future internet architecture (visit for more insights)

INTRODUCTION

The Internet has evolved from an academic net-work to a broad commercial platform. It hasbecome an integral and indispensable part ofour daily life, economic operation, and society.However, many technical and non-technicalchallenges have emerged during this process,which call for potential new Internet architec-tures. Technically, the current Internet wasdesigned over 40 years ago with certain designprinciples. Its continuing success has been hin-dered by more and more sophisticated networkattacks due to the lack of security embedded inthe original architecture. Also, IP’s narrow waistmeans that the core architecture is hard to mod-ify, and new functions have to be implementedthrough myopic and clumsy ad hoc patches ontop of the existing architecture. Moreover, it hasbecome extremely difficult to support the everincreasing demands for security, performancereliability, social content distribution, mobility,and so on through such incremental changes. Asa result, a clean-slate architecture designparadigm has been suggested by the researchcommunity to build the future Internet. From anon-technical aspect, commercial usage requiresfine-grained security enforcement as opposed tothe current “perimeter-based” enforcement.

Security needs to be an inherent feature andintegral part of the architecture. Also, there is asignificant demand to transform the Internetfrom a simple “host-to-host” packet deliveryparadigm into a more diverse paradigm builtaround the data, content, and users instead ofthe machines. All of the above challenges haveled to the research on future Internet architec-tures.

Future Internet architecture is not a singleimprovement on a specific topic or goal. A clean-slate solution on a specific topic may assume theother parts of the architecture to be fixed andunchanged. Thus, assembling different clean-slate solutions targeting different aspects will notnecessarily lead to a new Internet architecture.Instead, it has to be an overall redesign of thewhole architecture, taking all the issues (security,mobility, performance reliability, etc.) into con-sideration. It also needs to be evolvable and flex-ible to accommodate future changes. Mostprevious clean-slate projects were focused onindividual topics. Through a collaborative andcomprehensive approach, the lessons learnedand research results obtained from these individ-ual efforts can be used to build a holistic Inter-net architecture.

Another important aspect of future Internetarchitecture research is the experimentationtestbeds for new architectures. The currentInternet is owned and controlled by multiplestakeholders who may not be willing to exposetheir networks to the risk of experimentation. Sothe other goal of future Internet architectureresearch is to explore open virtual large-scaletestbeds without affecting existing services. Newarchitectures can be tested, validated, andimproved by running on such testbeds beforethey are deployed in the real world.

In summary, there are three consecutive stepsleading toward a working future Internet archi-tecture:Step 1: Innovations in various aspects of the

InternetStep 2: Collaborative projects putting multiple

innovations into an overall networking archi-tecture

Step 3: Testbeds for real-scale experimentationIt may take a few rounds or spirals to work out a

IEEE Communications Magazine • July 201126 0163-6804/11/$25.00 © 2011 IEEE

This work was supportedin part by a grant fromIntel Corporation andNSF CISE Grant#1019119.

ABSTRACT

The current Internet, which was designedover 40 years ago, is facing unprecedented chal-lenges in many aspects, especially in the com-mercial context. The emerging demands forsecurity, mobility, content distribution, etc. arehard to be met by incremental changes throughad-hoc patches. New clean-slate architecturedesigns based on new design principles areexpected to address these challenges. In thissurvey article, we investigate the key researchtopics in the area of future Internet architec-ture. Many ongoing research projects fromUnited States, the European Union, Japan,China, and other places are introduced and dis-cussed. We aim to draw an overall picture ofthe current research progress on the futureInternet architecture.

FUTURE INTERNET ARCHITECTURES: DESIGN ANDDEPLOYMENT PERSPECTIVES

Jianli Pan, Subharthi Paul, and Raj Jain, Washington University

A Survey of the Research onFuture Internet Architectures

Previous Page | Contents | Zoom in | Zoom out | Front Cover | Search Issue | Next PageIEEE

Communications BA

M SaGEF


Communications BA

M SaGEF

http://www.qmags.com/clickthrough.asp?url=www.comsoc.org&id=15887&adid=logo

http://www.qmags.com/clickthrough.asp?url=www.qmags.com&id=15887&adid=logo



IEEE Communications Magazine • July 2011 27

future Internet architecture that can fit all therequirements.

Future Internet research efforts may be clas-sified based on their technical and geographicaldiversity. While some of the projects target atindividual topics, others aim at holistic architec-tures by creating collaboration and synergyamong individual projects. Research programsspecifically aimed at the design of the futureInternet have been set up in different countriesaround the globe, including the United States,the European Union (EU), Japan, and China.The geographical diversity of research presentsdifferent approaches and structures of these dif-ferent research programs. While dividing theprojects by their major topics is also possible,due to the holistic architecture goals, differentprojects may have some overlap.

Over the past few years’ future Internetresearch has gathered enormous momentum asevidenced by the large number of research pro-jects in this area. In this article, primarily basedon the geographical diversity, we present a shortsurvey limited in scope to a subset of representa-tive projects and discuss their approaches, majorfeatures, and potential impact on the future.

We discuss the key research topics and designgoals for the future Internet architectures.Research projects in the United States, Euro-pean Union, and Asian countries are discussedin detail, respectively. Some of our discussionsand perspectives on future Internet architecturesare included later. Finally, a summary concludesthe article.

KEY RESEARCH TOPICSIn this section, we discuss some key researchtopics that are being addressed by differentresearch projects.

Content- or data-oriented paradigms: Today’sInternet builds around the “narrow waist” of IP,which brings the elegance of diverse designabove and below IP, but also makes it hard tochange the IP layer to adapt for future require-ments. Since the primary usage of today’s Inter-net has changed from host-to-hostcommunication to content distribution, it isdesirable to change the architecture’s narrowwaist from IP to the data or content distribution.Several research projects are based on this idea.This category of new paradigms introduces chal-lenges in data and content security and privacy,scalability of naming and aggregation, compati-bility and co-working with IP, and efficiency ofthe new paradigm.

Mobility and ubiquitous access to networks:The Internet is experiencing a significant shiftfrom PC-based computing to mobile computing.Mobility has become the key driver for the futureInternet. Convergence demands are increasingamong heterogeneous networks such as cellular,IP, and wireless ad hoc or sensor networks thathave different technical standards and businessmodels. Putting mobility as the norm instead ofan exception of the architecture potentially nur-tures future Internet architecture with innovativescenarios and applications. Many collaborativeresearch projects in academia and industry arepursuing such research topics with great interest.

