ISI: Integrate Sensor Networks To Internet With ICN
ISI: Integrate Sensor Networks To Internet With ICN
ISI: Integrate Sensor Networks To Internet With ICN
Abstract—Internet of Things (IoT) is a growing topic of applications in many different fields like smart homes, smart
interest. Billions of IoT devices are expected to connect to the vehicles, industries, environmental monitoring, etc.
Internet in the near future. These devices differ from the tradi- Billions of IoT devices are expected to be connected in the
tional devices operated in the Internet. In this paper, we argue
that an information-centric networking (ICN), a new networking near future to communicate, sense and gather data. However, it
paradigm, is a more suitable architecture for the IoT compared is important to understand the difference between IoT and sen-
to the currently prevailing IP-based network. We observe that sor networks. There are various heterogenous sensor networks
recent works that propose to use ICN for IoT, either do not cover that operate in their own private network. The goal of IoT is
the need to integrate sensor networks with the Internet to realize to provide the sensor networks with access to Internet in order
IoT or do so inefficiently. There is a need to understand effective
ways to integrate the various heterogeneous sensor networks with for them to become IoT [1].
the Internet without affecting their current mode of operation. Currently, IoTs are designed to operate with the IP architec-
In this paper, we study the essential requirements for integrating ture [2]. However, IoT networks often contain many resource
sensor networks to the Internet. We provide an architecture with constrained devices with smaller memory, limited computa-
gateways for paving a way for the sensor networks to become a tional capacity, and power supply (mostly a battery). Many
part of the IoT family. We further provide a naming schema for
efficient operation of the resource constrained sensor networks, IoT applications require devices to operate for longer periods
discuss mobility, security, communication patterns, and propose in remote locations with no facilities, e.g., forests. Due to con-
the most suitable choices for IoT networks. straints, IoT devices are equipped with Layer2 technologies
Index Terms—Gateway, information-centric networking (ICN), like IEEE 802.15.4 and Bluetooth LE; hence, they operate
Internet, Internet of Things (IoT), sensor networks. with a much smaller MTU than the current MTU used in the
Internet. They also incur several other challenges like limited
IP address space, while point-to-point connectivity is heavy
for these resource constrained devices. Additionally security
I. I NTRODUCTION is another critical aspect in many IoT applications and is
NTERNET of Things (IoT) refers to a network of devices expensive (induces overhead) to achieve with IP leading to
I like machines, vehicles, electronic appliances, and also
wearables like radio frequency identification tags, step-counter,
complexity in operation and resource consumption. There is
therefore a need for an efficient design for the IoT devices
etc. These devices are usually embedded with sensors, actu- that is scalable, efficient, and provides a secure mechanism
ators, memory, and network connectivity. They are mainly for communication to gather data for monitoring and/or con-
used for sensing, monitoring, and controlling various appli- trolling the devices. Shang et al. [3] discussed many of such
cations. IoT is a growing topic of interest and has already issues in detail.
drawn attention of academia, and industry. We observed that IoTs are usually studied/researched as sep-
A current popular topic of interest in the IoT commu- arate entities (see Section X). However, that should not be the
nity is smart cities. The smart cities are in design phase case. One has to also consider all the potential issues in the
and will come to reality in the near future. The IoT devices Internet. Isolating them might lead to unforseen consequences.
will be deployed extensively in the infrastructures like smart IoT needs well connected networks to communicate and pass
buildings, smart offices, etc. Additionally, IoT’s have found information/control messages to other devices in the network.
One might also question, what is the benefit of integrating the
Manuscript received December 28, 2016; revised July 24, 2017; accepted sensor networks with the Internet? We believe that by integrat-
August 11, 2017. Date of publication August 18, 2017; date of cur- ing the sensor networks with the Internet, both the networks
rent version April 10, 2018. This work was supported by the joint can benefit. Primarily, sensor networks will benefit from the
EU H2020/NICT ICN2020 Project under Contract 723014 and Contract
NICT 184. (Corresponding author: Mayutan Arumaithurai.) existing features of the Internet thus incorporating the ubiq-
S. S. Adhatarao and M. Arumaithurai are with the Institut für uitous sensor networks into the IoT world. At the same time,
Informatik, University of Göttingen, 37077 Göttingen, Germany (e-mail: we see a scope for the Internet to widen.
