Geneva, Switzerland, 18 February 2014
Lightweight Architecture and Protocols for the Internet of Things
Laurent TOUTAIN,Associate Professor,
IMT/Télécom [email protected]
ITU Workshop on the “Internet of Things - Trend and Challenges in Standardization”
(Geneva, Switzerland, 18 February 2014)
2
Institut Mines-Télécom
National coverage
Palaiseau-Saclay
Paris
Evry
Fontainebleau
Brest
Rennes
Pau
Toulouse
Saint-Etienne
Alès
Nimes
Albi
Gardanne
Nantes
Douai
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
Nancy
Sophia Antipolis
2 SUBSIDIARY SCHOOLSEurecom - Sophia Antipolis
Télécom Lille1 - Lille
1 STRATEGIC PARTNER SCHOOLMines Nancy - Nancy, Saint-Dié
Saint-Dié
11 ASSOCIATED SCHOOLSENSEEIHT - Toulouse
Enseirb-Matmeca - Bordeaux
ENSG - Vandœuvre-lès-NancyENSIIE - Evry
ESIGELEC - Rouen
Grenoble Ecole de Management - Grenoble
IFMA - Clermont-Ferrand Sup’Com Tunis - Tunis
Télécom Nancy - Villers-lès-NancyTélécom Physique Strasbourg - Strasbourg
Télécom Saint-Etienne - Saint-Etienne
Bordeaux
Strasbourg
Rouen
Clermont-Ferrand
Tunis
Montpellier
Grenoble
Key figures
3
Institut Mines-Télécom
10 schools
2 subsidiary schools
2 strategic partners
11 associated schools
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
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
Total 2012 Figures excluding associated schoolsand Mines Nancy (Université de Lorraine)
Geneva, Switzerland, 18 February 2014 4
Internet Architecture Model
Very successful for almost 30 yearsConnecting almost everythingFlexible
On top of many linksLow speed, high speed, variable latencies
Large variety of applicationsFile transfer, streaming, voip,…
Few protocols
Geneva, Switzerland, 18 February 2014 5
Steve Deering The Evolution of Layered Protocol Stacks Leadsto an Hourglass-Shaped Architecture Saamer Akhshabi, Constantine DovrolisSigcomm 2011
Internet Protocol
Interoperability,
But ossification.
Geneva, Switzerland, 18 February 2014 6
Steve Deering
IP is:
Geneva, Switzerland, 18 February 2014 7
IP
Packet Format-Management-Interoperability-Forwarding
Addresses-Allocation-Display-Routing
P
A
R
P4 ≠P6
A4 ≠A6
R4=R6
New areas for Networking
Internet of ThingsCheap
Moore’s law reduces costs, does not increase power
Low MemoryLow EnergyDifferent Time cycle
Legacy devices20 year lifetime
Geneva, Switzerland, 18 February 2014 8
IPv6
IPv6 slowly introduced P6≠P4, A6≠A4: No interoperabilityMetcalfe’s law against IPv6Forwarding is not the most difficult part
IPv6 has advantages for IoTAuto-configurationSimplerLayer 2 agnostic
But difficult to make IPv6 evolveGeneva, Switzerland, 18 February 2014 9
Constraints
Geneva, Switzerland, 18 February 2014 10
IoTDeployed
IPv6
6LoWPAN•Header Compression•M-U capabilities•Fragmentation
•P6LP = PIPv6
•A6LP = AIPv6
ARESA2 Project
ANR Verso 2009 projectUrban Wireless Sensor NetworksAMI, Smart Grid, M2M. . .
One of the challenges: IPv6Mesh network.Minimize code footprint, minimize energy consumption.
Geneva, Switzerland, 18 February 2014 11
Reduce 6LoWPAN impact
Toward a flexible 6LoWPANSimplify addresses allocation
A6LP ⊂ AIPv6
Forwarding based on 6LoWPANAdd functionalities for WSN
P6LP ⊃ PIPv6
Maintain end to end capabilitiesNeed for “local” informationIPv6 remains universal format
Multi-homingGeneva, Switzerland, 18 February 2014 12
6LoWPAN in Contiki
Geneva, Switzerland, 18 February 2014 13
Example
Geneva, Switzerland, 18 February 2014 14
Architecture
Geneva, Switzerland, 18 February 2014 15
IPv6 6LoWPAN
Extension
IPv66LoWPAN + parameters
Conclusions and Recommendations
New constraints: A single protocol cannot cover all needsIntroduce more flexibility
“a la IEEE” Core protocols/Fringe protocols
Other alternatives:REST, but less generic in term of traffic
Geneva, Switzerland, 18 February 2014 16
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,…
Geneva, Switzerland, 18 February 2014 17
