IPv6 Hot News in April 2017
1. IPv6 Deployment over NTT’s NGN Fletz
 More than 30% (as Mar.2017) w/ IPoE &PPPoE(*) including nation-wide IPTV multicast
2. Three Mobile Carriers (DoCoMo, au, SB) IPv6 Mobile Launch since summer 2017
3. Cloud and Service Providers Hyper Giants: AWS(Amazon Web Service), MicroSoft(*) Twitter announces IPv6
 Domestic Providers : IIJ, Sakura-Internet

1

IPv6 deployment in NGN Flet’s (%)

35

30.5 %

30(Mar.2017)

25
20

15

0.8 %

10

(Dec.2012)50
1

Why they use “single-stack” IPv6 ?
since 2012 WIDE Camp in WIDE Project

1. Large # of devices IPv4 can not accommodate
2. Large OPEX cost due to “Dual-Stack” operationa. Set-up (Especially IPv4 NAT)
b. Counter measures for Cyber Security
Success
Practice

Smart Meter Deployment in Power Utility Companies◎ KEPCO (九州電力)： au LTE closed IPv6
△ TEPCO (東京電力)： 6LowPAN closed IPv6
3

Overlaying and Slicing for IoT Era based on
Internet’s End-to-End Discipline
Based on the Practices IP version 6 Deployment in Japan

Hiroshi ESAKI, Ph.D

Ryo Nakamura, Ph.D

Graduate School of Information Science and Technology
The University of Tokyo
Hongo, Bunky-ku, Tokyo, Japanhiroshi@wide.ad.jp

Graduate School of Information Science and Technology
The University of Tokyo
Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo
upa@wide.ad.jp

Abstract— This paper discuss and analyze the IPv6
deployment in Japan, from the view point of large scale
multiple-stack layer 3 network development and deployment,
focusing on the future network development. Since IPv6 network
does not have compatibility with IPv4 network, it is considered
the dual-stack operation is mandatory. However, when weanalyze the IPv6 deployment in Japan, we realized that the
integration of multiple single-stack networks using a tunnelingwith “locator” function works well, both in wired and wirelessinfrastructures. Also, the paper discuss the Internet is going tothird wave with IoT and entering from CPS to Cyber-Twin andCyber-First. To come up with this situation, the paper proposes
the system design and implementation should be based on“Internet-by-Design”, which preserve the key features theInternet. Finally, the practical examples of system design andimplementation based on the “Internet-by-Design”. These aresmart building/campus to integrate different IoT systems and the“locator” and “identifier” separation via “tunneling” in IP layer
for large scale multiple-stack layer 3 network development.

Recently, the Internet seems to enter into the third wave,
which is “IP for Everything” or “IoT, Internet of Things”.
The first wave with Web and the second wave with SNS was“IP for Everyone”. This means that we need highly scalable
Internet, which can accommodate huge number of end-nodes.
Therefore, we need full deployment of IPv6 and high quality
cyber security counter measures.
First, this paper discusses analyze the IPv6 deployment inJapan from the view point of large scale multiple-stack layer 3
network development and deployment. Second, the paper
discusses the system design and implementation toward thethird wave of the Internet and leads that it should be based on“Internet-by-Design”, which preserves the key features theInternet. Finally, the practical examples of system design andimplementation based on the “Internet-by-Design”.

