A software-defined networking framework for IoT based on 6LoWPAN

Jurado-Lasso, F. Fernando; Clarke, Ken; Nirmalathas, Ampalavanapillai

doi:10.1109/wts.2018.8363938

Cited by 14 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, we propose here a software-defined wireless sensor networks (SD-WSNs) management system that brings the flexibility to manage and reprogram the data plane using 6LoWPAN technology. This work differs from existing solutions, and that first introduced in [8], by providing the following novel features: (i) a complete description and implementation of the communication protocols between planes, (ii) use of an operating system, (iii) a control plane able to reconfigure the network topology, vary the transmission power of nodes, and handle task requests, (iv) an application plane having management software to provide secure access and network information and, lastly, (v) an experimental performance comparison with the RPL protocol, the routing protocol of choice for IoT. The aim of this paper is to demonstrate the benefits and impacts of removing the process-intensive and energy-consuming functions from the 6LoWPAN protocol stack and adding a management system to the wireless network infrastructure.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 89%

“…In this work, we first review previous research efforts in SD-WSNs, before we then describe extensions to our previous work done in [8] to further improve a novel and practical software-defined management system for IP-enabled WSNs. This is achieved in several ways: (i) the packet format has been altered to avoid fragmentation due to large overheads, (ii) the application layer has been incorporated into the scheme to establish the northbound API which enables communications with the control plane, (iii) we have set up a practical evaluation scenario to test our SDN approach and, (iv) a performance comparison, in terms of round trip time (RTT), Jitter, Packet Loss Rate (PLR) and memory consumption between our SDN approach and the IETF RPL (IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks) routing protocol [9] is presented .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Software-Defined Management System for IP-Enabled WSNs

Jurado-Lasso

Clarke

Nirmalathas

2020

IEEE Systems Journal

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Software-defined networking (SDN) offers potential pathways to overcome the management complexity of the Internet of Things (IoT). Previous studies have often been limited to software simulations or general proposals only. In this work, we design and evaluate an SDN-based management system for Wireless Sensor Networks (WSNs) using IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPAN). The framework is described in detail covering different data-, control-and application-plane implementations, and includes a novel addressing scheme and packet format. It also uses a centralized routing protocol, located at the SDN controller, based on the shortest path algorithm. We compare our approach with the routing protocol for low-power and lossy networks (RPL), which uses a distributed routing protocol. Hardware tests were carried out in a dynamic environment, with multiple sources of interference for different payload sizes to evaluate the impacts and practicality of SDN in WSNs. The performance comparison shows that the proposed SDN management system for IP-enabled WSNs using a centralized routing protocol outperforms the RPL protocol in terms of round-trip time (RTT), jitter, memory consumption, and packet loss rate (PLR), despite the control overhead introduced.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 89%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Software-Defined Management System for IP-Enabled WSNs

Jurado-Lasso

Clarke

Nirmalathas

2020

IEEE Systems Journal

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The optimal timing for NC packets is still an open research question; however, a small NC period will tend to increase the control overhead and prevent sensor network stabilization, whereas a large NC period will hamper the prompt balancing of energy across the network. Therefore, we use a compromise period (≈ 5 times ND) as used in [7], [18]. The controller is embedded in the WiSMote node (sink) and the placement of the controller directly affects the WSN performance.…”

Section: A Simulation Setupmentioning

confidence: 99%

Energy-Aware Routing for Software-Defined Multihop Wireless Sensor Networks

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we propose an energy-aware routing algorithm and a control overhead reduction technique for prolonging the network lifetime of software-defined multihop wireless sensor networks (SDWSNs). This is an effort to optimize the energy consumption of WSNs that provide services to the Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT). A centralized controller grants a global view of the sensor network by introducing extra control overhead in the network, but this leads to extra energy costs. However, our new algorithm takes advantage of this global view and balances the network energy by selecting paths with the highest remaining energy level among multiple paths for each sensor node. We also identify key functions draining energy from the SDWSN and minimize their impact by implementing a data packet aggregation function, and minimizing the control overhead by keeping track of the sensor nodes' routing tables using a simple checksum function. We show that the proposed approach prolongs the network lifetime of the WSN by 6.5% on average compared to the standard shortest-path algorithm, and that the control overhead is reduced by approximately 12% while still maintaining a very high packet delivery ratio.

show abstract

“…The recent evolutions in the wireless domain with the goal of integrating SDN and IoT are discussed in a number of previous studies (El-Mougy et al, 2015;Lasso et al, 2018;Jian et al, 2017;Anadiotis et al, 2019). However, there are many fundamental issues of what SDN indicates when it comes to low-power sensor networks such as IEEE 802.15.4, which is allowed to serve key enablers for the IoT in the near future.…”

Section: Sdn For Wireless Networkmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The aim of their system is to increase the elasticity of the network and provide realization of network programmability. Lasso et al (2018) proposed a software-defined wireless sensor network architecture based on 6LoWPAN networks (SD-WSN6LO). Two main components were introduced in the framework, namely an SDN sensor node and SDN controller node.…”

Section: Sdn For Wireless Networkmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Downside of Software-Defined Networking in Wireless Network

Saleh

qadir

2020

UKH J SCI ENG

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mobile traffic volumes have grown exponentially because of the increase in services and applications. Traditional networks are complex to manage because the forwarding, control, and management planes are all bundled together and, thus, administrators are supposed to deploy high-level policies, as each vendor has its own configuration methods. Software-Defined Networking (SDN) is considered the future paradigm of communication networks. It decouples control logic from its underlying hardware, thereby promoting logically centralized network control and making the network more programmable and easy to configure. Low-power wireless technologies are moving toward a multitenant and multiapplication Internet of Things (IoT), which requires an architecture with scalable, reliable, and configured solutions. However, employing an SDN-based centralized architecture in the environment of a low-power wireless IoT network introduces significant challenges, such as difficult-to-control traffic, unreliable links, network contention, and high associated overheads that can significantly affect the performance of the network. This paper is a contribution toward a performance evaluation for the use of SDN in wireless networking by evaluating the latency, packet drop ratio (PDR), data extraction rate (DER), and overheads. The results show that SDN adds a high percentage of overheads to the network, which is about 43% of the 57% user packets, and the DER drops when the number of mesh nodes are increased, in addition to the high loss that was observed for packets that traveled over more hops.

show abstract

A software-defined networking framework for IoT based on 6LoWPAN

Cited by 14 publications

References 22 publications

A Software-Defined Management System for IP-Enabled WSNs

A Software-Defined Management System for IP-Enabled WSNs

Energy-Aware Routing for Software-Defined Multihop Wireless Sensor Networks

The Downside of Software-Defined Networking in Wireless Network

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About