Skip to main content
Log in

Fifth Generation Networking Principles for a Service Driven Future Internet Architecture

  • Published:
Wireless Personal Communications Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The vision of all-IP networks where IP forms the simple common layer understandable across the whole network has undeniable advantages. However, such simplicity comes as a major hurdle to flexibility and functionality to the architecture. This is evident from the increasingly numerous and complex engineering solutions and optimizations required to accommodate essential qualities like mobility, security, realtime communication support etc or to mitigate the shortcomings inherent in the ‘traditional Internet’ architecture. While a clean slate approach to address these shortcomings is not an option in a realistic scenario, it is important to examine the architecture as a whole to address emerging network requirements and overcome existing shortcomings at the architecture level rather than engineering solutions to an existing inefficient one. This architectural re-examination should also facilitate discussion into what design principles for future generations of Network Architectures which will eventually replace the design tenets for the current Internet. While 3G and 4G systems were more focussed on convergence towards an All-IP network and some improvements in the core network, the architectural design remains stagnant with layered paradigms and inherent inefficiencies. A departure from this shackled approach could be the distinguishing feature of 5G systems and beyond. We claim that there is a pressing need to move towards a Next Generation Network architecture built to natively support requirements such as network resource abstraction, mobility, security, enhanced routing, privacy, context communications, QoS, parallel processing, heterogeneous networking etc. Instead of treating the network as just providing connectivity specified by endpoints, it is of great advantage to applications to recognise it as a service characterized by attributes, abstracted to a higher level to represent a collection of capabilities that the network offers. This uniform high level abstraction can effectively mask the heterogeneity and implementation discrepancies in the underlying infrastructure. Besides, in a network environment where an connectivity instance might transverse diverse business/ownership/capability domains, the approach proposed in this article can provide a transparent abstraction for resource negotiations across the domain to be available for end-to-end setup. This architectural change should also be manifested according to the principles of SOA to ensure interoperability, backwards compatibility and migration. In this article, we introduce a Service Oriented framework and network architecture aimed at tackling the heterogeneity of emerging requirements and proposed solutions into a coherent interoperable architecture using Web Services specifications as the basic standards. We propose to model the new architecture on relationships between entities and discuss the motivation this new architecture in the form of a new framework called ROSA.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Carr, C. S., Crocker, S. D., & Cerf, V. G. (1970). Host-host communication protocol in the arpa network. In AFIPS ’70 (Spring): Proceedings of the May 5–7, 1970, spring joint computer conference (pp. 589–597). New York, NY: ACM.

  2. Clark, D. (1988).The design philosophy of the darpa internet protocols. In SIGCOMM ’88: Symposium proceedings on Communications architectures and protocols (pp. 106–114). New York, NY: ACM.

  3. Handley M. (2006) Why the internet only just works. BT Technology Journal 24(3): 119–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Blumenthal M. S., Clark D. D. (2001) Rethinking the design of the internet: the end-to-end arguments vs. the brave new world. ACM Transactional Interet Technology 1(1): 70–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Carpenter, B., & Moore, K. (2001). Connection of ipv6 domains via ipv4 clouds. RFC 3056 (Proposed Standard), Internet Engineering Task Force, Feb. 2001. [Online]. Available: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3056.txt.

  6. Gregg M., Watkins S. (2006) Hack the stack: Using snort and ethereal to master the 8 layers of an insecure network. Syngress Publishing, Rockland, MA

    Google Scholar 

  7. Ahlgren, B., Eggert, L., Ohlman, B., & Schieder, A. (2005). Ambient networks: Bridging heterogeneous network domains. In Proceedings of 16th annual IEEE international symposium on personal indoor and mobile radio communications (PIMRC) (Vol. 2, pp. 937–941).

  8. Scott, J., Crowcroft, J., Hui, P., & Diot, C. (2006). Haggle: A networking architecture designed around mobile users. In Proceedings of the third annual conference on wireless on-demand network systems and services (pp. 86, 78).