These projects also face challenges such as howto trade off mobility with scalability, security,and privacy protection of mobile users, mobileendpoint resource usage optimization, and soon.

Cloud-computing-centric architectures:Migrating storage and computation into the“cloud” and creating a “computing utility” is atrend that demands new Internet services andapplications. It creates new ways to provideglobal-scale resource provisioning in a “utility-like” manner. Data centers are the key compo-nents of such new architectures. It is importantto create secure, trustworthy, extensible, androbust architecture to interconnect data, con-trol, and management planes of data centers.The cloud computing perspective has attractedconsiderable research effort and industry pro-jects toward these goals. A major technicalchallenge is how to guarantee the trustworthi-ness of users while maintaining persistent ser-vice availability.

Security: Security was added into the originalInternet as an additional overlay instead of aninherent part of the Internet architecture. Nowsecurity has become an important design goalfor the future Internet architecture. The researchis related to both the technical context and theeconomic and public policy context. From thetechnical aspect, it has to provide multiple gran-ularities (encryption, authentication, authoriza-tion, etc.) for any potential use case. Also, itneeds to be open and extensible to future newsecurity related solutions. From the non-techni-cal aspect, it should ensure a trustworthy inter-face among the participants (e.g., users,infrastructure providers, and content providers).There are many research projects and workinggroups related to security. The challenges on thistopic are very diverse, and multiple participantsmake the issue complicated.

Experimental testbeds: As mentioned earlier,developing new Internet architectures requireslarge-scale testbeds. Currently, testbed researchincludes multiple testbeds with different virtual-ization technologies, and the federation andcoordination among these testbeds. Researchorganizations from the United States, EuropeanUnion, and Asia have initiated several programsrelated to the research and implementation oflarge-scale testbeds. These projects explore chal-lenges related to large-scale hardware, software,distributed system test and maintenance, securityand robustness, coordination, openness, andextensibility.

Besides these typical research topics, thereare several others, including but not limited tonetworked multimedia; “smart dust,” also calledthe “Internet of things”; and Internet servicesarchitecture. However, note that in this survey,we are not trying to enumerate all the possibletopics and corresponding research projects.Instead, we focus on a representative subset anddiscuss a few important ongoing research pro-jects.

Due to length limitations, we are not able toenumerate all the references for the projects dis-cussed below. However, we do have a longer sur-vey [18], which includes a more completereference list for further reading.

Since the primary

usage of the today’s

Internet has changed

from host-to-host

communication to

content distribution,

it is desirable to

change the

architecture’s narrow

waist from IP to the

data or content

distribution.


Communications BA

M SaGEF


Communications BA

M SaGEF





IEEE Communications Magazine • July 201128

RESEARCH PROJECTS FROM THEUNITED STATES

Research programs on future Internet architec-ture in United States are administrated by theNational Science Foundation (NSF) directoratefor Computer and Information Science andEngineering (CISE).

FIA AND FINDThe Future Internet Architecture (FIA) pro-gram [1] of the National Science Foundation(NSF) is built on the previous program, FutureInternet Design (FIND) [2]. FIND funded about50 research projects on all kinds of designaspects of the future Internet. FIA is the nextphase to pull together the ideas into groups ofoverall architecture proposals. There are foursuch collaborative architecture groups fundedunder this program, and we introduce themhere. Table 1 illustrates the overall researchprojects from the United States, including FIAand FIND.

Named Data Networking (NDN) — TheNamed Data Networking (NDN) [3] project isled by the University of California, Los Angeleswith participation from about 10 universities andresearch institutes in the United States. The ini-tial idea of the project can be traced to the con-cept of content-centric networks (CCNs) by TedNelson in the 1970s. After that, several projectssuch as TRIAD at Stanford and DONA fromthe University of California at Berkeley werecarried out exploring the topic. In 2009 XeroxPalo Alto Research Center (PARC) released theCCNx project led by Van Jacobson, who is alsoone of the technical leaders of the NDN project.

The basic argument of the NDN project isthat the primary usage of the current Internethas changed from end-to-end packet delivery toa content-centric model. The current Internet,which is a “client-server” model, is facing chal-lenges in supporting secure content-orientedfunctionality. In this information disseminationmodel, the network is “transparent” and justforwarding data (i.e., it is “content-unaware”).Due to this unawareness, multiple copies of thesame data are sent between endpoints on the

network again and again without any trafficoptimization on the network’s part. The NDNuses a different model that enables the networkto focus on “what” (contents) rather than“where” (addresses). The data are namedinstead of their location (IP addresses). Databecome the first-class entities in NDN. Insteadof trying to secure the transmission channel ordata path through encryption, NDN tries tosecure the content by naming the data througha security-enhanced method. This approachallows separating trust in data from trustbetween hosts and servers, which can potentiallyenable content caching on the network side tooptimize traffic. Figure 1 is a simple illustrationof the goal of NDN to build a “narrow waist”around content chunks instead of IP.

NDN has several key research issues. Thefirst one is how to find the data, or how the dataare named and organized to ensure fast datalookup and delivery. The proposed idea is toname the content by a hierarchical “name tree”which is scalable and easy to retrieve. The sec-ond research issue is data security and trustwor-thiness. NDN proposes to secure the datadirectly instead of securing the data “containers”such as files, hosts, and network connections.The contents are signed by public keys. Thethird issue is the scaling of NDN. NDN namesare longer than IP addresses, but the hierarchi-cal structure helps the efficiency of lookup andglobal accessibility of the data.

Regarding these issues, NDN tries to addressthem along the way to resolve the challenges inrouting scalability, security and trust models, fastdata forwarding and delivery, content protectionand privacy, and an underlying theory supportingthe design.

MobilityFirst — The MobilityFirst [4] projectis led by Rutgers University with seven otheruniversities. The basic motivation of Mobility-First is that the current Internet is designed forinterconnecting fixed endpoints. It fails toaddress the trend of dramatically increasingdemands of mobile devices and services. TheInternet usage and demand change is also a keydriver for providing mobility from the architec-tural level for the future Internet. For the nearterm, MobilityFirst aims to address the cellularconvergence trend motivated by the hugemobile population of 4 to 5 billion cellulardevices; it also provides mobile peer-to-peer(P2P) and infostation (delay-tolerant network[DTN]) application services which offer robust-ness in case of link/network disconnection. Forthe long term, in the future, MobilityFirst hasthe ambition of connecting millions of cars viavehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) and vehicle-to-infra-structure (V2I) modes, which involve capabili-ties such as location services, georouting, andreliable multicast. Ultimately, it will introduce apervasive system to interface human beingswith the physical world, and build a futureInternet around people.