[email protected]; [email protected]).
D. Kutscher is with Huawei’s German Research Center, 80992 Munich, Information-centric networking (ICN) [4], [5] is a new
Germany (e-mail: [email protected]). networking paradigm. In ICN, content is treated as the first-
X. Fu is with the Computer Networks Group, Institut für class entity and nodes exchange information based on the
Informatik, University of Göttingen, 37077 Göttingen, Germany (e-mail:
[email protected]). Names of the content instead of the IP addresses of the end
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/JIOT.2017.2741923 points that request or provide the information. This shift from
2327-4662 c 2017 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
492 IEEE INTERNET OF THINGS JOURNAL, VOL. 5, NO. 2, APRIL 2018
maps the lengthy, unbounded names form the Internet VI. NAMING S CHEMA
running the NDN protocol to their equivalent short In this section we discuss the naming schema for the IoT.
names in the sensor networks running the CCN-lite
protocol. A. Naming in IoT
The gateway uses a registration procedure for every device
in the sensor network. Each device upon entering the network The IoT devices usually come with the Ethernet technology
must register itself with the gateway. The gateway provides like IEEE 802.15.4 and Bluetooth LE. This results in a much
an ID to each newly added device. The device then registers smaller MTU (127B) compared to the traditional layer-2 tech-
the short name and long name of the content that it wishes to nologies adopted in the Internet. This raises a concern on the
serve. These entries will be added to the mapping table main- size of the packets that traverse the IoT network. One way
tained in the gateway. The mapping table should be updated to reduce the packet size is to have smaller names that are
whenever there are any changes in the content served by the relevant to the IoT networks. Since the any length, unbounded
sensor network. hierarchically structured names defined by many ICN archi-
We will use the term inbound traffic for the traffic enter- tectures do not suit the IoT networks. The names should be
ing the sensor network and the term outbound traffic for precise to serve the purpose of the application and yet be
the traffic going out of sensor network. The inbound traf- specific and small.
fic from the users can be either a request for data or a We describe our naming schema using the same example
request containing a control message. There are two possi- of the smart city with sensor networks as shown in Fig. 2.
ble outbound traffic. One containing the reply to the inbound Let us consider the same application of monitoring the tem-
traffic and the other is the request/subscription traffic gener- perature of all the rooms in a smart building from our use
ated inside the sensor network. The two types of outbound cases in Section II. We know each room in the smart building
traffic should be distinguished form one another as the reply is equipped with temperature sensing sensor devices and BS
traffic needs a name change through a mapping table lookup. collects the data generated by the sensing devices.
This can be achieved by using any one bit available field in the We propose a naming structure of the form
packets. Metric/ID/Area/Date/Time. The first component Metric
When the gateway receives inbound traffic it is basically an specifies what kind of data is generated by the sensing
NDN interest packet. The gateway scans the mapping table to device, e.g., temperature, pressure, humidity, etc. The second
find the equivalent short name. The gateway creates a CCN-lite component ID indicates an identifier assigned to the device.
interest packet with the short name and forwards it to the sen- The third component Area specifies the location/geographic
sor network. Upon receiving a CCN-lite data packet from the range covered by the sensing device, e.g., room, building,
sensor network, the gateway performs a lookup in the map- GPS location, etc. The fourth component Date specifies
ping table to find the long name and creates an NDN data the day at which the readings are measured and the fifth
packet with the long name, extracts the content from the CCN- component Time specifies the time at which the reading was
lite data packet and inserts it into the NDN data packet and captured by the device. The granularity of each component
forwards it in the Internet. can be application dependant, e.g., the time can vary from
Another type of out bound traffic is basically a CCN-lite hours to seconds to minutes or more. Applying this naming
interest for content located either in the Internet or in other schema to our smart building example the temperature sensed
IoT network. The gateways also support inter IoT network by a device with the id 01 in the room1 on November 3,
communication. When an IoT network running for a cer- 2016 at 12:30 could be retrieved with a name /temp/01/r1/03-
tain application needs information from outside its network, 11-16/12:30. This name is only 26B, leaving the rest of the
it simply generates a CCN-lite interest and forwards it to the packet for the content.
