LRU) is the default CCN policy. It replaces the content that has less probability a priori to be replaced in the future. It has been reported elsewhere that LRU with the default CCN caching policy does not always give the best achievable performance [32].

**The benefit of a large cache capacity in CCN** The hit ratio, the probability of availability of requested content from network caches, increases with the size of the cache [32]. Even though the reference mentioned is based on the CCN model, we expect it to apply to any ICN framework. However, we have seen in the history of the Internet phenomena such as *bufferbloat* [10] [23] which revealed that with less buffer capacity the network would be more efficient than larger ones, with the interaction of the buffer with network protocols such as TCP.
*The coupling between forwarding and caching* Valuable research has reported that cache networks may have best overall performance when the best strategies strive to optimize jointly *caching* and *forwarding* rather than independent problems [52] [25] [56]. This is a very interesting aspect of *ICN* that has not been much further synthesized and that needs better vulgarization and more didactic investigations to better capture the practical engineering implications for a target framework such as *CCN*. But intuitively, one should keep in mind that there is an obvious dependency between routing (*the paths content is streamed through to satisfy the demand*) and caching (*where the content is available in the network*).

*The benefit of heterogeneous cache capacities in CCN* The capacity of cache allocation must be allocated heterogeneously. The allocation strategies should take into account topology and popularity [60][63] and allocating more capacity at the edge of the network rather than at internal nodes of the topology could be beneficial to improve overall performances.

*Network-wide caching vs single-path caching in CCN* Network-wide caching may have better performance than single-path caching. The former exploits all the cache capacity available over the nodes of the network to keep close copies of streamed content in the network. There is an optimal allocation that gives better results. This however requires appropriate control protocols including coordination ones between caching routers to achieve the best achievable performance [32]. It has been reported that global coordination, shared content delivery path coordination and neighborhood coordination can all contribute to reducing redundancy in the network distributed cache.

# 5 Discussion on other fundamental issues

In this section, we discuss important other aspects of ICN including routing, security, versatility regarding traffic patterns and opportunities of programmability from the scope of the CCN framework. We limit the discussion to CCN while providing insights on alternative prospective design choices when worth mentioning.

## 5.1 Naming and name resolution services

There have been two schools regarding naming resources in ICN: flat identifiers that have the potential to have cryptographic properties (*self-certifying identifiers*) and *url-like* identifiers [57]. The latter has been pragmatically preferred for Internet-scale named data networking in the CCNx project [28] for hierarchical names would have better scalability properties. In fact, with hierarchical name routers could aggregate similar routes and thus reduces routing table sizes that could be in Internet-scale ICN higher order of magnitudes than in current IP networks where it is already a serious scalability stake. Typically core Internet BGP routers may have to store in their routing tables more than half a million routing entries. This could be more challenging with an information-centric network.
## 5.2 Forwarding, routing and congestion issues

In the story of the Internet, security has been one of the neglected issues during the early days of the Internet as the involved institutions were mutually trusting partners. Some has argued that it is one of the reason TCP/IP networks are vulnerable to so many lazily harming attacks such as DoS/DDoS attacks. Solutions to Internet inherent vulnerabilities has been patched up with the Internet becoming a business network in the last decade of the last century including IPSEC [30]. On the other side, we have witnessed that CCN routing has been voluntarily left a creative issue by the CCN framework initiators until the NDN NLSR [37] routing protocol solution [62].

The purpose of routing in CCN is to ease the localization of content chunks available from routers' cache memory. This is necessary when it is no longer scalable to flood packet interests as necessary in unstructured P2P networks [50]. Some research has studied mathematically the benefit of content discovery beyond the reverse-path as discussed previously [32]. Other have interestingly explored when using smart flooding rather than proactive routing protocols whether there is a benefit to cache discovered routes [57] when is envisaged for forwarding interests and thus locate content available in router caches.

Also, CCN as a packet-switching-based framework is vulnerable to congestion. Congestion control and management in CCN has been studied early in the CCN conversation [53] [45] to better optimize network resources ability to satisfy interest workloads. It has been reported that specific mechanisms such as *interest discard* [53] and *interest shaping* [45] could improve performances.

