# Guidelines towards Information-Driven Mobility Management
## 1 Introduction  
Internet traffic is consumed and produced by heterogeneous sets of mobile, resource-constrained end-user devices which are interconnected via fixed or wireless/cellular infrastructures. Moreover, the evolution of the Internet infrastructure, of which 5G is a relevant part, brings in new requirements, such as the need to support large-scale _Internet of Things (IoT)_ environments, strict end-to-end latency requirements, and service-oriented model support [1]. Mobility management plays a key part in this evolutionary step of the Internet, and IP-based mobility solutions have been evolving towards the support of network decentralisation, to be able to cope with high topological variability, among other issues. Being based on the principles of IP networks only, current mobility management solutions face limitations such as the lack of integrated security; the need for an end-to-end path between consumers and producers; and being focused on host reachability, instead of on data reachability. Several engineering workarounds have been assisting the evolution of such mobility management solutions towards more complex, large-scale environments.  
_Information-Centric Networking (ICN)_ architectures, such as the _Named Data Networking (NDN)_ architecture, have intrinsic features that are better suited to support environments with a high degree of mobility. For instance, ICN focuses on content and not on hosts as the addressable entities, thus providing better communication support while devices are on the move. Its connection-less nature and interface abstraction model are interesting features to support many-to-many communications, even if connectivity is intermittent [2]. Its per packet pull-based communication model is, at a first sight, sufficient to support consumer node mobility. On the other hand, its pull-based receiver-driven model does not support well mobility of producer nodes, as explained further in Section 4.4.  
Producer mobility is being handled by anchor-based proposals that mimic, in some aspects, IP-based mobility management and, consequently, are following a host-reachability mobility management model, instead of a content-centric one.  
To better understand how to develop future mobility management solutions, it is necessary to think about the different mobility management functions, and how they are served (or not served) by ICN.  
This work contributes to the debate on how to evolve mobility management, in a way that truly becomes content-centric:  
* It highlights the functions that compose mobility management, based on the main architectural solutions developed thus far (Section 3).
* It explains ICN mobility management efforts, highlighting challenges to overcome (Sections 4 and 5).
* It provides a set of architectural guidelines aiming at providing a content-centric approach to mobility management and yet, assisting interoperability needs (Sections 5 and 6).  
For this purpose, Section 2 covers related work explaining our contributions, while Section 3 provides a debate on mobility management functional aspects. Section 4 covers ICN mobility management. Guidelines towards a content-centric mobility management solution are provided in Section 5, being the paper concluded in Section 6, where future directions for research on this topic are also provided.