gateway. Since this is an out bound request traffic the gate- In most sensor networks the BS usually collects the data
way simply translates it to an NDN interest and forwards periodically from the sensing devices in the network. To dis-
it in the network. It eventually reaches the intended pub- tinguish the data retrieved from the BS we can use a naming
lisher in Internet or the gateway associated with the target schema of the form /Metric/BS/Area/Date/Time. Note that the
sensor network. When the publisher is located in Internet, component Area in the naming schema for IoT represents indi-
it follows the standard NDN protocol and reply with the vidual rooms, whereas it represent the whole building in case
data packet. If the interest reaches a gateway associated of the BS. So a user in NDN network can request for tem-
to another sensor network, the gateway performs a map- perature of the whole building or for the individual rooms.
ping table lookup to fetch the equivalent short name and This naming schema is fairly general and similar names can
prepares a CCN-lite interest and forwards it to the sensor be created for different IoT networks based on specifics of the
network. Upon receiving the data packet it prepares the NDN area or application of the IoT devices used in the network.
data packet as explained earlier and forwards it to the
Internet. The data packet finally reaches the gateway of B. Naming in Internet
the sensor network that initiated the request. The gate- Recent ICN proposals, such as NDN [4] and COPSS [5]
way performs a mere protocol translation and generates the adopt human-readable, hierarchically structured names CDs.
CCN-lite data packet as described earlier and forwards it to the Continuing our smart building example, a possible
sensor network. name structure for renaming the content for the Internet
496 IEEE INTERNET OF THINGS JOURNAL, VOL. 5, NO. 2, APRIL 2018
could be /temperature/UNI/ComputerScience/Building1/03- can not only subscribe to the content published inside the
11-16/12:30 for the temperature of the computer science Internet but also by the IoT networks.
building in the university on November 3, 2016 at 12:30
and /temperature/UNI/ComputerScience/Building1/room1/03-
11-16/12:30 for the temperature of room1 at 12:30. We allow C. Communication Protocol for IoT
the availability of data sensed in every room in Internet as There are two possible scopes of communication that can
some rooms might be sensitive to temperature and would have take place in IoTs: one is within the sensor networks and the
to be monitored, e.g., the temperature of a server room. other is with Internet/other sensor networks. The nature of
communication in these network differs and can greatly affect
the design choices of an efficient communication protocol for
VII. C OMMUNICATION P ROTOCOLS
the sensor networks.
In this section we discuss the current communication proto- In sensor networks, the devices are usually sensing the
cols and propose the suitable communication protocol for IoT respective data periodically and the BS gathers the sensed
and CCN network. data and analyzes it to take appropriate actions. The Pub/Sub
mode of communications seems desirable in this scenario. The
A. Query/Response Communication devices can behave like publishers and publish the data period-
This is a dominant mode of communication in current ically. While the BS can be a subscriber that subscribes to the
networks. A user interested in some content simply queries data published by all the devices in its sensor network. This
the network. Any producer of the data (or also a node with design choice allows the resource constrained sensor devices
an available copy of the data in case of ICN) responds to the to save the battery by waking up only to sense and publish
request. the data. We agree, that there are chances for the packet to get
1) Q/R Communication in IoT: In sensor network the lost. So, for reliability reason we propose the BS to resume to
BS can query the sensing devices to retrieve the sensed Q/R to retrieve only the data that was lost during the next peri-
data. The BS simply generates a request with the respective odic cycle when the sensing device is awake to sense the next
ContentName and forwards it to the network. Upon reaching reading. However, during Q/R we expect the sensor device
the producer, the sensing device responds with the requested to wait for an acknowledgment before going back to sleep
content. The BS can also send control messages using the Q/R to ensure the BS has received the packet this time. This also
mode, where the query can contain the control command while means the sensing device should retain some of its previously
the response can contain an acknowledgment of the action sensed data, which we believe can be configured based on the
taken. The IoT devices can also query for content located in applications requirement, e.g., three most recent readings for
Internet or other IoT networks. The gateway should assist in reliability.
