Advertisement

A Model for Distributed Service Level Agreement Negotiation in Internet of Things

  • Fan LiEmail author
  • Andrei PaladeEmail author
  • Siobhán ClarkeEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11895)

Abstract

Internet of Things (IoT) services can provide a comprehensive competitive edge compared to traditional services by leveraging the physical devices’ capabilities through a demand-driven approach to provide a near real-time state of the world. Service provision in such a dynamic and large-scale environment needs to cope with intermittent availability of service providers, and may require negotiation to agree on Quality of Service (QoS) of a particular service. Existing negotiation approaches for IoT require a centralised perspective of the environment, which may not be practical given the scale and autonomy of service providers that rely on sensors deployed various environments to deliver their services. We propose a negotiation mechanism that uses distributed service brokers to dynamically negotiate with multiple IoT service providers on behalf of service consumers. The framework uses a hierarchical architecture to cluster service information and to manage the message flows during the negotiation process. Simulation results demonstrate the feasibility and efficiency of our proposal.

Keywords

Internet of Things Distributed SLA negotiation Negotiation protocol 

Notes

Acknowledgment

This work was funded by Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) under grant 13/IA/1885.

References

  1. 1.
  2. 2.
    Aydoğan, R., Festen, D., Hindriks, K.V., Jonker, C.M.: Alternating offers protocols for multilateral negotiation. In: Fujita, K., et al. (eds.) Modern Approaches to Agent-based Complex Automated Negotiation. SCI, vol. 674, pp. 153–167. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-51563-2_10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cabrera, C., Palade, A., Clarke, S.: An evaluation of service discovery protocols in the internet of things. In: Proceedings of the Symposium on Applied Computing, pp. 469–476. ACM (2017)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Czajkowski, K., Foster, I., Kesselman, C., Sander, V., Tuecke, S.: SNAP: a protocol for negotiating service level agreements and coordinating resource management in distributed systems. In: Feitelson, D.G., Rudolph, L., Schwiegelshohn, U. (eds.) JSSPP 2002. LNCS, vol. 2537, pp. 153–183. Springer, Heidelberg (2002).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-36180-4_9CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Elfatatry, A., Layzell, P.: Negotiating in service-oriented environments. Commun. ACM 47(8), 103–108 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    FIPA, F.f.I.P.A.: FIPA Contract Net Interaction Protocol Specification. Architecture (SC00029H), 9 (2002). http://www.mit.bme.hu/projects/intcom99/9106vimm/fipa/XC00029E.pdf
  7. 7.
    Gaillard, G., Barthel, D., Theoleyre, F., Valois, F.: Service level agreements for wireless sensor networks: a WSN operator’s point of view. In: 2014 IEEE/IFIP Network Operations and Management Symposium (NOMS), pp. 1–8. IEEE (2014)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Grubitzsch, P., Braun, I., Fichtl, H., Springer, T., Hara, T., Schill, A.: ML-SLA: multi-level service level agreements for highly flexible IoT services. In: 2017 IEEE International Congress on Internet of Things (ICIOT), pp. 113–120. IEEE (2017)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hadidi, N., Dimopoulos, Y., Moraitis, P.: Argumentative alternating offers. In: McBurney, P., Rahwan, I., Parsons, S. (eds.) ArgMAS 2010. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 6614, pp. 105–122. Springer, Heidelberg (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21940-5_7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Li, F., Cabrera, C., Clarke, S.: A WS-agreement based SLA ontology for IoT services. In: Issarny, V., Palanisamy, B., Zhang, L.-J. (eds.) ICIOT 2019. LNCS, vol. 11519, pp. 58–72. Springer, Cham (2019).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23357-0_5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Li, F., Clarke, S.: Service negotiation in a dynamic IoT environment. In: Proceedings of the Service-Oriented Computing Workshop (ICSOC) (2018)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Li, F., Clarke, S.: A context-based strategy for SLA negotiation in the IoT environment. In: 2019 IEEE International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communications Workshops (PerCom Workshops). IEEE (2019)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ludwig, H., Keller, A., Dan, A., King, R.P., Franck, R.: Web service level agreement (WSLA) language specification, pp. 815–824. IBM Corporation (2003)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Menascé, D.A.: QoS issues in web services. IEEE Internet Comput. 6(6), 72–75 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mingozzi, E., Tanganelli, G., Vallati, C.: A framework for QoS negotiation in things-as-a-service oriented architectures. In: 2014 4th International Conference on Wireless Communications, Vehicular Technology, Information Theory and Aerospace & Electronic Systems (VITAE), pp. 1–5. IEEE (2014)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Misura, K., Zagar, M.: Internet of Things cloud mediator platform. In: 2014 37th International Convention on Information and Communication Technology, Electronics and Microelectronics (MIPRO), pp. 1052–1056. IEEE (2014)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Palade, A., et al.: Middleware for Internet of Things: an evaluation in a small-scale IoT environment. J. Reliable Intell. Environ. 4, 3–23 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ragone, A., Di Noia, T., Di Sciascio, E., Donini, F.M.: Alternating-offers protocol for multi-issue bilateral negotiation in semantic-enabled marketplaces. In: Aberer, K., et al. (eds.) ASWC/ISWC -2007. LNCS, vol. 4825, pp. 395–408. Springer, Heidelberg (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-76298-0_29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Razzaque, M.A., Milojevic-Jevric, M., Palade, A., Clarke, S.: Middleware for Internet of Things: a survey. IEEE Internet Things J. 3(1), 70–95 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Richerzhagen, B., Stingl, D., Rückert, J., Steinmetz, R.: Simonstrator: simulation and prototyping platform for distributed mobile applications. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Simulation Tools and Techniques (SIMUTOOLS), pp. 99–108. ACM, August 2015Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Saravanan, K., Rajaram, M.: An exploratory study of cloud service level agreements-state of the art review. KSII Trans. Internet Info. Syst. 9(3) (2015) Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Smith, R.G.: The contract net protocol: high-level communication and control in a distributed problem solver. IEEE Trans. Comput. 12, 1104–1113 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Swiatek, P., Rucinski, A.: Iot as a service system for eHealth. In: 2013 IEEE 15th International Conference on e-Health Networking, Applications & Services (Healthcom), pp. 81–84. IEEE (2013)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Thoma, M., Meyer, S., Sperner, K., Meissner, S., Braun, T.: On IoT-services: survey, classification and enterprise integration. In: 2012 IEEE International Conference on Green Computing and Communications (GreenCom), pp. 257–260. IEEE (2012)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Waeldrich, O., Battré, D., Brazier, F.F., Clark, K., Oey, M., Papaspyrou, A., Wieder, P., Ziegler, W.: WS-Agreement Negotiation Version 1.0, p. 64 (2011)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Yao, Y., Ma, L.: Automated negotiation for web services. In: 2008 11th IEEE Singapore International Conference on Communication Systems. ICCS 2008, pp. 1436–1440. IEEE (2008)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zanella, A., Bui, N., Castellani, A., Vangelista, L., Zorzi, M.: Internet of things for smart cities. IEEE Internet Things J. 1(1), 22–32 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zulkernine, F., Martin, P., Craddock, C., Wilson, K.: A policy-based middleware for web services SLA negotiation. In: 2009 IEEE International Conference on Web Services. ICWS 2009, pp. 1043–1050. IEEE (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Trinity College Dublin, College GreenDublinIreland

Personalised recommendations