40 IEEE COMMUNICATIONS SURVEYS & TUTORIALS, VOL. 10, NO.
4, FOURTH QUARTER 2008
From TCP/IP to Convergent Networks:
Challenges and Taxonomy
Daniel F. Macedo, Aldri Luiz dos Santos, and Guy Pujolle
AbstractNowadays most portable electronic devices have
some sort of network capability. However, due to different
power, cost and processing limitations, the choice of networking
technology changes for each device. Currently, networks are
converging to all-IP solutions, due to their wide applicability and
low cost. However, the IP architecture is built on several design
decisions that complicate the support of ubiquitous networking.
In order to allow the equipment to intercommunicate even though
their protocols may be different, a new set of protocols and
services have been developed. This article describes the challenges
and existing solutions in the area of convergent networking
protocols and architectures. First, we will explore why the
TCP/IP architecture is not tailored to mobile networks, briefly
describing its limitations and possible solutions. Next, we will
present a taxonomy to classify the architectures for convergent
networking. Finally, we show a brief survey of the existing
convergent architectures as well as the research challenges on
the subject.
Index TermsCommunication system operations and manage-
ment, Communication systems, Computer networks, Protocols.
I. I NTRODUCTION
D UE TO THE evolution of networking and electronics,
communication capabilities are nowadays implemented
into a huge set of devices, such as computers, PDAs, cell
phones or even household appliances and smart tags [1].
Hence, users demand access to services and data anytime,
anywhere. This vision requires the creation of a network which
implements the services of both Internet and telecommuni-
cation networks, carrying data, voice and multimedia traffic.
This is known in the literature as convergent networking,
next-generation networking or 4G networking [2, 3]. Telecom
operators are gradually offering packets of integrated data and
multimedia services, which are branded triple play (Internet
access, television and telephony) and quadruple play (triple
play plus wireless services) [4]. Those services demand an
unforeseen amount of bandwidth and at the same time require
stricter QoS guarantees.
To complicate things even further, operators will soon
deploy a new pack of services known as penta play (quadruple
play with seamless mobility among wireless technologies) [4].
Terminals will be mobile, roaming from networks using dif-
ferent access technologies. For example, a user may start a
phone call over GSM and next change to a WiFi connection
Manuscript received April 18, 2007; revised October 23, 2007.
Daniel Macedo and Guy Pujolle are with the Laboratoire dInformatique
Paris VI, Universite Pierre et Marie Curie-Paris6, France, (e-mail:
{Daniel.Macedo, Guy.Pujolle}@rp.lip6.fr).
Aldri Luiz do Santos is with the Informatics Department, Federal University
of Parana, Brazil, (e-mail: aldri@inf.ufpr.br).
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/SURV.2008.080405.
1553-877X/08/$25.00 
without dropping the call. Yet, users will expect the same
levels of service, even though the challenges to provide them
will be much higher. Those services will demand protocols
that support dynamic addresses, bandwidth and others, due to
the switch from one wireless technology to another, pushing
even further the limits of IP networks. Further, terminals
employing several wireless cards might be connected to one
or more networks at the same time (multi-homing). Future
devices will choose which access network is best for each
application, or might even simultaneously use more than one
technology to serve a single service.
The challenges are similar on public safety communications.
In such situations, one or more teams of public service
workers (e.g. firemen, police, army, medical services) combine
to act on some catastrophic event. As each group is inde-
pendently managed, they might employ different equipment
and networking standards. Similar to commercial convergent
networks, rescue operations will mostly demand multimedia
and real-time traffic, such as voice communication or video
feeds of severely damaged regions [5]. The biggest difference
between regular convergent networks and networks for
rescue situations is the lack of pre-deployed networking in-
frastructure, since it may be destroyed, disabled or congested.
Thus, a number of small ad hoc networks, interconnected by
means of a WAN backbone, will form a mesh network [6, 7].
Due to the mission-critical nature of the work, the network
must be extremely reliable, requiring minimal or no human
intervention.
Finally, networks are being used by things. Devices
such as IP televisions and stereo sets, household appliances
and wireless sensors for home monitoring and environmental
studies demand some sort of connection to the Internet [8].
Some of those devices have severely constrained resources,
and thus cannot run IP [9], requiring either a simplified version
of IP or a new networking architecture. Also, the location of
the node is more important than its identifier, creating the need
for service and data location protocols that use geographic
information to identify the most suitable data source. Further,
the need for extremely low power consumption frequently
leads to cross-layer approaches or to radically new networking
architectures [1013].
To achieve the convergent networking vision, several capa-
bilities must be added to the existing networking infrastruc-
ture. First, in order to support user mobility, the network must
implement handover protocols and policies [14]. The unpre-
dictability of the wireless medium, coupled with unreliable
devices and users, demands the design of new management
and security solutions. Due to frequent changes in the access
c 2008 IEEE
MACEDO et al.: FROM TCP/IP TO CONVERGENT NETWORKS: CHALLENGES AND TAXONOMY
network and on the environment, the network must be aware
of its context, adapting automatically and transparently to
changes. As networks become pervasive, privacy and security
will be paramount. Critical networks, such as those used
in surveillance and real-time control of industrial plants,
must be resilient to attacks from terrorists and competitors.
Meanwhile, personal devices and operators will have to adopt
privacy measures in order to avoid tracing the habits and the
whereabouts of their users.
Since IP networks are the de facto standard for com-
munication, convergent architectures should be IP-based to
facilitate their deployment. However, the IP architecture is
built on several design decisions that complicate the support
of convergent networking. This occurs not because of poor
design, but because the overwhelming success of IP spurred
the adoption of networking on devices and scenarios that
were impossible to imagine at the time of its inception. The
requirements for mobile and ubiquitous access are not easily
fulfilled by current Internet technologies, because the Internet
was developed for fixed, resourceful nodes that are always
connected to the network and export quasi-static services.
Future networks, on the other hand, will be based on mobile
nodes, which will be at times disconnected from the network
and will provide services dynamically, depending on their
context.
Due to those limitations, the research on convergent net-
working is divided into two directions. The first advocates the
creation of new networking architectures more suited to the
highly dynamic nature of current scenarios. The sheer amount
of equipment and the cost of upgrading the entire Internet
demand a gradual deployment of innovative technologies.
Thus, next-generation network architectures will have to run
alongside IP while the infrastructure is gradually upgraded.
Hence, the second direction defends that it is impossible to
replace the Internet, thus advocating incremental, backwards
compatible updates and patches.
This article provides an overview of convergent networking
and surveys the existing proposals. Our primary focus is
on new architectures, however we briefly survey the most
important enhancements to IP-based networks for convergent
scenarios. First, we will make the point for new network-
ing architectures by describing the limitations of IP-based
networks when applied to convergent scenarios. Based on
those shortcomings, we will develop a taxonomy that portrays
several design decisions on convergent networking. Next, we
will highlight the most prominent architectures and present
some of the efforts to extend IP. Finally, we will show the
challenges and research directions on the field.
II. L IMITATIONS OF IP-BASED N ETWORKS
Networks are converging to all-IP solutions, and as such
future networks will likely be based on IP or will use the
IP infrastructure in order to profit from the hardware and
software already deployed. However, the Internet Protocol was
not designed to support the applications and node dynamics
that users demand of convergent networks. We discuss below
some shortcomings of IP when employed on mobile scenarios
and how they could be solved.
41
1) IP addresses are used for routing and naming. As
the Internet was primarily designed for fixed networks,
IP addresses are used for routing and identification at
the transport layer. When we consider mobile hosts,
however, addresses must change as users roam through
networks with different administrative domains, due to
routing reasons. Since TCP flows are identified by a
quadruple formed of IP addresses and ports, if a user
changes his IP or the content migrates to another host,
the connection is lost. Mobile-IP solves this problem
by adding servers which forward packets to the cur-
rent location of the roaming nodes [15]. However, this
issue would not exist if naming and addressing were
decoupled. Connections would be based on higher level
names, which could be dynamically reassigned to new
addresses when necessary. Balakrishnan et al. go even
further, proposing three levels of names in order to
separate users/services, hosts and routes, allowing node,
user and process mobility [16].
2) The intelligence of the network is usually on the
edges. The Internet is based on the End-to-End (E2E)
principle, which states that the core network should
be as simple as possible, leaving the complexity to
the edge nodes [17]. Although the E2E principle al-
lowed the Internet to foster applications that could never
have been imagined when the network was designed,
this rule must be violated in order to allow seamless
communication. Take, for instance, a user watching a
video on a PDA over a WLAN. If the user goes out
of range of the WLAN, the PDA might switch to a
WAN network such as cellular. Some cellular networks,
however, are not IP-based, thus an intermediary node is
necessary to translate IP packets to the most appropriate
WAN abstraction. Intermediary nodes are recurrent on
the Internet nowadays. Caches and NAT, for example,
insert intelligence on the network at the expense of
incompatibilities with other protocols: caches do not
work in conjunction with IPSEC and SSL, and NAT
hinders the use of P2P applications [18, 19].