## 5.3 Versatility of ICN in terms of applications and services

One concern with specifically the CCN well-established framework is that it targets primarily content delivery scenarios that dominate contemporary Internet traffic. Thus, it should be before wider standardization, proofed to be able to support other less CDN-like usages in the Internet. Some applications has been early experimented within the CCN framework giving high expectations regarding this concern [27].

SDN (*software-defined networking*) and programmability are opportunities for improving ICN efficiency, and also to enable flexibility and versatility in the network and fasten the forwarding plane. It is very also interesting to explore how to solve effectively and elegantly within CCN/NDN, the efficient handling of both persistent and traditional non-persistent interests. Previous attempts are documented and it is very important for a future Internet to be able to handle within the same framework *search* and *notification* patterns [19] [7] and a smart control plane could ease seamless integration of these two orthogonal but supplementary ICN workload patterns.
## 5.4 Is security in CCN/NDN really a progress ?

There are many reported vulnerabilities to the CCN original design [1] including the very feared in contemporary Internet distributed denial of service attacks (DDoS).

A DDoS attack is possible in CCN by issuing many interests using fake names, that may include valid domain prefixes to elaborate more subtile attacks. Without appropriate protection mechanisms, this may saturate the memory allocated to the PIT. This attack known as *interest flooding (IFAs)* can prevent legitimate interests to be satisfied by the network. An original proposal envisions mitigating (IFAs) [55] by a distributed IDS (*intrusion detection system*) deployed over a selected number of CCN routers backed by a controller server.

Even though there are promising security measures for CCN/NDN reported in the literature, it is still expected that a future ICN framework be devised immune to these DDoS attacks by architecture, as it was expected in the early communications on CCN [28].

The PSIRP/PURSUIT for instance had the notion of *scope* of interest who can be an arbitrary filtering criteria. A networking operating system could advertise the properties of the traffic mattering or not for it. Imagine a scope with a blacklist, the network could put an attacker in an illusion of malicious activity while sending the malicious traffic in a virtual black hole to make an analogy with astrophysics.

# 6 Conclusion and perspectives

This paper reports our effort to document significant conclusions from ICN research literature haystack for the global networking community and from the wide African continent specifically, which has not much contributed to the topic compared to other geographic regions that have funded strategically million of euros and dollars research projects on the topic involving both academic and industrial research efforts. These developed economies that still actively contribute to this crucial research including at the IETF have already well-provisioned, well-connected infrastructures and are hosting most of the content whose delivery is at stake, which is not the case particularly in sub-Saharan Africa except for few islands of reliable infrastructures who has solved successfully energy and scarcity of bandwidth issues and that may have relatively expensive Internet access costs.

Africa should fund research on ICN so that it can influence as well the next generation of the Internet which has ethical, technical, and even philosophical stakes with contributions assuming its endemic patterns that still need to be modeled successfully to be taken into account in the future *information-centric* Internet. It can be for thirty years from now, less or more, but Africa's leadership should consider this seriously. After blessed bread and literacy, Internet is the priority, and it should not be over-relied on operators striving mainly to make more revenues from their investments, not holding in contempt their visible efforts including for digital literacy in Africa. It is a question of sovereignty.
We would like also to notify that performance conclusions obtained by simu-
lations are often sensitive to the underlying workload assumptions [20][51]. So, it
would be strategically time and energy-saving to postpone fine-grained investi-
gations, over-spohisticated proposals and performance tuning studies, until the
deployment of at least one national or regional scale ICN network is achieved. Par-
ticularly, it is a good practice to privilege algorithmically simpler good enough
policies and strategies, for early small-scale deployments, when complex sophis-
ticated ones have not provided significant performance gains, as often reported
from trustworthy research.

Africa should also not neglect to deploy virtual substrates in their network to foster innovation of different networks of different protocol stacks including contemporary TCP/IP versions 6 and 4. In such a vision, the ICN forwarding plane and resources could be accessible as a virtualized service [19] and the control plane could operate as a semaphore-like SDN network.