Keywords—IPv6; End-to-End; Single-stack; Cyber-First; JapanI. INTRODUCTION (HEADING 1)
The research, development and deployment of IPv6, which
was called as IPng (IP next generation), has long history andpractical experiences to us, regarding the technical andoperational knowledge, which we can refer to for the future
new system design, implementation and operation. The
acceleration of IPv6 deployment may achieved by the
introduction of IPv6 service by many hyper giants, such as
Google, FaceBook or Apple. Although it would be said that itis because they looks future, there would be other reason why
they started to use IPv6 in their service. It would be because ofhuge number of servers accommodated in their back yard.
When the number of servers were small, the system using
either private or global IPv4 address is fine. But, since theglobal IPv4 address at ARIN is exhausted in September 2015
and the number of physical and virtual servers, they need, issignificantly increased, it seems that they must use IPv6 intheir large/huge scale server clusters in their data centers.
Also, since their service includes and needs a lot of sliced
virtual networks, the increase of number of IP addresses
consumed by their serves must be accelerated.
© 2017 IEEE. Personal use of this material is permitted. Permission
from IEEE must be obtained for all other uses, in any current or future
media, including reprinting/republishing this material for advertising or
promotional purposes, creating new collective works, for resale orredistribution to servers or lists, or reuse of any copyrighted
component of this work in other works.

II. IPV6 RESEARCH AND DEPLOPMENT IN WIDE PROJECTWIDE (Widely Integrated Distributed Environment) Project,www.wide.ad.jp, is R&D consortium related with the Internet
technologies established in 1988.
WIDE project hasestablished an IPv6 working group in 1994, according to the
IETF decision on SIPP as a base of IPv6.
A. Works, the WIDE Project has achieved
In 1998, KAME Project 1 and TAHI Project 2 has been
established to deliver open source of IPv6 protocol stack for
BSD platform and it’s conformance testing environment3. In
2000, USAGI (UniserSAl playgGound for IPv6) project 4 ,which has delivered IPv6 protocol stack for Linux platform has
been established. Also, IPv6 Promotion Council 5 has been
established in 2000 and Task Force on IPv4 address
Exhaustion Japan 6 has been established in 2008, so as to1

http://www.kame.net/
http://www.tahi.org/
3
TAHI project leaded to”IPv6 Ready Logo Program”, run by
IPv6 Forum.
4
http://www.linux-ipv6.org/
5
http://www.v6pc.jp/en/index.phtml
6
http://www.kokatsu.jp/blog/ipv4/en/
2

identify the technical and business issues to deploy IPv6 in all
the stake holders.

network was not overlay network over IPv6 network, since
there were no commercial routers with IPv6 PIM-SM.

B. Experiences on IPv6 network operation
WIDE project has implemented and operated their own
R&D live-testbed by themselves across the sites of member
organizations, called “WIDE Internet” since it has been
established. Since 1995, the WIDE 6bone has been operated
and has internetworked with 6bone-JP and global 6bone in
1998. Figure 1 and figure 2 show the WIDE 6bone topology in1995 and in 1997, respectively. These 6bone networks wereoverlay networks over IPv4using tunneling or single stacknetworks provided by layer 2 links.

Fig.3 Digital Video multicast with PIM-SM over JB 6bone

Fig.1 WIDE 6bone in 1995

Since 2004, we started IPv6 and IPv4 dual-stack operationin the backbone. Then, we has experienced and realized large
operational overhead due to dual-stack operation, from theview points of trouble shooting, system reconfiguration, and of
implementation of cyber security countermeasures.
Based on our dual-stack operation in the WIDE Internet,
we decided to implement and operate IPv6-only network at
WIDE camp in 2012, so as to realize technical issues for IPv6
only single stack operation. The best practices in thisexperimental operation had been reported in [1].
Our implementation and operational experiences haveshared with professional commercial operators in Japan (andIETF community), for their network design and operation. For
example, as we discuss in the following sections, the single
protocol stack network over single stack network is the
direction that most of emerging networks adopts. These are theview points of trouble shooting, reconfiguration or cybersecurity operation.
III. IPV6 DEPLOYMENT IN JAPANFig.2 WIDE 6bone in 1997

