how to disrupt the internet of things with unified networking
Post on 16-Apr-2017
6.894 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Low Power Local Area Network Connectivity, circa 2014
“IoT 1.0”
One-way data: endpoint is slave to edge AP
Short Range, Poor Signal Penetration
Devices are either mains-powered or “dumb”
Targeting home automation, wearables
Weak Security Features
High data latency: connect to proxy, not sensor data
Non-real-time, high latency
Large Memory Footprint
Low Power Local Area Network Connectivity, circa 2014
One-way data: endpoint is slave to edge AP
Short Range, Poor Signal Penetration
Devices are either mains-powered or “dumb”
Targeting home automation, wearables
Weak Security Features
High data latency: connect to proxy, not sensor data
Non-real-time, high latency
Large Memory Footprint
“IoT 1.0”
Bluetooth LE is the only major success story here, but BLE is a personal area network protocol, not a local area network protocol
4
up to 30 Miles
Long Range / “LPWAN”
30 feet 3 miles300 feet
Medium Range
Today: New Opportunities with Low Power Wide Area Networks
Short Range / “LPLAN”
NB-IoT
5
up to 30 Miles
Long Range / “LPWAN”
30 feet 3 miles300 feet
Medium Range
NB-IoT
Today: New Opportunities with Low Power Wide Area Networks
Short Range / “LPLAN”
Key features: long range, multi-year battery life, cellular network model, large number of devices per cell
6
up to 30 Miles
Long Range / “LPWAN”
30 feet 3 miles300 feet
Medium Range
We Believe LPWAN’s Will Eventually Overtake Most Low Power IoT Implementations
Short Range / “LPLAN”
NB-IoT
7
We Believe LPWAN’s Will Eventually Dominate Most Low Power IoT Implementations
If better range and indoor coverage are effectively “free”, with no sacrifice in performance, battery life, or device cost, then why would you continue to rely on outdated LPLAN technologies?
8
LPLAN’s Usually Offer Two Distinguishing Features
Requirement LPLAN LPWAN
Multi-year Battery Life ✓ ✓Low Cost (sub-$5) Devices ✓ ✓Indoor Location Precision ✓ ❌
Mesh Networking ✓ ❌
(ZigBee, Thread, 6lowPAN, et al) (LoRa, SigFox, NB-IoT)
9
Requirement LPLAN LPWAN
Multi-year Battery Life ✓ ✓Low Cost (sub-$5) Devices ✓ ✓Indoor Location Precision ✓ ❌
Mesh Networking ✓ ❌
(ZigBee, Thread, 6lowPAN, et al) (LoRa, SigFox, NB-IoT)
LPLAN’s Usually Offer Two Distinguishing Features
By solving for these two features, LPWAN’s can substitute for most or all of today’s LPLAN technologies
10
Requirement LPLAN LPWAN
Multi-year Battery Life ✓ ✓Low Cost (sub-$5) Devices ✓ ✓Indoor Location Precision ✓ ❌
Mesh Networking ✓ ❌
(ZigBee, Thread, 6lowPAN, et al) (LoRa, SigFox, NB-IoT)
LPLAN’s Usually Offer Two Distinguishing Features
We Can Bridge The Gap Between These Two Classes To Bring Us Closer to Unified
Connectivity
11
One-way data: endpoint is slave to edge AP
Poor spectrum management
No indoor location capability
No multi-hop or mesh networking
Weak security features
High data latency, connect to proxy
Fully bi-directional “pull” and “push”
Better spectrum management/throughput
Real-time indoor location to 1m precision
Multi-hop, Mesh, P2P, & Ad Hoc networking
Stronger security features
Low Latency, real-time data access
LPWAN 1.0 LPWAN + LPLAN via Haystack
Getting To Unified Connectivity
Good battery life Better battery life
13
AP 1. Access point keeps network synchronized, and gets vertex
data from users in the area
Endpoint 2. Endpoints are mobile, battery-powered devices
3. Small battery or USB-powered
“reference nodes” are placed on fixed
things & places
14
AP
Today, no LPWAN or NB-IoT technology offers a high-precision, real time, indoor location capability on its own.
But Haystack does this.
Endpoint
Using RSSI & RF “fingerprinting” with scattered reference nodes: ±1m precision has been observed
16
Traditional Mesh Networking
Older IoT technologies sometimes use “meshing” to enable endpoints to “daisy chain” themselves together so that access points that are otherwise o b s t r u c t e d b y w a l l s , ceilings, and other forms of interference can be reached by endpoints.
AP
Endpoints
17
Traditional Mesh Networking
Meshing is used by technologies like ZigBee but over surprisingly short distances, due primarily to the poor choice of RF frequency used by ZigBee and others like Thread.