retrieving the content in this case. In the Internet, we see that Q/R is a dominant form of
2) Q/R Communication in Internet: A user in Internet gen- communication. However, for communicating with the sen-
erates an ICN request with the ContentName of the desired sor networks we can choose between Q/R and Pub/Sub based
content and forwards it in to the network. If the content is on the need of the user. If the user (or any other application
located in the caches of any intermediate forwarding node then or sensor network) is interested in periodically receiving all of
the cached copy is returned to the user. Otherwise the interest the data collected by the sensor networks, then Pub/Sub looks
eventually reaches the producer who replies with the requested like an ideal choice in this scenario. To reduce the burden on
content. If the producer is located in an IoT network, then the resource constrained sensing devices in the sensor network,
gateway will assist in retrieving the content however, this will we believe the caching can be enabled on BS. Other sens-
be transparent to the user. ing devices can choose to retain or turn off caching based on
their available resources. Since the BS gathers the data from
all the sensors, it can act as a publisher to the subscribers in
B. Publish/Subscribe Communication the Internet. Please note that the subscribers in the Internet
In a Pub/Sub scenario, there are two roles to play: 1) pub- will subscribe to the longer names and not the shorter names
lisher and 2) subscriber. The publishers usually generate some used for publishing inside the sensor networks. So the gateway
data that could be of interest to subscribers. The subscribers has to create new publication data packet with their equivalent
maintain a long term subscriptions to the content published long names from the mapping table and then forward it to the
by the publishers (refer to COPSS [5] for detail). Whenever users in Internet.
a piece of content is published by the publishers, the network Another and most likely a common scenario is when users
will deliver it to all of its subscribers. in the Internet are interested in some particular data generated
1) Pub/Sub Communication in IoT: In IoT the sensing in the sensor networks or would like to send some control
devices that periodically sense the data can take up the role of message to the sensor networks. Intuitively, Q/R seems ideal
publisher and publish the sensed data periodically. The BS is for this scenario. When the user is interested in some data they
the subscriber interested in these contents and will subscribe just generate a CCN interest with the longer content name and
to these contents and hence will receive them when published. the network forwards it to the gateway. The gateway then per-
2) Pub/Sub Communication in Internet: Similar to IoT, forms a protocol translation and generates a CCN-lite interest
publishers and subscribers exist in ICN too. The users in ICN with the equivalent short name from the mapping table and
ADHATARAO et al.: ISI WITH ICN 497
can either offer a time to live (TTL) during registration and/or Li et al. [20] experimented with two ICN architectures
offer a de-registration process. During de-registration the smart MobilityFirst and NDN for IoT. They name it MF-IoT and
car sends an interest with the de-registration request to gate- NDN-IoT and compare their performance. Whereas in [21],
way and the gateway responds with an acknowledgment. The Chen et al. proposed to use ICN for IoT to realize service ori-
car can choose to wait for the acknowledgment or not. When ented communication. They use MobilityFirst as an example
the car moves to another domain it again registers itself with ICN architecture and modify it to support the service oriented
the associated gateway of the new domain. Even if the de- communication in IoT.
registration packet was lost, since the car has registered to Routing/Caching: Baccelli et al. [12] discussed the short-
anther gateway the network will synchronize with the routing comings of CCN protocol for IoT and propose a routing
updates. protocol with O(1) and almost no control traffic. They exploit
the caching and data path in ICN to support the IoT require-
B. Security ments. They also show that CCN-lite uses 80% less memory
compared to IP. Whereas in [13], Quevedo et al. stud-
1) Security in IoT: IEEE 802.15.4 provides the capability
ied the benefit of caching with ICN for IoT in terms of
for some link-layer security. The authors in IETF standard [2]
energy consumption and bandwidth utilization in comparison
urge users to make use of it. A majority of the sensor devices in
with IP.
sensor networks are expected to operate within their networks.