The challenges addressed by MobilityFirstinclude stronger security and trust requirementsdue to open wireless access, dynamic association,privacy concerns, and greater chance of networkfailure. MobilityFirst targets a clean-slate design

Table 1. U.S. projects and clusters on the future Internet.

Categories Project or cluster names (selected)

FIA NDN, MobilityFirst, NEBULA, XIA, etc.

FIND CABO, DAMS, Maestro, NetSerV, RNA, SISS, etc. (more than 47total)

GENI

Spiral1: (5 clusters totally): DETER (1 project), PlanetLab (7 pro-jects), ProtoGENI (5 projects), ORCA (4 projects), ORBIT (2 pro-jects; 8 not classified; 2 analysis projects

Spiral2: over 60 active projects as of 2009*

Spiral3: about 100 active projects as of 2011*

* GENI design and prototyping projects can last for more than one spiral.


Communications BA

M SaGEF


Communications BA

M SaGEF






directly addressing mobility such that the fixedInternet will be a special case of the generaldesign. MobilityFirst builds the “narrow waist”of the protocol stack around several protocols:• Global name resolution and routing service• Storage-aware (DTN-like) routing protocol• Hop-by-hop segmented transport• Service and management application pro-

gramming interfaces (APIs)The DTN-like routing protocol is integrated withthe use of self-certifying public key addresses forinherent trustworthiness. Functionalities such ascontext- and location-aware services fit into thearchitecture naturally. An overview of the Mobil-ityFirst architecture is shown in Fig. 2. It showsall the building blocks mentioned above and howthey work together.

Some typical research challenges of Mobility-First include:• Trade-off between mobility and scalability• Content caching and opportunistic data

delivery• Higher security and privacy requirements• Robustness and fault tolerance

NEBULA — NEBULA [5] is another FIA pro-ject focused on building a cloud-computing-cen-tric network architecture. It is led by theUniversity of Pennsylvania with 11 other univer-sities. NEBULA envisions the future Internetconsisting of a highly available and extensiblecore network interconnecting data centers toprovide utility-like services. Multiple cloud pro-viders can use replication by themselves. Cloudscomply with the agreement for mobile “roam-ing” users to connect to the nearest data centerwith a variety of access mechanisms such aswired and wireless links. NEBULA aims todesign the cloud service embedded with securityand trustworthiness, high service availability andreliability, integration of data centers androuters, evolvability, and economic and regulato-ry viability.

NEBULA design principles include:• Reliable and high-speed core interconnect-

ing data centers• Parallel paths between data centers and

core routers• Secure in both access and transit• A policy-based path selection mechanism• Authentication enforced during connection

establishmentWith these design principles in mind, the NEB-ULA future Internet architecture consists of thefollowing key parts:• The NEBULA data plane (NDP), which

establishes policy-compliant paths with flex-ible access control and defense mechanismsagainst availability attacks

• NEBULA virtual and extensible networkingtechniques (NVENT), which is a controlplane providing access to application-selectable service and network abstractionssuch as redundancy, consistency, and policyrouting

• The NEBULA core (NCore), which redun-dantly interconnects data centers with ultra-high-availability routers

NVENT offers control plane security with poli-cy-selectable network abstraction including mul-

tipath routing and use of new networks. NDPinvolves a novel approach for network pathestablishment and policy-controlled trustworthypaths establishment among NEBULA routers.Figure 3 shows the NEBULA architecture com-prising the NDP, NVENT, and NCore, andshows how they interact with each other.

eXpressive Internet Architecture (XIA) —Expressive Internet Architecture (XIA) [6] isalso one of the four projects from the NSF FIAprogram, and was initiated by Carnegie MellonUniversity collaborating with two other universi-ties. As we observe, most of the research pro-jects on future Internet architectures realize theimportance of security and consider their archi-tecture carefully to avoid the flaws of the origi-nal Internet design. However, XIA directly andexplicitly targets the security issue within itsdesign.

There are three key ideas in the XIA archi-tecture:• Define a rich set of building blocks or com-

munication entities as network principalsincluding hosts, services, contents, andfuture additional entities.

• It is embedded with intrinsic security byusing self-certifying identifiers for all princi-pals for integrity and accountability proper-ties.

Figure 1. The new “narrow waist” of NDN (right) compared to the currentInternet (left).

A “narrow waist” around content chunks instead of the IP.

Browsers, Skype, online gaming...

File streams...

Security...

Contents“Narrow waist”

Strategies...

P2P, UDP, IP broadcast...

Optical fiber, copper, radio...

Web, email, VoIP, eBusiness...

HTTP, RTP, SMTP...

TCP, UDP, SCTP...

IP

Ethernet, WIFi...

CSMA, ADSL, Sonet...

Optical fiber, copper, radio...

Figure 2. MobilityFirst architecture.

Control and management plane

Data plane

Core network

Mobility first routers arewith storage capability

Hop-by-hop segmenttransport

Global nameresolution service

GeneralizedDTN routing

Name toaddressmapping


Communications BA

M SaGEF


Communications BA

M SaGEF






• A pervasive “narrow waist” (not limited tothe host-based communication as in thecurrent Internet) for all key functions,including access to principals, interactionamong stakeholders, and trust manage-ment; it aims to provide interoperability atall levels in the system, not just packet for-warding.The XIA components and their interactions

are illustrated in Fig. 4. The core of the XIA isthe Expressive Internet Protocol (XIP) support-ing communication between various types ofprincipals. Three typical XIA principal types are-content, host (defined by “who”), and service(defined by what it does). They are open tofuture extension. Each type of principal has anarrow waist that defines the minimal function-ality required for interoperability. Principles talkto each other using expressive identifiers (XIDs),which are 160 bit identifiers identifying hosts,pieces of content, or services. The XIDs arebasically self-certifying identifiers taking advan-tage of cryptographic hash technology. By usingthis XID, the content retrieval no longer relieson a particular host, service or network path.XIP can then support future functions as adiverse set of services. For low-level services, ituses a path-segment-based network architecture(named Tapa in their previous work) as thebasic building block; and builds services for con-tent-transfer and caching and service for securecontent provenance at a higher level. XIA alsoneeds various trustworthy mechanisms and pro-vides network availability even when underattack. Finally, XIA defines explicit interfacesbetween network actors with different roles andgoals.

GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FORNETWORK INNOVATIONS (GENI)

GENI [7] is a collaborative program supportedby NSF aimed at providing a global large-scaleexperimental testbed for future Internet archi-tecture test and validation. Started in 2005, ithas attracted broad interest and participationfrom both academia and industry. Besides its ini-tial support from existing projects on a dedicatedbackbone network infrastructure, it also aims toattract other infrastructure platforms to partici-pate in the federation — the device controlframework to provide these participating net-works with users and operating environments, toobserve, measure, and record the resulting exper-imental outcomes. So generally, GENI is differ-

ent from common testbeds in that it is a general-purpose large-scale facility that puts no limits onthe network architectures, services, and applica-tions to be evaluated; it aims to allow clean-slatedesigns to experiment with real users under realconditions.

The key idea of GENI is to build multiplevirtualized slices out of the substrate for resourcesharing and experiments. It contains two keypieces:• Physical network substrates that are expand-

able building block components• A global control and management frame-

work that assembles the building blockstogether into a coherent facility

Thus, intuitively two kinds of activities will beinvolved in GENI testbeds: one is deploying aprototype testbed federating different small andmedium ones together (e.g., the OpenFlowtestbed for campus networks [8]); the other is torun observable, controllable, and recordableexperiments on it.

There are several working groups concentrat-ing on different areas, such as the control frame-work working group; GENI experiment workflowand service working group; campus/operation,management, integration, and security workinggroup; and instrumentation and managementworking group.

The GENI generic control framework con-sists of several subsystems and correspondingbasic entities:• Aggregate and components• Clearinghouse• Research organizations, including

researchers and experiment tools• Experiment support service• “Opt-in” end users• GENI operation and managementClearinghouses from different organizations andplaces (e.g., those from the United States andEuropean Union) can be connected through fed-eration. By doing this, GENI not only federateswith identical “GENI-like” systems, but also withany other system if they comply with a clearlydefined and relatively narrow set of interfacesfor federation. With these entities and subsys-tems, “slices” can be created on top of theshared substrate for miscellaneous research-defined specific experiments, and end users can“opt in” onto the GENI testbed accordingly.

GENI’s research and implementation planconsists of multiple continuous spirals (currentlyin spiral 3). Each spiral lasts for 12 months. Spi-ral 1 ran from 2008 to 2009; spiral 2 ran from2009 to 2010; spiral 3 started in 2011. In spiral 1,the primary goals were to demonstrate one ormore early prototypes of the GENI controlframework and end-to-end slice operation acrossmultiple technologies; there were five competingapproaches to the GENI control framework,called “clusters.”

Cluster A was the Trial Integration Environ-ment based on DETER (TIED) control frame-work focusing on federation, trust, and security.It was a one-project cluster based on the Cyber-Defense Technology Experimental Research(DETER) control framework by the Universityof Southern California (USC)/ISI, which is anindividual “mini-GENI” testbed to demonstrate

Figure 3. NEBULA architecture components and their interactions.

Reliabletrustworthy

core network(NCore)

NDP pathNDP path

Data center

Data center Transit network

Wiredaccess

network

Wirelessaccess

network

NVENT

NVENT


Communications BA

M SaGEF


Communications BA

M SaGEF






federated and coordinated network provisioning.Cluster A particularly aimed to provide usabilityacross multiple communities through federation.The project delivered software “fedd” as theimplementation of the TIED federation archi-tecture providing dynamic and on-demand feder-ation, and interoperability across ProtoGENI,GENIAPI, and non-GENI aggregate. It includedan Attribute Based Access Control (ABAC)mechanism for large-scale distributed systems. Itcreated a federation with two other projects:StarBED in Japan and ProtoGENI in the Unit-ed States.

Cluster B was a control framework based onPlanetLab implemented by Princeton Universityemphasizing experiments with virtualizedmachines over the Internet. By the end of spiral2, it included at least 12 projects from differentuniversities and research institutes. The resultsof these projects are to be integrated into thePlanetLab testbed. PlanetLab provided “GENI-wrapper” code for independent development ofan aggregate manager (AM) for Internet enti-ties. A special “lightweight” protocol was intro-duced to interface PlanetLab and OpenFlowequipment. Through these mechanisms, otherprojects in the cluster can design their own sub-strates and component managers with differentcapacities and features.

Cluster C was the ProtoGENI control frame-work by the University of Utah based on Emu-lab, emphasizing network control andmanagement. By the end of spiral 2, it consistedof at least 20 projects. The cluster integratedthese existing and under-construction systems toprovide key GENI functions. The integrationincluded four key components: a backbone basedon Internet2; sliceable and programmable PCsand NetFPGA cards; and subnets of wirelessand wired edge clusters. Cluster C so far is thelargest set of integrated projects in GENI.

Cluster D was Open Resource Control Archi-tecture (ORCA) from Duke University andRENCI focusing on resource allocation andintegration of sensor networks. By the end ofspiral 2, it consisted of five projects. ORCA triedto include optical resources from the existingMetro-Scale Optical Testbed (BEN). Differentfrom other clusters, the ORCA implementationincluded the integration of wireless/sensor proto-types. It maintains a clearinghouse for thetestbeds under the ORCA control frameworkthrough which it connects to the national back-bone and is available to external researchers.

Cluster E was Open-Access Research Testbedfor Next-Generation Wireless Networks(ORBIT) by Rutgers University focusing onmobile and wireless testbed networks. It includ-ed three projects by the end of spiral 2. Thebasic ORBIT did not include a full clearing-house implementation. Cluster E tried toresearch how mobile and wireless work canaffect and possibly be merged into the GENIarchitecture. WiMAX is one of the wireless net-work prototypes in this cluster.

A more detailed description of the clustersand their specific approaches and correspondingfeatures can be found in our previous survey[18]. Even more details can be found from GENIproject websites and wikis [7].

We can see that spirals 1 and 2 integrated avery wide variety of testbeds into its controlframework. Spiral 2 was the second phase aim-ing to move toward continuous experimentation.Key developments include improved integrationof GENI prototypes; architecture, tools, and ser-vices enabling experiment instrumentation; inter-operability across GENI prototypes; andresearcher identity management. In spiral 3, thegoal is to coordinate the design and deploymentof a first GENI Instrumentation and Measure-ment Architecture. Supporting experimental useof GENI and making it easier to use are also keygoals. Also, more backbone services and partici-pants are expected to join in the GENI frame-work for this spiral.