AP
First Hop
Second Hop
18
LPWAN Mesh Networking With Haystack
AP
APAP
AP
AP AP AP
AP
Long-range LPWAN networks are very similar to cellular networks where long range, good signal propagation …
19
Mesh Networking With Haystack
AP
APAP
AP
AP AP AP
AP
… and overlapping access points reduce the need for meshing or hopping. Where required, we can still mesh endpoints together to ensure messages reach an alternate
access point in the event of an access point failure …
20
Mesh Networking With Haystack
AP
APAP
AP
AP AP AP
AP
… where data “hops” to one or more endpoints before being accessed by an alternate access point
“Orphaned” Endpoint
“Meshed” Endpoint
21
Mesh Networking With Haystack
AP
APAP
AP
AP AP AP
AP “Orphaned” Endpoint
“Meshed” Endpoint
Today, no LPWAN or NB-IoT technology offers mesh or multi-hop endpoint routing on its own.
But Haystack does it. In real-time.
23
OSI Layer
7 Application AllJoyn + OIC + NDEF + UDP
6 Presentation
DASH7 Corelow power low latency
low cost
5 Session
4 Transport
3 Network
2 Data Link
1 Physical Various Options
One Stack = LPWAN + LPLAN
‣ Operates across LPWAN technologies like LoRa, NB-IoT ‣ Real-time indoor location to 1 meter precision ‣ Excellent P2P, ad hoc, multi-hop networking features ‣ Excellent range and signal propagation, up to 20 miles ‣ 10+ year battery life ‣ Excellent in dense-packed endpoint environments ‣ Operates in unlicensed and licensed spectrum ‣ Low latency, real-time queries ‣ Secure device discovery and other unique security and
authentication features ‣ Enhances performance of most LPWAN technologies
OSI Layer
7 Application AllJoyn, Others AllJoyn, Others AllJoyn, Others AllJoyn, Others AllJoyn, Others AllJoyn, Others
6 Presentation
5 Session Partial Definition
4 Transport Partial Definition
3 Network Partial Definition
2 Data Link Partial Definition
1 Physical “PHY”
LoRa @ 169 - 960 MHz
Various @ 315 - 930 MHz
Various LTE Bands
Various @ 27 - 1025 MHz RPMA @ 2.4 GHz SigFox @ 900,
868 MHz
Example LPWAN PHY’s
24
NB-IoT
Deploying LPLAN Capabilities Across Multiple LPWAN Technologies
25
Haystack Endpoints with LoRa LoRa and LoRaWAN can operate concurrently with DASH7
Semtech LoRa Transceiver
Compact, low cost,
low-power WAN/LAN
nodes
OSI Layer
7 Application AllJoyn + OIC + NDEF + UDP
6 PresentationDASH7low power low latency ad-hoc star
LoRaWAN low power
high latency cellular WAN
5 Session
4 Transport
3 Network
2 Data Link + Adaptive RS Encoding
1 Physical LoRa CSS
The DASH7 stack can run concurrently with LoRaWAN, on the same hardware, allowing compliant LoRaWAN interoperation alongside higher-throughput, low latency Haystack DASH7 LAN usage.
26
Haystack Endpoints with NB-IoT Emerging LTE Cat NB1 PHY requirements fit neatly with Haystack capabilities
OSI Layer
7 Application NDEF + UDP/IP + Custom
6 PresentationDASH7 Core
low power low latency
low cost ad-hoc and WAN capable
5 Session
4 Transport
3 Network
2 Data Link
1 Physical MSK Downlink, OFDM uplink NB-IoT/LTE Cat NB1 transceiver
Compact, low cost,
low-power LTE-Cat-NB1/
LAN nodes
NB-IoT/LTE Cat NB1 spec presently lacks layers 2-6, but it stipulates requirements for channel agility and bursty communication.
Haystack DASH7 is the most suitable IoT stack for these requirements.
27
Requirement 6lowPAN LoRaWAN Actility Linklabs
Provide Robust Networking Features ✓ Some Some Some ✓
Real-Time Data Collection ❌ ❌ ❌ ❌ ✓Preserve or Improve
Long Range Messaging ❌ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓Provide Maximum Practical
Security & PrivacySome ❌ ❌ ❌ ✓
Preserve or Improve Battery Life ❌ ❌ ❌ Some ✓
How LPWAN Stacks Compare
Supply Chain
Customer: Leading white goods manufacturer
Requirement: Track location and environmental condition of inventory in warehouse as well as wide area outdoor environments to reduce warranty claims and other shrinkage.
Heavy Industrial
Customer: Leading US-based diversified industrial
Requirement: Track location of customer assets - indoors and outdoors - in real-time as part of a new, aftermarket asset tracking service
Defense & Homeland Security
Customer: Leading US-based defense contractor
Requirement: Monitor location of contractors in and around sensitive facilities.
32
Customer: US-based health insurer
Requirement: Low cost indoor and metro-area tracking and monitoring of portable IT assets, including BYOD assets with PHI and PII data.
Health Care
33
Customer: Global real estate management firm
Requirement: Monitor and track a wide range of assets being managed for Fortune 1000 clients (cleaning equipment, master keychains, IT assets, outdoor maintenance equipment, etc.) in both indoor and outdoor environments.
Real Estate
34
Contact: Patrick Burns pat@haystacktechnologies.com (650) 315-3026
More Resources: • www.haystacktechnologies.com •The Indoor-Outdoor IoT http://bit.ly/2b65gRQ •Haystack’s open source firmware stack: http://bit.ly/1p5OjJg •The IoT Hunger Games http://bit.ly/1IkYRtO
top related