Future Internet Trends Research

Abstract:

With the development of Internet scale, diversifications of applications and the network virtualization, novel applications emerge, such as search services, stream, social networks, cloud services, e-commerce, big data services and so on. Current Internet cannot afford the diversifying services any more. The network architecture should be improved or a clean slate architecture design is desired. Novel designs of future Internet become a hot topic. IPv6 is the improvement version of IPv4, which solves the address issue of the current Internet, but issues of routing scalability, security, mobility and Quality of Service are still remain. There are two ways to future Internet, improving ones and clean slate designs. The former is based on the current Internet and the latter is novel design without the limitation of the current network architecture. In this paper, we introduce related work of future Internet and summarize the locator/ID separation mechanism, SDN, OpenFlow, NDN and so on. At final, we conclude the paper.

• Periodical: Applied Mechanics and Materials (Volumes 475-476)
• Pages: 1211-1214
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.475-476.1211
• Online since: December 2013
• Authors: Si Yun Bao*, Heng Kui Wu
• Keywords: Future Internet, NDN, Openflow, SDN

References

[1] http: /www. btplc. com/ngb.

[2] http: /www. nsf. gov/cise/geni.

[3] http: /nets-find. net.

[4] http: /cordis. europa. eu/fp7/ict/fire.

[5] B. Quoitin, L. Iannone, C. de Launois, et al. Evaluating the benefits of the locator/identifier separation. In Procs. Of MobiArch 2007, Kyoto, Japan, Aug. (2007).

DOI: 10.1145/1366919.1366926

[6] R. Moskowitz, P. Nikander. Host identity protocol (HIP) architecture. RFC 4423, IETF Networking Group, May (2006).

DOI: 10.17487/rfc4423

[7] E. Nordmark, M. Bagnulo. Level 3 multihoming shim protocol. Draft-ietf-shim6-proto-07. txt, IETF Internet Draft, (2006).

DOI: 10.17487/rfc5533

[8] X. Zhang, P. Francis, J. Wang, et al. Scaling ip routing with the core router-integrated overlay. In Proc. ICNP 2006, Santa Barbara, California, USA, Nov. (2006).

DOI: 10.1109/icnp.2006.320208

[9] O. Bonaventure. Reconsidering the internet routing architecture. Draftbonaventure -irtf-rrg-rira-00. txt, IETF Network Working Group, (2007).

[10] D. Farinacci, V. Fuller, D. Oran, et al. Locator/ID separation protocol (LISP), draft-farinaccilisp-09. txt, IETF Network Working Group, Oct. (2008).

DOI: 10.17487/rfc6833

[11] Zuo QY, Chen M, Zhao GS, Xing CY, Zhang GM, Jiang PC. OpenFlow-based SDN technologies. Ruanjian Xuebao/Journal of Software, 2013 (in Chinese).

[12] Mckeown N, Anderson T, Balakrishnan H, et al., OpenFlow: Enabling innovation in campus networks, ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, 2008, 38(2): 69-42.

DOI: 10.1145/1355734.1355746

[13] Jacobson V, Smetters D, Thornton J, et al., Networking named content, in Proc. Of International Conference on Emerging Networking Experiments and Technologies, Rome, Italy, (2009).

DOI: 10.1145/1658939.1658941

[14] M. Caesar, T. Condie, J. Kannan, et al., ROFL: routing on flat labels, in Proc. Of SIGCOMM 2006, Sep. (2006).

DOI: 10.1145/1151659.1159955