3) The unpredictability of the wireless medium predates
layering. The Internet is based on a modular design,
where each layer implements a specific service. While
this modularity allowed IP to run over any existing
MAC and PHY technologies, the separation of concerns
must be violated on wireless networks. One example is
TCP, which assumes that packets are only lost due to
congestion, because infra-structured links are highly re-
liable. When a packet is not acknowledged, TCP reduces
its transmission rate in order to decrease congestion.
On wireless networks, however, link reliability may be
temporarily low due to interference. In such situations,
TCP unnecessarily decreases the data rate, because the
protocol cannot differentiate transmission errors from
congestion [20, 21]. Thus, TCP should interact with
the MAC layer to identify the cause of packet loss.
Another example is routing, where routes are based on
PHY issues such as packet loss rate and the energy
consumption of each link [22, 23].
42 IEEE COMMUNICATIONS SURVEYS & TUTORIALS, VOL. 10, NO. 4, FOURTH QUARTER 2008

probability of 1010 [30]. Meanwhile, wireless commu-

nication does not have such luxuries. Nodes might fail
due to depleted energy, low transmission quality (the bit
error rate can be as high as 103 [31]) or even because
a certain node on the path has moved and is now out of
range. Thus, wireless networks are prone to frequent ser-
vice disruption. Recently, the community acknowledged
that such networks demand different design principles,
Fig. 1. Requesting news on UK football, using the meta-data and the address- proposing the concept of Disruption Tolerant Networks
based approaches.
(DTNs) [32]. Examples are interplanetary networks or
sparsely populated networks [33, 34].
DTNs abolish connections in favor of bundles, which are
4) Data is usually bound to a host. On most Internet
messages that synthesize the entire request or response.
protocols, data is associated with the machine where it
Those networks are based on store-and-forward instead
is stored. FTP, HTTP and TCP are some examples1 .
of message passing, allowing nodes to communicate
For several types of information, however, users do
even if an instantaneous path to the destination cannot
not care about its source. Peer-to-Peer networks and
be found. As Figure 2 (a) shows, the nearest nodes to the
search engines, for example, are services that allow
destination (nodes in black) cache the bundles on perma-
users to query information based on its content or meta-
nent storage while the destination is unreachable [35].
data. Such services arose from the difficulty of finding
After some time, one of those nodes finds a valid
information on the Internet. Since those services are
route to the destination, due to movement or favorable
built over an address-based system, they are overlay
environmental conditions, as shown in Figure 2 (b). It
networks which map queries based on meta-data into
then forwards the bundle using the recently discovered
networking addresses and URLs.
path.
Several solutions, such as JINI, Salutation and others
6) Management is done outside the network. On the
were created to counter this problem [2426]. However,
classic Internet, a small number of nodes must be
since the underlying network makes requests based on
managed, and they tend to be reasonably simple to
addresses, service and data mobility is a big issue.
maintain. Thus, existing management solutions rely on
Whenever a service is inserted, deleted or moved, a
operators to remotely configure the behavior of the net-
lengthy notification process must be undertaken. All
work. With the connection of ubiquitous devices to the
nodes on the network that are using this service or
network (sensors, RFID, electronic appliances) and due
that cached its location must be informed of its new
to mobility, services and nodes are added and removed at
position. Another problem with content being bound
a much higher rate, making human-based management
to an address is that CDN-like mirroring requires a
impossible due to scalability and complexity factors.
non-trivial set of mechanisms, such as DNS redirects
Hence, management must be moved from the operator
and explicit content rewriting [27]. An approach that
to the nodes, creating self-managed networks. Those
counters those limitations is content-based routing, as
networks, which are also called autonomic networks due
in Directed Diffusion and Haggle [28, 29]. Since routes
to the use of the autonomic computing concept [36], em-
are based on meta-data, roaming services are handled
ploy intelligent software that monitors the conditions of
seamlessly. Moreover, if multiple sources for the same
the node and its surroundings, triggering configuration
data are found, the best source is selected by the routing
changes in order to avoid service degradation.
algorithm.
7) Nodes are assumed to be well-intentioned. On the
Figure 1 illustrates the difference between the two
Internet, data is transmitted without encryption, and
paradigms for a request of the latest news on English
connections are opened without authentication. This
football. Using the address-based approach, the user
behavior must be due to the restricted use of networking
must somehow find out the node where the information
in the 1970s, where the number of users and computers
is located and where it is logically stored. Thus, the
was small and access to the machines was easier to con-
user must be notified if the address or the location of
trol. Nowadays, those breaches are explored by spam-
the service changes. In a query based on meta-data,
mers and hackers to launch denial of service attacks,
however, users define which attributes the data must
send unsolicited messages or eavesdrop communica-
fulfill, and the underlying system takes care of finding
tions. In order to counter this, nodes should be assumed
the information. The service can be easily moved or
ill-intentioned unless proved otherwise. Applications
replicated, as content-based requests make no reference
should be secured, and the access to services and data
to the host of the information.
should be granted only to trusted parties.
5) Failures are assumed to be unusual. Equipment for
It is also necessary to protect the operation of the
fixed networks is extremely reliable. On an optical fiber,
protocol stack. A number of protocol security solutions
for example, one bit is transmitted erroneously with the
have been proposed. The use of puzzles on TCP, where
1 To get the file foo.bar on HTTP, for example, the user must know that it the connection is only opened after the client solves
is stored on host www.server.com, on the directory news. a computing-intensive challenge, is one example [37].
MACEDO et al.: FROM TCP/IP TO CONVERGENT NETWORKS: CHALLENGES AND TAXONOMY
Fig. 2. Using node mobility to aid in message delivery, as in DTNs.
On routing, several works suggest the establishment
of trust among nodes, where terminals monitor their
neighbors in order to identify and isolate malicious
behavior [38]. On the MAC layer, the association to
the network should be granted only for authenticated
users [39].
III. TAXONOMY
This section introduces a taxonomy based on the solu-
tions for the problems described previously. The taxonomy
identifies if the architectures are tolerant of disruption and
long delays. It also characterizes the number and type of
addressing spaces employed, which influence how networks
interconnect. The architectures are classified by their hier-
archy, if they adhere to the end-to-end principle, and if
they allow node and process mobility. Finally, the taxonomy
encompasses management issues, such as the dependency on
external management or if the network manages itself. We also
included an assessment of the changes necessary to implement
the architectures over IP-based infrastructure. Figure 3 shows
graphically the taxonomy. Some classifications are multiple
choice, meaning that a project might be classified into one or
more categories, while others are single choice.
Degree of Change: This item classifies the degree of reuse
of existing technologies and equipment when deploying the
new architecture. Greater reuse diminishes deployment com-
plexity and costs.
IP-Based: The architecture supports the full range of
TCP/IP protocols, thus minimizing change in core equip-
ment. It is possible, for example, to make changes only
on the edges of the network. In order to retain compat-
ibility, new functions are added by the insertion of new
communication layers.
Overlay-Based: A new network is created on the
application layer. P2P is an example of such a
43
network, in this case providing distributed content
search [40, 41].
Underlay-Based: New layers are inserted between
the existing layers. The communication between the
new layers and the existing ones follows the already
established primitives. If new layers are inserted
above routing, the change is localized to edge nodes.
New layers below routing can be added, provided
that the new headers are removed or encapsulated
into TCP/IP packets when traversing legacy equip-
ment.
Disruptive Design: The new architecture requires changes
on some or all protocols and applications. The amount of
change will mostly be dictated by which layers will be
redesigned, as higher layers are usually implemented only
on the edges of the network. Hence, the text below shows
from the most disruptive designs to the less disruptive,
starting from changes on the lower layers up to changes
on upper layers. Due to readability issues, Figure 3
indicates the number of the layer (in parenthesis) that
was changed, instead of its name.
Clean Slate: Characterizes architectures where com-
patibility issues are not considered on their design.
The developer might change whatever he/she wants,
hence the name clean slate.
PHY/MAC disruptive (L2): The architecture requires
changes on the MAC level, thus existing hardware
must be replaced or its firmware must be repro-
grammed. This might occur in some or all nodes.
Routing disruptive (L3): Routing functions are
changed. Thus, in case of a large scale deployment,
the entire network must be updated.
Transport disruptive (L4): Changes are made on the
transport layer, requiring terminals to be upgraded.
Application disruptive (L7): The applications must
44 IEEE COMMUNICATIONS SURVEYS & TUTORIALS, VOL. 10, NO. 4, FOURTH QUARTER 2008
Fig. 3. Graphical representation of the taxonomy.
be rewritten in order to adhere to a new communi-
cation API/framework.
Tolerance to Disruption: Indicates if the network tolerates
frequent disconnections. In rescue situations, for example,
node disconnections and packet drops are usual due to the
harsh environment. Another example is data delivery on
sparsely connected networks, where a mobile node (also called
data mule) makes opportunistic connections to other nodes in
order to deliver information [35, 42].
Always Connected: The architecture assumes that nodes
are connected most of the time. Thus, nodes communicate
only if there is a path from source to sender.
Disruption Tolerant: The network operates in scenarios
where node disconnection is frequent, allowing commu-
nication even if an instantaneous path from source to
sender does not exist.
