This paper proposes a network layer protocol called Z Network Protocol (ZNP) it supports heterogeneity of network layer protocols by "Internetworking with a Common ID Space" Its mapping system meets the requirements (2)-(4) described above. Implementation of ZNP and ZCMP is also designed.
This paper proposes a network layer protocol called Z Network Protocol (ZNP) it supports heterogeneity of network layer protocols by "Internetworking with a Common ID Space" Its mapping system meets the requirements (2)-(4) described above. Implementation of ZNP and ZCMP is also designed.
This paper proposes a network layer protocol called Z Network Protocol (ZNP) it supports heterogeneity of network layer protocols by "Internetworking with a Common ID Space" Its mapping system meets the requirements (2)-(4) described above. Implementation of ZNP and ZCMP is also designed.
Sho Kanemaru Graduate School of Schience and Technology Keio University 3-14-1 Hiyoshi, Kohoku-ku, Yokohama, 223-8522, Japan Email: satsuma@tera.ics.keio.ac.jp Fumio Teraoka Faculty of Science and Technology Keio University 3-14-1 Hiyoshi, Kohoku-ku, Yokohama, 223-8522, Japan Email: tera@ics.keio.ac.jp AbstractTo support mobility, multihoming, routing scalabil- ity, and security, there are a lot of proposals based on ID/Locator split approach not only for the current Internet but also for the future Internet. However, none of them meet the requirements for practical operation such as (1) support of heterogeneity of network layer protocols, (2) scalability of ID/Locator mapping system, (3) independence of mapping information management, and (4) avoidance of locator leakage beyond the administrative boundary. This paper proposes a network layer protocol called Z Network Protocol (ZNP) for the future Internet based on clean slate approach. ZNP supports heterogeneity of network layer protocols by Internetworking with a Common ID Space. Its mapping system meets the requirements (2)-(4) described above. Z Control Message Protocol (ZCMP) is also designed. Currently, implementation of ZNP and ZCMP is ongoing. Index TermsID/Locator split, future Internet, clean slate approach, ZNP I. INTRODUCTION More than 40 years have passed since the basic principles of the original Internet architecture were designed. These principles were suitable for static and well-managed networks, but as the Internet has become widespread and anyone can use the Internet, the requirements for the current Internet increases such as mobility, multihoming, security, and scalability. To meet these requirements, a lot of protocols based on ID/Locator split architecture have been proposed. Six/One Router[1], Locator/Identier Separation Protocol (LISP)[2], Location Independent Networking for IPv6 (LIN6)[3], Identier-Locator Network Protocol (ILNP)[4], and Host Iden- tity Protocol (HIP)[5] target to improve the current Internet. A Node Identity Internetworking Architecture (NodeID)[6], Het- erogeneity Inclusion and Mobility Adaptation through Locator ID Separation in New Generation Network (HIMALIS)[7], Hierarchical Architecture for Internet Routing (HAIR)[8], and a Mobility and Multihoming Supporting Identier Locator Split Architecture for Naming in the Next Generation Internet (MILSA)[9] target to the future network. On the other hand, a new protocol for the future network must satisfy the following requirements in terms of practi- cal operation: (1) support of L3 protocol heterogeneity, (2) scalability of ID/Locator mapping system, (3) independence of mapping information management, and (4) avoidance of locator leakage beyond the administrative boundary. In the future network, several L3 protocols such as the proposed L3 protocol in this paper, IPv4, IPv6, and other protocols will coexist while the current Internet uses only IPv4 and/or IPv6. Therefore, (1) must be satised. (2) is obvious. A protocol based on ID/Locator split must have a ID/Locator mapping mechanism. To support a huge number of nodes, the mapping system must be scalable. (3) and (4) are related to administration viewpoint. (3) means that the mapping information of a node must be managed in the administrative domain to which