Leveraging IP for Sensor Network Deployment Simon Duquennoy, Niklas - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶

Mar 16, 2024 319 likes •494 views

Leveraging IP for Sensor Network Deployment Simon Duquennoy, Niklas Wirstr om, Nicolas Tsiftes, Adam Dunkels IP+SN Workshop, Chicago, IL April 11th 2011 Incremental Sensornet Deployment Target deployments Heterogeneous networks

SLIDE 1

Leveraging IP for Sensor Network Deployment

Simon Duquennoy, Niklas Wirstr¨

Nicolas Tsiftes, Adam Dunkels IP+SN Workshop, Chicago, IL

April 11th 2011

SLIDE 2

Incremental Sensornet Deployment

Target deployments

Heterogeneous networks (applications, hardware)
Need for individual configuration (location, settings)
Need for individual programming (application)

Usual deployment techniques

Network-wide programming
Based on dedicated, inflexible, error-prone solutions
Many failures in practice

IP+SN Workshop 2011 1/ 10

SLIDE 3

Incremental Sensornet Deployment

Target deployments

Heterogeneous networks (applications, hardware)
Need for individual configuration (location, settings)
Need for individual programming (application)

Usual deployment techniques

Network-wide programming
Based on dedicated, inflexible, error-prone solutions
Many failures in practice

What about using low-power IP?

IP+SN Workshop 2011 1/ 10

SLIDE 4

IP-Based Deployment

Leveraging standards for robustness

Addressing with IPv6
Routing with RPL
Transport with CoAP/UDP or TCP

Network layer interoperability

All nodes able to route IPv6 traffic
Applications built on top of IP
Configuration built on top of IP
Deployment built on top of IP

IP+SN Workshop 2011 2/ 10

SLIDE 5

Methodology

Steps

Implementation
Simulation (based on motes emulation)
Feasibility study: RPL, CoAP

, . . .

Optimizations

Implementation in Contiki

uIPv6
ContikiRPL
CoAP and TCP-based deployment

Typical deployment

1 The node integrates the RPL network 2 The node is configured (location, task, settings) 3 The node downloads a program from a server

IP+SN Workshop 2011 3/ 10

SLIDE 6

Deployment with RPL

2 4 6 8 100 200 300 node id time (s)

sink-last random sink-first

2 4 6 8 0.5 1 1.5 2 node id duty cycle (%)

sink-last random sink-first

Impact of the deployment order

Time dominated by installation interval (30 s)
Little impact on energy

IP+SN Workshop 2011 4/ 10

SLIDE 7

Deployment with RPL

2 4 6 8 100 200 300 node id time (s)

sink-last random sink-first

2 4 6 8 0.5 1 1.5 2 node id duty cycle (%)

sink-last random sink-first

Impact of the deployment order

Time dominated by installation interval (30 s)
Little impact on energy

RPL is suitable for incremental deployment

IP+SN Workshop 2011 4/ 10

SLIDE 8

Adapting the MAC for faster download

Principle

Radio duty-cycling slows down the transfer
Using a more aggressive MAC during download

Streaming

Keep radio on 1 second after last traffic
No more wake-up needed

Snooping

Increase duty-cycle for 1 second after last traffic
Shortened synchro time

IP+SN Workshop 2011 5/ 10

SLIDE 9

Streaming and Snooping – Results

2 4 6 8 10 20 30 40 50 number of hops time (s)

Default Snooping Streaming

2 4 6 8 2 4 6 number of hops radio on-time (s)

Streaming Snooping Default

Results

Streaming is the fastest, Default the most energy-efficient
Snooping is a near-perfect trade-off!

IP+SN Workshop 2011 6/ 10

SLIDE 10

Streaming and Snooping – Results

2 4 6 8 10 20 30 40 50 number of hops time (s)

Default Snooping Streaming

2 4 6 8 2 4 6 number of hops radio on-time (s)

Streaming Snooping Default

Results

Streaming is the fastest, Default the most energy-efficient
Snooping is a near-perfect trade-off!

Simple MAC tuning provide substantial improvements

IP+SN Workshop 2011 6/ 10

SLIDE 11

TCP vs CoAP/UDP

Default Snooping Streaming 5 10 15 20 duty cycling mode time (s)

CoAP TCP

Default Snooping Streaming 2 4 duty cycling mode radio on-time (s)

CoAP TCP

Results

Implemented in simple packet-per-packet mode
Both solution provide comparable results

IP+SN Workshop 2011 7/ 10

SLIDE 12

TCP vs CoAP/UDP

Default Snooping Streaming 5 10 15 20 duty cycling mode time (s)

CoAP TCP

Default Snooping Streaming 2 4 duty cycling mode radio on-time (s)

CoAP TCP

Results

Implemented in simple packet-per-packet mode
Both solution provide comparable results

Existing transport layers are suitable

IP+SN Workshop 2011 7/ 10

SLIDE 13

Avoiding Unicast-Based Flooding

Problem

What if many nodes need the same app.?
This is targeted by Deluge-like solutions
Centralized IP-based would waste energy

Idea: In-network Caching

Nodes keep a cache of downloaded apps.
Nodes can act as servers
Download from nearest instead of sink
Based on IP!

IP+SN Workshop 2011 8/ 10

SLIDE 14

In-Network Caching – Results

2 4 6 8 100 200 300 400 500 node id time (s)

no caching, sink-last caching, sink-last no caching, sink-first caching, sink-first

2 4 6 8 10 20 30 40 50 node id radio on-time (s)

no caching, sink-first no caching, sink-last caching, sink-last caching, sink-first

Results

Substantial time and energy improvements

IP+SN Workshop 2011 9/ 10

SLIDE 15

In-Network Caching – Results

2 4 6 8 100 200 300 400 500 node id time (s)

no caching, sink-last caching, sink-last no caching, sink-first caching, sink-first

2 4 6 8 10 20 30 40 50 node id radio on-time (s)

no caching, sink-first no caching, sink-last caching, sink-last caching, sink-first

Results

Substantial time and energy improvements

All-IP facilitates rich node behavior

IP+SN Workshop 2011 9/ 10

SLIDE 16

Conclusion & Future Work

Towards IP-based deployment

Well-suited for heterogeneous networks
Based on well-known/well-tested standards

Results

IPv6, RPL, CoAP

, TCP are suitable

Simple MAC optims provide substantial improvements
IP level optimizations (apps caching) help a lot

Towards an IP-based deployment tool

Full scale deployment tool
Need tesbed evaluation

IP+SN Workshop 2011 10/ 10