280 likes | 374 Vues
This study examines the characteristics of Machine-to-Machine (M2M) cellular traffic compared to human-operated devices, exploring implications for network performance and operations. Data from a variety of devices is analyzed, categorized, and compared to smartphone traffic in terms of traffic volume, temporal dynamics, geographic distribution, applications, and network performance metrics. The results provide insights into capacity planning, spectrum allocation, billing strategies, and network optimization for a more efficient sharing of resources among M2M and human-operated devices.
E N D
A First Look at Cellular Machine-to-Machine Traffic Large Scale Measurement and Characterization M. ZubairShafiq (Michigan State University) LushengJi (AT&T Labs -- Research) Alex X. Liu (Michigan State University) Jeffrey Pang (AT&T Labs -- Research) Jia Wang (AT&T Labs -- Research) 06/12/2012
What is Machine-to-Machine (M2M)? • Communications to or from smart devices that function without direct human intervention
Motivation • M2M presents a new growth opportunity for carriers: • “Internet of things”, billions of connected devices • Cellular M2M devices and human-operated devices share the same infrastructure • Little is known about M2M cellular traffic • What are the characteristics of M2M traffic? • How different are they from human-operated cellular devices? • Will the differences impact network performance and operations? • Opportunities for improving how M2M and human-operated devices share the network? • We share our initial insights by comparing cellular M2M traffic to smartphone traffic
Data • IP traffic records from the core network • Gn links between SGSNs and GGSNs • Data covers all states in the United States over the period of one week in August 2010 • Timestamp, Traffic volume, Device type, Application type, Round Trip Time (RTT), Packet loss ratio • Device type (make and model) identified using TAC information in IMEI • Application identification using port information, HTTP host, user-agent, and other heuristics • All traffic records are anonymized and aggregated, no personally identifiable information
M2M Device Categorization • Identified millions of active M2M devices belonging to 150 hardware models • Carefully studied all models and categorized them into 6 categories • Fleet management (51%) • Asset tracking (18%) • Building security (14%) • Modems (9%) • Metering (6%) • Telehealth (2%) • Baseline comparison with smartphone traffic: • IP traffic records from hundreds of thousands of smartphones
Metrics • We study and compare M2M traffic with smartphone traffic in terms of the following metrics: • Data usage Aggregate traffic volume • Temporal Dynamics Traffic volume time series and session analysis • Geographical distribution Mobility • Applications Distribution • Network Performance Round trip time and packet loss ratio
Aggregate Traffic Volume • Do M2M devices generate as much traffic volume as smartphones? • Is M2M traffic also downlink heavy? • Implications: Spectrum and resource allocation
Aggregate Traffic Volume • Smartphone traffic volume is order of magnitude more than M2M traffic volume • Strong diversity across M2M categories • M2M devices have more uplink than downlink • 80% smartphones have more downlink traffic • 80% M2M devices have more uplink traffic
Traffic Volume Time series • Does M2M traffic peak at the same time as smartphone traffic? • Does any M2M device category exhibit unusual temporal dynamics? • Can we group M2M device timeseries that can be used to develop billing strategies? • Implications: Capacity planning and billing strategies based on peak usage
Time series • Smartphone traffic volume corresponds “human waking” hours • More downlink traffic volume than uplink
Time series • Aggregate M2M traffic • Daily volume corresponds “human working hours” • Almost equal uplink and downlink traffic volumes
Time series • Modems • Peaks at the start of every hour in uplink and downlink traffic volume • Further confirmed using spectral analysis and drill-down analysis
Time series clustering • Distance matrix of model time series • Hierarchical clustering • 4 clusters • High volume high diurnality • High volume low diurnality • Low volume high diurnality • Low volume low diurnality Dendrogram High volume high diurnality High volume low diurnality
Session Analysis • Understand the behavior of individual devices • Implications: Billing strategies, radio network parameter optimization, and battery management
Active Time • Active time is an important network “usage” metric • It corresponds more closely to radio resource usage than traffic volume; not related to users’ interaction time • Smartphones have the largest average active time • Among M2M device categories, asset tracking devices have the largest active time
Session Arrivals and Lengths • Average session inter-arrival time • Smartphones have the smallest average session inter-arrivals • 50% telehealth and metering devices have session inter-arrivals > 12 hours • Average session length • Half M2M categories have about 80% of the devices with average session time lasting less than 5 minute (more radio overheads) • Smartphones have small average session lengths, similar to telehealth and building security devices
Mobility • Understand the movement of M2M devices and geographical distribution M2M traffic, and its comparison with smartphone traffic • Implications: Handover management, geographical resource allocation
Device Mobility • Metric: Unique cell sector count • Overall M2M devices have lower mobility compared to smartphones, expect for asset tracking devices • As expected, metering and building security have the lowest mobility
Geographical Distribution • Study co-location between high volume M2M and smartphone locations using “Cross-L" • Attraction, Repulsion, Independence • M2M and smartphone traffic compete with each other, which may result in congestion
Application Usage • Does M2M traffic consist of well-known/standard protocols? • Implications: Protocol standardization
Application Usage • M2M and smartphone traffic is mostly TCP, up to 95% • Smartphone traffic belongs to web browsing, audio and video streaming, and email applications (not shown here) • M2M traffic belongs to unknown or miscellaneous realms • Difficult for network operators to diagnose/mitigate • Need for better standardization of M2M protocols misc. unknown web ftp
Network Performance • How does M2M traffic compare to smartphone traffic in terms of network performance? • Implications: Device hardware specifications, support for legacy networks
Round Trip Time (RTT) • Typically low volume implies high RTT • Impact of communication technology • Majority M2M devices are GPRS and EDGE devices • Telehealth devices have better RTT due to widespread use of 3G technology
Packet Loss Ratio • Building security devices have much higher third and fourth quartile packet loss ratios than other M2M devices • M2M traffic generally has higher packet loss ratios • Due to poor deployment location choices • application specific location requirements • lack of user interface that clearly displays cellular signal strength
Conclusions • M2M traffic exhibits significantly different traffic patterns as compared to smartphone traffic • Implications • Billing schemes • Diversity; not “one size fits all” like smartphones • Control plane overheads; not just traffic volume • Mitigation of timer-driven coordinated behaviors • M2M protocol standardization and optimization at transport and application layers • Radio technology upgrades