  9. Aguiar R. L. (2008) Some comments on hourglasses. SIGCOMM Computational Communications Review 38(5): 69–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Nikander, P. (2007). The host identity protocol (hip): Bringing mobility, multi-homing, and baseline security together. In Security and privacy in communications networks and the workshops, 2007 (pp. 518–519). SecureComm 2007. Third international conference.

  11. Clark D., Wroclawski J., Sollins K., Braden R. (2005) Tussle in cyberspace: Defining tomorrow’s internet. Networking, IEEE/ACM Transactions 13(3): 462–475

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Mahonen P., Riihijarvi J., Petrova M., Shelby Z. (2004) Hop-by-hop toward future mobile broadband ip. Communications Magazine, IEEE 42(3): 138–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Niemegeers I.G., Groot S.M.H.D. (2002) From personal area networks to personal networks: A user oriented approach. Wireless Personal Communications 22(2): 175–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Lua E. K., Crowcroft J., Pias M., Sharma R., Lim S. (2005) A survey and comparison of peer-to-peer overlay network schemes. IEEE Communications Surveys and Tutorials 7: 72–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Samad, M., Yusuf, F., Hashim, H., Mahfudz, M., & Zan, M. (2002). Deploying internet protocol version 6 (ipv6) over internet protocol version 4 (ipv4) tunnel. In Research and Development, 2002. SCOReD 2002. Student Conference (pp. 109–112).

  16. Balakrishnan, H., Lakshminarayanan, K., Ratnasamy, S., Shenker, S., Stoica, I., & Walfish, M. (2004). A layered naming architecture for the internet. In SIGCOMM ’04: Proceedings of the 2004 conference on Applications, technologies, architectures, and protocols for computer communications (pp. 343–352). Portland, Oregon, USA: ACM.

  17. Moskowitz, R., & Nikander, P. (2006). Host identity protocol (hip) architecture. RFC 4423 (Informational), Internet Engineering Task Force, May 2006. [Online]. Available: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4423.txt.

  18. Rescorla, E. (1999). Diffie-hellman key agreement method. RFC 2631 (Proposed Standard), Internet Engineering Task Force, Jun. [Online]. Available: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2631.txt.

  19. Kent, S. (2005). Ip encapsulating security payload (esp). RFC 4303 (Proposed Standard), Internet Engineering Task Force, Dec. [Online]. Available: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4303.txt.

  20. Koponen, T., & Gurtov, A. (2005). Application mobility with host identity protocol. In Proceedings of NDSS wireless and security workshop.

  21. Novaczki, S., Bokor, L., & Imre, S. (2007). A hip based network mobility protocol. In SAINT-W ’07: Proceedings of the 2007 international symposium on applications and the internet workshops (p. 48). Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society.

  22. Hui, P., Chaintreau, A., Gass, R., Scott, J., Crowcroft, J., & Diot, C. (2005). Pocket switched networking: Challenges, feasibility, and implementation issues. In Proceedings of the workshop on autonomic communications.

  23. Su, J., Scott, J., Hui, P., Crowcroft, J., de Lara, E., Diot, C., Goel, A., Lim, M., & Upton, E. (2007). Haggle: Seamless Networking for Mobile Applications., Ser. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 4717, pp. 391–408). Berlin: Springer. [Online]. Available: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~ph315/publications/haggle-ubicomp2007.pdf.

  24. Niebert N., Schieder A., Zander J., Hancock R. (2007) Ambient networks: Co-operative mobile networking for the wireless world. Wiley Publishing, London

    Google Scholar 

  25. Ahlgren, B., Eggert, L., Ohlman, B., Rajahalme, J., & Schieder, A. (2005). Names, addresses and identities in ambient networks. In DIN ’05: Proceedings of the 1st ACM workshop on Dynamic interconnection of networks (pp. 33–37). New York, NY: ACM.