Another notable and unique characteristicoffered by GENI is that instrumentation andmeasurement support have been designed intothe system from the beginning since the ultimategoal of GENI is to provide an open and extensi-ble testbed for experimentation with various newInternet architectures.

RESEARCH PROJECTS FROM THEEUROPEAN UNION AND ASIA

The European Union has also initiated a bundleof research projects on future Internet architec-tures. In this section, we introduce the researchorganized under the European Seventh Frame-work Programme (FP7) along with that in Japanand China.

EUROPEAN UNIONThe European Future Internet Assembly [19](abbreviated FIA as in the United States) is acollaboration between projects under FP7 onfuture Internet research. Currently, the FIAbrings together about 150 projects that are partof FP7. These projects have a wide coverage,including the network of the future, cloud com-puting, Internet of service, trustworthy informa-tion and communication technology (ICT),networked media and search systems, socio-eco-nomic aspects of the future Internet, applicationdomain, and Future Internet Research andExperimentation (FIRE) [10]. The FIA main-tains a European Future Internet Portal [20],

Figure 4. XIA components and interactions.

Net

wor

k-ne

twor

kU

ser-

netw

ork

IntrinsicsecurityeXpressive Internet protocol

Hostsupport

Contentsupport

Servicessupport

Users

Application

Services

Trus

twor

thy

netw

ork

oper

atio

n


Communications BA

M SaGEF


Communications BA

M SaGEF






which is an important web portal for sharinginformation and interaction among the partici-pating projects. Multiple FIA working groupshave been formed to encourage collaborationamong projects.

Of these projects, around 90 of them werelaunched following the calls of FP7 under the“Network of the Future” Objective 1.1. They canbe divided into three clusters: “Future InternetTechnologies (FI),” “Converged and OpticalNetworks (CaON),” and “Radio Access andSpectrum (RAS).” The total research fundingsince 2008 is over €390 million. A subset of theprojects is shown in Table 2.

A significant trait of the “Network of theFuture” [17] is that the research projects cover avery wide range of topics and a number of com-mercial organizations, including traditionaltelecommunication companies, participate in theresearch consortiums. Since there are a largenumber of projects, we selected a few represen-tative ones and explain them in some detail.They are all under FP7 based on a series ofdesign objectives categorized by the ICT chal-lenge #1 of building “Pervasive and TrustedNetwork and Service Infrastructure.”

Due to the large number of projects, for thearchitecture research in this article, we selecteda project named 4WARD (Architecture andDesign for the Future Internet), and for thetestbed we selected FIRE. We selected themdue to the fact that FIRE is often deemed theEuropean counterpart project to GENI, and the4WARD project aims at a general architecturallevel of redesign of the Internet, and we feel thatit is representative of the rest. It also involves alarge number of institutions’ participation andcooperation.

In the following, we discuss these two pro-jects briefly.

4WARD — 4WARD [9] is an EU FP7 projecton designing a future Internet architecture ledprimarily by an industry consortium. The fund-ing is over 45 million dollars for a 2-year period.

The key 4WARD design goals are:• To create a new “network of information”

paradigm in which information objects havetheir own identity and do not need to be

bound to hosts (somewhat similar to thegoal of the NDN project)

• To design the network path to be an activeunit that can control itself and provideresilience and failover, mobility, and securedata transmission

• To devise “default-on” management capa-bility that is an intrinsic part of the networkitself

• To provide dependable instantiation andinteroperation of different networks on asingle infrastructure.Thus, on one hand, 4WARD promotes the

innovations needed to improve a single networkarchitecture; on the other hand, it enables multi-ple specialized network architectures to worktogether in an overall framework. There are fivetask components in the 4WARD research:• A general architecture and framework• Dynamic mechanisms for securely sharing

resources in virtual networks• “Default-on” network management system;

a communication path architecture withmultipath and mobility support

• Architecture for information-oriented net-worksNote that 4WARD is one of many projects

under the FP7 framework on future Internetarchitecture research. Readers can find moreinformation on a complete list of the projectsfrom [19]. Some typical projects focusing on dif-ferent aspects of future architecture are listed inTable 2.

Future Internet Research and Experimenta-tion (FIRE) — FIRE [10] is one of the Euro-pean Union’s research projects on testbeds andis like a counterpart of GENI in the UnitedStates. FIRE was started in 2006 in FP6 and hascontinued through several consecutive cycles offunding. FIRE involves efforts from both indus-try and academia. It is currently in its “thirdwave” focusing on providing federation and sus-tainability between 2011 and 2012. Note that theFIRE project’s research is built on the previouswork on the GEANT2 (Gigabit European Aca-demic Networking Technology) project [11],which is the infrastructure testbed connectingover 3000 research organizations in Europe.

Table 2. EU research projects on future Internet.

Categories Project names (selected)

Future Architectures and Technologies 4AWARD, TRILOGY, EIFFEL, SPARC, SENSEI, Socrates, CHANGE,PSIRP, etc.

Services, Software, and Virtualization ALERT, FAST, PLAY, S-Cube, SLA@SOI, VISION Cloud, etc.

Network Media 3DLife, COAST, COMET, FutureNEM, nextMEDIA, P2P-Next, etc.

Internet of Things ASPIRE, COIN, CuteLoop, SYNERGY, etc.

Trustworthiness ABC4Trust, AVANTSSAR, ECRYPT II, MASTER, uTRUSTit, etc.

Testbeds FIRE, N4C, OPNEX, OneLAB2, PII, WISEBED, G-Lab, etc.

Others HYDRA, INSPIRE, SOCIALNETS, etc.

A significant trait of

the “Network of the

Future” is that the

research projects

cover a very wide

range of topics and

a number of

commercial

organizations,

including traditional

telecommunication

companies,

participate in

the research

consortiums.


Communications BA

M SaGEF


Communications BA

M SaGEF






FIRE has two interrelated dimensions:• To support long-term experimentally driven

research on new paradigms and conceptsand architectures for the future Internet

• To build a large-scale experimentation facil-ity by gradually federating existing andfuture emerging testbeds

FIRE also expects not only to change the Inter-net in technical aspects but also in socio-eco-nomic terms by treating socio-economicrequirements in parallel with technical require-ments.