Addressing: Defines how nodes will be identified. The issues
include the communication among domains with different
addressing rules. Addressing is also tightly linked to routing
and network organization. The number of addressing spaces,
in particular, defines if the architecture will demand nodes
that map addresses in one space into addresses into another,
in order to allow inter communication among namespaces.
Number of spaces: Relates to the decision to optimize
addressing for specific sub-domains, or to use a unique,
more flexible scheme for the entire network.
One: All nodes have a unique address, defined using
a set of universally agreed upon criteria. Thus, since
addresses must appear only once on the network,
their assignment must be coordinated in a distributed
fashion. Another issue with a single addressing space
is that, if we interconnect limited devices with
resource-rich ones, the employed solution will be
dictated by the capacities of the limited devices.
Several: There are multiple addressing domains on
the network, which might be different from each
other, allowing address reuse. However, translators
are needed to allow communication among nodes
using different addressing rules.
Type of addresses: Since addresses are used in routing,
they determine how information is sought on the network.
Identifier-based: Nodes are identified by a sequence
of bits, thus if content migrates, routes are no longer
valid. One example is the IP system, where connec-
tions are established based on addresses. When a
node changes its address, its connections are lost,
thus requiring techniques such as Mobile-IP [15]
to re-route the communication. In order to find the
MACEDO et al.: FROM TCP/IP TO CONVERGENT NETWORKS: CHALLENGES AND TAXONOMY
information sought, nodes must map the information
to an identifier, requiring the implementation of con-
tent and service discovery middlewares [25, 26, 43].
Search engines, LDAP directories and P2P networks
implement such services on the Internet.
Content-based: Addresses are associated to data,
based on their characteristics (meta-data). This al-
lows seamless mobility, since addresses are not
bound to a host. Also, there is no need for service
discovery protocols, since the routing algorithm al-
ready performs this function [28, 29].
Network Organization: Refers to the roles of nodes on
routing. Our notion of organization is different from that
of other authors, as we will show below. We chose this
classification in order to identify the difference in hardware
and software on the nodes.
Flat: Any node can take part in routing. Note that,
for a given time, not all nodes might route data. Tilak
et al. [44] propose a different classification, where the
network is hierarchical if a group of nodes route data for
some time, even if this group changes periodically. In
our taxonomy, such networks are classified as flat. Since
nodes have similar functions, such networks will have
only one address space.
Hierarchical: Nodes have pre-specified roles. Some of
them produce or receive data, while others only forward
data. Unlike flat networks, roles do not change over time.
This type of organization is used on networks where some
nodes have limited resources, or in order to increase the
scalability of the network.
Hybrid: The network operates in both manners above
at the same time. Examples are networks composed of
multiple domains with different node organizations.
The organization depends mainly on the requirements of
node mobility. Static networks should be hierarchical, group-
ing nodes in a structure similar to that of the Internet. This
structure allows routers linking two or more ASs (autonomous
systems) to have routes based on prefixes, not on individual
nodes, significantly decreasing their routing table. On a flat
network, addresses may not change when a node moves,
however routing will be harder due to the explosion of the
size in the routing tables. However, since addresses do not
change, node mobility is easier to handle. Mobile Ad Hoc
Networks (MANETs) are usually flat, since they are normally
small and mobile.
The future Internet will most likely be hybrid, in order to
profit from the benefits of flat networks and to cope with
local mobility, while using hierarchy to simplify routing on
the network as a whole.
Degree of Autonomicity: This characteristic is related to the
implementation of network management functions. We simpli-
fied the classification proposed in [36], which characterizes a
computing system according to its adequacy to the autonomic
paradigm.
Managed: Devices implement management standards and
protocols, such as SNMP, allowing operators to remotely
assess the conditions of the equipment and to reconfigure
them remotely.
45
Adaptive: Devices have some sort of intelligence, which
acts upon failures or changes in the network. The equip-
ment is not completely autonomous, however part of its
maintenance is automatic. The autonomic configuration
is guided by performance measures and SLAs (Service
Level Agreements). Changes in the target performance or
in the SLA must be explicitly defined by an operator.
Autonomic: Autonomic networks are self-managed net-
works, where their behavior is defined by high-level busi-
ness policies defined by an operator. These policies are
automatically translated into lower level policies, adapted
to each piece of equipment. Based on those policies,
the network intelligently guarantees performance, fault-
tolerance and security.
The classification in [36] included two more levels, called
basic and predictive. On the former, no management is em-
ployed, whereas in the latter systems correlate events and
propose actions, however their execution requires the approval
of an operator. Those levels are omitted in this article because
they do not represent any surveyed architecture. Due to the
high cost and complexity of managing several nodes using
operators, networking architectures will evolve from managed
to adaptive, later reaching the autonomic operation. This
classification can be considered on a per-feature basis, i.e.
if a given network service is self-configuring, self-managed,
self-optimized and/or self-secured.
End-to-End: Indicates the transparency of the network, and
measures whether the network knows the semantics of the
applications. This knowledge enables the modification of the
behavior and content of flows. Note that the introduction of
application semantics on the network goes against the end-to-
end argument [17].
Transparent: The network knows nothing related to the
applications intentions or internals. Thus, it is said to be
transparent.
Opaque: The network decides intelligently to modify the
content of the communication based on some kind of
application knowledge [45]. Examples are aggregation,
caching and media transcoding [46, 47].
A transparent network is more generic and simpler, and
thus may perform faster. However, it may not perform as
fast as an application-aware solution. Complete opacity is
not desirable either, as it becomes very difficult to manage
and to add new services. Thus, the biggest problem in the
design of opaque networks is how to balance the amount of
specialization. Usually, the network must only be aware of the
key characteristics of a class of applications. One example is
the classification of flows in link-layer QoS solutions. Instead
of having a traffic class for each specific application, say
variable bit rate audio, link layer standards divide flows into
a small number of types, such as best effort and expedited
forwarding.
Type of Endpoint: Defines the level of abstraction of con-
nection endpoints, which in turn restricts the seamless mo-
bility of processes and hosts. We use the term seamless in
this article to indicate mobility without the establishment of
new connections. This definition is different from transparent
mobility, which we define as the ability to hide the effects
46 IEEE COMMUNICATIONS SURVEYS & TUTORIALS, VOL. 10, NO. 4, FOURTH QUARTER 2008
of mobility from the user. Note that transparent mobility does
not imply on seamless mobility. One example is the AdaptNet
architecture, which ensures transparent mobility by proactively
opening TCP connections [47].
Node mobility might require notification techniques, de-
pending on when endpoints are resolved to lower-level identi-
fiers [45]. If the resolution occurs at the start of a connection,
in a process called early binding, packets are always directed
to the identifier previously resolved. Thus, when the moving
endpoint changes its identifier, it must notify the other end-
point or leave directions on the old host indicating its new
identifier. In the case of late binding, the mapping is made on
a per-packet basis, and hence no notifications are necessary.
Address: Connections are tied to addresses. This is the
case of IP networks, where Mobile-IP allows a computer
to change domains, however the mobile host must have
two addresses: the foreign address, used in foreign net-
works, and the home address, which redirects incoming
data to the foreign address [15].
Node: Connections are tied to a node. In this case, nodes
might change their address while keeping data transfers
active (provided that the security policies on the new
domain allow the traffic).
Entity: Connections are tied to a more abstract endpoint,
which is bound to a host or address on demand, allowing
software to migrate to other nodes without closing the
existing connections. This type of mobility may be of
use in scenarios where software migrates to a device more
suited to the task [48].
In the following section we use the proposed taxonomy to
classify the most important convergent networking proposals,
after briefly describing each of them.
IV. C ONVERGENT P ROTOCOLS /A RCHITECTURES
This section surveys some of the convergent network archi-
tectures and presents their classification according to the pro-
posed taxonomy. We survey such architectures in the order of
their creation, so the reader will be able to see their evolution
over time. We also include patches and/or overlay networks
for TCP/IP networks, since there is a significant amount of
research focused on ameliorating the Internet architecture to
cope with novel services.
A. Overhauling the Internet Architecture
Although the Internet has several design decisions that
complicate the implementation of convergent networks, the
huge amount of equipment, knowledge and money spent on
its deployment hinders the implementation of radically new
solutions. Thus, several researchers proposed extensions and
modifications to the IP architecture to overcome its limitations.
Several proposals try to counter the coupling of naming and
addressing on IP networks by implementing a new naming
convention for connections [49, 50]. On those proposals,
connections are not tied to IP addresses, but to names. Hence,
the connection can be migrated or nodes might move as long
as their name remains unchanged. Another approach is the
modification of transport protocols in order to transfer the
state of the TCP session from one node to another [51, 52].
The same principle applies to mobile nodes, where the host is
the same, however the IP address changes. A third possibility
is the use of an alias. Each mobile station has a universal
address, which is an alias for its instantaneous IP address.
MobileIPv6 and its variants use this approach [15, 53, 54]. Due
to the use of aliases, those solutions suffer from triangular
traffic, that is, data from the mobile node goes first to the ma-
chine that takes care of the alias, and then is forwarded to the
mobile terminal. HMIPv6 and MobileNAT use multiple levels
of indirection to decrease the amount of triangulation [53, 54],
however this effect is still present in those solutions.