the node belongs (the home domain) in terms of authentication of mapping information when the node is temporally connected to a foreign domain. If the mapping information is managed in administrative domains other than the home domain, it is very difcult to authenticate the mapping information. (4) means that the locator information in an administrative domain must not be registered with the mapping system in other administrative domains. This avoids leakage of the topology information of an administrative domain to the outside. AKARI Project[10], one of the projects based on clean slate approach to redesign the Internet, proposes a new network architecture called Z Network Architecture (ZNA)[11]. One of the features of ZNA is to employ ID/Locator split to support L3 protocol heterogeneity, mobility, and multihoming. This paper proposes the network layer protocol of ZNA called ZNP. ZNP satises the all requirements described above. The design of ZNP has been completed and its implementation is ongoing. II. RELATED WORK There are many proposals based on ID/Locator split ar- chitecture. Six/One router, LISP, LIN6, ILNP, and HIP are targeting to improve the current Internet and they do not address the issues of the future network. Six/One Router and LISP intend to reduce the size of the routing table in the backbone network, but they do not consider mobility. LIN6 is designed to support mobility, multihoming, and security, but it does not consider L3 protocol heterogeneity. ILNP introduces the ILNP address which is made by concatinating the Locator (L) and Identier (I), i.e., L:I. ILNP does not introduce a new layer such as HIP and MILSA. Thus, This full text paper was peer reviewed at the direction of IEEE Communications Society subject matter experts for publication in the IEEE ICC 2011 proceedings 978-1-61284-233-2/11/$26.00 2011 IEEE this makes it easy to deploy ILNP in the current Internet. The mappings between name and identier and the mappings between identier and locator are managed by Dynamic DNS. However, ILNP does not consider L3 protocol heterogeneity. HIP provides secure end-to-end connectivity and supports mobility and multihoming management by introducing a new host ID space. HIP uses the Host Identity Tag (HIT) as the identier and uses the IP address as the locator. HIP can use IPv4/IPv6 as the locator, which means that it achieves L3 protocol heterogeneity. Mappings between the HIT and the IP address are stored in the Rendezvous server (RVS), but the detail way of distributing RVSs is not dened. In addition, as the HIT does not have a hierarchical structure, it is difcult to know which RVS is responsible for a HIT. Thus, its mapping system does not scale. NodeID, HIMALIS, HAIR and MILSA are based on clean slate approach that targets to redesign the Internet. NodeID uses the Node Identitity (NID) as the ID. NodeID introduces the locator domains (LDs) and the node identity routers (NRs). Each LD can have a different routing scheme, so NodeID can support heterogeneous locators. The LDs are interconnected by the NRs and they construct a tree structure. The root LD of the tree is called the core LD. Each NR has NID-Locator mappings of nodes which exist in the lower LDs. Each NR resolves the locator from the NID and forwards packets using the NID routing table. If the NR cannot resolve the locator, it forwards packets to the core LD. The deeper the tree structure becomes, the more the information that the core LD and the NRs must store. Thus, its mapping system does not scale. HIMALIS can also manipulate heterogeneous locators. It introduces a new mapping system called the ID registry (IDR). The IDR stores and distributes the mappings between the host IDs and the locators of all active nodes. However, this mechanism is so complex that it does not scale and administrative independence of its mapping mechanism is not achieved. For example, when a node moves from the home network to another edge network (foreign network), the IDR forwards the mapping between the host ID and the locator from home networks gateway (GW-HN) to foreign networks one (GW-FN). In HIMALIS, since the scope of the locator is