Since 1999, IPv4 and IPv6 dual-stack environment has
been implemented and operated at WIDE project camp
networks (i.e.,LAN). In these camp networks, external
connectivity was IPv6-only or IPv4/IPv6 multi-links (i.e.,
WAN). Based on these experiences, we has challenged tonation-wide broadband R&D IPv6 network development since
2000. In the first stage, we have developed sliced networks.
using ATM and MPLS. The sliced networks were 6bone,
Mbone and Qbone. Figure 3 shows the overview of DV(DigitalVideo) multicasting using PIM-SM over it’s layer 2 network.
This means that PC routers had installed over layer 2 network,
since 6bone and Mbone had not been integrated, i.e., thisThis section describes the current status of IPv6
deployment in Japan, focusing on network providers and somewide area private IPv6 network development.
A. Wired Public Provider
Figure 4 shows the development status of IPv6 users in
NGN (Next Generation Network) subscribers/customers,
which is the largest broadband access network operated by
NTT group. It was 0.8% (67,000 subscribers) in December
2012, but it is 30.5% (5,797,000 subscribers) in March 2017.
KDDI, who is ranked as third with 26.78% of deployment
ratio as of February 20, 2017 at IPv6 Launch site7, completed
100% of IPv6 deployment in it’s optical fiber access network
in December of 2012. Since KDDI is now preparing toprovide IPv6 connectivity as a default service in their cellular7

http://www.worldipv6launch.org/measurements/

phone network since around summer of 2017, the number of
IPv6 deployment ratio will be further improved in 2017.

Fig.4 IPv6 deployment in NGN
The other wired ISPs are also progressing IPv6 service
deployment, as a default service to all the subscriber/customer.
When ISP provides IPv6 service over NGN access network,
two methods has been defined by Japanese government. One
is IPoE and the other is PPPOE. [2][3](1) IPoE (IP over Ethernet [2])Currently, we have three operating VNE (Virtual
Network Enabler) providers and other three providers
have registered for future VNE providers. VNE has
global IPv6 address to allocate to subscribers andtransit the IPv6 packet to any destination of IPv6
global internet. VNE is a kind of aggregator, i.e., VNE
provides IPv6 address prefix(s) from his IPv6 addresspool to it’s partner ISPs. The partner ISP of VNE runs
it’s router to accommodate it’s subscribers in NGN.
Here, the IPv6 packets destined to the interface (bothamong any NGN’s closed IPv6 address and any VNE’s
open IPv6 address) in the NGN access network can betransferred within the NGN without being transferredto the corresponding ISP’s router.
(2) PPPoE (Point to Point Protocol over Ethernet [3])Most of IPv4 service provided by ISPs in Japan overNTT group’s access network, including NGN, uses
PPPoE. In the NGN, the closed IPv6 address allocatedto NTT East and West, which is worked as “locator”
discussed in section V-C, is used for the transmissionof IPv4 packet 8 by packet encapsulation (IPv4 overIPv6). For IPv6 service provided by ISPs, the samearchitecture and protocol stack is applied to. In thiscase, it is global/open IPv6 packet over global/closed
IPv6 platform. At the subscriber side, the home routermust establish two PPP sessions over NGN’s closed

8

IPv4 address in the IPv4 packet, encapsulated in IPv6 packet,
is “identifier” discussed in section V-C.