Protocol: Amadeo et al. [11] focused on a specific type of
Acknowledging resource constraints in the IoT devices, we
data retrieval pattern called multisource data retrieval. They
believe they should be equipped with the minimum level of
say the current NDN architecture does not support this type
security features necessary for their operation. The asym-
of communication. In the proposed solution consumers use
metric key encryption is computationally complex for the
multisource interest to retrieve data from multiple producers.
sensor networks [18], so we suggest the devices in the sensor
They propose to delete the PIT entry based on parameter like
networks can use the features provided at the link layer for
interest life time (TTL) instead of deleting when the data is
encryption and if additional security is desired then opt for
received the first time. Whereas in [22], Dinh and Kim stud-
symmetric key encryption.
ied the potential for using the ICN-based solutions for wireless
Moreover, the sensor networks will benefit with the content-
sensor area networks (WSAN). They discuss about how ICN
based security provided by the ICN solutions. Interestingly,
for WSAN’s is different from ICN for Internet. They use
Malik et al. [19] discussed attribute-based encryption (ABE)
flat names and continuous interest to receive data sensed by
for ICN networks. However, the current ABE solution are
multiple sensors as multiple sensors in WSAN sense the same
heavy for the IoT networks. The Internet on the other hand
data and respond to the interest.
can benefit greatly with ABE while the gateway can assist in
Securtiy: Compagno et al. [23] proposed a protocol for
encryption and decryption of the content using light-weight
authenticating and authorizing new devices joining IoT mesh
security measures suitable for IoT networks.
networks in ICN. They show 87% improvement in com-
2) Security in Internet: The devices in Internet are subject
munication and 66% improvement in energy consumption
to more attacks compared to devices in the sensor networks.
compared ZigBee-IP solutions. While Enguehard et al. [18]
Moreover, the devices in Internet are relatively powerful com-
compared two approaches based on asymmetric and symmetric
pared to the devices in sensor networks. These devices are
key encryptions for deploying new IoT devices in existing ICN
capable of handling complex computation and hence can
deployments. They report that although the asymmetric key-
opt for asymmetric key encryption. Although it is compu-
based solutions incur lower traffic they impose higher demands
tational heavy, it is harder to decipher the content. Many
on energy and time consumption.
ICN solutions provide security by securing the content unlike
securing the communication link as in IP. E.g., NDN uses
the digital signature of the publisher for authenticating all XI. C ONCLUSION
the content and also uses encryption for protecting private
We started with a discussion on IoT and their immanent
content.
explosive growth in near future. We discussed the short-
comings of current IoT designs and an introduction to ICN.
X. R ELATED W ORK We observed that ICN is more suitable for supporting IoT
In this section we discuss some works focused on using ICN compared to the IP architecture. We also observed that IoT
for IoT and broadly classify them into four categories: 1) archi- devices do not need the full NDN stack and can work with
tectural; 2) routing/caching; 3) protocol; and 4) security. lighter versions like CCN-lite/NDN-lite. We discussed in detail
Architectural: Amadeo et al. [14] proposed an initial high- the importance and requirements for incorporating sensor
level design for IoT using NDN architecture. They divide the networks into the Internet, thus paving a way for them to join
NDN layer into two planes: 1) data plane and 2) manage- the IoT family. We analyzed various requirements for such an
ment and control plane. The data plane handles Q/R while architecture to integrate the sensor networks and proposed ISI
the control plane re-engineers the current NDN routing plane. architecture with gateways. We described in detail the respon-
Shang et al. [3] analyzed the current TCP/IP solutions for sibilities of such a gateway. We further proposed a naming
supporting IoT. They argue that existing TCP/IP solutions are schema and communication protocol along with some pos-
inefficient and propose that IoT can benefit by using the ICN. sible mobility and security considerations for IoT networks.