The technologies above, however, do not deal with stations
roaming through heterogeneous access networks. Regarding
mobility from different technologies, the IEEE working group
802.21 will define standards to allow the handover among the
802 family of wireless protocols and 3GPP [55].
Another issue is the high overhead of IP on limited devices,
such as sensor networks. The LowIPv6 IETF group is creating
a lighter version of IPv6 for IEEE 802.15.4 networks [9].
Since IPv6 requires a payload larger than the supported by
low power networks, LowIPv6 will define an adaptation layer
that converts IP packets to light IP packets. Further, the
group will create a lighter version of AODV adapted to mesh
networks of restricted devices [56]. The project will also define
management standards that are compatible with the Internet
management technologies and at the same time are suitable
for restricted devices.
On the transport level, researchers proposed methods to
counter the limitations of end-to-end congestion control. TCP
Westwood is an example, where the parameters of TCP are
tuned to wireless networks [57]. Since TCP performs poorly
on wireless links because it cannot differentiate congestion
from transmission errors, transport protocols should decouple
both functions. To do so, ATP, XCP and EXACT [20, 21, 58]
depart from the end-to-end paradigm, using queue estimates
from each hop to calculate the transmission rate.
To counter the lack of content and service aware addressing
on TCP/IP networks, several works propose overlay networks,
usually based on the P2P paradigm, to advertise and/or find
services and content based on their meta-data [2527, 40, 41,
43]. Those overlays implement their own addressing and query
schemes on top of IP.
B. The NewArch Project
The NewArch project, developed by MIT, USC and Berke-
ley, proposes a new architecture to the Internet [45]. Assuming
that the network could be redesigned from scratch, the authors
devise a set of rules and principles that should guide the
new architecture. These principles are implemented by the
protocols FARA, RBA and XCP.
FARA implements a new architectural model that decouples
routing and node identification [59]. In FARA, IP addresses
are broken into entity and association. An entity might be a
node, thread, process, cluster and so on, while an association
maps a packet to a certain entity. This allows the mobility of
both ends of the flow among nodes or networks, simplifying
the use of mobile agents. RBA (Role-Based Architecture) is
a new approach to routing [60]. Since the Internet not always
MACEDO et al.: FROM TCP/IP TO CONVERGENT NETWORKS: CHALLENGES AND TAXONOMY
obeys the principles of layering and network transparency, the
authors abolish layering and introduce roles. Each packet is
associated with one or more roles, which dictate how packets
are routed and treated inside the network. Each role, thus, can
be seen as a small program. With this abstraction, it is possible
to insert middle boxes (firewalls, NAT, proxies) without vi-
olating the architectural principles of RBA. As on the Internet,
routing is based on regions, however users might choose in
which regions the packets may or may not pass. XCP (eXplicit
Control Protocol) solves the problems of TCP on links with
high packet error rate and/or high throughputdelay product
by adjusting the data rate according to the available capacity
of the bottleneck link [21].
The strongest point of the architecture is XCP, a transport
protocol that was demonstrated to be much more efficient
than TCP for a wide range of scenarios. Coupled with the
new naming scheme of RBA, the architecture handles mobility
more efficiently than IP-based networks. It does not address
restricted devices, though, as it was not on its objectives to
support such devices. The architecture is quite disruptive due
to the use of roles, which would require the upgrade of every
router.
C. IETF DTN
Burleigh et al. proposed the Delay-Tolerant Network (DTN)
architecture for networks where the bandwidth delay prod-
uct is high and/or node disconnections are frequent [32].
Primarily designed for interplanetary communications, the
concept also applies to underwater networking [61], ad-hoc
networks with sparse node connections [33, 62] and Internet
connectivity on third world countries, where data mules trans-
port data from/to Internet access points [42]. In order to cope
with the large delays of space communication, DTNs adopt
the message-passing paradigm. Protocols must be rewritten to
conform to the DTN API, which requires all messages to be
self-contained. As an example, one FTP transfer would be
composed of two bundles: the request contains the file name,
password and the get command, while the response contains
the entire file.
The IETF DTN is an overlay network that interconnects
interplanetary resources with traditional networks, as Figure 4
shows. The network is hierarchical, based on domains. Nodes
or networks that use the same paradigm (for example, TCP/IP
on Earth, or a circuit-based wireless link on Mars) form
domains, which are interconnected by DTN gateways. The
inter-domain communication works as follows. The applica-
tion issues a message, which is forwarded to the DTN gateway.
The gateway forwards the message through the proper DTN
domains (in Figure 4, it involves traversing a satellite relay).
Whenever the bundle traverses a network, it is encapsulated
into the underlying networking paradigm. In TCP/IP, for
example, the message would be encapsulated into a TCP
flow. Since communication is based on message passing, the
issue of session mobility is not present. Nodes employ DNS-
like names with late binding. Thus, the architecture supports
nomadic resources, as long as the name remains unchanged
between sessions.
The IETF DTN group provides RFCs, code and simulations
demonstrating the concept. Currently, there is no QoS or
47
security on the architecture, which is understandable, given
the characteristics of the network. The validation is mostly
via simulations and analytical results, due to the cost and
complexity of deploying testing equipment in the outer space.
Although DTNs will not form the basis of a future Internet,
they will certainly be key in supporting ad hoc scenarios and
connectivity in poor countries.
D. Plutarch
Crowcoft et al. take the opposite approach of NewArch.
The disparate capacities of networked devices, ranging from
limited sensor networks to super-computers, preclude the
development of one single solution. Thus, as it is not possible
to devise a new architecture that fits all conceivable scenarios,
the authors build an adaptation architecture, called Plutarch,
that enables the communication among different networking
paradigms [63].
The Plutarch architecture interconnects heterogeneous net-
works, allowing each domain to use the protocols that best
fit their needs. Gateways link networks with different contexts
(protocols or architectures) using interstitial functions, which
map addresses and names from one context to another. The
architecture loosely defines the basic operations that must be
implemented on the gateways. Those were designed to be
simple and generic, to allow Plutarch to operate over any
network.
Plutarch is a very simple proposal that deals only with
the interconnection of networks. The biggest importance of
the architecture is the assumption that there will not be a
common convergence layer or architecture, as in IP, and
thus gateways should be used to connect different networks.
Since each network may operate differently, Plutarch does
not address QoS, management or security issues. However,
the network allows each sub-network to implement the most
appropriate solution to QoS and security. Another problem
with the architecture is that it does not address session and
terminal mobility.
E. The AdaptNet Project
The AdaptNet project, developed at the Georgia Institute
of Technology, implements what the authors call Next-fourth
generation wireless systems, where nodes with heterogeneous
access protocols exchange multimedia content [47]. One of
its goals is to provide an evolution to IP-based networks,
requiring only modifications on the mobile nodes, using a set
of cross-layer protocols. The focus of their work is transparent
mobility. This is achieved using the R2 CP (Radical Recep-
tion Control Protocol) transport protocol, which automatically
adapts the coding of multimedia content in order to optimize
the perceived quality of the stream. A medium adaptation
layer, located between MAC and routing, performs adaptive
congestion control and coding.
Node mobility is addressed at the transport level. Using
signal level measurements, nodes approximate when they will
roam into other networks, so they open new TCP connections
through the new base station before the handover is completed.
R2 CP switches its transport between the open TCP con-
nections, allowing a transparent handover to the application.
48 IEEE COMMUNICATIONS SURVEYS & TUTORIALS, VOL. 10, NO. 4, FOURTH QUARTER 2008

Fig. 4. Example of an IETF DTN network.

AdaptNet relies on technologies such as Mobile-IP to handle

IP addresses and reroute packets.
AdaptNet provides solutions to terminal mobility, however
the proposal does not seem to account for the interconnec-
tion of non-TCP/IP networks with the Internet, as it occurs
today with mobile phones that switch between Wi-Fi and
GSM/CDMA. It does not solve the problems of identification
and content-based search either, since the proposal does not
involve addressing. Further, QoS and security aspects were not
taken into account.

F. The WIDENS and MESA Architectures

Due to the recent natural catastrophes and terrorist attacks of
9/11, governments were encouraged to fund projects focused
on communication platforms for public safety, environment
and disaster situations in order to mitigate the lack of com-
munication tools tailored to first responders [64, 65].
The 9/11 incident unveiled that independent first responder
groups (firefighters, police, etc) could not intercommunicate,
due to regulatory and technological issues. First, each group
uses its own band of the RF spectrum. Second, the LMRs
(Land Mobile Radios) come from different manufacturers,
and each manufacturer employs its own proprietary archi-
tecture. To counter those limitations, the US-funded initia-
tive called PROJECT 25 mandates the compliance to the
P25 standard [66], developed by TIA (Telecommunications
Industry Association). P25 standardizes digital and analog
technologies, in order to allow a smooth transition to all-digital
equipment. The analog mode also acts as a fail-safe for the
digital mode.