IPv6 network. One is for IPv4, and the other is for
IPv6.
When NTT East and West started their NGN service, NGN
platform was a wide-area “closed” IPv6 network for thetransmission of global IPv4 packets, i.e., IPv6 closed address
corresponds to “locator”[4]. With the PPPoE, the function of
NGN platform is the same as IPv4, i.e., closed IPv6 address in
the NGN is the “locator”, whose function is the transportationof global IPv6 packets between the routers interconnecting to
global IPv6 networks and end-nodes in NGN. On the contrary,with the IPoE, the function of NGN platform is a part of global
IPv6 networks. The open/global IPv6 address allocated to endnode is both for “identifier”, discussed in section V-C, of endnode and for “locator” to reach to the end-node. Here,
SoftBank group is migrating IPv4 PPPoE service over NGN
platform to IPv4 tunneling over IPoE. With this migration,
VNE’s open/global IPv6 network in NGN run by BBIX works
as “locator” for the transmission of IPv4 packet over
open/global IPv6 network by IP packet encapsulation.
This architectural consideration, regarding “locator” and“identifier”, is related with the discussion in section V, where
we discuss the system design in the emerging future IoT andcloud networks.
B. Wireless Public Provider
Japan has three major cellular phone network providers,which are NTT DoCoMo, KDDI/au and SoftBank. It has beencommitted by these three major cellular phone network
providers so that they will start the IPv6 and IPv4 dual-stack
service as a default since around summer of 2017. This meansthat it is expected that the IPv6 deployment measure provided
by IPv6 Launch site for these three Japanese service providers
will be improved since around summer of 2017.
The protocol stack of LTE system is open/global IP(=”identifier”) over closed/private IPv4 (=”locator”) platformfrom all the end-terminal to very small number of boardergateway router to the Internet. The network topology is very
simple so that routing of closed/private IPv4 platform can bealso very simple.
This means that the function ofclosed/private IPv4 network is “locator”, which is foropen/global IP packet transmission between the boardergateway router(s) and end-terminals in their access networks.
This can be realized that a physically and logically large scale
single layer 3 segment defined by “identifier” is built on a kindof large scale data-link, which is built by closed/private“locator” IPv4 address space.
C. Smart Meter Network Development in JapanThe development and deployment of smart meter
infrastructure is one of top agenda in Japan to build a smart city.
All the major electrical power utility companies in Japan havebeen working on the smart meter system for residential home’s
energy management and control. Because of large number ofsmart meters in their subscriber region, many utility companies
adopt IPv6. Here, two typical and interesting systems are
picked up. One is smart meter system based on 6LowPAN[5]by TEPCO(Tokyo Electric Power Co.Inc.), and the othersystem is based on IPv6 LTE by KEPCO(Kyushu ElectricPower Co.Inc.). When we observe these two networks, it isobviously the smart meter system based on IPv6 LTE works
well and provided higher communication quality, than those of
the system based on 6LowPAN.
This experience may show that, for large scale wide-area
IoT system, IPv6 LTE system works fine. Also, we haveconsideration on cyber security measures for both systems.
Since the IPv6 LTE system has enough experiences andimplementation for higher cyber security quality compared to
6LowPAN system, IPv6 LTE system is also better from thecyber security point of view.
IV. WHERE THE INTERNET IS GOING ?
A. IoT as the Third Wave of the Internet
The Internet is now entering into the third wave, which is
IoT, after the first wave (Web) and the second wave (SNS).
The first and the second waves are “IP for Everyone”. The
third wave is “IP for Everything”, which is commonly called as
IoT (Internet of Things). In the IoT, we may think all the nonIT/ICT industries will be built in and connected to the Internet.
However, due to various reasons, most of IoT business players
love “Silo” or “Stove-and-Pipe” system and business structure,so as to lock-on the customers to their proprietary system. So,
the following three points would be the current risk for thethird wave of the Internet.
1.

Fragmentation of the Internet by IoT

2.

Lack of “Trust”, such as cyber security

3.

Lack of interoperability, especially in the cloud
platform

They, IoT and legacy industries’ people, may frequently saythat their system does not need enough cyber security countermeasures, since their system does not connect with the Internetand {sometimes} their system does not use open technology
but use proprietary technologies. This is really the serious risk.
Or, even they have the IP connectivity, they may not haveupper layer interoperability. This is especially for cloud system
or for SDN/NFV, in these days.