not protected, the locator information may leak to the outside of the domain. For example, when a node communicates with a correspondent node, it can know the correspondent nodes locator even if the correspondent node exists in another locator domain. HAIR introduces the CORE, INTERMEDIATE, and EDGE networks. HAIR generates a locator by concatinating the locators of each network. So the deeper the network hierarchy becomes, the larger the header overhead becomes. The map- ping system of HAIR consists of the global directory service provided by the CORE and the Intermediate Network Mapping Service (IMS). The global directory service stores a pointer to the IMS that currently holds the mapping, and each IMS stores the mappings between the ID and the locator. As the global directory service works in the CORE network, this mechanism seems to burden the CORE network. The way of implementing TABLE I COMPARISON OF ID/LOCATOR SPLIT ARCHITECTURES IN TERMS OF PRACTICAL OPERATION Req.(1) Req.(2) Req.(3) Req.(4) Six/One Router no yes yes LISP yes no yes yes LIN6 no yes yes ILNP no yes yes HIP yes no yes no NodeID yes no no yes HIMALIS yes yes no no HAIR yes no no yes MILSA no yes yes ZNP yes yes yes yes IMS service is not dened. MILSA introduces the Hierarchical URI-Like Identier (HUI) as the identier. The mappings between the HUI and the locator(s) are managed by the Realm-Zone Bridging Server (RZBS). In this architecture, RZBSs construct a tree structure. Thus, the mapping system of MILSA seems scalable. MILSA supports mobility and multihoming, but it does not support L3 protocol heterogeneity. In addition, the HUI is variable length, which makes the header format complicated. TABLE I compares the features of the related work in terms of the requirements for practical operation. As described above, Req.(1): support of heterogeneity of network layer protocols, Req.(2): scalability of ID/Locator mapping system, Req.(3): independence of maping information management, and Req.(4): avoidance of locator leakage beyond the adminis- trative boundary. TABLE I shows that ZNP supports all of the requirements though no other work meets the all requirements. III. Z NETWORK PROTOCOL A. Assumed Network Structure The current Internet is composed of the backbone (i.e., a set of network providers) and a large number of subscriber networks. Some proposals assume that the future Internet has the following structures; There are a lot of domains each of which may use a different locator type; These domains are interconnected and compose a random structure or a multi- level tree structure. However, it is very difcult to manage the network that has such structures. Although there will exist such network structures during a transition period, we assume that the nal structure of the future Internet converges upon the structure shown in Fig. 1. Similar to the current Internet, there is the backbone network composed of several providers and a large number of edge (subscriber) networks. The backbone network uses ZNP and the edge networks may use ZNP or other L3 protocols. From locator type viewpoint, the future Internet is divided into two spaces: the Universal Locator Space (ULoc-Space) in which the locator of ZNP is used and the Local Locator Space (LLoc-Space) in which legacy L3 protocols such as IPv4/v6 are used. From locator scope viewpoint, the ULoc-Space is further divided into two kinds of networks: the Global Universal Network (GU-Net) in which the scope of the universal locator This full text paper was peer reviewed at the direction of IEEE Communications Society subject matter experts for publication in the IEEE ICC 2011 proceedings is the whole future Internet and the Private Universal Network (PU-Net) in which the scope of the universal locator is the inside of the network. Some edge networks belong to the GU-Net while some edge networks belong to the PU-Net similar to the current subscriber networks that connect to the Internet backbone via NAT-like devices. We assume that NAT- like devices still remain in the future network because there can be administrators who do not want to disclose the network topology to the outside. It