This Century Challenges: Embedding the Internet

1. This Century Challenges:Embedding the Internet Deborah Estrin UCLA Computer Science Department destrin@cs.ucla.edu http://lecs.cs.ucla.edu/estrin

2. Enabling Technologies Embednumerous distributed devices to monitor and interact with physical world Networkdevices tocoordinate and perform higher-level tasks Embedded Networked Exploitcollaborative Sensing, action Control system w/ Small form factor Untethered nodes Sensing Tightly coupled to physical world Exploit spatially and temporally dense, in situ, sensing and actuation

3. Embedded Networked Sensing Potential • Micro-sensors, on-board processing, and wireless interfaces all feasible at very small scale • can monitor phenomena “up close” • Will enable spatially and temporally dense environmental monitoring • Embedded Networked Sensing will reveal previously unobservable phenomena Seismic Structure response Contaminant Transport Ecosystems, Biocomplexity Marine Microorganisms

4. “The network is the sensor” (Oakridge Natl Labs) Requires robust distributed systems of thousands of physically-embedded, often untethered, devices.

5. From Embedded Sensing to Embedded Control • Embedded in unattended “control systems” • Different from traditional Internet, PDA, Mobility applications that interface primarily and directly with human users • More than control of the sensor network itself • Critical applications extend beyond sensing to control and actuation • Transportation, Precision Agriculture, Medical monitoring and drug delivery, Battlefied applications • Critical concerns extend beyond traditional networked systems • Usability, Reliability, Safety • Robust interacting systems under dynamic operating conditions • Often mobile, uncontrolled environment, • Not amenable to real-time human monitoring • Need systems architecture to manage interactions • Current system development: one-off, incrementally tuned, stove-piped • Serious repercussions for piecemeal uncoordinated design: insufficient longevity, interoperability, safety, robustness, scalability...

6. Macro (Shared Scientific Instruments (telescopes)) Centralized(Traditional Sensor Systems) Physical Distributed Micro(Embedded Networked Sensing) Virtual (Internet)

7. New Design Themes • Long-lived systems that can be untetheredand unattended • Low-duty cycle operation with bounded latency • Exploit redundancy and heterogeneous tiered systems • Leverage data processing inside the network • Thousands or millions of operations per second can be done using energy of sending a bit over 10 or 100 meters (Pottie00) • Exploit computation near data to reduce communication • Self configuring systems that can be deployed ad hoc • Un-modeled dynamics of physical world cause systems to operate in ad hoc fashion • Measure and adapt to unpredictable environment • Exploit spatial diversity and density of sensor/actuator nodes • Achieve desired global behavior with adaptive localized algorithms • Dynamic, messy (hard to model), environments preclude pre-configured behavior • Cant afford to extract dynamic state information needed for centralized control or even Internet-style distributed control

8. Why cant we simply adapt Internet protocols and “end to end” architecture? • Internet routes data using IP Addresses in Packets and Lookup tables in routers • Humans get data by “naming data” to a search engine • Many levels of indirection between name and IP address • Works well for the Internet, and for support of Person-to-Person communication • Energy-constrained (un-tethered, small-form-factor), unattended systems cant tolerate communication overhead of indirection • Embedded systems can’t rely on human intelligence, elasticity, to compensate for system ambiguities

9. ENS Research Focus • Critical research needed in “systems” • Component technology (sensors, low power devices, RF) is far ahead of our ability to exploit • Must develop, distributed, in-network, autonomous event detection capabilities • Adaptive Self-Organization to achieve reliable, long-lived, operation in dynamic, resource-limited, harsh environment. • Collaborative, multi-modal, processing and active database techniques • Primitives for programming aggregates to create an autonomous, adaptive, monitoring capability across 1000s of nodes • Sensor coordinated actuation will enable truly self-configuring and reconfiguring systems by allowing for adaptation in physical space • Safety, Predictability, Usability, particularly as we embed sophisticated behaviors in previously-”simple” objects. • Strive toward an Architecture and associated principles by building working systems, studying them, iterating • Analogous to TCP/IP stack, soft state, fate sharing, and eventually, self-similarity, congestion control… • What is our stack, metrics, system taxonomy…

10. Sample Layered Architecture User Queries, External Database Application processing, Distributedquery processing, QOT tradeoffs Data dissemination, aggregation,storage, caching Routing Self-configuring network topology MAC, Time, Location Phy: comm, sensing, actuation, SP

11. Metrics Efficiency System lifetime/System resources Resolution/Fidelity Detection/Identification Latency Response time Robustness To variable system and input state] Security to malicious or buggy nodes Scalability Over space and time

12. Systems Taxonomy: Dimensions Spatial and Temporal Scale Sampling interval Extent Density (of sensors relative to stimulus) Variability Ad hoc vs. engineered system structure System task variability Mobility (variability in space) Autonomy Multiple sensor modalities Computational model complexity Resource constrained Energy, BW Storage, Computation

13. Traffic/Load/Event Models: Dimensions Frequency (spatial, temporal) Commonality of events in time and space Locality (spatial, temporal) Dispersed vs. clustered/patterned Mobility Rate and pattern

14. Constructs for in network processing • Nodes pull, push, and store named data (using tuple space) to create efficient processing points in the network • e.g. duplicate suppression, aggregation, correlation • Nested queries reduce overhead relative to “edge processing” • Complex queries support collaborative signal processing • propagate function describing desired locations/nodes/data (e.g. ellipse for tracking) • Interesting analogs to emergingpeer-to-peer architectures

