1 / 17

One-Hop Out-of-Band Control Planes for Low-Power Multi-Hop Wireless Networks

Explore the benefits of one-hop out-of-band control in low-power wireless networks, focusing on scalability, resiliency, and manageability. Discuss the comparison with in-band control, relevant technologies like WirelessHART and WASP, and the application in LoRaWAN networks for improved energy profiling and system performance evaluation.

jamesdaniel
Download Presentation

One-Hop Out-of-Band Control Planes for Low-Power Multi-Hop Wireless Networks

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. One-Hop Out-of-Band Control Planes for Low-Power Multi-Hop Wireless Networks Chaojie Gu Nanyang Technological University Rui TanNanyang Technological University Xin Lou Advanced Digital Sciences Center, Illinois at Singapore Dusit Niyato Nanyang Technological University

  2. Low-Power Multi-Hop Wireless Networks • Ad hoc & easy deployment, good scalability • Centralized network control • WirelessHART (used in >8,000 industrial systems) • ISA100.11a

  3. In-band vs Out-of-Band In-band control plane Out-of-band control plane X X X X Undesirable coupling • Lose control in data-plane failures No coupling • Simple and resilient

  4. Related work • Bandwidth aggregation • Homogeneous radio: FatVAP [NSDI’08], FastForward [MASS’13] • Heterogeneous radios: MultiNets [TECS’14], Multipath TCP [MobiCom’16] Improve throughput rather than optimality, manageability • Out-of-band control plane • WASP [ANCS’14] • Wi-Fi Direct: data • LTE: control Not for low-power networks

  5. Outline • Background and motivation • Approach • System design • Evaluation • Conclusion

  6. Low-Power Wide Area Networks • Kilometers communication range • One-hop control plane • Good manageability • LoRaWAN • License-free ISM band • Open data link standard • Unmanaged network Control plane Data plane

  7. LoRaWAN Characteristics Class-A Characteristics • Uplink-downlink asymmetry • Concurrent uplinks • Non-concurrent downlinks • Session initiated by end node • ALOHA MAC • Unacceptable collisions for control messages X SF7 SF8 SF11 SF7 SF10 SF9

  8. Outline • Background and motivation • Approach • System design • Evaluation • Conclusion

  9. Energy Profiling • LoRaWAN ≈ 2.94 ZigBee • Simplifies the control-plane network • Light control plane’s traffic

  10. X TDMA • Carrier sense is not available • Communication session • t0, t1: Start and end transmission • t0’, t1’: Start and end reception • t0’: Unavailable • t1: Inaccurate • One-way time synchronization • Record t0, t1’ , Δ = t1’ - t0 • Δ depends on SF and frame size X Error 2.9 ms

  11. Heartbeat Time Slots Time 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 …

  12. Outline • Background and motivation • Approach • System design • Evaluation • Conclusion

  13. System Prototype Controller Node Software Architecture

  14. Experiment Setting • Testbed • 1 controller • 15 nodes • Application • CTP [SenSys’09]: A collection protocol, maintain a minimum-cost routing tree • Interference • Source: A laptop • Wi-Fi: Channel 6 • ZigBee: Channel 18

  15. Control Plane Performance

  16. CTP vs Ours 2.97 mW additional power consumption

  17. Conclusion • Physically separatingcontrol plane is desirable • Increase CTP’s PDR by 15% in strong interference • 2.97 mW extra power consumption per node

More Related