Advertisement

Retrieving Monitoring and Accounting Information from Constrained Devices in Internet-of-Things Applications

  • Oleksiy Mazhelis
  • Martin Waldburger
  • Guilherme Sperb Machado
  • Burkhard Stiller
  • Pasi Tyrväinen
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7943)

Abstract

Internet-of-Things (IoT) is envisioned to provide connectivity to a vast number of sensing or actuating devices with limited computational and communication capabilities. For the organizations that manage these constrained devices, the monitoring of each device’s operational status and performance level as well as the accounting of their resource usage are of great importance. However, monitoring and accounting support is lacking in today’s IoT platforms. Hence, this paper studies the applicability of the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP), a lightweight transfer protocol under development by IETF, for efficiently retrieving monitoring and accounting data from constrained devices. On the infrastructure side, the developed prototype relies on using standard building blocks offered by the AMAAIS project in order to collect, pre-process, distribute, and persistently store monitoring and accounting information. Necessary on-device and infrastructure components are prototypically implemented and empirically evaluated in a realistic simulation environment. Experiment results indicate that CoAP is suited for efficiently transferring monitoring and accounting data, both due to a small energy footprint and a memory-wise compact implementation.

Keywords

Wireless Sensor Network Account Information Battery Lifetime Simple Network Management Protocol Security Assertion Markup Language 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Atzori, L., Iera, A., Morabito, G.: The internet of things: A survey. Comput. Netw. 54(15) (October 2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ericsson: More Than 50 Billion Connected Devices. Ericsson White Paper (February 2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bormann, C., Ersue, M.: Terminology for Constrained Node Networks. draft-bormann-lwig-terms-00 (November 2012)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kuryla, S., Schönwälder, J.: Evaluation of the resource requirements of snmp agents on constrained devices. In: Chrisment, I., Couch, A., Badonnel, R., Waldburger, M. (eds.) AIMS 2011. LNCS, vol. 6734, pp. 100–111. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bormann, C., Castellani, A.P., Shelby, Z.: Coap: An application protocol for billions of tiny internet nodes. IEEE Internet Computing 16(2), 62–67 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Stiller, B.: Accounting and monitoring of AAI services. SWITCH Journal 2, 12–13 (2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    ITU-T: management functions. ITU-T Recommendation M.3400 (February 2000)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ruiz, L.B., Nogueira, J.M.S., Loureiro, A.A.F.: MANNA: a management architecture for wireless sensor networks. IEEE Communications Magazine 41(2), 116–125 (2003) ISSN 0163-6804Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Karsten, M., Schmitt, J., Stiller, B., Wolf, L.: Charging for packet-switched network communication-motivation and overview. Comput. Commun. 23(3), 290–302 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ersue, M., Romascanu, D., Schoenwaelder, J.: Management of Networks with Constrained Devices: Use Cases and Requirements. Internet Draft 02. IETF (October 2012)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ma, Y.W., Chen, J.L., Huang, Y.M., Lee, M.Y.: An efficient management system for wireless sensor networks. Sensors 10(12), 11400–11413 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Enns, R., Bjorklund, M., Schoenwaelder, J., Bierman, A.: Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF). RFC 6241 (Proposed Standard) (June 2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mukhtar, H., Kim, K.M., Chaudhry, S.A., Akbar, A.H., Kim, K.H., Yoo, S.W.: Lnmp – management architecture for ipv6 based low-power wireless personal area networks (6lowpan). In: NOMS, pp. 417–424. IEEE (2008)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Choi, H., Kim, N., Cha, H.: 6lowpan-snmp: Simple network management protocol for 6lowpan. In: HPCC, pp. 305–313. IEEE (2009)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chaudhry, S.A., Boyle, G., Song, W., Sreenan, C.J.: Emp: A network management protocol for ip-based wireless sensor networks. In: ICWUS, pp. 1–6. IEEE (2010)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sehgal, A., Perelman, V., Kuryla, S., Schnwlder, J.: Management of resource constrained devices in the internet of things. IEEE Communications Magazine 50(12) (December 2012)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shelby, Z.: Embedded web services. IEEE Wireless Communications 17(6), 52–57 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Osterlind, F., Dunkels, A., Eriksson, J., Finne, N., Voigt, T.: Cross-level sensor network simulation with cooja. In: Proceedings of the 2006 31st IEEE Conference on Local Computer Networks, pp. 641–648 (November 2006)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kovatsch, M., Duquennoy, S., Dunkels, A.: A low-power coap for contiki. In: Proceedings of the 8th IEEE International Conference on Mobile Ad-hoc and Sensor Systems (MASS 2011), Valencia, Spain (October 2011)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jennings, C., Shelby, Z., Arkko, J.: Media Types for Sensor Markup Language (SENML). Internet draft. IETF (October 2012)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dunkels, A.: The ContikiMAC Radio Duty Cycling Protocol. Technical Report T2011:13, Swedish Institute of Computer Science (December 2011)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dunkels, A., Österlind, F., Tsiftes, N., He, Z.: Software-based sensor node energy estimation. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems, SenSys 2007, pp. 409–410. ACM, New York (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Oleksiy Mazhelis
    • 1
  • Martin Waldburger
    • 2
  • Guilherme Sperb Machado
    • 2
  • Burkhard Stiller
    • 2
  • Pasi Tyrväinen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and Information SystemsUniversity of JyväskyläJyväskyläFinland
  2. 2.Department of Informatics (IFI), Communications Systems Group (CSG)University of ZürichZürichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations