applying mobility first for the internet of things · applying mobility first for the internet of...
TRANSCRIPT
Applying Mobility First for the
Internet of Things
»Presented by Rich Martin»WINLAB, Rutgers University
»Credit to all in the MF team
»
»
The Opportunity
Today: 1 million transistors per $
Moore’s Law: # transistors on cost-effective chip doubles every 18 months
years
ComputersPer Person
103:1
1:106
Laptop
PDA
Mainframe
Mini
WorkstationPC
Cell
1:1
1:103
Bell’s Law: a new computer class emerges every 10 years
Same fabrication technology provides CMOS radios for communication and micro-sensors
Tag
History and Vision
Everything in the physical worldconnects to the Internet
• 1999 Smart Dust• 2000 Sensor Networks• 2001 EPIC • 2004 Internet of Things• 2005 Ambient Intelligence• 2009 Swarms
Not yet realized the vision.– Analogous to Memex, Hypertext, Web ~ 1985
Outline
Distinct ApproachesExperiences with Owl in Winlab Existing Limitations
Applying Mobility First for the IoTNext Steps Conclusions
Distinct Approaches
Things look like URI namespaces– Web of Things– NDN
Things are in Flatworld of unique IDs– RFID/EPIC– Mobility First – IPv6
Real systems will be hybrids
Owl Platform Layers• Application is a presentation
layer: (web, email, SMS)
• World Model works in URI space
• Solvers convert sensed ID and values to meaningful URIs
• Aggregation provides adaptation layer on ID space to IP
• Support variety of sensors
Owl Sensors
TO-PIP:Sense 1+ times a second
• Light, temperature, switches, standing water (humidity, soil moister)
Transmit 3 packets when sensed value changes
Transmit heartbeat every 30 seconds
Transmit-OnlyTO-PIP(2013)
ClassicTelosB (2004)
TO-PIP Energy Validation
Event Frequency (seconds)
Owl Application: Status and notification
Application: Laboratory Animal Monitoring
Lessons from Owl
Energy– Will need adaptation layers
Scale– Will happen, but problems are farther off
Naming – Will need both Symbolic (URI), and Flat (ID) just like today– Humans vs Machines and Concepts vs Things
Mobility across domains– Will have to support as scale happens
Security: The Elephant in the room Sensing: Important
Actuation: Very, very Important. Purposely avoided because of security
Power Limited Devices → Adaptation Layers
“The IP information adds about 100 bits to each message, which typically has a negligible impact on the response time and power requirements”
Gershenfeld, “Internet of Things” 2004
Experiences building a 10-year lifetime wireless sensor
- 1.3 uJ per unique Tx bit
- All bits transmitted and receiver times are precious (Turn off Rx → Transmit Only Protocols)
Existing networking is too heavyweight for multi-year lifetime battery powered devices
Devices connected with high power will need to run adaptation layers
Key Mobility First concepts for the IoT
Global Unique Identifiers (GUID)Network Independent
Flat space
Symbolic Name → GUID mapping (GNS) Human Readable and Management of the name space (URI style)
Identifier → Network Address (GNRS) Machine Readable, rapid translation → route-able
Scale
Overloading GUIDs Traditional Communication Devices, Content, Context Group
Mobility First Overview for the IoT
Measured read performance
Local:Global ratioLocal:Global ratio
(ms)
GNRS (Rutgers) Auspice (UMass)
Takeaway: 10-100 ms would be typical, 1 s worst case
Building Context Groups
Existing MF prototype on phones
Close: Security for the IoT!
Sensing: light-weight security Authentication, Confidentiality (but not always)
Physical layer security + rotating hash codes
Actuation: strong security needed– E.g. Vending Machine, Door locks – Authentication, Confidentiality, Authorization, Accountability
MF approach: GUIDs as public key + signed messages
Open issues: – Energy use? (Secure actuation requires high energy?) – Key Management? (Based on physical security?)
19
Backup slides
20
TO-PIP: Total duty cycle
Region Time I(µs) (mA)
------------------------------A 100 4B 140 2C 560 3D 80 10E 380 18F 40 3