A major goal of FIRE is federation, which bydefinition is to unify different self-governingtestbeds by a central control entity under a com-mon set of objectives. With this goal in mind,the FIRE project can be clustered in a layeredway as depicted in Fig. 5. As shown in the figure,it contains three basic clusters. The top-levelcluster consists of a bundle of novel individualarchitectures for routing and transferring data.The bottom cluster consists of projects providingsupport for federation. In the middle is the fed-eration cluster, which consists of the existingtestbeds to be federated. These existing smalland medium-sized testbeds can be federatedgradually to meet the requirements for emergingfuture Internet technologies. Documents describ-ing these sub-testbeds can be found on the FIREproject website [10].

ASIAAsian countries such as Japan and China alsohave projects on future Internet architectures.

Japan — Japan has broad collaborations withboth the United States and European Unionregarding future Internet research. It participatesin PlanetLab in the United States, and thetestbed in Japan is also federated with the Ger-man G-Lab facility. The Japanese research pro-gram on future Internet architecture is calledNew Generation Network (NWGN) sponsoredby the Japan National Institute of Informationand Communications Technology (NICT). TheJapanese research community defines the clean-slate architecture design as “new generation” andthe general IP-based converged design as “nextgeneration” (NXGN) design. NWGN started inJune 2010 and expects to change the networktechnologies and Internet community with broadimpact in both the short term (to 2015) and longterm (to 2050). Like the projects in the UnitedStates and European Union, NWGN consists ofa series of sub-projects collaborated on byacademia and industry. The sub-projects rangefrom architecture designs, testbed designs, virtu-alization laboratories, and wireless testbeds todata-centric networking, service-oriented net-works, advanced mobility management over net-work virtualization, and green computing. Ratherthan enumerating all projects, we briefly discussthe architecture project AKARI [12] and thetestbed projects JGN2plus [13] and JGN-X (JGNstands for Japan Gigabit Network). The reasonwe selected these projects is similar to the reasonwe selected FIA and GENI. AKARI is so far thebiggest architectural research project in Japan;JGN2plus and JGN-X are the testbed researchcounterparts to GENI and FIRE.

AKARI: AKARI means “a small light in thedarkness.” The goal of AKARI is a clean-slateapproach to design a network architecture ofthe future based on three key design princi-ples:• “Crystal synthesis,” which means to keep

the architecture design simple even whenintegrating different functions

• “Reality connected,” which separates thephysical and logical structures

• “Sustainable and evolutional,” which meansit should embed the “self-*” properties(self-organizing, self-distributed, self-emer-gent, etc.), and be flexible and open to thefuture changesAKARI is supposed to assemble five subar-

chitecture models to become a blueprintNWGN:• An integrated subarchitecture based on a

layered model with cross-layer collabora-tion; logical identity separate from the dataplane (a kind of ID/locator split structure)

• A subarchitecture that simplifies the layeredmodel by reducing duplicated functions inlower layers

• A subarchitecture for quality of service(QoS) guarantee and multicast

• A subarchitecture to connect heterogeneousnetworks through virtualization

• A mobile access subarchitecture for sensorinformation distribution and regional adap-tive servicesAKARI is currently in the process of a proof-

of-concept design and expects to get a blueprintin 2011. Through systematic testbed constructionand experimentations, it aims to establish a newarchitecture ready for public deployment by2016.

JGN2plus and JGN-X: JGN2plus is thenationwide testbed for applications and networksin Japan, and also the testbed for internationalfederation. It includes broad collaboration fromboth industry and academia. It evolved as JGN,migrated to JGN II in 2004, and then toJGN2plus in 2008. From 2011, the testbed isunder JGN-X, which targets to be the realNWGN testbed to deploy and validate AKARIresearch results. JGN2plus provides four kindsof services:

Figure 5. FIRE clustering of projects.

Support actions

Experimentally-driven, multi-disciplinary research

Federica

VITAL++Testbeds

PII

OneLab2

WISEBED


Communications BA

M SaGEF


Communications BA

M SaGEF






• Layer 3 (L3) IP connection• L2 Ethernet connection• Optical testbed• Overlay service platform provisioning

There are also five subtopics in the researchof JGN2plus:

• NWGN service platform fundamental tech-nologies

• NWGN service testbed federation technolo-gy

• Middleware and application of lightpathNWGN

• Component establishment technologies forNWGN operation

• Verification of new technologies for inter-national operation

JGN2plus expects to create collaboration amongindustry, academia, and government for NWGNexperiments. It also aims to contribute to humanresource development in the ICT area via theseexperiments.

China — The research projects on future Inter-net in China are mostly under the 863 Program,973 Program, and “12th Five-Year Plan Pro-jects” administrated by the Ministry of Scienceand Technology (MOST) of China. Currentlythere are several ongoing research projects,which include:• New Generation Trustworthy Networks

(from 2007 to 2010)• New Generation Network Architectures

(from 2009 to 2013)• Future Internet Architectures (from 2011 to

2015)Project 1 was still IP - network research insteadof a clean-slate future Internet. It consists ofresearch sub-projects on new network architec-ture, next generation broadcasting (NGB), newnetwork services, a national testbed for newgeneration networks and services, new routing/switching technology, a new optical transmis-sion network, and low-cost hybrid access equip-ment.

Besides the research projects on future Inter-net architecture, there are also ongoing researchprojects for building a China Next GenerationInternet (CNGI) testbed. It is based on the pre-vious infrastructure network testbed of theChina Education and Research Network (CER-NET [14] and CERNET2 [15]) and the ChinaScience and Technology Network (CSTNET). Aterabit optical, terabit WDM, terabit router plusIPTV testbed called (3T-NET) was alsoannounced on July 2009 as NGB. The testbedprojects are mostly industry oriented with specif-ic interest in IPv6 related protocols and applica-tions.

We observed that the current future Internetarchitecture research in China leans heavilytoward IPv6 related testbed, which is relativelyshort-term. To some extent, it reveals the painChina felt due to the collision between theextreme shortage of IPv4 address space inChina and the ever expanding demands fromincreasing customers and novel services.Longer-term research projects on innovativearchitectural research are still in the cradlecompared to those of the United States andEuropean Union.

DISCUSSIONS AND PERSPECTIVES

Having presented a variety of research projects,we find that there are several issues worth dis-cussing. In this section, we give our perspectiveregarding these issues. Of course, there is noagreement among researchers regarding theseperspectives, and none is implied.