is important to design a L3 protocol that permits existence of NAT-like devices, not to prohibit existence of them. A network belonging to the LLoc-Space is called the L-Net. A L-Net is connected to the GU-Net via the gateways that have protocol conversion function. B. Internetworking with a Common ID Space In ZNP, the node name is a human readable character string and its syntax is the same as that of the FQDN in the current Internet such as node_x.keio.jp. The ID is xed length binary data. The format of the ID is shown in Fig. 2. The ID is composed of three parts: the Registry Identier, the Organization Identier, and the Node Identier. The Node Identier is assigned by an organization (e.g., Keio Univ.) to which the node belongs. The Organization Identier is assigned by a registry (e.g., JPNIC and APNIC) by which the organization is managed. The Registry Identier is assigned by an authority such as ICANN in the current Internet. ZNP introduces two kinds of IDs: the real ID (rID) and the pseudo ID (pID), both of which have the same format. The rID is the real identier of a node and unique to the whole networks. The pID is a temporary identier negotiated by the end nodes before data communication starts. The pID is unique to the communicating end nodes. As the pID changes session by session or when the node moves, using pID in the packet header keeps the identity of the end nodes anonymous against eavesdroppers. A node is assigned a locator by the network to which the node is connected. For example, if a node is connected to the ULoc-Space, the node is assigned a universal locator (i.e., a ZNP locator) while if it is connected to the LLoc- Space, it is assigned a local locator such as the IPv4 address. To support L3 protocol heterogeneity, ZNP introduces the protocol conversion function on the gateways that connects the ULoc-Space and the LLoc-Space. ZNP has two kinds of mapping systems described in Sec. IV. One is the Name Mapping System that maps the name to the rID. Another is the ID Mapping System that maps the rID or pID to the locator. Thus, ZNP achieves Internetworking with a Common ID Space. A node can communicate with another node as long as it knows the ID of the target node even when the target node moves (node mobility), the network to which the target node is connected moves (network mobility), the target node has multiple interfaces (multihoming), or various L3 protocols coexist (L3 protocol heterogeneity). Clobal unlversal neLwork (backbone neLwork) Clobal unlversal neLworks (edge neLworks) rlvaLe unlversal neLworks (edge neLworks) Local neLworks (edge neLworks) unlversal LocaLor Space Local LocaLor Space proLocol converslon gaLeway locaLor converslon gaLeway rouLer Fig. 1. Assumed network structure of the future Internet Crganlzauon ldenuer node ldenuer 4 byLes 10 byLes - 8eglonal lnLerneL 8eglsLry number - nauonal lnLerneL 8eglsLry number - eLc. 16 byLes 8eglsLry ldenuer 2 byLes Fig. 2. ID format C. Header Format ZNP has two header formats: Type-1 and Type-2. Type-1 is used when both end nodes exist in the ULoc-Space. Its header format is shown in Fig. 3 (a). Type-2 is used when packets are forwarded in the LLoc-Space. Its header format is shown in Fig. 3 (b). In Type-2, the ZNP header is encapsulated by a legacy L3 protocol header. Thus, the ZNP packets are transparent to the routers in the LLoc-Space, which means the routers in the LLoc-Space do not need to be modied. IV. MAPPING SYSTEMS A. Mapping System Structure The Name Mapping System (NMS) maps the node name to the corresponding rID. The ID Mapping System (IMS) maps the rID or pID of the node to the corresponding locator. The NMS is composed of the Name Mapping Agents (NMAs) and the IMS is composed of the ID Mapping Agents (IMAs) as shown in Fig. 4. In addition, there are cache servers in the mapping systems, called the mapping caches. They work on the gateways. The mapping cache stores the hostname-to-ID mappings and the ID-to-Locator mappings. The NMA and the IMA compose a tree structure rooted by the root NMA. Similar to the current DNS, the hierarchy of the NMS is based on the hierarchical structure of the name. The hierarchy of