Finally, deploying cache networks with our current network operators’ in-
frastructures may help every citizen, including from rural areas, to have an al-
ways streamingability experience, by keeping in big caches the popular contents
streamed locally by the neighborhood for usage during disconnected periods or
when lambda citizens cannot afford transoceanic gigabytes. This can be done
today as part of the universal telecommunications service in Africa and beyond,
in every city of manhood connected by information highways of low latencies.

References

1. AbdAllah, E.G., Hassanein, H.S., Zulkernine, M.: A survey of security attacks in information-centric networking. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials **17**(3), 1441–1454 (2015)

2. Afanasyev, A., Moiseenko, I., Zhang, L., et al.: ndnsim: Ndn simulator for ns-3. University of California, Los Angeles, Tech. Rep **4**, 1–7 (2012)

3. Ahmed, S.H., Bouk, S.H., Kim, D.: Content-centric networks: an overview, applications and research challenges (2016)

4. Ali, M.N., Zahary, A.T., Areqi, M.A.: Ip and icn networking in d2d_iot communities: A comparative study. Sana'a University Journal of Applied Sciences and Technology **2**(2), 158–167 (2024)

5. Aseda, H., Ooka, A., Shao, X.: Rfc 9344: Ccninfo: Discovering content and network information in content-centric networks (2023)

6. Azimdoost, B., Westphal, C., Sadjadpour, H.: Scaling laws of the throughput capacity and latency in (2016)

7. Carzaniga, A., Papalini, M., Wolf, A.L.: Content-based publish/subscribe networking and information-centric networking. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM workshop on Information-centric networking. pp. 56–61 (2011)

8. Carzaniga, A., Wolf, A.L.: Content-based networking: A new communication infrastructure. In: Developing an Infrastructure for Mobile and Wireless Systems: NSF Workshop IMWS 2001 Scottsdale, AZ, October 15, 2001 Revised Papers. pp. 59–68. Springer (2002)

9. Cerf, V., Kahn, R.: A protocol for packet network intercommunication. IEEE Transactions on communications **22**(5), 637–648 (1974)
10. Cerf, V.G.: Bufferbloat and other internet challenges. IEEE Internet Computing **18**(5), 80–80 (2014)

11. Cheriton, D.R., Gritter, M.: A scalable deployable nat-based internet architecture. Stanford Computer Science Technical Report (2000)

12. Chiocchetti, R., Rossi, D., Rossini, G.: ccnsim: An highly scalable ccn simulator. In: 2013 IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC). pp. 2309–2314. IEEE (2013)

13. Clark, D.: The design philosophy of the darpa internet protocols. In: Symposium proceedings on Communications architectures and protocols. pp. 106–114 (1988)

14. Clark, D.D.: The design philosophy of the darpa internet protocols. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review **25**(1), 102–111 (1995)

15. Clark, D.D.: Designing an internet. MIT Press (2018)

16. Cohen, J., Repantis, T., McDermott, S., Smith, S., Wein, J.: Keeping track of 70,000+ servers: the akamai query system. In: 24th Large Installation System Administration Conference (LISA 10) (2010)

17. Dannewitz, C., Kutscher, D., Ohlman, B., Farrell, S., Ahlgren, B., Karl, H.: Network of information (netinf)—an information-centric networking architecture. Computer Communications **36**(7), 721–735 (2013)

18. Diallo, M., Sourlas, V., Flegkas, P., Fdida, S., Tassiulas, L.: A content-based publish/subscribe framework for large-scale content delivery. Computer Networks **57**(4), 924–943 (2013)

19. Diallo, M.B.: Content-based networking for global scale mediation services. Ph.D. thesis, Paris 6 (2013)

20. Diallo, M.B., Sourlas, V., Fofana, V.: Characterization of a workload generator for content-based publish-subscribe research evaluation. Archives ouvertes HAL (2023)

