Inter-network Coexistence in the Internet of Things
draft-feeney-t2trg-inter-network-00
The information below is for an old version of the document |
Document |
Type |
|
Active Internet-Draft (individual)
|
|
Authors |
|
Laura Feeney
,
Viktoria Fodor
|
|
Last updated |
|
2017-07-03
|
|
Stream |
|
(None)
|
|
Intended RFC status |
|
(None)
|
|
Formats |
|
pdf
htmlized (tools)
htmlized
bibtex
|
Stream |
Stream state |
|
(No stream defined) |
|
Consensus Boilerplate |
|
Unknown
|
|
RFC Editor Note |
|
(None)
|
IESG |
IESG state |
|
I-D Exists
|
|
Telechat date |
|
|
|
Responsible AD |
|
(None)
|
|
Send notices to |
|
(None)
|
Network Working Group L. Feeney
Internet-Draft Uppsala University
Intended status: Informational V. Fodor
Expires: January 4, 2018 KTH
July 03, 2017
Inter-network Coexistence in the Internet of Things
draft-feeney-t2trg-inter-network-00
Abstract
The breadth of IoT applications implies that future wireless
environments will be characterized by the presence of many diverse,
administratively independent IoT networks operating in the same
physical location. In many cases, these networks will use unlicensed
spectrum, due to its low cost and ease of deployment. However, this
spectrum is becoming increasingly crowded. IoT networks will
therefore be subject to wireless interference, both from similar
networks and from networks that use the channel in very different
ways.
To date, there have been few studies or testbeds that fully reflect
this aspect of the future IoT operating environment. This document
describes some of the main issues in network co-existence in IoT
environments, focusing on protocol-level interactions. It identifies
two issues for the IRTF t2trg community. The first is to define best
practices for performance evaluation and protocol design in the
context of inter-network interference. The second is the potential
use of higher layer protocols to actively participate in interference
mitigation.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on January 4, 2018.
Feeney & Fodor Expires January 4, 2018 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft inter-network coexistence July 2017
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. IoT interference challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1. Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2. Independence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.3. Battery lifetime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.4. Resource constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.5. Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Interaction behaviors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Network co-existence in the IRTF/IETF context . . . . . . . . 6
4.1. Responding to link layer evolution . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.2. Protocol evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4.3. Active mitigation strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
6. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
7. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1. Introduction
An enormous range of IoT applications are expected to become
pervasive in daily life. Networks will be installed in public
spaces, businesses, and residences by a wide range of individual,
commercial, and government actors. This means that there will be
many diverse, administratively independent networks operating in the
same physical location. For example, a future home environment may
include IoT applications for security, heating and cooling, elder
care, air quality monitoring, personal health and fitness, smart home
Show full document text