performance and quality, cyber objects have been getting
independency from the physical objects. This leads that we
can design the system in cyber space with cyber objects(including virtual physical objects), then allocate them on
physical objects and easy to migrate cyber objects on physicalobjects.
V. ARCHITECTURAL DERECTION WITH INTERNET-BY-DESIGN
A. Internet-by-Design
The following eight features can identified as thearchitectural and operational features of the Internet. And, weshould design, implement and operate the emerging system
based on these features, as discussed below. This paper calls
this as “Internet-by-Design”.
1. Global
Nation or government is one of multi-stake holder, and thetechnologies and rule/regulation must be based on global
consistency, think global and act local. The following is
the joint declaration9 by G7 ICT Summit held at Ise-Shima,
Japan in 2016.
We strongly support an accessible, open interoperable,
reliable and secure cyberspace as one essential
foundation for economic growth and prosperity.
We must commit to facilitate the free flow of
information to ensure openness, transparency andfreedom of the Internet, and fair and equal access tothe cyber space for all actors of digital economy while
respecting privacy and data protection, as well as
cyber security.

2. Unique system on the Earth
Connected to the Internet is the given premise. This means
we need “Security-by-Design” and “Privacy-by-Design”.
Also, we must avoid silo (or stove & pipe) model, andshould implement horizontal cooperation model, such as
data-centric or open-data model, as shown in figure 5.

This means that we must design and implement the emerging
system based on; (1) connected to the Internet is premise, (2)Security-by-Design for trustworthy, and (3) Interoperabilityby-Design.
B. Toward “Cyber-First”
Now, what system features will the third wave introduce toour society? The third wave may have the following three
sub-waves, but each sub-wave has huge social impacts.
1.

CPS; Cyber supports Physical, i.e., “Physical-First”

2.

“Cyber-Twin”; Cyber emulates/copies Physical3.

“Cyber-First”; Cyber designs Physical

We could realize that SDN(Software Defined Network) or
SDI(Software Defined Infrastructure) is an implementation of“Cyber-First” in the networks. In the “Cyber-First”, thephysical system is designed based on full simulation andevaluation in the Cyber system. Especially, since virtualizationof hardware platform become reality with sufficientFig.5 System models
Especially in the IoT and Big-data system;(i) User can access/use the lawful data with the sameway.
(ii) User can connect/put the sensor, which does not harm
the network, with their choice, with the same way.
9

http://www.mofa.go.jp/files/000160266.pdf

(iii)User can provide service using the data in datarepository.

2015 [7]. The architecture overview of IEEE1888 is shown infigure 6 and 7.

3. Provision of alternatives
We should not too optimize the systems, intentionally, so
as to preserve the chance to put alternative solution.
4. Respects running code and system
Proposal without practical/actual implementation andoperation can not believe for real deployment.
5. Best effort
We should not have some particular quality object, ingeneral, in order to maintain the efforts to improve thequality and functionalities, i.e., avoiding spoil. Also, weserious earthquake in Japan on 3.11 (in 2017) prove that,since daily service is “best-effort” and work with abnormal
situation in the Internet, the Internet could continue, evenwith low quality, their services even in abnormal andemergency situation.

Fig.6. Architectural overview of IEEE1888

6. Transparency and end-to-end principle
Since the network is transparent and simple (sometimes
said as stupid), (1) we can share data and knowledge
without any filtering, (2) we can solve complicated issues
by the “End-node (including server)”, not by “network(=switch or router)”. The later feature is of essential forthe proposed direction discussed in Section V-C.
7. Social eco-system
The Internet is built and operated by “One for All, All forOne”, i.e., eco-system. In order to run the eco-system, thecapability of interaction and cooperation is mandatory.
This is “interoperability”. Even if we do not needinteroperability today, we should have interoperability
with other system for the future opportunity of cooperation.
And, therefore, we need cyber security implementation.
8. Independency, autonomous and distributed
While maintaining the interoperability, we must
intentionally preserve the diversity for technologies andsystem operation, so as to ensure the provision ofalternative. This is related with the survivability of thesystem in the future.
The following subsections show practical example of systemdesign and implementation based on the ”Internet-by-Design”
described above.
B. Smart Building/Campus based on IEEE 1888 [6]Smart building or smart campus is an application of IoTwith LAN and MAN platform for non-IT/ICT industry. The
devices and networks used in buildings or in campus have (1)large product lifecycle, which would be decade(s) years, (2)isolated silo system, i.e., exclusive vertical lock-on, with nonopen proprietary technologies and (3) no cyber security
consideration. In order to integrate and upgrade the system, we
standardized IEEE1888, which is open facility networkarchitecture and protocol based on internet protocol platform,in 2011 and approved by ISO/IEC as ISO/IEC/IEEE 18880 in