the src lu nexL header Lramc class ow label dsL lu dsL Loc src Loc payload lengLh hop llmlL ver. Lype /ag 0 8 13 31 src lu nexL header Lramc class ow label dsL lu Legacy L3 Peader (e.g., src loc, dsL loc, nexL hdr, hop llmlL, lengLh) ver. Lype /ag payload lengLh hop llmlL 0 8 13 31 (a)1ype-1 (b)1ype-2 Fig. 3. ZNP header formats This full text paper was peer reviewed at the direction of IEEE Communications Society subject matter experts for publication in the IEEE ICC 2011 proceedings local/ prlvaLe space rooL nMA nMA uneL. lMA nMA lMA L-nMA L-lMA nMA lMA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . global space sub1.uneL. sub2.uneL. Fig. 4. An example of a tree structure of the Name Mapping Agents and the ID Mapping Agents IMS is based on the hierarchical structure of the ID shown in Fig. 2. A NMA holds the locators of the lower level NMAs and an IMA holds the locators of the lower level IMAs. In addition, the NMA of a domain holds the locator of the IMA that manages the same domain. Fig. 4 shows an example of a tree structure of the NMS and IMS that manages a domain unet and its two subdomains sub1.unet. and sub2.unet. Suppose that sub1.unet uses the GU-Loc (i.e., the global scope ZNP locator) while sub2.unet uses the PU-Loc (i.e., the private scope ZNP locator). For sub2.unet, there are two kinds of NMAs and IMAs: the global NMA/IMA and the local NMA/IMA (L-NMA/L-IMA). The global NMA and IMA are located in the GU-Net for the queries sent from the GU-Net. The L- NMA and the L-IMA are located in the PU-Net for the queries sent within the PU-Net. In this example, there are one or more NAT-like gateways at the boundary of unet and sub2.unet because sub2.unet is a PU-Net. The global IMA of sub2.unet holds the mappings between the rIDs of the nodes in sub2.unet and the GU-Loc of the gateway. The L-IMA of sub2.unet manages the mappings between the rIDs of the nodes in sub2.unet and their private locators. Thus, by employing a tree structure, ZNP achieves the scalability of the mapping systems (requirement (2)) and inde- pendence of mapping information management (requirement (3)). In addition, by introducing the L-NMA and the L-IMA, ZNP avoids leakage of private or local locators beyond the administrative boundary (requirement (4)). B. ZCMP Message ZCMP is a protocol that manipulates mapping systems. ZCMP denes four types of messages: the ID Request/Reply message, the Locator Request/Reply message, the Locator Registration Request/Reply message, and the Communication Request/Reply message. The ID Request message requests the rID that corresponds to the name and the ID Reply message is its reply. These messages are processed by the NMAs and the end nodes. The Locator Request message requests the locator that corresponds to the rID or pID and the Locator Reply message is its reply. These messages are processed by the root NMA, the IMAs, the gateways and the end nodes. The Locator Registration Request registers the rID- to-Locator or pID-to-Locator mappings with the IMA and 8ooL nMA nMA ([p) nMA (uneL1.[p) node_x.uneL1.[p 3 4 node_?.uneL2.[p 1 3 9 7 14 nMA (uneL2.[p) lMA (uneL2.[p) 0 lMA (uneL1.[p) 2 lu 8equesL/8eply Loc 8equesL/8eply uaLa Communlcauon Loc 8eg 8equesL/8eply lMA (AnlC) lMA (!nlC) 10 11 12 8, 13 0 6 Fig. 5. An example of ID and locator resolution: intra GU-Net the Locator Registration Reply messege is its reply. These messages are processed by the IMAs and the end nodes. The Communication Registration Request/Reply messages are used in the pID negotiation described in Sec. III-B. These messages are processed between the end nodes. C. Signaling Examples 1) Intra GU-Net: In this example, the node Node_X.unet1.jp (Node X) wants to communicate with the node Node_Y.unet2.jp (Node Y). Both end nodes exist in the GU-Net (i.e., both end nodes use the universal ZNP locator). This procedure is shown in Fig. 5. Before the communication, the end nodes register their own rID-to-Locator mappings with their home domains IMA (Fig. 5 (0)). First, Node X sends the ID Request message that contains the correspondent nodes name (Node_Y.unet2.jp) to NMA-unet1.jp (Fig. 5 (1)). If NMA-unet1.jp does not have the