21. Eum, S., Pentikousis, K., Psaras, I., Corujo, D., Saucez, D., Schmidt, T., Waehlisch, M.: Rfc 7927: Information-centric networking (icn) research challenges (2016)

22. Fdida, S., Diallo, M.B.: The network is a database. In: Proceedings of the 4th Asian Conference on Internet Engineering. pp. 1–6 (2008)

23. Gettys, J., Nichols, K.: Bufferbloat: dark buffers in the internet. Communications of the ACM **55**(1), 57–65 (2012)

24. Gritter, M., Cheriton, D.R.: An architecture for content routing support in the internet. In: 3rd USENIX Symposium on Internet Technologies and Systems (USITS 01) (2001)

25. Ioannidis, S., Yeh, E.: Jointly optimal routing and caching for arbitrary network topologies. In: Proceedings of the 4th ACM Conference on Information-Centric Networking. pp. 77–87 (2017)

26. Jacobson, V.: Congestion avoidance and control. ACM SIGCOMM computer communication review **18**(4), 314–329 (1988)

27. Jacobson, V., Smetters, D.K., Briggs, N.H., Plass, M.F., Stewart, P., Thornton, J.D., Braynard, R.L.: Voccn: voice-over content-centric networks. In: Proceedings of the 2009 workshop on Re-architecting the internet. pp. 1–6 (2009)

28. Jacobson, V., Smetters, D.K., Thornton, J.D., Plass, M.F., Briggs, N.H., Braynard, R.L.: Networking named content. In: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on Emerging networking experiments and technologies. pp. 1–12 (2009)

29. Jokela, P., Zahemszky, A., Esteve Rothenberg, C., Arianfar, S., Nikander, P.: Lipsin: Line speed publish/subscribe inter-networking. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review **39**(4), 195–206 (2009)

30. Kent, S., Atkinson, R.: Rfc 2401: Architecture de sécurité pour ip (1998)
31. Kent, S., Seo, K.: Rfc 4301: Security architecture for the internet protocol (2005)

32. Kim, Y., Yeom, I.: Performance analysis of in-network caching for content-centric networking. Computer networks **57**(13), 2465–2482 (2013)

33. Kleinrock, L.: Principles and lessons in packet communications. Proceedings of the IEEE **66**(11), 1320–1329 (1978)

34. Koponen, T., Chawla, M., Chun, B.G., Ermolinskiy, A., Kim, K.H., Shenker, S., Stoica, I.: A data-oriented (and beyond) network architecture. In: Proceedings of the 2007 conference on Applications, technologies, architectures, and protocols for computer communications. pp. 181–192 (2007)

35. Kurose, J.: Information-centric networking: The evolution from circuits to packets to content. Computer Networks **66**, 112–120 (2014)

36. Lederer, S., Posch, D., Timmerer, C., Azgin, A., Liu, W., Mueller, C., Detti, A., Corujo, D., Wang, J., Montpetit, M., et al.: Rfc 7933: Adaptive video streaming over information-centric networking (icn) (2016)

37. Lehman, V., Hoque, A., Yu, Y., Wang, L., Zhang, B., Zhang, L.: A secure link state routing protocol for ndn. Tech. Rep. NDN-0037 (2016)

38. Leighton, T.: Improving performance on the internet. Communications of the ACM **52**(2), 44–51 (2009)

39. Mastorakis, S., Oran, D., Gibson, J., Moiseenko, I., Droms, R.: Rfc 9508: Information-centric networking (icn) ping protocol specification (2024)

40. Matsuzono, K., Aseda, H., Westphal, C.: Rfc 9273: Network coding for content-centric networking/named data networking: Considerations and challenges (2022)

41. Moiseenko, I., Oran, D.: Rfc 9531: Path steering in content-centric networking (ccnx) and named data networking (ndn) (2024)

42. Nygren, E., Sitaraman, R.K., Sun, J.: The akamai network: a platform for high-performance internet applications. ACM SIGOPS Operating Systems Review **44**(3), 2–19 (2010)

