1 / 17

Lightweight Architecture and Protocols for the Internet of Things

ITU Workshop on the “ Internet of Things - Trend and Challenges in Standardization ” (Geneva, Switzerland, 18 February 2014). Lightweight Architecture and Protocols for the Internet of Things. Laurent TOUTAIN, Associate Professor, IMT/Télécom Bretagne Laurent.Toutain@telecom-bretagne.eu.

jayme
Télécharger la présentation

Lightweight Architecture and Protocols for the Internet of Things

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ITU Workshop on the “Internet of Things - Trend and Challenges in Standardization” (Geneva, Switzerland, 18 February 2014) Lightweight Architecture and Protocols for the Internet of Things Laurent TOUTAIN, Associate Professor, IMT/Télécom Bretagne Laurent.Toutain@telecom-bretagne.eu

  2. Institut Mines-Télécom National coverage 10 GRADUATE SCHOOLS : 6 MINES AND 4 TÉLÉCOM Mines Albi-Carmaux - Albi, Saint-Dié Mines Alès - Alès, Montpellier, Nimes, Pau Mines Douai - Douai Mines Nantes - Nantes Mines ParisTech - Paris, Palaiseau-Saclay, Evry, Fontainebleau, Sophia Antipolis Mines Saint-Etienne - Saint-Etienne, Gardanne Télécom Bretagne - Brest, Rennes, Toulouse Télécom Ecole de Management -Evry, Palaiseau-Saclay, Paris Télécom ParisTech - Paris, Sophia Antipolis Télécom SudParis - Evry Lille Douai Rouen Paris Nancy Palaiseau-Saclay Brest Strasbourg Rennes Evry Fontainebleau Saint-Dié 2SUBSIDIARY SCHOOLS Eurecom- Sophia Antipolis Télécom Lille1 -Lille 1 STRATEGIC PARTNER SCHOOL Mines Nancy - Nancy, Saint-Dié Nantes Clermont-Ferrand 11 ASSOCIATED SCHOOLS ENSEEIHT -Toulouse Enseirb-Matmeca-Bordeaux ENSG - Vandœuvre-lès-Nancy ENSIIE -Evry ESIGELEC-Rouen Grenoble Ecole de Management - Grenoble IFMA - Clermont-Ferrand Sup’Com Tunis -Tunis Télécom Nancy - Villers-lès-Nancy Télécom Physique Strasbourg -Strasbourg Télécom Saint-Etienne -Saint-Etienne Saint-Etienne Bordeaux Grenoble Alès Albi Pau Sophia Antipolis Nimes Toulouse Montpellier Gardanne Tunis

  3. Key figures Institut Mines-Télécom 10 schools 2 subsidiary schools 2 strategic partners 11 associated schools 12,555 students 1,725 PhD students +4000 graduates per year Including over 2,500 engineers 8% engineering degrees issued in France 32 % foreign students 38 % grant holders 4, 800 staff members 2 Carnot Institutes €121 M research-generated income per year Near 100 business start-ups per year at the schools’ incubators Total 2012 Figures excluding associated schools and Mines Nancy (Université de Lorraine)

  4. Internet Architecture Model • Very successful for almost 30 years • Connecting almost everything • Flexible • On top of many links • Low speed, high speed, variable latencies • Large variety of applications • File transfer, streaming, voip,…

  5. Few protocols Steve Deering The Evolution of Layered Protocol Stacks Leads to an Hourglass-Shaped Architecture Saamer Akhshabi, Constantine Dovrolis Sigcomm 2011

  6. Internet Protocol • Interoperability, • But ossification. Steve Deering

  7. IP is: • Packet Format • Management • Interoperability • Forwarding P4 ≠P6 P IP • Addresses • Allocation • Display • Routing A4 ≠A6 A R4=R6 R

  8. New areas for Networking • Internet of Things • Cheap • Moore’s law reduces costs, does not increase power • Low Memory • Low Energy • Different Time cycle • Legacy devices • 20 year lifetime

  9. IPv6 • IPv6 slowly introduced • P6≠P4, A6≠A4: No interoperability • Metcalfe’s law against IPv6 • Forwarding is not the most difficult part • IPv6 has advantages for IoT • Auto-configuration • Simpler • Layer 2 agnostic • But difficult to make IPv6 evolve

  10. Constraints IoT Deployed IPv6 6LoWPAN • Header Compression • M-U capabilities • Fragmentation • P6LP = PIPv6 • A6LP = AIPv6

  11. ARESA2 Project • ANR Verso 2009 project • Urban Wireless Sensor Networks • AMI, Smart Grid, M2M. . . • One of the challenges: IPv6 • Mesh network. • Minimize code footprint, minimize energy consumption.

  12. Reduce 6LoWPAN impact • Toward a flexible 6LoWPAN • Simplify addresses allocation • A6LP ⊂ AIPv6 • Forwarding based on 6LoWPAN • Add functionalities for WSN • P6LP ⊃ PIPv6 • Maintain end to end capabilities • Need for “local” information • IPv6 remains universal format • Multi-homing

  13. 6LoWPAN in Contiki

  14. Example

  15. Architecture Core WSN GW IPv6 6LoWPAN Extension Core WSN GW IPv6 6LoWPAN + parameters

  16. Conclusions and Recommendations • New constraints: • A single protocol cannot cover all needs • Introduce more flexibility • “a la IEEE” • Core protocols/Fringe protocols • Other alternatives: • REST, but less generic in term of traffic

  17. Reasearch on IoT at Télécom Bretagne • OCIF research team: • Architecture: • Internet evolution, REST, M2M, • Access Network: • NAN, Long Range Radio, community network,… • Context Awareness: • Security, … • Models: • Game Theory, Peak Erasing,… • Application domains: • ITS, SmartGrid, Smart Clothes,…

More Related