Fig.7 Three layer structure of IEEE1888
As shown in figure 8, IEEE1888 has three layer structure.
The bottom layer accommodates various legacy local bus andemerging bus via GW(Gate Way), i.e., allowing alternative or
new technologies and sub-systems. And, GW is the boundary
between TCP/IP based system and non-TCP/IP system. The
middle layer is shared common data repository accommodating
various bus in the bottom layer, and providing all the datatransparently to any application in top layer. The top layer isapplication players, who do not need to care about hardware
difference, since the abstracted virtual interface and object
definition is provided to them via the common API among
objects in the three layers. Also, IEEE1888.3 defines cybersecurity function, i.e., authentication and encryption.
Using the IEEE1888, the cloud based wide-area smart
building and campus have been implemented and been in
operation. For example in the University of Tokyo, more than
20% energy saving for campus level and 30% energy saving
for R&E building have been achieved, with multi-vendor
environment (more than 20 vendors), while continuous
introduction of new functions (software in the top layer) andcomponents (hardware in the bottom layer).
The IEEE1888 with IEEE1888.3 will be introduced to newdata center run by Sakura Internet Inc., www.sakura.ad.jp, inthe summer of 2017. The reason of the introduction ofIEEE1888 for facility management and control in their data
center is (1) cyber security for facilities in the data center, and(2) integration of separated facility systems and (3) application

development, such as a big-data analysis with artificial
intelligence technologies, “by themselves”.
C. Separation of Idetifire and Locator
Separation of identifier and locator has been discussed, e.g.,
LISP as RFC 6830 [4], for long time [8][9]. And, there has
been a lot of discussion and standardized architectures andprotocols for packet encapsulation and for network slicing such
as VPN(Virtual Private Networking). For example, MPLS canbe realized as an encapsulation and aggregation shim layer
inserted between IP (layer 3) and data-link (layer 2), so as toprovide a “locator” function using MPLS header, which is
generated from the combination of information in any layer .
We have discussed IPv6 service deployment in Section II.
Since IPv4 and IPv6 do have different address spaces, the dualstack operation has large operational overhead especially in thelarge scale networks. Therefore, we could realize that, in thelarge scale carrier-grade networks discussed in Section II, thesingle-stack operation with overlay single-stack slicing areapplied to. Underlay IP network works as a “locator” foroverlay IP network and as for both “locator” and “identifier”
for itself. For example, in the SoftBank’s BBIX VNE system,
the NGN’s global/open IPv6 address to communicate with
IPv6 node in the IPv6 global network is used both for“identifier” and “locator”, and the NGN’s global/open IPv6
address is used for “locator” for the transmission of IPv4
packet to the entry point to IPv6 global network.
Now, we propose and proposed the separation of “identifier”
and “locator” in IP layer with the optimization method toachieve sufficient packet throughput at the end-node [10][11],.
The proposed architecture and implementation does not require
any modification nor introduction of new functionality toexpensive routers, which is not easy to replace nor modify. On
the other hand, since the proposed mechanism can be achieved
only by the end-nodes, the deployment difficulty of the
proposed system should be far less. This could be said that
“identifier” function and “locator function” in the IP layer isseparated by “tunnel”.
The detailed implementation is
described in [10][11].

