Master thesis for Information engineering September 2020 Efficient naming for Smart Home devices in Information Centric Networks. Caspar Rossland Lindvall Mikael Soderberg¨ Master Programme in Computer and Information Engineering Civilingenjorsprogrammet¨ i informationsteknologi Abstract Institutionen for¨ Efficient naming for Smart Home devices in informationsteknologi Information Centric Networks. Besoksadress:¨ ITC, Polacksbacken Lagerhyddsv¨ agen¨ 2 Caspar Rossland Lindvall Mikael Soderberg¨ Postadress: Box 337 751 05 Uppsala The current network trends point towards a significant discrepancy be- Hemsida: tween the data usage and the underlying architecture; a severely increas- http:/www.it.uu.se ing amount of data is being sent from more devices while data usage is becoming more data-centric instead of the previously host-centric. In- formation Centric Network (ICN) is a new alternative network paradigm that is designed for a data-centric usage. ICN is based on uniquely naming data packages and making it location independent. This the- sis researched how to implement an efficient naming for ICN in a Smart Home Scenario. The results are based on testing how the forwarding information base is populated for numerous different scenarios and how a node’s duty cycle affects its power usage. The results indicate that a hierarchical naming is optimized for hierarchical-like network topology and a flat naming for interconnected network topologies. An optimized duty cycle is strongly dependent on the specific network and accord- ing to the results can a sub-optimal duty cycle lead to excessive power usage. Contents 1 Introduction 3 1.1 Researched topics . .4 2 Background 4 2.1 Internet today . .5 2.1.1 Internet Protocol Suite . .5 2.1.2 Internet Of Things . .6 2.1.3 Constrained Application Protocol . .7 2.1.4 Lightweight machine to machine . .7 2.1.5 MQTT . .8 2.1.6 RIOT . .8 2.2 Information Centric Networks . .8 2.2.1 Architectural Principles . .9 2.2.2 Naming data . 10 2.2.3 Named Data Objects . 12 2.2.4 Forwarding Information Base . 12 2.2.5 Pending Interest Table . 13 2.2.6 Content Store . 13 2.2.7 Content Centric Network . 14 2.2.8 Named Data Network . 14 2.2.9 Content Delivery Network . 14 2.3 Security . 15 2.3.1 Difference to host centric network . 15 2.3.2 Certificate and origin authentication . 16 2.3.3 Vulnerabilities in ICN . 16 2.4 Tools . 17 2.4.1 CCN-lite . 17 2.4.2 RIOT native port . 18 2.4.3 Wireshark . 18 2.4.4 GNU Compiler Collection . 19 2.4.5 GitHub . 19 3 Related works 20 4 Name convention 21 4.1 Design . 21 4.2 Implementation . 22 4.2.1 Test setup . 22 4.2.2 Naming structure . 24 1 4.2.3 How to identify a node . 24 4.2.4 Considered name conventions . 25 4.2.5 Considered network topologies . 26 4.2.6 Interest and content . 31 4.3 Results . 33 4.3.1 Measurements . 33 4.4 Discussion . 35 4.5 Conclusion . 36 5 Low power 37 5.1 Background . 37 5.1.1 IoT Network Characteristics . 37 5.1.2 Duty cycles . 38 5.1.3 Push/Pull transmission . 38 5.2 Design and Implementation . 38 5.2.1 Parameters . 39 5.2.2 Network . 39 5.3 Results . 40 5.4 Discussion . 44 5.5 Conclusion . 45 6 Evaluation 46 6.1 Researched topics evaluation . 46 6.2 Conclusion . 47 6.3 Future Work . 48 2 1 Introduction The current network architecture was designed in the early 1970s and fared exception- ally well for the needs of that time. The previous networking requirements revolved around a few selected stationary end-points sending and receiving packets over a well- established and secured line of communication. The modern internet usage has drasti- cally evolved since then and there are more connected devices and raw data being sent then previously thought possible. Furthermore, the way the modern internet is being used has greatly changed and there is s common trend that the data is becoming the primary focus instead of the location of it; in most cases does it not matter where data is retrieved from as long as it is correct. The common host centric view is less appealing and the focus is moved towards an information centric view. To meet the discrepancy between the internet architecture and its usage did the U.S. National Science Foundation set out to fund research projects under the Future Internet Architecture Program [29]. The common goal was to design a new internet architecture that meets the modern and future needs while still having a similar structure to the current internet. based on these principles, the network paradigm Information Centric Network (ICN) has been proposed. In ICN networks does the data become a first-class entity that is uniquely and permanently named, the data is denominated as a Named Data Object (NDO). Most of today’s forwarded data is already information centered - video streaming, web pages, music, etc. - and would