43. Ohlman, B., Corujo, D., Boggia, G., Tyson, G., Davies, E., Molinaro, A., Eum, S.: Rfc 7476: Information-centric networking: Baseline scenarios (2015)

44. Oran, D.: Rfc 9064: Considerations in the development of a qos architecture for ccnx-like information-centric networking protocols (2021)

45. Oueslati, S., Roberts, J., Sbihi, N.: Flow-aware traffic control for a content-centric network. In: 2012 Proceedings IEEE INFOCOM. pp. 2417–2425. IEEE (2012)

46. PARC: The ccnlite v2 code source base. https://github.com/cn-uofbasel/ccn-lite, [Accessed 23-05-2024]

47. PARC: The ccnx code source base. https://github.com/parc-ccnx-archive/CCNx_Distillery, [Accessed 23-05-2024]

48. Perkins, C.: Rfc 5944: Ip mobility support for ipv4, revised (2010)

49. Rahman, A., Trossen, D., Kutscher, D., Ravindran, R.: Rfc 8763: Deployment considerations for information-centric networking (icn) (2020)

50. Ripeanu, M.: Peer-to-peer architecture case study: Gnutella network. In: Proceedings first international conference on peer-to-peer computing. pp. 99–100. IEEE (2001)

51. Rossini, G., Rossi, D.: A dive into the caching performance of content centric networking. In: 2012 IEEE 17th International Workshop on Computer Aided Modeling and Design of Communication Links and Networks (CAMAD). pp. 105–109. IEEE (2012)

52. Rossini, G., Rossi, D.: Coupling caching and forwarding: Benefits, analysis, and implementation. In: Proceedings of the 1st ACM Conference on Information-Centric Networking. pp. 127–136 (2014)
53. Rozhnova, N., Fdida, S.: An effective hop-by-hop interest shaping mechanism for ccn communications. In: 2012 Proceedings IEEE INFOCOM Workshops. pp. 322–327. IEEE (2012)

54. Saino, L., Psaras, I., Pavlou, G.: Icarus: a caching simulator for information centric networking (icn). In: SimuTools. vol. 7, pp. 66–75. ICST (2014)

55. Salah, H., Wulfheide, J., Strufe, T.: Coordination supports security: A new defence mechanism against interest flooding in ndn. In: 2015 IEEE 40th conference on local computer networks (LCN). pp. 73–81. IEEE (2015)

56. Seetharam, A.: On caching and routing in information-centric networks. IEEE Communications Magazine 56(3), 204–209 (2017)

57. Spathis, P., Belouanas, S.E., Thai, K.: Leveraging replication in content-centric networks (2015). https://doi.org/10.1109/giis.2015.7347179

58. Suthar, P., Stolic, M., Trossen, D., Ravindran, R.: Rfc 9269: Experimental scenarios of information-centric networking (icn) integration in 4g mobile networks (2022)

59. Tarkoma, S.: Publish/subscribe systems: design and principles. John Wiley & Sons (2012)

60. Wang, Y., Li, Z., Tyson, G., Uhlig, S., Xie, G.: Design and evaluation of the optimal cache allocation for content-centric networking. IEEE Transactions on Computers 65(1), 95–107 (2015)

61. Wissingh, B., Wood, C., Afanasyev, A., Zhang, L., Oran, D., Tschudin, C.: Rfc 8793: Information-centric networking (icn): Content-centric networking (ccnx) and named data networking (ndn) terminology (2020)

62. Yi, C., Abraham, J., Afanasyev, A., Wang, L., Zhang, B., Zhang, L.: On the role of routing in named data networking. In: Proceedings of the 1st ACM conference on information-centric networking. pp. 27–36 (2014)

63. Zhang, G., Li, Y., Lin, T.: Caching in information centric networking: A survey. Computer networks 57(16), 3128–3141 (2013)

64. Zhang, L., Afanasyev, A., Burke, J., Jacobson, V., Claffy, K., Crowley, P., Papadopoulos, C., Wang, L., Zhang, B.: Named data networking. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review 44(3), 66–73 (2014)