information of Node Y, it forwards the query to the root NMA and obtains Node Ys rID from NMA-unet2.jp (Fig. 5 (2)-(4)). Obtaining Node Ys rID, NMA-unet1.jp returns the ID Reply message to Node X (Fig. 5 (5)). This ID Reply message contains the rID and the locator of IMA-unet2.jp. Node X sends the Locator Request message that contains Node Ys rID to IMA-unet2.jp and obtains Node Ys locator (Fig. 5 (6)). Obtaining Node Ys locator, Node X sends a data packet to Node Y (Fig. 5 (7)). When Node Y receives the packet, it sends the Locator Request message to IMA-unet2.jp to conrm whether the source rID-to-Locator mapping in the ZNP header is trustworthy (Fig. 5 (8)). If IMA-unet2.jp does not have the information of Node X, it forwards the query to the root NMA and obtains Node Xs locator (Fig. 5 (9)-(12)), and returns the Locator Reply message to Node Y (Fig. 5 (13)). Obtaining the rID and the locator of Node X, Node Y returns a data packet (Fig. 5 (14)). Note that after this procedure, since the end nodes as well as the NMAs and the IMAs cache the mapping information, end nodes can send data packets without the signaling. If Node X wants to make its identity anonymous against eavesdroppers, it can execute the pID negotiation procedure before the data communication. 2) GU-Net to PU-Net: In this example, Node X (Node_X.unet.jp) exists in the GU-Net while Node Y (Node_Y.pnet.jp) exists in the PU-Net (i.e., the This full text paper was peer reviewed at the direction of IEEE Communications Society subject matter experts for publication in the IEEE ICC 2011 proceedings nMA (uneL.[p) node_x.uneL.[p locaLor converslon gaLeway L-lMA (pneL.[p) node_?.pneL.[p 1 2 9 4 3 mapplng_cache 7 lMA (pneL.[p) 3 <u-neL (pneL.[p)> <Cu-neL (uneL.[p)> Zn Peader (proc.3) Src Loc : Cu-Loc_node_x usL Loc : Cu-Loc_gw Src lu : lu_node_x usL lu : lu_node_? Zn Peader (proc.3) Src Loc : u-Loc_gw usL Loc : u-Loc_node_? Src lu : lu_node_x usL lu : lu_node_? lu 8equesL/8eply Loc 8equesL/8eply uaLa Communlcauon 6 lMA (uneL.[p) 8 Fig. 6. An example of ID and locator resolution: GU-Net PU-Net communication is via a NAT-like middle box). This signaling procedure is shown in Fig. 6. First, Node X obtains Node Ys rID by the same way described in Sec. IV-C1 (Fig. 6 (1)). Second, Node X sends the Locator Request message to IMA-pnet.jp that contains Node Ys rID, and obtains the gateways GU-Loc, instead of Node Ys PU-Loc (Fig. 6 (2)). Obtaining Node Ys rID and the locator (i.e., the GU-Loc of the gateway), Node X sends a data packet (Fig. 6 (3)). When the gateway receives the data packet, if it does not have the rID-to-Locator mapping of Node Y, the mapping cache on the gateway sends the Locator Request message to L-IMA-pnet.jp and obtains the Node Ys PU-Loc (Fig. 6 (4)). Next, it rewrites the locator elds of the ZNP header as shown in Fig. 6 and forwards the data packet to Node Y (Fig. 6 (5)). When Node Y receives the data packet, it sends the Locator Request message that contains Node Xs rID to L-IMA-pnet.jp. Since L-IMA-pnet.jp knows that Node Xs rID does not belong to its own domain, it returns the gateways PU-Loc (Fig. 6 (6)). Obtaining the locator (i.e., the PU-Loc of the gateway), Node Y sends the data packet (Fig. 6 (7)). If the gateway does not have the rID-to-Locator mapping of Node X, the mapping cache on the gateway sends the Locator Request message to IMA-unet.jp and obtains the Node Xs GU-Loc (Fig. 6 (8)). Obtaining the Node Xs GU-Loc, the gateway rewrites the locator elds of the ZNP header and forwards the data packet to Node X (Fig. 6 (9)). In the GU-Net, the locator elds of the ZNP header are lled with only the GU-Locs, and in the PU-Net, they are lled with only the PU-Locs. Thus, Node Ys PU-Loc is not known to the nodes in other domains. This achieves the avoidance of locator leakage (requirement (4)). 3) GU-Net to L-Net: In this example, Node X (Node_X.unet.jp) exists in the GU-Net and Node Y (Node_Y.lnet.jp) exists in the L-Net (i.e., the communication is via the gateway that bridges different locator spaces). This signaling procedure is shown in Fig. 7. Most of the procedure is the same as the procedure described nMA (uneL.[p) node_x.uneL.