15. Directed Diffusion • Basic idea • name data (not nodes) with externally relevant attributes • Data type, time, location of node, SNR, etc • diffuse requests and responses across network using application driven routing (e.g., geo sensitive or not) • optimize path with gradient-based feedback • support in-network aggregation and processing • Data sources publish data, Data clients subscribe to data • However, all nodes may play both roles • A node that aggregates/combines/processes incoming sensor node data becomes a source of new data • A sensor node that only publishes when a combination of conditions arise, is a client for the triggering event data • True peer to peer system • Implemented defines namespace and simple matching rules in the form of filters • Linux (32 bit proc) and TinyOS (8 bit proc) implementations

16. Of more interest than simple Aggregation areNested Queries(Source: Heidemann et. al.) flat nested Use application-level information to scope and process data. audio light sensors user

17. Nested Query Evaluation(A real experiment w/sub-optimal hardware) Nested queries greatly improve event delivery rate Specific results depend on experiment placement limited quality MAC General result: app-level info needed in sensor nets; diffusion is good platform nested 80 60 events successfully received (%) 40 flat 20 1 2 3 4 number of light sensors

18. Sub-optimal aggregation tree constructions(From Krishnamachari et.al.) • On a general graph if k nodes are sources and one is a sink, the aggregation tree that minimizes the number of transmissions is the minimum Steiner tree. NP-complete • Center at Nearest Source (CNSDC): All sources send through source nearest to the sink. • Shortest Path Tree (SPTDC): Merge paths. • Greedy Incremental Tree (GITDC): Start with path from sink to nearest source. Successively add next nearest source to the existing tree. • AC: Distinct paths from each source to sink.

19. Source placement: event-radius model(From Krishnamachari et.al.)

20. Comparison of energy costs(From Krishnamachari et.al.)

21. Opportunism always pays;Greed pays only when things get very crowded(From Intanagowiwat et.al. ns-2 more detailed simulations)

22. Self-Organization with Localized Algorithms • Self-configuration and reconfiguration essential to lifetime of unattended systems in dynamic, constrained energy, environment • Too many devices for manual configuration • Environmental conditions are unpredictable • Example applications: • Efficient, multi-hop topology formation: node measures neighborhood to determine participation, duty cycle, and/or power level • Beacon placement: candidate beacon measures potential reduction in localization error • Requires large solution space; not seeking unique optimal • Investigating applicability, convergence, role of selective global information

23. Adaptive Topology Schemes • SPANBenjie Chen, Kyle Jamieson, Robert Morris, Hari Balakrishnan, MIT, http://www.pdos.lcs.mit.edu/papers/span:wireless01 • Goal: preserve fairness and capacity while providing energy savings (minimize number of coordinators while still preserving network capacity). • Mechanism: elects coordinators to create backbone topology. • Limitation: Depends on ad-hoc routing protocol to get list of neighbors and connectivity matrix between them. • ASCENTAlberto Cerpa and Deborah Estrin, UCLA, http://lecs.cs.ucla.edu/~cerpa/ASCENT-final-infocom-pdf1.3.pdf • Goal: exploit the redundancy in the system (high density) to save energy while providing a topology that adapts to the application needs • Mechanism: empirical adaptation. Each node assesses its connectivity and adapts participation in multi-hop topology based on the measured operating region. • Limitation

24. Performance Results(From Chen et. al. simulations)

25. Performance Results(From Cerpa, Simulations and Implementation) Energy Savings (normalized to the Active case, all nodes turn on) as a function of density. ASCENT provides significant amount of energy savings, up to a factor of 5.5 for high density scenarios.

26. Programming Paradigm • How do we task a 1000+ node dynamic sensor network to conduct complex, long-lived queries and tasks ?? • Map isotherms and other “contours”, gradients, regions • Record images wherever acoustic signatures indicate significantly above-average species activity, and return with data on soil and air temperature and chemistry in vicinity of activity. • Mobilize robotic sample collector to region where soil chemistry and air chemistry have followed a particular temporal pattern and where the region presents different data than neighboring regions. • Pattern identification: how much can and should we do in a distributed manner?

27. Towards a Unified Framework for ENS • General theory of massively distributed systems that interface with the physical world • low power/untethered systems, scaling, heterogeneity, unattended operation, adaptation to varying environments • Programming the Collective • What local behaviors will result in global tasks • Programming model for instantiating local behavior and adaptation • Abstractions and interfaces that do not preclude efficiency • Large-scale experiments to challenge assumptions behind heuristics • Measurement tools • Data sets

28. Pulling it all together CENS Core Research Academic Disciplines Networking Communications Signal Processing Databases Embedded Systems Controls Optimization … Biology Geology Biochemistry Structural Engineering Education Environmental Engineering Adaptive Self-Configuration Collaborative Signal Processing and Active Databases Experimental Systems Sensor Coordinated Actuation Environmental Microsensors

29. Follow up • Embedded Everywhere: A Research Agenda for Networked Systems of Embedded Computers, Computer Science and Telecommunications Board, National Research Council - Washington, D.C., http://www.cstb.org/ • DARPA Programs • http://dtsn.darpa.mil/ixo/sensit.asp • http://www.darpa.mil/ito/research/nest/ • Related projects at UCLA and USC-ISI • http://cens.ucla.edu • http://lecs.cs.ucla.edu • http://www.isi.edu/scadds • Many other emerging, active research programs • UCB: Culler, Hellersein, BWRC, Sensorwebs, CITRIS • MIT: Chandrakasan, Balakrishnan • Cornell: Gherke, Wicker • Univ Washington: Boriello • UCSD: Cal-IT2