WIDENS (Wireless Deployable Network System) is a EU-
funded project involving industry and academia, focused on
the design, implementation and validation of a high data-rate,
rapid deployable network for emergency response [67]. This
project is part of MESA (Mobility for Emergency and Safety
Applications) [68], which involves European and American
entities on the creation of a standard communication archi-
tecture for public safety and emergency teams. A WIDENS
network consists of cells of ad hoc nodes, where one of the
nodes acts as a back-haul to a wireless backbone, as shown in
Figure 5. This backbone may be connected to other networks,
such as a private network (police or military network, for ex-
Fig. 5. A WIDENS network. Red lines represent MANET links, while blue
lines indicate links on the mesh backbone.
ample) or the Internet. Thus, the WIDENS project consists of
a mesh access network [6] that interconnects several small ad
hoc networks to one another and to the Internet. The project,
however, does not allow disconnected operation of sections of
the network. In case of a disconnection, nodes communicate
only other nodes on the same connected component.
The focus of the WIDENS project is on layers one to three,
in order to provide a network for emergency communications.
The project will also address QoS issues in the future, due
to the critical purpose of the network. Since the project does
not intend to improve the Internet, but to provide means to
interconnect to it, most likely the architecture will adopt IP
naming and addressing.
Currently, both TIA and ETSI (European Telecommu-
nications Standards Institute) are partners on the MESA
project. Thus, a European-American standard for communi-
cation might emerge in the future. Due to the closed nature of
MESA, we can only speculate on the operation of the network.
However, since the WIDENS project is a participant of MESA,
we expect some similarities among the projects.
MACEDO et al.: FROM TCP/IP TO CONVERGENT NETWORKS: CHALLENGES AND TAXONOMY
G. Ambient Networks
Ambient Networks (ANs) are All-IP networks consisting
of several heterogeneous networks [69]. The project was
launched from the vision of networks beyond 3G, where
mobile users access multimedia content over a number of
radio technologies. ANs employ a new IP-based layer called
ambient control space, which sits on top of routing. This layer
solves the problems that arise from the interconnection of
heterogeneous networks. All operations on the ambient control
space are autonomic. Since ANs allow the composition of
larger networks without human intervention, the architecture
could also be used in emergency situations.
In order to provide a transparent communication to the
application layer among different networking paradigms, the
ambient control space employs special edge nodes, called
translators. Those nodes act as gateways, negotiating end-to-
end QoS parameters and repacking the payload to adhere
to the conventions of each network. Translators can also act
as content conversion gateways or transparent filters/caches.
Translators allow each sub-network to employ the best pro-
tocols for their operation, optimizing the communication on
the sub-net level, while the ambient control space takes
care of end-to-end QoS provisioning. Ambient networks use
entity-based endpoints, called Bearers. Bearers abstract the
transport layer, thus an application flow might traverse several
connections. This flexibility allows the use of middle-boxes
and seamless node and process mobility, as connections can be
opened or closed on demand. Finally, since the communication
is broken into parts, each of them employing the protocols
more suited to its domain.
Figure 6 presents the logical structure of an AN-enabled
communication. The nodes at the extremity of domains A
and B work as translators for the connection between the
two bearers. The translator in A is connected to the Bearer
in A using the best set of protocols, which in this case is the
suite formed by the red protocols. The two bearers open
a connection between themselves using the black protocols,
which are the most suitable for this type of communication.
Packets coming from domain A are recoded upon their arrival
in domain B in a format understandable by the communication
stack used on this network, the blue protocols, and are then
forwarded to the bearer located in domain B.
The Ambient Network project focuses on the autonomic
management and composition of networks. Thus, its main
contribution is its autonomic management plane, the ambient
control space. The project also addresses terminal and appli-
cation mobility by decoupling identification and routing. No
QoS or security aspects were evaluated at the moment.
H. The Haggle Project
Haggle implements Pocket Switched Networks, which are
autonomic networks of ubiquitous devices, such as PDAs, cell
phones and notebooks [29]. Haggle departs from the TCP/IP
paradigm to create a new, message-oriented abstraction that
supersedes the file system, providing an API to create mobile
applications.
Haggle supports multiple devices representing the same
user (e.g. John Smith uses a mobile phone and a PDA at
49
the same time), multiple network interfaces on each device,
occasional connectivity, data security, search based on meta-
data and resource discovery. The drawback of Haggle is that
it is not IP-compatible, requiring the reimplementation of the
protocol stack on every mobile device. Haggle, however, takes
advantage of existing PHY and MAC layers, avoiding the need
for new client hardware.
The architecture employs content-based routing and incor-
porates DTN concepts to profit from episodic connections
to route data among sets of isolated nodes. The architecture
provides autonomic discovery and dissemination of informa-
tion and services. Haggle, however, does not provide any QoS
guarantees. Data access in Haggle is made through a secure
distributed file sharing layer, controlled using access control
lists. Files are accessed through searches based on meta-data.
The secure access of information anywhere on the network,
coupled with content-based routing, allows applications to
migrate to other nodes.
Haggles proposal is one of the few that embeds security
mechanisms. Due to the use of DTN concepts, there are
no QoS guarantees whatsoever. Further, the proposal tackles
most of the problems of wireless networking. One limitation
is the lack of interoperability with fixed networks and with
the Internet. Since Haggle has been proposed for episodic
ad hoc networks, it does not address the issues of scale
that a convergent network must face. However, the principles
of content-based routing, decision-making based on local
information and built-in peer-to-peer like file sharing might
be employed on future convergent networks.
I. Classification and Analysis of the Architectures
Table I classifies the architectures, ordered by the year of
creation, according to the proposed taxonomy. PROJECT 25
is not listed since it is limited to MAC and PHY issues.
MESA is also not included due to the limited amount of
publicly available information. Other recent initiatives, such
as 100x100 [70], Stanfords Clean Slate [71], GENI [72],
FIND [73], CASCADAS [74] and ANA [75], are not surveyed
in this article, since no publications are available at this
moment. The table also classifies the Internet, so readers can
compare it against the new architectures.
The table shows that more focus has been given to naming,
since recent projects are centered on mobile computing. The
architectures propose naming schemes that are independent
from the device hosting the information. Another recurrent
pattern is the interconnection of networks into one larger
network using gateway nodes. As a consequence of multiple,
interconnected architectures, the whole network would have
several addressing spaces, using the type of addressing most
suited to each domain. On the Internet, IP integrates all the
networks, forcing all the layers above to abide to a common
communication paradigm. Gateways are more flexible, as they
do not require both networks to standardize the higher layers.
Hence, simpler networks communicate with complex ones
without breaking the tenets of the architecture. This design
allows each sub-network to employ the best protocol for
the configuration of the sub-network. Sensor networks, for
example, would use simple, energy-efficient protocols, while
more powerful nodes would use secure, QoS-aware protocols.
50 IEEE COMMUNICATIONS SURVEYS & TUTORIALS, VOL. 10, NO. 4, FOURTH QUARTER 2008

Fig. 6. Representation of the communication abstractions present in an Ambient Network.

TABLE I
C LASSIFICATION OF THE ARCHITECTURES IN THE TAXONOMY.

Degree of Tolerance to Addressing Network Degree of End to

Projects Year Endpoint
change disruption Number Type Organization Autonomicity End
circa Always Address,
Internet Unique Address Hierarchical Managed Transparent
19832 connected early
Always Entity,
NewArch 2000 Clean Slate Multiple Address Hierarchical Adaptive Opaque
connected early
L7 Address,
IETF DTN 2002 Tolerant Multiple Address Hierarchical Managed Transparent
disuptive late
Address,
Plutarch 2003 Overlay Multiple Hierarchical Opaque
Content
L2, L4 Always Address,
AdaptNet 2004 Unique Address Hierarchical Adaptive Transparent
disruptive connected early
Underlay Always Address,
WIDENS 2004 Unique Address Hierarchical Adaptive Transparent
and overlay connected early
Ambient L3, L4 Always Entity,
2004 Unique Address Independent Autonomic Opaque
Networks disruptive connected early
L3-L7 Entity,
Haggle 2006 Tolerant Unique Content Flat Autonomic Transparent
disruptive late

We also verify that most architectures do not support DTN,
thus are classified as always connected. This might be
justified by recent studies which show that it is always possible
to find two or more WiFi access points in range in crowded
areas [76]. Further, the architectures classified as disruption
tolerant use the DTN concept to provide a backup form
of communication when the fixed infrastructure fails. Even
in disaster situations, as in the MESA and WIDENS project,
nodes are supposed to connect directly or indirectly to a WAN
backbone.
Concerning management, in general the proposals lean
towards the autonomic and adaptive levels. The architectures
normally use some sort of cross-layering to implement auto-
nomic functions. Also, most architectures that implement self-
management possess a vertical autonomic management plane.
This plane has two functions. The first one is to analyze data
from the protocols and services running on the network to
create meaningful information for the autonomic management
algorithms. The second is to implement autonomic algorithms
and protocols that manage the network. Thus, the autonomic
plane should be divided into two blocks. The knowledge
sub-plane performs the first task, while the control sub-plane
performs the last, using policies to configure the behavior of
the algorithms [77].