ADHATARAO et al.: ISI WITH ICN 499
With the help of use cases we described the functionality of [21] J. Chen et al., “Exploiting ICN for realizing service-oriented commu-
ISI architecture. As part of future work we intend to develop nication in IoT,” IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 54, no. 12, pp. 24–30,
Dec. 2016.
and demonstrate a working prototype of the proposed ISI [22] N.-T. Dinh and Y. Kim, “Potential of information-centric wireless
architecture. sensor and actor networking,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Comput. Manag.
Telecommun. (ComManTel), 2013, pp. 163–168.
[23] A. Compagno, M. Conti, and R. Droms, “OnboardICNg: A secure pro-
R EFERENCES tocol for on-boarding IoT devices in ICN,” in Proc. ICN, Kyoto, Japan,
2016, pp. 166–175.
[1] G. Mulligan, “The 6LoWPAN architecture,” in Proc. ACM 4th Workshop
Embedded Netw. Sensors, Cork, Ireland, 2007, pp. 78–82.
[2] G. Montenegro and N. Kushalnagar, “Transmission of IPv6 packets over
IEEE 802.15. 4 networks,” Internet Eng. Task Force, Fremont, CA, USA,
RFC 4944, Sep. 2007.
[3] W. Shang, Y. Yu, R. Droms, and L. Zhang, “Challenges in IoT Sripriya Srikant Adhatarao received the M.Sc. degree in computer science
networking via TCP/IP architecture,” Univ. California, at Los Angeles, from the Institut für Informatik of Georg-August-Universität Göttingen,
Los Angeles, CA, USA, Tech. Rep. NDN-0038, 2016. Göttingen, Germany, in 2015, where she is currently pursuing the Ph.D. degree
[4] V. Jacobson et al., “Networking named content,” in Proc. CoNEXT, in information centric networking with the Computer Networks Group.
Rome, Italy, 2009, pp. 1–12.
[5] J. Chen, M. Arumaithurai, L. Jiao, X. Fu, and K. K. Ramakrishnan,
“COPSS: An efficient content oriented pub/sub system,” in Proc. ANCS,
2011, pp. 99–110.
[6] J. Chen, M. Arumaithurai, L. Jiao, X. Fu, and K. K. Ramakrishnan,
“SAID: A control protocol for scalable and adaptive information Mayutan Arumaithurai received the master’s degree from the Technical
dissemination in ICN,” in Proc. ICN, Kyoto, Japan, 2016, pp. 11–20. University of Hamburg–Harburg, Hamburg, Germany, in 2006, and the
[7] S. S. Adhatarao, J. Chen, M. Arumaithurai, X. Fu, and Doctoral degree from the University of Göettingen, Göttingen, Germany,
K. K. Ramakrishnan, “ORICE: An architecture for object resolu- in 2010.
tion services in information-centric environment,” in Proc. LANMAN, He was with Nokia Siemens Networks, Munich, Germany, and the
Beijing, China, 2015, pp. 1–6. University of Göettingen. He was a Research Scientist with the Network
[8] CCN-Lite. Accessed: Jul. 1, 2017. [Online]. Available: Laboratories, NEC Europe Ltd., Heidelberg, Germany. He is currently a Senior
http://www.ccn-lite.net/ Researcher with the University of Göettingen. His current research interests
[9] Z. Shelby and C. Bormann, 6LoWPAN: The Wireless Embedded Internet, include IoT, future Internet (e.g., information centric networking, software-
vol. 43. New York, NY, USA: Wiley, 2011. defined networking, and network function virtualization), congestion control,
[10] Z. Sheng et al., “A survey on the IETF protocol suite for the Internet and emergency services.
of Things: Standards, challenges, and opportunities,” IEEE Wireless
Commun., vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 91–98, Dec. 2013.
