1 / 9

Ingeniería de servicios y protocolos Services and protocols engineering

The rise of Smart Objects underscores the need for robust networking protocols that ensure their seamless interconnection. This paper delves into the functionalities of Smart Objects, their energy requirements, and networking capabilities. It examines the applicability of IP in constrained environments, focusing on the challenges and emerging solutions tailored for Smart Object networks. With growing networks composed of numerous nodes, innovative routing protocols and algorithm adaptations are essential for reliability and efficiency. We discuss current initiatives like 6LowPAN and RPL aimed at enhancing Smart Object connectivity.

wren
Télécharger la présentation

Ingeniería de servicios y protocolos Services and protocols engineering

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. Ingeniería de servicios y protocolosServices and protocols engineering ADVANCED NETWORKING Next Internet: IP for connecting Smart Objects Ana BelénGarcía Hernandoabgarcia@diatel.upm.es, anabelen.garcia@upm.es

  2. Whatis a SmartObject? • Processing capabilities “Smart …” • Senses or actuates over the physical world “… Object” • The context is highly significant for its behaviour. • In order to do anything, it needs an energy source • Mains, batteries, harvesting techniques (e.g. solar, vibrations, wind). • The great potential of Smart Objects comes mainly from the fact that they are inter-connected (with other SO’s, with external networks, with the Internet) • Usually using LLN (Low-power and Lossy Networks): either wireless (e.g. Zigbee) or wired (e.g. PLC).

  3. Examples of SmartObjectnetworks Mobile comm’s Wireless Sensor and Actuator Networks Smartgrids Smartmetering AmbientAssisted Living Embeddedsystems Smartgarment Biological & Health sensors V2V, V2I Networks Smartmobility BodyArea Networks, Wearabledevices

  4. Designprinciples of conventional IP networks • Layered architecture (or almost layered) • Subnetwork agnosticism • Easier to design and introduce new protocols • Possibly less optimized than cross-layering • The complexity is located at the edges • Network nodes perform the forwarding function without doing any application-related processing • In some LLN, a certain degree of in-network processing (such as data aggregation) may be desirable. • Flexiblility: • It accommodates new networks and new applications • Supports several types of communication services (UDP, TCP) over a common unreliable and robust network layer • Robustness: must survive to individual link and node failures

  5. Is IP adequateforSmartObjectnetworks? (1) • SO networks are usuallyconstrained, both in: • Nodecapacities several IPv6 stacksforconstraineddeviceshavebeenalreadyimplemented, withsmallfootprints. • Fromaround 10 kB of memoryfootprint (RAM+ROM), such as in ARv6, NSv6 or uIPv6, toaround 30 kB, such as in lwIP. [IPSO2010] • Network bandwidth and MTU  new adaptationlayersforcarrying IPv6 over LLN (6LowPAN for IPv6 over IEEE 802.15.4 and otherLowPANtechnologies, in progress)

  6. Is IP adequateforSmartObjectnetworks? (2) • IPv6providesenoughaddresses, as well as auto-configurationprocedures. IP scalabilityisbeyondanydoubt •  New routing mechanisms and protocols are needed • SO networksmaybecomposed of hundreds, oreventhousands of nodes. Auto-configurationismany times a must • SO networksmayhavetoaccomodate a variety of applicationswithdifferentrequirements • Differentroutingoptionsmaybepresent (e.g. a less-delayroute vs. a routethatavoidsbattery-powernodes) • LLN maypresenteitherpermanent (e.g.thedepletion of a node’senergy) ortransient (e.g. a temporaryraise in a link’s BER) failures. • Itis crucial fornetworkstability NOT toover-react • Both links and nodescosts and parameters are significantforrouting

  7. IP for SO: Specificprotocols and algorithms • Idea: do notreinventthewheel! ReusewhateverIPv6isapplicabletoLLN, and generate new algorithms and protocolsonlywhereneeded. • MainIETF[IETF_WG]initiativesrelatedto IP for SO: • 6lowpan (IPv6 over Low power WPAN): IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.15.4 Networks, DECT Ultra Low Energy (work in progress) and Bluetooth Low Energy (work in progress). • ROLL (Routing Over Low power and Lossy networks): RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low power and Lossy Networks (work in progress). • CoRE (ConstrainedRESTfulEnvironments): Definition of a Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) for the manipulation of Resources on a Device. • IPSO Alliance [IPSO_Web] is a non-profit association of more than 60 members that advocates for IP networked devices for use in energy, consumer, healthcare and industrial applications. • They do not generate standards, they “provide a foundation for industry growth through building stronger relationships, fostering awareness, providing education, promoting the industry, generating research, and creating a better understanding of IP and its role in connecting Smart Objects.”

  8. MainapplicationsconsideredforRPL • Urbannetworks (includingSmartGrid). • Buildingautomation • Industrial automation • Home automation • Theseyieldrequirementssuch as: • Scalability • Parameter-Constrained Routing • Support of Multicast and Anycast • Mobility Requirements • Reliability Requirements • Network Dynamicity • Latency • Stability • Convergence time • Security Considerations • Are theredifferentrequirementsforotherapplications?

  9. References and furtherreading [Vasseur2010] Jean-Philippe Vasseur, Adam Dunkels. “Interconnecting Smart Objects with IP: The Next Internet”. Morgan Kaufmann, 2010. [IPSO2010] Internet Protocol for Smart Objects (IPSO) Alliance. “IP for Smart Objects”. White Paper. July 2010. [IPSO_Web] IPSO Alliance Website<http://www.ipso-alliance.org/> [IETF_WG] Active IETF Working Groups<http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/> [IPSO_RPL_2010] IPSO Webinar: Overview of the RPL protocol (routing for IP Smart Object networks). Slides. 4/12/10. [IPSO_6LoWPAN_2010] IPSO Webinar: 6LoWPAN. Slides. November 30th, 2010.

More Related