1 / 22

Impact of Sensor Networks on F uture I nter N et D esign

Impact of Sensor Networks on F uture I nter N et D esign. David E. Culler University of California, Berkeley culler@cs.berkeley.edu Arched Rock Corporation dculler@archedrock.com NSF FIND Info Meeting 12-5-2005. What does the Internet look like in 10 years?. In 10 years….

melissaj
Download Presentation

Impact of Sensor Networks on F uture I nter N et D esign

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Impact of Sensor Networks onFuture InterNet Design David E. Culler University of California, Berkeley culler@cs.berkeley.edu Arched Rock Corporation dculler@archedrock.com NSF FIND Info Meeting 12-5-2005

  2. What does the Internet look like in 10 years? NSF FIND

  3. In 10 years… • 90% of the nodes on the “Internet” will embedded devices connected to the physical world • Universal, host-host file-transfer and console access is the dominant usage pattern….. NOT! • So does it make sense to pay attention to the characteristics of these kind of nodes and applications in designing the future Internet? NSF FIND

  4. Intranet/Internet (IP) Client Data Browsing and Processing Canonical Sensor Net Architecture Today Patch Network Sensor Node Sensor Node Sensor Patch Gateway Gateway Transit Network (IP or not) Access point - Base station - Proxy Verification links Other information sources Data Service • An Analysis of a Large Scale Habitat Monitoring Application, Szewczyk, Polastre, Mainwaring, Anderson, and Culler, Sensys04 NSF FIND

  5. Sensor Nets The Next Tier • Small sensors will be the most common nodes on the internet • How will they be represented and accessed? Clients Servers Internet NSF FIND

  6. How will SensorNets and IP play together? XML / RPC / REST / SOAP / OSGI ? HTTP / FTP / SNMP TCP / UDP IP 802.11 802.15.4, CC, … Ethernet Sonet NSF FIND

  7. Full IP stack throughout XML / RPC / REST / SOAP / OSGI HTTP / FTP / SNMP TCP / UDP IP 802.11 802.15.4, CC, … Ethernet Sonet NSF FIND

  8. Beware “IP hype” • Transmitting HTML over a wireless connection to a serial port attached to a PC is NOT running IP on the sensor network NSF FIND

  9. Where has Internet Research Reached and “struggled”? • Aggregate communication => Multicast • Resource constraints => QoS, DIFFSERV • Communicate with data or logical services, not just devices => URNs (DHTs?) • Mobility => MobileIP, MANET • In-network processing and storage => ActiveNets • Intermittent connectivity => DTN ??? NSF FIND

  10. What are the main characteristics of Sensor Networks? • Aggregate communication • dissemination, data collection, aggregation • Resource constraints • Limited bandwidth, limited storage, limited energy • Communicate with data or logical services, not just devices • Datacentric • Mobility • Devices moving, tags, networks moving through networks • In-network processing and storage • Really • Intermittent connectivity • Low-power operation, out of range, obstructions NSF FIND

  11. Facing these challenges • Today, we use a wide range of ad hoc, application specific techniques in the SensorNet patch • Zillion different low-power MACs • Many link-specific, app-specific multihop routing protocols • Epidemic dissemination, directed diffusion, synopsis diffusion, … • All sorts of communication scheduling and power management techniques NSF FIND

  12. Proxy / Gateway Edge Network Approach XML / RPC / REST / SOAP / OSGI HTTP / FTP / SNMP TCP / UDP IP 802.11 802.15.4, CC, … Ethernet Sonet NSF FIND

  13. “Hacking it in” may not be so bad • Security • No IP to the nodes, attacks have to get through the gateway or be physically close • Namespace management • Name nodes, networks, services • Hosts, URLs, … • Mask intermittent connectivity • Terminate IP on the powered side • Loosely couple, energy aware protocols on the other • Distillation proxies • Small binary packets where constrained • Expanded to full text, XML, HTML, web services • Rich suite of networking techniques in the Patch unimpeded by the “ossification” of the rest NSF FIND

  14. Gateways IP Overlay Network SensorNet Patch Rethinking at Layer 7 NSF FIND

  15. Opportunity to rethink more deeply • No dusty-decks yet • Not a bunch of laptops running around with their sockets open trying to route through other laptops running around… • Meaningful set of applications and associated traffic loads • Environments, individual objects, interactions • Chance to think through control as well as monitoring • Physical embedding matters • Techniques are likely to apply to the rest of the Internet NSF FIND

  16. Traditional Analysis Delivered Performance Offered Load NSF FIND

  17. Mobility Changes in network population Environmental variability Bandwidth Energy Expended Delay Traffic Load Traffic Variability Analysis that really matters Reliability NSF FIND

  18. SensorNets need the Wisdom of the “Internet Architecture” • Design for change! • Network protocols must work over a wide variety of links • Links will evolve • Network protocols must work for a variety of applications • Applications will evolve • Provide only simple primitives • Don’t confuse the networking standard with a programming methodology • Don’t try to lock-in your advantage in the spec • Open process • Rough consensus AND running code NSF FIND

  19. XETF (Xternet Engineering and Technology Forum) ??? • Mission • Foster an open, innovative, and technically sound ecosystem around interconnecting the physical world with modern networking and information technology through the creation of technical documents, protocols, reference implementations and APIs. • Structure • Lean. Volunteer: BOD, steering comm., working groups. • Membership • Individuals, corporate, academic, and gov’t • Participation • Open. Role determined by contribution. • IP Policy • Non-confidential. Disclosure and Contribution process. • Companies can develop own implementation. • BSD? Apache-like credit? MPL? LGPL? • Output • RFC-like documents, reference implementations, forum for exchange and viz. • “Rough consensus AND running code” NSF FIND

  20. Home Automation Internet Building Automation PC Workstation Dedicated Controllers Minicomputer VME Mainframe Uniting long-lost relatives Instrumentation Computers General Purpose Computing NSF FIND

  21. The successor emerges when prior regime is at its apex of strength – not at a point of weakness. What was previously hard becomes easy, but its successor becomes possible… Integration Tides of Change Innovation Log Stuff The Future Internet probably exists today; go find it Time NSF FIND

  22. Discussion Thanks NSF FIND

More Related