[11] M. Amadeo, C. Campolo, and A. Molinaro, “Multi-source data retrieval
in IoT via named data networking,” in Proc. ACM 1st Int. Conf. Inf.
Centric Netw., Paris, France, 2014, pp. 67–76.
Dirk Kutscher received the Doctoral degree from the Universität Bremen,
[12] J. Quevedo, D. Corujo, and R. Aguiar, “A case for ICN usage in IoT
Bremen, Germany.
environments,” in Proc. IEEE Glob. Commun. Conf., Austin, TX, USA,
He is the CTO for virtual networking and IP with Huawei’s German
Dec. 2014, pp. 2770–2775, doi: 10.1109/GLOCOM.2014.7037227.
Research Center, Munich, Germany, where he is responsible for next-
[13] J. Quevedo, D. Corujo, and R. Aguiar, “A case for ICN usage in IoT
generation programmable network infrastructure research and develop-
environments,” in Proc. IEEE Glob. Commun. Conf., Austin, TX, USA,
ment. He is co-chairing the IRTF Research Group on information-centric
2014, pp. 2770–2775.
networking. He was the Chief Researcher of networking with NEC
[14] M. Amadeo, C. Campolo, A. Iera, and A. Molinaro, “Named data
Laboratories Europe, Heidelberg, Germany. He was a Visiting Researcher
networking for IoT: An architectural perspective,” in Proc. IEEE Eur.
with KDDI Research and Development Laboratories Inc., Tokyo, Japan,
Conf. Netw. Commun. (EuCNC), Bologna, Italy, 2014, pp. 1–5.
and a Researcher with the Universität Bremen. He was in leading posi-
[15] L. Zhang, D. Estrin, J. Burke, V. Jacobson, and J. Thornton, “Named
tions on several EU collaboration projects and is advising several H2020
data networking (NDN) project,” Palo Alto Res. Center, Palo Alto, CA,
projects. His current research interests include network programmability and
USA, Tech. Rep. NDN-0001, 2010.
the development and evolution of Internet protocols and architectures.
[16] D. Raychaudhuri, K. Nagaraja, and A. Venkataramani, “MobilityFirst:
Dr. Kutscher served on Technical Steering Committee of the Linux
A robust and trustworthy mobility-centric architecture for the future
Foundation OPNFV project. He is a member of the Internet Research Steering
Internet,” ACM SIGMOBILE Mobile Comput. Commun. Rev., vol. 16,
Committee
no. 3, pp. 2–13, 2012.
[17] J. Singh, T. Pasquier, J. Bacon, H. Ko, and D. Eyers, “Twenty security
considerations for cloud-supported Internet of Things,” IEEE Internet
Things J., vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 269–284, Jun. 2016.
[18] M. Enguehard, R. Droms, and D. Rossi, “Poster: On the cost of secure
association of information centric things,” in Proc. ICN, Kyoto, Japan, Xiaoming Fu received the Ph.D. degree in computer science from Tsinghua
2016, pp. 207–208. University, Beijing, China, in 2000.
[19] A. M. Malik, J. Borgh, and B. Ohlman, “Attribute-based encryption on a He was a Research Staff Member with the Technical University of
resource constrained sensor in an information-centric network,” in Proc. Berlin, Berlin, Germany. He joined the University of Göttingen, Göttingen,
ICN, Kyoto, Japan, 2016, pp. 217–218. Germany, in 2002, where he has been a Full Professor and the Head of the
[20] S. Li, Y. Zhang, D. Raychaudhuri, and R. Ravindran, “A compara- Computer Networks Group since 2007. His current research interests include
tive study of MobilityFirst and NDN based ICN-IoT architectures,” architectures, protocols, and applications for networked systems, including
in Proc. 10th Int. Conf. Heterogeneous Netw. Qual. Rel. Security information dissemination, mobile networking, cloud computing, and social
Robustness (QShine), 2014, pp. 158–163. networks.