Another issue in convergent networking is evolvability. Due
to the large investment on IP equipment, most of the surveyed
architectures limit their changes to the higher layers in order
to increase their compatibility with the equipment already
deployed. Hence, disruptive solutions are discarded in favor
of others that inter-operate with legacy solutions. Network
virtualization would allow the fast and cheap deployment of
innovative designs [10, 78, 79]. In this architecture, several
networks would run over the same hardware, allowing the co-
existence of specialized networking protocols. This approach
eases evolvability because virtual routers will support the
testing and deployment of new networking concepts without
disrupting other virtual networks. Further, changing among
technologies would be simpler, because the transition could be
done gradually by running both solutions in parallel. Further,
virtual routers could be used to deploy highly specialized
MACEDO et al.: FROM TCP/IP TO CONVERGENT NETWORKS: CHALLENGES AND TAXONOMY
end-to-end solutions. For example, Internet-like protocols with
loose QoS guarantees could run in parallel with protocols
tuned for cluster computing.
We did not evaluate the QoS aspects of the evaluated
platforms, due to the complexity of the theme, which would
deserve a survey of its own. Most projects, though, do not take
QoS into account, focusing mostly on the problems arising
from node mobility and the interconnection of different types
of networks. This subject remains as an open issue, as those
described in the next section.
V. O PEN I SSUES IN C ONVERGENT N ETWORKING
This section presents some of the research directions pur-
sued by the convergent networking research community. We
briefly describe the most important architectural issues for
convergent networks, focusing on areas which are not well
studied today.
Architectural issues: One important design decision on
convergent networks is whether employ a unified networking
architecture, or a junction of different architectures. Some
researchers argue that it is possible to build networks that
support everything from sensor nodes to super-computers. We
could also build a network that is a concatenation of networks,
each with protocols optimized to the characteristics of its
applications. However, their interconnection may bring issues
similar to the ones faced by the Internet with NATs and fire-
walls. Another issue is layering. Wireless networks demand a
high level on inter-layer collaboration, challenging the existing
model. Thus, future research in convergent architectures will
continue the effort started by projects such as NewArch and
Plutarch to redefine the layering model. The focus of this
redesign will be on new mechanisms to increase inter-layer
collaboration.
Management and dependability issues: As described
previously, convergent networks will be autonomic. In order
to make networks as simple to use as the electrical system,
where a device works by simply plugging it into the outlet,
autonomic systems must employ open interfaces for querying
and defining the configuration of nodes. Without standard-
ized interfaces, equipment from different vendors will not
communicate with each other, limiting the adaptability of the
network. The IEEE 802.21 draft, for instance, is one step in the
definition of open interfaces in the context of handover among
the 802 family of wireless technologies and 3GPP [55].
The second issue is how to manage heterogeneous networks
automatically. This problem is complex, since the configura-
tion applied to each node must not interfere with the decisions
of others. Thus, nodes must take the state of their surrounding
nodes into account. A global view of the network, although
desirable, is unfeasible due to the large number of nodes. Thus,
future proposals will make decisions based on a limited view
of the network. One important challenge for those solutions
will be the compromise of knowledge and complexity, as
more information will increase the accuracy of the decision,
however demanding a higher resource usage.
Little attention has been paid to the dependability aspects of
the communication, even though this topic has been identified
as a major research issue in computing [8083]. Further, in
51
order to simplify the development and testing of autonomic
solutions, we must define processes to measure the depend-
ability of networks and their adherence to SLAs.
Security issues: Security and privacy issues are not a
popular topic among convergent architectures, even though
they will be one of the cornerstones of future systems. Existing
work focus on the confidentiality and integrity of the data
flows, however they fail to address the privacy and the reli-
ability of the devices. While existing solutions define trusted
and untrusted domains, node mobility allows untrusted nodes
to connect directly to an access point in the trusted region.
To complicate things, MANETs and sensor networks usually
do not have a trusted certification authority, hence nodes must
cooperate to establish trust [38]. Thus, new methods must be
devised to refine the notion of trust on wireless networks.
Those methods should be based on the reputation of the nodes
based on their past behavior, as in the PGP system [84].
To avoid each application having to implement its own trust
mechanism, a trust framework should be developed. This
framework would free programmers from worrying about
specific details of the security solution, much as SSL does
for e-commerce nowadays [84].
Privacy will also be a big issue on convergent networks. If
a unique identifier is employed, it may be used to track the
location and habits of the users [85]. Complete anonymity is
not desirable either, as the architecture should allow the iden-
tification of criminals when a court approves the disclosure of
their identity [45]. Further, research on network privacy will
be focused on closed traceability. On those systems, users
are normally anonymous, however the system has means to
disclose their past actions if authorized by an accredited entity.
Finally, as shown previously, networks are more and more
opaque, due to the use of intermediate nodes. On secure
applications, both sender and receiver must trust the inter-
mediate node. Suppose a user wants to read a PDF file on
his mobile phone. The intermediary node could convert the
PDF to a format suitable to the display on a phone. However,
the intermediary might know what the user is reading and,
if the book has some sort of digital rights management
technology, it might store a copy of the users credentials.
Thus, another topic of research will be how to ensure privacy
in communications that traverse one or more intermediary
nodes.
Context-awareness issues: This paradigm promises the
creation of services tailored to the user and his surroundings.
One might create, for example, a notification service which,
depending on whether the user is on his car or on a con-
ference, notifies him of an important event employing either
sounds or text. Context-aware frameworks and networks are
a burgeoning field [24]. Current work do not consider the
integrated design of convergent architectures, context-aware
networks and autonomic networks, even though the three
components will be integrated into future networks. Those
components share complementary goals, and thus collaborate
with each other, as Figure 7 shows. Convergent networking
protocols, for example, adapt to network changes, but this
decision depends on the collection of user and environmental
conditions. Context-aware applications, on the other hand,
cannot operate separately from networking protocols, since
52
Fig. 7. Relationship among the technologies on convergent networks.
they dictate the current capabilities of the environment. Also,
applications must be aware of when and how the environment
will change, thus they must communicate with the autonomic
component. The autonomic component, on the other hand,
must act based on information coming from the other two
components. To accomplish this interaction, standard ontholo-
gies and interfaces must be created to allow equipment from
different vendors to inter-operate.
VI. C ONCLUSION
The networking technologies of tomorrow will allow users
to access their data and services wherever they are, no matter
what type of device they use. Moreover, the network will
provide a fair level of quality of service, even when users
roam through different domains or access networks. This
network will have one or two orders of magnitude more
nodes than the Internet of today, due to the introduction of
new types of devices. Since the Internet has been designed
with a completely different usage in mind, existing networks
are becoming ripe with patches and workarounds to counter
its design limitations. Thus, a significant amount of research
groups are focusing on new networking architectures that
depart from the TCP/IP paradigm.
This article provided an overview of the architectural as-
pects of convergent networking and a survey of the existing
proposals. We argued that the TCP/IP architecture has several
shortcomings when applied in convergent scenarios, as it
arose out of a context where mobility and dynamicity were
not an issue. Based on the limitations of TCP/IP and their
proposed solutions, we devised a taxonomy for convergent
networking and classified the current architectures. A survey
of the literature showed that there is not yet a proposal that
stands out as the most suitable replacement for the Internet.
Due to the complexity of the theme, existing solutions tend
to specialize on some of the aspects of convergent networks.
Autonomic management and support to seamless mobility are
present on most of the architectures, however most proposals
lack dependability, QoS and security aspects. This is partly
IEEE COMMUNICATIONS SURVEYS & TUTORIALS, VOL. 10, NO. 4, FOURTH QUARTER 2008
due to the lack of facilities and/or tools to evaluate large scale
heterogeneous architectures. Still, network operators will not
switch to an entirely new architecture unless it is reliable and
secure.
We also showed the research directions on convergent
networking. From those topics, the establishment of trust on
highly dynamic networks and autonomic network reconfigu-
ration stand out as the most prominent issues. Those efforts
will demand the standardization of onthologies and interfaces
to allow vendor interoperability.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to thank CNPq, an organization from the
Science and Technology Ministry of Brazil, for partially
funding this research.
R EFERENCES
[1] R. Berezdivin, R. Breinig, and R. Topp, Next-generation
wireless communications concepts and technologies,
IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 108116, March
2002.
[2] S. Cherry, Nothing but net, IEEE Spectrum, vol. 44,
no. 1, pp. 2226, Jan 2007.
[3] K. Moerman, J. Fishburn, M. Lassere, and D. Ginsburg,
Utahs UTOPIA: an ethernet-based MPLS/VPLS triple
play deployment, IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 43, no. 11,
pp. 142150, 2005.
[4] L. Ouakil and G. Pujolle, Telephonie sur IP. Eyrolles,
2007.
[5] M. Voorhaen and C. B. (editors), WIDENS
project deliverable 2.1: User requirements and
first system architecture design, Information
Society Technologies, Tech. Rep., 2006,
http://www.comlab.hut.fi/projects/WIDENS/D2.1.pdf.
[6] R. Bruno, M. Conti, and E. Gregori, Mesh networks:
Commodity multihop ad hoc networks, IEEE Commun.
Mag., vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 123131, Mar 2005.
[7] I. Akyildiz and X. Wang, A survey on wireless mesh
networks, IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 43, no. 9, pp. 523
530, Sept 2005.