Clean-slate vs. evolutionary: Clean-slatedesigns impose no restriction and assumptionon the architectural design. The key idea is notto be subjected to the limitations of the existingInternet architecture. It is also called “new gen-eration” by Japanese and Chinese researchers.While the architectures can be revolutionary,their implementation has to be evolutionary.Today, the Internet connects billions of nodesand has millions of applications that have beendeveloped over the last 40 years. We believeany new architecture should be designed withthis reality in mind; otherwise, it is bound tofail. Legacy nodes and applications should beable to communicate over the new architecturewithout change (with adapter nodes at theboundary), and new nodes and applicationsshould similarly be able to communicate overthe existing Internet architecture. Of course,the services available to such users will be anintersection of those offered by both architec-tures. Also, the new architecture may provideadaptation facilities for legacy devices at theirboundary points. Various versions of Ethernetare good examples of such backward compati-bility. Some variations of IP are potential exam-ples of missing this principle.

New architecture deployment will start in avery small scale compared to the current Inter-net. These early adopters should have economicincentives for change. Any architecture thatrequires investment without immediate payoff isbound to fail. Of course, the payoff will increaseas the deployment of the new technology increas-es, economies of scale reduce the cost and even-tually the old architecture deployed base willdiminish and disappear.

Integration of security, mobility, and otherfunctionalities: It is well understood and agreedthat security, mobility, self-organization, disrup-tion tolerance, and so on are some of the keyrequired features for the future Internet. How-ever, most of the projects, even for those col-laborative ones like in FIA program, put moreemphasis on a specific attribute or a specific setof problems. It seems to be a tough problem tohandle many challenges in a single architecturedesign. Currently, for the collaborative projectssuch as FIA, they are trying to integrate miscel-laneous previous research results into a coher-ent one trying to balance some of the issues.Although different projects have differentemphases, it is beneficial to create such diversi-ty and allow a bunch of integrated architecturesto potentially compete in the future. However,we believe that there is still a long way to gobefore there is a next-generation architectureunifying these different lines of designs. Forexample, we observe that the four U.S. FIAprojects concentrate on four different specificissues. Self-certifying and hash-based addressesare effective tools for security. However, securi-

Any architecture that

requires investment

without immediate

payoff is bound to

fail. Of course, the

payoff will increase

as the deployment

of the new

technology increases,

economies of scale

reduce the cost, and

eventually the old

architecture

deployed base will

diminish and

disappear.


Communications BA

M SaGEF


Communications BA

M SaGEF






ty needs much more consideration on bothmicro and macro scopes. Content- and informa-tion-centric features are also important trends,but how to integrate these differing require-ments and resulting architectures is still a pend-ing problem. We expect that more integrationresearch will be required when such issuesemerge in the future. It is therefore desirablefor different projects to create some synergy forthe integration process.

Architectures built around people instead ofmachines: It has been widely realized that theusage pattern of the Internet has changed, andthe trend of building future Internet architecturearound the contents, data, and users seems to bejustifiable and promising in the future. Designgoal changes naturally lead to design principlechanges. Different patterns may emerge withoutany further synthesis. Current existing projectson future Internet architectures sort out differ-ent principles according to their own designemphases. From our perspective, it is essentialand important to form a systematic and compre-hensive theory in the research process ratherthan designing based only on experiences. It maytake several continuous spirals between theoreti-cal improvement and practical experience toachieve a sound architecture. We believe moreresearch in this area may be desirable and mean-ingful for future Internet research.

Interfaces among stakeholders: Future Inter-net architectures are required to provide extensi-ble and flexible explicit interfaces amongmultiple stakeholders (users, Internet serviceproviders, application service providers, dataowners, and governments) to allow interaction,and enforce policies and even laws. A typicalexample is Facebook, which creates a complexsituation for data, privacy, and social relation-ships. Societal and economic components havebecome indispensible factors in the future Inter-net. The transition from the academic Internetto a multifunctional business-involved futureInternet puts much higher requirements on thearchitectural supports to regulate and balancethe interests of all stakeholders. In both techni-cal and non-technical aspects, the future Inter-net architectures are required to provideextensible and flexible explicit interfaces amongmultiple actors to allow interaction, and enforcepolicies and even laws. The deep merging of theInternet into everyone’s daily life has made suchendeavors and efforts more and more urgentand important. From our perspective, significantresearch efforts are still needed in aspects suchas economics, society, and laws.

Experimental facilities: Most of the currenttestbeds for future Internet architecture researchin different countries are results of previousresearch projects not related to future Internetarchitectures. The networks use different tech-nologies and have different capabilities.Although the federation efforts are meaningful,they may be restricted in both manageability andcapability by such diversity. Testbeds from differ-ent countries are also generally tailored or spe-cialized for the architectural design projects ofthose countries, with different features andemphases. Federation and creating synergyamong such testbeds may be challenging. From

our perspective, such challenges also mean avaluable opportunity for research on sharing andvirtualization over diverse platforms.

Service delivery networks: The key trenddriving the growth of the Internet over the lastdecade is the profusion of services over theInternet. Google, Facebook, YouTube, and simi-lar services form the bulk of Internet traffic.Cloud computing and the proliferation of mobiledevices have lead to further growth in servicesover the Internet. Therefore, Internet 3.0 [16],which is a project in which the authors of thisarticle are involved, includes developing an openand secure service delivery network (SDN) archi-tecture. This will allow telecommunication carri-ers to offer SDN services that can be used bymany application service providers (ASPs). Forexample, an ASP wanting to use multiple cloudcomputing centers could use it to set up its ownworldwide application-specific network and cus-tomize it by a rule-based delegation mechanism.These rules will allow ASPs to share an SDNand achieve the features required for widely dis-tributed services, such as load balancing, faulttolerance, replication, multihoming, mobility,and strong security, customized for their applica-tion. One way to summarize this point is thatservice delivery should form the narrow waist ofthe Internet (Fig. 1), and content and IP arespecial cases of service delivery.

SUMMARYIn this article, we present a survey of the currentresearch efforts on future Internet architectures.It is not meant to be a complete enumeration ofall such projects. Instead, we focus on a series ofrepresentative research projects. Research pro-grams and efforts from the United States, Euro-pean Union, and Asia are discussed. By doingthis, we hope to draw an approximate overallpicture of the up-to-date status in this area.