easily be translated into NDOs. One of the key features of ICN is the location and storage independency; NDOs are uniquely named and each copy of a NDO is practically interchangeable and can thus co-exist in several locations (network nodes) simultaneously. Instead of traditionally requesting specific data from a known host can NDOs be retrieved from an arbitrary source. Meaning an ICN architecture can use caching to reuse data [35] to reduce network congestion and increase the delivery speed There are several implementations that have realized an ICN solution, the two most prominent are Content Centric Network (CCN) [34] and its continuation Named Data Network (NDN) [30]. Today is NDN the most widely used ICN implementation but CCN and its subprojects are actively being developed, mainly its lightweight adaption called CCN-lite [22] which aims to achieve a minimal implementation to support a bare-boned but lightweight solution. There are still significant design choices and uncertainties around how to properly im- plement a complete ICN solution but continuous research improves the foundation. Mainly at a conceptual level but also at a practical level are ICN networks beginning to mature and the range of possible applications to develop towards is increasing [16]. One of the more promising usage areas for ICN networks is in an IoT scenario according to A. Lindgren et al. [15]. How IoT devices are being used is primarily in an informa- 3 tion centric way, meaning an adaption to an ICN based communication would likely be beneficial. One of the key concerns would be how to achieve a flexible yet minimal namespace utilization which can cover a wide area of applications used by constrained IoT-devices. 1.1 Researched topics This paper aims to research and find an effective naming convention for lightweight sensors in an ICN network. There are no standardized name conventions for ICN as the naming should be optimized for its use and the targeted network. The core problem will be how to design a name convention that can flexibly assign each sensor a unique name while achieving a low overhead. Furthermore, the protocol should propose power- efficient sensor settings. The core requirements this paper aims to research are the following: 1. Achieve an efficient naming convention for a Smart Home ICN network. 2. Achieve a power-efficient wireless communication. 2 Background The Internet was designed to allow for remote access to another computer and en- abling a communication between them. One of the earlier implementations of a network was called ARPANET and was developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in 1969 [14]. At the time were there a select few computers and the core focus was to establish a reliable connection between the stationary computers. The transmitted data was secondary compared to the few expensive end-nodes in the network. ARAPNET continued to be further developed and supported a global con- nectivity with hundreds of computers [14]. Since ARPNETs creation has the way the Internet is being used today drastically changed; a continuously growing amount of data is being sent by an increasing amount of devices. By 2022 will the annual amount of globally propagated data increase more than threefold compared to 2017. The usage of wireless and mobile devices will also increase from 48% to 71% [6]. The current internet trends point towards current and several new usage-areas which are forced to utilize the current internet architecture called the Internet Protocol Suite (IPS). The core problems which IPS were designed around to solve did not take into account the unexpected explosive growth in users and the raw amount of data that could be sent. Some of the major flaws which the current internet structure does not natively 4 support are the need for improved flexible data distribution, data mobility, and data security. Kutscher, et al. [21] describes that the best way to currently handle the increasing data traffic and the number of devices is primarily by further infrastructure investments, designing software overlays at application-layer that caches data akin to Peer-to-Peer (P2P) applications and by removing location dependency for accessing data. All of which is achieved to some extent today but only through software overlays which makes them less efficient compared to native realizations. The continuous feature patching is unsustainable and only worsen the complexity of the Internet as a whole [13]. New internet paradigms are being explored which aim to better meet the internet needs of the future. ICN is a promising solution that matches the data centric usage of to- day. 2.1 Internet today There is a large history to draw inspiration from when designing ICN and what aspects to reflect and to avoid.