[8] S. Teger and D. J. Waks, End-user perspectives on home
networking, IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 40, no. 4, pp.
114119, 2002.
[9] G. Montenegro, N. Kushalnagar, J. Hui, and D. Culler,
Transmission of IPv6 packets over IEEE 802.15.4 net-
works, IETF Draft.
[10] The NSF Wireless Mobile Planning Group, New archi-
tectures and disruptive technologies for the future inter-
net: The wireless, mobile and sensor network perspec-
tive, NSF Wireless Mobile Planning Group Workshop,
Tech. Rep., August 2005.
[11] V. Srivastava and M. Motani, Cross-layer design: A sur-
vey and the road ahead, IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 43,
no. 12, pp. 112119, December 2005.
[12] M. Conti, G. Maselli, G. Turi, and S. Giordano, Cross-
layering in mobile ad hoc network design, Computer,
vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 4851, 2004.
MACEDO et al.: FROM TCP/IP TO CONVERGENT NETWORKS: CHALLENGES AND TAXONOMY
[13] I. F. Akyildiz, M. C. Vuran, and Ozg ur Akan, A cross-
layer protocol for wireless sensor networks, in Annual
Conference on Information Sciences and Systems, March
2006, pp. 11021107.
[14] I. F. Akyildiz, J. Xie, and S. Mohanty, A survey
of mobility management in next-generation all-ip-based
wireless systems, IEEE Wireless Commun., vol. 11,
no. 4, pp. 1628, August 2004.
[15] A. Myles, D. B. Johnson, and C. Perkins, A mobile
host protocol supporting route optimization and authen-
tication, IEEE J. Select. Areas Commun., vol. 13, no. 5,
pp. 839849, June 1995.
[16] H. Balakrishnan, K. Lakshminarayanan, S. Ratnasamy,
S. Shenker, I. Stoica, and M. Walfish, A layered naming
architecture for the internet, in Proc. 2004 conference on
Applications, technologies, architectures, and protocols
for computer communications (SIGCOMM), 2004, pp.
343352.
[17] J. H. Saltzer, D. P. Reed, and D. D. Clark, End-to-
end arguments in system design, ACM Trans. Computer
Systems, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 277288, Nov. 1984.
[18] R. Braden, D. Clark, S. Shenker, and J. Wroclawski,
Developing a next-generation internet architecture,
http://www.isi.edu/newarch/DOCUMENTS/WhitePaper.
pdf, July 2000.
[19] B. Carpenter and S. Brim, Middleboxes: Taxonomy and
issues, RFC 3234, United States, 2002.
[20] K. Sundaresan, V. Anantharaman, H.-Y. Hsieh, and
R. Sivakumar, ATP: A Reliable Transport Protocol for
Ad Hoc Networks, IEEE Trans. Mobile Comput., vol. 4,
no. 6, pp. 588603, November/December 2005.
[21] D. Katabi, M. Handley, and C. Rohrs, Congestion
control for high bandwidth-delay product networks, in
Proc. 2002 conference on Applications, technologies, ar-
chitectures, and protocols for computer communications
(SIGCOMM), 2002, pp. 89102.
[22] A. Woo, T. Tong, and D. Culler, Taming the under-
lying challenges of reliable multihop routing in sensor
networks, in Proc. first international conference on
Embedded networked sensor systems, 2003, pp. 1427.
[23] D. S. J. De Couto, D. Aguayo, J. Bicket, and R. Morris,
A high-throughput path metric for multi-hop wireless
routing, in Proc. 9th annual international conference on
Mobile computing and networking, 2003, pp. 134146.
[24] M. Baldauf, S. Dustdar, and F. Rosenberg, A survey on
context-aware systems, International Journal of Ad Hoc
and Ubiquitous Computing, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 263277,
2007.
[25] P. Bellavista, A. Corradi, R. Montanari, and A. Toninelli,
Context-aware semantic discovery for next generation
mobile systems, IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 44, pp. 62
71, September 2006.
[26] S. Sivavakeesar, O. F. Gonzalez, and G. Pavlou, Service
discovery strategies in ubiquitous communication envi-
ronments, IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 44, pp. 106113,
September 2006.
[27] B. Krishnamurthy, C. Wills, and Y. Zhang, On the use
and performance of content distribution networks, in
Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGCOMM Workshop on
53
Internet Measurement (IMW), 2001, pp. 169182.
[28] C. Intanagonwiwat, R. Govindan, and D. Estrin, Di-
rected diffusion: a scalable and robust communication
paradigm for sensor networks, in Proc. sixth annual
international conference on Mobile computing and net-
working, 2000, pp. 5667.
[29] J. Scott, P. Hui, J. Crowcroft, and C. Diot, Haggle: A
networking architecture designed around mobile users,
in Proc. Third Annual IFIP Conference on Wireless On-
demand Network Systems and Services (WONS), January
2006.
[30] The ATM Forum Technical Committee, 155Mbps Plas-
tic Optical Fiber and Hard Polymer Clad Fiber PMD
Specification, ATM Forum, May 1997.
[31] Texas Instruments Inc., CC1000 - Single
Chip Very Low Power RF Transceiver,
http://focus.ti.com/lit/ds/swrs048a/swrs048a.pdf, Sept.
2007.
[32] S. Burleigh, A. Hooke, L. Togerson, K. Fall, V. Cerf,
B. Durst, K. Scott, and H. Weiss, Delay-tolerant net-
working: an approach to interplanetary internet, IEEE
Commun. Mag., vol. 41, no. 6, pp. 128136, June 2003.
[33] P. Juang, H. Oki, Y. Wang, M. Martonosi, L. S. Peh, and
D. Rubenstein, Energy-efficient computing for wildlife
tracking: design tradeoffs and early experiences with
zebranet, in ASPLOS-X: Proceedings of the 10th in-
ternational conference on Architectural support for pro-
gramming languages and operating systems, 2002, pp.
96107.
[34] Wizzy digital courier - leveraging locality,
http://www.wizzy.org.za/, November, 2006.
[35] Z. Zhang, Routing in intermittently connected mobile ad
hoc networks and delay tolerant networks: Overview and
challenges, IEEE Commun. Surveys Tutorials, vol. 8,
no. 1, pp. 2437, 2006.
[36] A. G. Ganek and T. A. Corbi, The dawning of the
autonomic computing era, IBM Systems J., vol. 42,
no. 1, pp. 518, 2003.
[37] W. chang Feng, The case for tcp/ip puzzles, SIGCOMM
Computer Communications Review, vol. 33, no. 4, pp.
322327, 2003.
[38] S. Marti, T. J. Giuli, K. Lai, and M. Baker, Mitigating
routing misbehavior in mobile ad hoc networks, in
Proc. 6th annual international conference on Mobile
computing and networking, 2000, pp. 255265.
[39] T. Karygiannis and L. Owens, Wireless Network Secu-
rity: 802.11, Bluetooth and handheld devices, Computer
Security Division, NIST, Tech. Rep. 800-48, November
2002.
[40] S. Androutsellis-Theotokis and D. Spinellis, A survey
of peer-to-peer content distribution technologies, ACM
Computer Surv., vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 335371, 2004.
[41] J. Borg, A comparative study of ad hoc & peer to peer
networks, Masters thesis, University of London, August
2003.
[42] R. C. Shah, S. Roy, S. Jain, and W. Brunette, Data
MULEs: modeling a three-tier architecture for sparse
sensor networks, in Proc. First IEEE International
Workshop on Sensor Network Protocols and Applications
54 IEEE COMMUNICATIONS SURVEYS & TUTORIALS, VOL. 10, NO. 4, FOURTH QUARTER 2008
(WSNA), May 2003, pp. 3041.
[43] C. Lee, A. Helal, N. Desai, V. Verma, and B. Arslan,
Konark: A system and protocols for device independent,
peer-to-peer discovery and delivery of mobile services,
IEEE Trans. Systems Man Cybernetics, vol. 33, no. 6,
pp. 682696, November 2003.
[44] S. Tilak, N. B. Abu-Ghazaleh, and W. Heinzelman, A
taxonomy of wireless micro-sensor network models,
SIGMOBILE Mobile Computer Communications Review,
vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 2836, 2002.
[45] D. Clark, K. Sollins, J. Wroclawski, D. Katabi, J. Kulik,
X. Yang, R. Braden, T. Faber, A. Falk, V. Pingali,
M. Handley, and N. Chiappa, New arch: Future
generation internet architecture, MIT/USC/University
College London, Tech. Rep., December 2003,
http://www.isi.edu/newarch/iDOCS/final.finalreport.pdf.
[46] Y. Zhu and B. Li, Fault-tolerant interval estimation
in sensor networks, in Handbook of Sensor Networks:
Compact Wireless and Wired Sensing Systems. CRC
Press, 2004.
[47] I. Akyildiz, Y. Altunbasak, F. Fekri, and R. Sivakumar,
AdaptNet: An Adaptive Protocol Suite for the Next-
Generation Wireless Internet, IEEE Commun. Mag.,
vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 128136, March 2004.