[p L-lMA (lneL.[p) node_?.lneL.[p 1 2 9 4 3 mapplng_cache 7 lMA (lneL.[p) lMA (uneL.[p) 3 <L-neL (lneL.[p)> <Cu-neL (uneL.[p)> Zn Peader (proc.3) Src Loc : Cu-Loc_node_x usL Loc : Cu-Loc_gw Src lu : lu_node_x usL lu : lu_node_? lu 8equesL/8eply Loc 8equesL/8eply uaLa Communlcauon 8 6 Zn Peader (proc.3) Src Loc : LLoc_gw usL Loc : LLoc_node_? Src lu : lu_node_x usL lu : lu_node_? Legacy L3 proLocol header proLocol converslon gaLeway Fig. 7. An example of ID and locator resolution: GU-Net L-Net in Sec. IV-C2, however, when the gateway forwards the data packet from Node X, it converts the Type-1 ZNP header into Type-2; the locator elds of the ZNP header are replaced with the legacy L3 protocol header (Fig. 7 (5)). In this case, the locator elds of the ZNP header are lled with only the Local Locators (LLocs). Thus, Node Ys LLoc is not known to the nodes in other domains. D. Security of Mapping Registration The mapping between the node name and the node ID (name-to-ID mapping) must be securely registered with the NMA and the mapping between the node ID and the locator (ID-to-Locator mapping) must be securely registered with the IMA to avoid impersonation and communication hijack. Since the name-to-ID mapping is basically static, it can be assumed that the administrator of the domain to which the node belongs manually registers the name-to-ID mapping with the NMA. A protocol to dynamically update the name-to-ID mapping is not necessary. Thus, there is no security issue upon the registration of name-to-ID mapping. On the other hand, the ID-to-Locator mapping is dynami- cally updated when a node changes its point of attachment to the network. The IMA must authenticate the node that requests to update the ID-to-Locator mapping. In ZNP, the ID-to-Locator mapping of a node is always managed by the IMA in the domain to which the node belongs. Therefore, it can be assumed that the node and the IMA that manages the ID-to-Locator mapping of the node can share a secret key in advance. Since the node and its IMA share a secret key, they can establish a secure channel such as IPsec in the current Internet by using the secret key when necessary. Thus, registration of a malicious ID-to-Locator mapping can be avoided. V. IMPLEMENTATION This section presents the implementation of ZNP and ZCMP. The implementation is ongoing. This full text paper was peer reviewed at the direction of IEEE Communications Society subject matter experts for publication in the IEEE ICC 2011 proceedings nmad znpd lmad llnkd nMA / lMA l_LCCAL sockeL l_lnL1 sockeL mapplng_cache pllnkd pznpd uznpd u-neL (L-neL) llnkd <Cu-neL> gaLeway gaLeway / mapplng_cache Fig. 8. implementation modules A. Modules We are implementing ZNP and ZCMP in the user space of CentOS 5.4. ZNP consists of several modules. The relationship of modules is shown in Fig. 8. 1) linkd: this module emulates the link layer in the user space on all ZNP nodes. The IP address of a node is treated as the L2 address of the node. This module is not necessary when ZNP is implemented in the kernel. 2) znpd: This module processes ZNP in all ZNP nodes. It provides the routing and fowarding functions. In the gateway, two znpd modules are running and they exchange packets through the PF LOCAL sockets, which enable the gateway to rewrite the locator elds of the ZNP header. This module will be implemented in the kernel space in the future. 3) nmad / imad: They process ZCMP in the NMA or IMA as daemons in the user space. Nmad provides the function of the NMA and imad provides the function of the IMA. They exchange the packet with znpd throuth the PF LOCAL sockets. When the znpd module is implemented in the kernel, the normal sockets are used. 4) mapping cache: This module processes ZCMP on the gateway and caches mappings. It exchanges the packets with the znpd throuth the PF LOCAL sockets. When the znpd module is implemented in the kernel, the normal sockets are used. B. Performance Estimation In ZNP, since the data packet travels on the optimal route, there is no routing overhead in data communication. There are two kinds of overheads before the communication starts; one is the time for resolving