  26. Koponen T., Chawla M., Chun B. -G., Ermolinskiy A., Kim K. H., Shenker S., Stoica I. (2007) A data-oriented (and beyond) network architecture. SIGCOMM Computational Communications Review 37(4): 181–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Bannazadeh, H., & Leon-Garcia, A. (2007). On the emergence of an application-oriented network architecture. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on service-oriented computing and applications (pp. 47–54). IEEE Computer Society.

  28. Knightson K., Morita N., Towle T. (2005) Ngn architecture: Generic principles, functional architecture, and implementation. Communications Magazine, IEEE 43(10): 49–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Atkinson, R., Bhatti, S., & Hailes, S. (2009). Ilnp: Mobility, multi-homing, localised addressing and security through naming. Telecommunication Systems, 42(3), 273–291, Dec. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11235-009-9186-5.

  30. O’Dell, M. (1996). 8+8—An alternate addressing architecture for ipv6, 10.

  31. Nordmark, E., & Bagnulo, M. (2009). Shim6: Level 3 multihoming shim protocol for ipv6. June. [Online]. Available: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5533.

  32. Trossen, D., Briscoe, B., Sollins, P. M. K., Zhang, L., Mendes, P., Hailes, S., Jerman-Blaciz, B., & Papadimitrou, D. (2009). Eiffel report: Starting the discussion. EIFFEL think tank, Technical Report.

  33. OASIS. Oasis soa commitee. [Online]. Available: http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_cat.php?cat=soa.

  34. W3C. W3c web services architecture. [Online]. Available: http://www.w3.org/TR/ws-arch/.

  35. Linthicum D.S. (2000) Enterprise application integration. Addison-Wesley Longman Ltd, Essex, UK

    Google Scholar 

  36. Corporation, C. S. (2000) 13th Ann. critical issues of is management survey. Computer Sciences Corporation, Technical Report [Online]. Available: http://www.csc.com/survey.

  37. Peltz C. (2003) Web services orchestration and choreography. Computer 36(10): 46–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Weerawarana, S., Curbera, F., Leymann, F., Storey, T., & Ferguson, D. (2005). Web Services Platform Architecture: SOAP, WSDL, WS-Policy, WS-Addressing, WS-BPEL, WS-Reliable Messaging, and More. Prentice Hall PTR, march [Online]. Available: http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/redirect?tag=citeulike09-20&path=ASIN/0131488740.

  39. Kumar, R., Haber, A., Reichert, F., & Yazidi, A. (2010). Towards a relation oriented service architecture. In Proceedings of 2010 second international conference on communication systems and networks (COMSNETS 2010), no. CFP1031F-CDR. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), 2010, iSBN: 9781424454891.

  40. Bellavista P., Corradi A. (2006) The handbook of mobile middleware. Auerbach Publications, Boca Raton

    Book  Google Scholar 

  41. Nicholls, P. (2009). Enterprise architectures and the international e-framework. e-Framework Partnership for Education and Research, Technical Report 1.3 Final, Jul. [Online]. Available: http://www.e-framework.org/Portals/9/docs/EAPaper_2009-07.pdf.

  42. Christensen, E., Curbera, F., Meredith, G., & Weerawarana, S. (2001). Web service definition language (wsdl). World Wide Web consortium, Technical Report, NOTE-wsdl-20010315, March. [Online]. Available: http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl.

  43. Vedamuthu, A. S., Orchard, D., Hirsch, F., Hondo, M., Yendluri, P., Boubez, T., & Yalçinalp, mit (2007). Web services policy framework (wspolicy). September. [Online]. Available: http://www.w3.org/TR/ws-policy.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ram Kumar.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kumar, R. Fifth Generation Networking Principles for a Service Driven Future Internet Architecture. Wireless Pers Commun 57, 393–411 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11277-010-0076-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11277-010-0076-7

Keywords

Navigation