[48] S. Chetan, J. Al-Muhtadi, R. Campbell, and M. Mick-
unas, Mobile gaia: A middleware for ad-hoc pervasive
computing, in IEEE Consumer Communications & Net-
working Conference (CCNC), Jan. 2005, pp. 223228.
[49] J. Ioannidis, D. Duchamp, and J. Gerald Q. Maguire, Ip-
based protocols for mobile internetworking, SIGCOMM
Computer Communications Review, vol. 21, no. 4, pp.
235245, 1991.
[50] S. Zhuang, K. Lai, I. Stoica, R. Katz, and S. Shenker,
Host mobility using an internet indirection infrastruc-
ture, Wireless Networks, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 741756,
2005.
[51] A. C. Snoeren and H. Balakrishnan, An end-to-end
approach to host mobility, in Proceedings of the 6th
annual international conference on Mobile computing
and networking, 2000, pp. 155166.
[52] F. Teraoka, Y. Yokore, and M. Tokoro, A network
architecture providing host migration transparency, in
SIGCOMM, 1991, pp. 209220.
[53] C. Castelluccia, HMIPv6: A hierarchical mobile IPv6
proposal, SIGMOBILE Mobile Computer Communica-
tions Review, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 4859, 2000.
[54] M. Buddhikot, A. Hari, K. Singh, and S. Miller, Mobile-
nat: a new technique for mobility across heterogeneous
address spaces, in Proc. 1st ACM international work-
shop on Wireless mobile applications and services on
WLAN hotspots, 2003, pp. 7584.
[55] IEEE Standard 802.21, http://www.ieee802.org/21/,
December, 2006.
[56] C. Gomez, P. Salvatella, O. Alonso, and J. Paradells,
Adapting aodv for ieee 802.15.4 mesh sensor networks:
theoretical discussion and performance evaluation in a
real environment, in International Symposium on a
World of Wireless, Mobile and Multimedia Networks
(WoWMoM), June 2006, pp. 918.
[57] S. Mascolo, C. Casetti, M. Gerla, M. Y. Sanadidi, and
R. Wang, Tcp westwood: Bandwidth estimation for
enhanced transport over wireless links, in Proc. 7th
annual international conference on Mobile computing
and networking (MOBICOM), 2001, pp. 287297.
[58] K. Chen, K. Nahrstedt, and N. Vaidya, Ieee wireless
communications and networking conference,, in IEEE
Wireless Communications and Networking Conference,,
vol. 3, March 2004, pp. 19211926.
[59] D. Clark, R. Braden, A. Falk, and V. Pingali, FARA:
reorganizing the addressing architecture, in Proc. ACM
SIGCOMM workshop on Future directions in network
architecture (FDNA), 2003, pp. 313321.
[60] R. Braden, T. Faber, and M. Handley, From pro-
tocol stack to protocol heap: role-based architecture,
SIGCOMM Computer Communications Review, vol. 33,
no. 1, pp. 1722, 2003.
[61] I. F. Akyildiz, D. Pompili, and T. Melodia, Underwater
acoustic sensor networks: research challenges. Ad Hoc
Networks, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 257279, 2005.
[62] W. Zhao, M. Ammar, and E. Zegura, A message ferrying
approach for data delivery in sparse mobile ad hoc
networks, in Proc. 5th ACM international symposium
on Mobile ad hoc networking and computing (MobiHoc),
2004, pp. 187198.
[63] J. Crowcroft, S. Hand, R. Mortier, T. Roscoe, and
A. Warfield, Plutarch: an argument for network plu-
ralism, SIGCOMM Computer Communications Review,
vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 258266, 2003.
[64] The United States Conference of Mayors, A national
action plan for safety and security in americas cities,
http://usmayors.org/uscm/news/press releases/documents/
ActionPlan 121101.pdf, December 2001.
[65] Federal Communications Commission, FCC Homeland
Security Policy Council, http://www.fcc.gov/hspc/.
[66] Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA),
Project 25, http://www.tiaonline.org/standards/
technology/project 25/, October, 2006.
[67] H. Aache, V. Conan, G. Guibe, J. Leguay, C. L. Martret,
J. M. Barcelo, L. Cerd, J. Garcia, R. Knopp, N. Nikaein,
X. Gonzalez, A. Zeini, O. Apilo, A. Boukalov, J. Karvo,
H. Koskinen, L. R. Bergonzi, J. C. Diaz, J. Meessen,
C. Blondia, P. Decleyn, E. V. de Velde, and M. Voorhaen,
WIDENS: advanced wireless ad-hoc networks for pub-
lic safety, in IST Summit 2005, 14th Mobile & Wireless
Communication Summit, June 19-23, 2005, Dresden,
Germany, June 2005.
[68] TIA and ETSI, Project MESA - Mobile Broadband
for Public Safety, http://www.projectmesa.org, October,
2006.
[69] N. Niebert, H. Abramowicz, G. Malmgren, J. Sachs,
U. Horn, C. Prehofer, and H. Karl, Ambient networks:
an architecture for communication networks beyond 3G,
IEEE Wireless Commun., vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 1422, April
2004.
[70] The 100x100 Clean Slate Project, http://www.
100x100network.org/.
[71] Clean Slate Design for the Internet, http://cleanslate.
stanford.edu/.
MACEDO et al.: FROM TCP/IP TO CONVERGENT NETWORKS: CHALLENGES AND TAXONOMY
[72] GENI - Global Environment for Network Innovations,
http://www.geni.net.
[73] FIND - Future Internet Network Design,
http://find.isi.edu.
[74] A. Manzalini and F. Zambonelli, Towards Autonomic
and Situation-Aware Communication Services: the CAS-
CADAS Vision, in IEEE Workshop on Distributed In-
telligent Systems: Collective Intelligence and Its Appli-
cations (DIS), June 2006, pp. 383388.
[75] ANA: Autonomic Network Architecture,
http://www.ana-project.org/.
[76] Y.-C. Cheng, Y. Chawathe, A. LaMarca, and J. Krumm,
Accuracy characterization for metropolitan-scale wi-fi
localization, in Proceedings of the 3rd international
conference on Mobile systems, applications, and services
(MobiSys), 2005, pp. 233245.
[77] S. Davy, K. Barrett, S. Balasubramaniam, S. van der
Meer, B. Jennings, and J. Strassner, Policy-based archi-
tecture to enable autonomic communications - a position
paper, in 3rd IEEE Consumer Communications and
Networking Conference (CCNC), Jan 2006, pp. 590594.
[78] T. Anderson, L. Peterson, and J. Turner, Overcoming the
internet impasse through virtualization, IEEE Computer,
vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 3441, April 2005.
[79] N. Feamster, L. Gao, and J. Rexford, How to lease
the internet in your spare time, SIGCOMM Computer
Communications Review, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 6164, 2007.
[80] National Science Foundation, Report of the Na-
tional Science Foundation Workshop on Fundamen-
tal Research in Networking, http://www.cs. vir-
ginia.edu/jorg/workshop, January 2004.
[81] The British Computer Society, Grand Challenges
in Computing, http://www.nesc.ac.uk/esi/events/Grand
Challenges/, 2004.
[82] Community Research & Development Information Ser-
vice, Information society technologies framework pro-
55
gramme 6 - towards a global dependability and secu-
rity framework, http://cordis.europa.eu/fp6/ist.htm, June
2006.
[83] Brazilian Computing Society, Grand research
challenges in computing in brazil - 2006-2016,
Brazilian Computing Society, Tech. Rep., May 2006,
http://caracol.inf.ufrgs.br/ArquivosComunicacao/Desafios
ingles.pdf.
[84] W. Stallings, Cryptography and Network Security: Prin-
ciples and Practice. Pearson Education, 2002.
[85] D. Molnar and D. Wagner, Privacy and Security in
Library RFID: Issues, Practices, and Architectures, in
Proceedings of the 11st ACM conference on Computer
and communication security, October 2005.
Daniel F. Macedo is a Ph.D student at Universite Pierre et Marie CurieParis
VI. He received a M.Sc. and a B.Sc. degrees in Computer Science from
Federal University of Minas Gerais (UFMG), Brazil. Daniel participated in
the program comittee of IEEE ISCC 20062008 and ICWMC 2006 and 2007.
He received the Best Simulation Article award at IEEE ISCC05.
Aldri Luiz dos Santos is a professor at the Department of Informatics of
Federal University of Parana and was a visiting researcher at the Department
of Computer Science of Federal University of Ceara. Aldri received his
Ph.D. in Computer Science from Department of Computer Science of Federal
University ofMinas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil. Aldri received both his
M.Sc. And B.Sc in Informatics from Federal University of Parana, Curitiba,
Brazil. He is member of the SBC (Brazilian Computing Society).
Guy Pujolle is a Professor at the Pierre et Marie Curie University (Paris
6) and scientific advisor of Orange/France Telecom. He received the Ph.D.
and Th`ese dEtat degrees in Computer Science from the University of Paris
IX and Paris XI, respectively. He was Professor and Head of the computer
science department of Versailles University. He was also Professor at ENST
(Ecole Nationale Superieure des Telecommunications) and member of the
scientific staff of INRIA. He is currently an editor for International Journal
of Network Management, WINET, Annals of Telecommunications, and IEEE
Surveys & Tutorials.