the node ID from the node name (the ID resolving time) and another is the time for resolving the locator from the node ID (the locator resolving time). The ID resolving time would be the same as the time for resolving the IP address by DNS in the current Internet because the tree structure of the NMS in ZNP is similar to that of DNS. The ID resolving time (T id ) can be represented as T id = (T proc +RTT) (n+1), where T proc is the query processing time of the NMA or the IMA, RTT is the round trip time, and n is the number of hierarchy levels of the node name. The locator resolving time (T loc ) can be represented as T loc = (T proc +RTT)(n+2). If the requesting node has the cache, T id = T loc = 0. According to the performance evaluation of our preliminary implementation, T proc is about 180 sec on a PC equipped with Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU, 2.33 GHz. T proc is negligible in comparison with RTT which is in msec order. Thus, the ID resolving time and the locator resolving time mainly depend on the RTT if the requesting node does not have cache. VI. CONCLUSION We proposed ZNP as a network layer protocol based on ID/Locator split approach in the future Internet. ZNP is designed to satisfy the following requirements in terms of practical operation: (1) support of L3 protocol heterogeneity, (2) scalability of ID/Locator mapping system, (3) indepen- dence of mapping information management, and (4) avoidance of locator leakage beyond the administrative boundary. We also designed ZCMP. We will implement ZNP/ZCMP and verify the basic function of them to prove that the ZNP can be a practical protocol in the future network. ACKNOWLEDGMENT We appreciate valuable comments from members of the AKARI architecture design team. REFERENCES [1] C. Vogt, Six/One Router: a Scalable and Backwards Compatible Solu- tion for Provider-Independent Addressing, in Proceedings of MobiArch 08, Aug. 2008, pp. 1318. [2] D. Farinacci, V. Fuller, D. Meyer, and D. Lewis, Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP), Apr. 2010, internet Draft, work in progress, draft-ietf- lisp-07. [3] M. Ishiyama, M. Kunishi, K. Uehara, H. Esaki, and F. Teraoka, LINA: A New Approach to Mobility Support in Wide Area Networks, IEICE Transactions on Communications, vol. E84-B, no. 8, pp. 20762086, Aug. 2001. [4] R. Atkinson, S. Bhatti, and S. Hiles, ILNP: mobility, multi-homing, localised addressing and security through naming, Telecommunication Systems, vol. 42, no. 34, pp. 273291, Dec. 2009. [5] P. Nikander, A. Gurtov, and T. R. Henderson, The Host Identity Protocol (HIP): Connectivity, Mobility, Multi-Homing, Security, and Privacy over IPv4 and IPv6 Networks, IEEE Communications Surveys and Tutorials, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 186204, Apr. 2010. [6] S. Sch utz, H. Abrahamsson, B. Ahlgren, and M. Brunner, Design and Implementation of the Node Identity Internetworking Architec- ture, Computer Networks: The International Journal of Computer and Telecommunications Networking, vol. 54, no. 7, pp. 11421154, May. 2010. [7] V. P. Kae and M. Inoue, HIMALIS: Heterogeneity Inclusion and Mobility Adaptation through Locator ID Separation in New Generation Network, IEICE Transactions on Communications, vol. E93-B, no. 3, pp. 478489, Mar. 2010. [8] A. Feldmann, L. Cittadini, W. M uhlbauser, R. Bush, and O. Maennel, HAIR: Hierarchical Architecture for Internet Routing, in Proceedings of the 2009 workshop on Re-architecting the Internet, Dec. 2009, pp. 4348. [9] J. Pan, S. Paul, R. Jain, and M. Bowman, MILSA: A Mobility and Multihoming Supporting Identier Locator Split Architecture for Naming in the Next Generation Internet, in Proceedings of IEEE GLOBECOM 2008, Dec. 2008, pp. 16. [10] AKARI Architecture Design Project for New Generation Network, http://akari-project.nict.go.jp. [11] F. Teraoka, Redesigning Layered Network Architecture for New Gener- ation Networks, in Proceedings of 2nd IEEE Workshop on the Network of the Future, Dec. 2009, pp. 16. This full text paper was peer reviewed at the direction of IEEE Communications Society subject matter experts for publication in the IEEE ICC 2011 proceedings