REFERENCES[1] NSF Future Internet Architecture Project, http://www.

nets-fia.net/.[2] NSF NeTS FIND Initiative, http://www.nets-find.net.[3] Named Data Networking Project, http://www.named-

data.net.[4] MobilityFirst Future Internet Architecture Project,

http://mobilityfirst.winlab.rutgers.edu/.[5] NEBULA Project, http://nebula.cis.upenn.edu.[6] eXpressive Internet Architecture Project,

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~xia/.[7] Global Environment for Network Innovations (GENI)

Project, http://www.geni.net/.[8] OpenFlow Switch Consortium, http://www.open-

flowswitch.org/.[9] The FP7 4WARD Project, http://www.4ward-project.eu/.[10] FIRE: Future Internet Research and Experimentation,

http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/ict/fire/[11] GEANT2 Project, http://www.geant2.net/.[12] AKARI Architecture Design Project, http://akari-pro-

ject.nict.go.jp/eng/index2.htm[13] JGN2plus- Advanced Testbed Network for R&D,

http://www.jgn.nict.go.jp/english/index.html.[14] China Education and Research Network,

http://www.edu.cn/english/.[15] CERNET2 Project, http://www.cernet2.edu.cn/

index_en.htm.[16] Internet 3.0 project, http://www1.cse.wustl.edu/

~jain/research/index.html.[17] The Network of the Future Projects of EU FP7,

http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/ict/future-networks/home_en.html.

Internet 3.0, which is

a project in which

the authors are

involved, includes

developing an open

and secure service

delivery network

architecture. This will

allow telecommuni-

cation carriers to

offer SDN services

that can be used by

many application

service providers.


Communications BA

M SaGEF


Communications BA

M SaGEF

________________

___________________

_________________________

_______

______________

________

______

http://www.qmags.com/clickthrough.asp?url=http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/ict/future-networks/home_en.html&id=15887&adid=P35E17

http://www.qmags.com/clickthrough.asp?url=http://www1.cse.wustl.edu/~jain/research/index.html&id=15887&adid=P35E16

http://www.qmags.com/clickthrough.asp?url=http://www.cernet2.edu.cn/index_en.htm&id=15887&adid=P35E15

http://www.qmags.com/clickthrough.asp?url=http://www.edu.cn/english/&id=15887&adid=P35E14

http://www.qmags.com/clickthrough.asp?url=http://www.jgn.nict.go.jp/english/index.html&id=15887&adid=P35E13

http://www.qmags.com/clickthrough.asp?url=http://akari-project.nict.go.jp/eng/index2.htm&id=15887&adid=P35E12

http://www.qmags.com/clickthrough.asp?url=http://www.geant2.net/&id=15887&adid=P35E11

http://www.qmags.com/clickthrough.asp?url=http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/ict/fire/&id=15887&adid=P35E10

http://www.qmags.com/clickthrough.asp?url=http://www.4ward-project.eu/&id=15887&adid=P35E9

http://www.qmags.com/clickthrough.asp?url=http://www.geni.net/&id=15887&adid=P35E7

http://www.qmags.com/clickthrough.asp?url=http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~xia/&id=15887&adid=P35E6

http://www.qmags.com/clickthrough.asp?url=http://nebula.cis.upenn.edu&id=15887&adid=P35E5

http://www.qmags.com/clickthrough.asp?url=http://mobilityfirst.winlab.rutgers.edu/&id=15887&adid=P35E4

http://www.qmags.com/clickthrough.asp?url=http://www.named-data.net&id=15887&adid=P35E3

http://www.qmags.com/clickthrough.asp?url=http://www.nets-find.net&id=15887&adid=P35E2

http://www.qmags.com/clickthrough.asp?url=http://www.nets-fia.net/&id=15887&adid=P35E1

http://www.qmags.com/clickthrough.asp?url=http://www.openflowswitch.org/&id=15887&adid=P35E8






[18] S. Paul, J. Pan, and R. Jain, “Architectures for theFuture Networks and the Next Generation Internet: ASurvey,” Comp. Commun., U.K., vol. 34, issue 1, 15Jan. 2011, pp. 2–42.

[19] Future Internet Assembly, http://www.future-internet.eu/home/future-internet-assembly.html.

BIOGRAPHIESJIANLI PAN [S] ([email protected]) received his B.E. in2001 from Nanjing University of Posts and Telecommunica-tions (NUPT), China, and his M.S. in 2004 from Beijing Uni-versity of Posts and Telecommunications (BUPT), China. Heis currently a Ph.D. student in the Department of ComputerScience and Engineering at Washington University in SaintLouis, Missouri. His current research is on future Internetarchitecture and related topics such as routing scalability,mobility, mulithoming, and Internet evolution. His recentresearch interests also include green building in the net-working context.

SUBHARTHI PAUL [S] ([email protected]) received hisB.S. degree from the University of Delhi, India, and hisMaster’s degree in software engineering from JadavpurUniversity, Kolkata, India. He is presently a doctoral

student in the Department of Computer Science andEngineering at Washington University. His primaryresearch interests are in the area of future Internetarchitectures.

RAJ JAIN [F] ([email protected]) is a Fellow of ACM, a win-ner of the ACM SIGCOMM Test of Time award and CDAC-ACCS Foundation Award 2009, and ranks among the top50 in Citeseer’s list of Most Cited Authors in Computer Sci-ence. He is currently a professor in the Department ofComputer Science and Engineering at Washington Universi-ty. Previously, he was one of the co-founders of NaynaNetworks, Inc., a next-generation telecommunications sys-tems company in San Jose, California. He was a senior con-sulting eEngineer at Digital Equipment Corporation inLittleton, Massachusetts, and then a professor of computerand information sciences at Ohio State University, Colum-bus. He is the author of Art of Computer Systems Perfor-mance Analysis, which won the 1991 Best-AdvancedHow-to Book, Systems award from Computer Press Associ-ation. His fourth book, High-Performance TCP/IP: Concepts,Issues, and Solutions, was published by Prentice Hall inNovember 2003. Recently, he co-edited Quality of ServiceArchitectures for Wireless Networks: Performance Metricsand Management, published in April 2010.


Communications BA

M SaGEF


Communications BA

M SaGEF

__________

____________

____________

_____________________________________

http://www.qmags.com/clickthrough.asp?url=http://www.future-internet.eu/home/future-internet-assembly.html&id=15887&adid=P36E1

mailto:[email protected]