Fig.8 Separation of “identifier” and “locator” via “tunnel”
Finally, the internetworking between the different addressfamilies needs an address translator. We should identify thetranslator function is installed in the end-node, rather than in
network node, i.e.., router. In order to reduce the processing
overhead of translation function, translator node should belocated at of edge as possible. Then, we can use single-stacknetworks, even we have multiple single-stack slicing networks.
VI. CONCLUSION
This paper discuss and analyze the IPv6 deployment inJapan, from the view point of large scale multiple-stack layer
3 network development and deployment, focusing on the future
network development from CPS to Cyber-Twin and CyberFirst. Then, we realized that the integration of multiple singlestack networks using a tunneling with “locator” function works
well, both in wired and wireless infrastructures. Toward theemerging future IoT networks, the paper proposes that thesystem design and implementation should be based on“Internet-by-Design”. Finally, the practical examples of systemdesign are shown; one is smart building/campus to integratedifferent IoT systems and the other is “locator” and “identifier”
separation via “tunneling” in IP layer for large scale multiplestack layer 3 network development.
REFERENCES
H.Hazeyama, R.Hiromi, T.Ishihara, O.Nakamura, “Experiences fromIPv6-Only Networks with Transition Technologies in the WIDE Camp
Autumn 2012”, IETF Internet-Draft, draft-hazeyama-widecamp-ipv6only-experience-02, October 3, 2012.
[2] Charles Hornig, “A Standard for the Transmission of IP Datagrams over
Ethernet Networks”, IETF RFC894, April 1984.
[3] L. Mamakos, K.Lidi, J.Evarts, D.Carrel. D.Simone, R.Wheeler, “A
Method for Transmitting PPP Over Ethernet (PPPoE)”, IETF RFC2516,
February 1999.
[4] D.Farinacci, V. Fuller, D. Meyer, D. Lewis, “The Locator/ID Separation
Protocol (LISP)”, IETF RFC6830, January 2013.
[5] G.Montenegro, N. Kushalnagar, J.Hui, D.Culler, “Transmission of IPv6
Packets over IEEE 802.15.4 Networks”, IETF RFC 4944, September
2007.
[6] H.Esaki, H.Ochiai, "GUTP and IEEE1888 for Smart Facility Systems
using Internet Architecture Framework", 1st IEEE Workshop on
Holistic Building Intelligence through Sensing Systems (HOBSENSE),
cooperating with IEEE DCOSS, Barcelona, Spain, June 2011.
[7] H.Ochiai, M.Ishiyama, T.Momode, N.Fujiwara, K.Ito, H.Inagakim
A.Nakagawa, H.Esaki, "FIAP: Facility Information Access Protocol for
Data-Centric Building Automation Systems", Workshop on Machine-toMachine Communications and Networking (M2MCN) 2011, IEEE
INFOCOM2011, Shanghai, April 2011.
[8] M.Ishiyama, M.Kunishi, K.Uehara, H.,Esaki, F.Teraoka, "LINA: A New
Approach to Mobility Support in Wide Area Networks”, IEICE
Transactions on Communication, Special Issue on Internet Architecture,
Aug, 2001.
[9] S. Kanemaru and F. Teraoka “ZNP: A Network Layer Protocol Basedon ID/Locator Split Considering Practical Operation” • IEEE
International Conference on Communications 2011 (ICC2011)[10] Ryo Nakamura, Yohei Kuga, Yuji Sekiya, Hiroshi Esaki, “Protocol –Independent FIB Architecture for Network Overlays”, 7th ACM
SIGOPS Asia-Pacific Workshop on System (APSys 2016), Hong Kong,
August 2016.
[11] R.Nakamura, Y.Kuga, Y.Sekiya, H.Esaki, “Protocol Independent NIC
Offloading for Overlay Networks”, ACM SIGCOMM CoNEXT 2015
Student Workshop, Heidelberg, Germany, December 2015.
[1]