Wireless Sensor Networks and the Internet of Things: Selected Challenges

Delphine Christin, Andreas Reinhardt, Parag S. Mogre, Ralf Steinmetz

Multimedia Communications Lab, Technische Universit at Darmstadt Merckstr. 25, 64283 Darmstadt, Germany {delphine.christin, andreas.reinhardt, parag.mogre, ralf.steinmetz}@kom.tu-darmstadt.de

AbstractWireless sensor networks (WSNs) are increasingly gaining impact in our day to day lives. They are nding a wide range of applications in various domains, including health-care, assisted and enhanced-living scenarios, industrial and production monitoring, control networks, and many other elds. In future, WSNs are expected to be integrated into the Internet of Things, where sensor nodes join the Internet dynamically, and use it to collaborate and accomplish their tasks. However, when WSNs become a part of the Internet, we must carefully investigate and analyze the issues involved with this integration. In this paper, we evaluate different approaches to integrate WSNs into the Internet and outline a set of challenges, which we target to address in the near future.

II. S ELECTED WSN A PPLICATIONS The wide wireless sensor network application eld can be divided into three main categories according to [3]: Monitoring space, monitoring objects and monitoring interactions between objects and space. The proposed classication can be extended by an additional category monitoring human beings. One example of the rst category is environmental monitoring. WSNs are deployed in particular environments including glaciers [4], forests [3], and mountains [5] in order to gather environmental parameters during long periods. Temperature, moisture or light sensor readings allow analyzing environmental phenomena, such as the inuence of climate change on rock fall in permafrost areas [5]. The second category centers on observing particular objects. Structural monitoring is one of the possible illustrations of this category. By sensing modes of vibration, acoustic emissions and responses to stimuli, mechanical modications of bridges [6] or buildings [7] indicating potential breakages of the structure may be detected. Monitoring interaction between objects and space is the combination of both previous categories and includes monitoring environmental threats like oods [8] and volcanic activities [9]. Presenting an extension to the presented classication, the last category focuses on monitoring human beings. Worn close to the body, the deployed sensors can gather acceleration information and physiological parameters like heart beat rate. Especially in applications in the medical area, such deployments may help diagnosing bipolar patients [10] and monitoring elderly people in a home care scenario [11]. The proposed classication, and particularly the selected deployments, illustrate the high diversity of WSN applications in term of monitored subjects and environments. Benecial for the Internet of Things, this important scenario diversity must however be taken into account by considering suitable approaches for the WSN integration into the Internet. III. I NTEGRATION A PPROACHES Connecting WSNs to the Internet is possible in the three main approaches mentioned by [12], differing from the WSN integration degree into the Internet structure. Currently adopted by most of the WSNs accessing the Internet, and

I. I NTRODUCTION The future Internet, designed as an Internet of Things is foreseen to be a world-wide network of interconnected objects uniquely addressable, based on standard communication protocols [1]. Identied by a unique address, any object including computers, sensors, RFID tags or mobile phones will be able to dynamically join the network, collaborate and cooperate efciently to achieve different tasks. Including WSNs in such a scenario will open new perspectives. Covering a wide application eld, WSNs can play an important role by collecting surrounding context and environment information. However, deploying WSNs congured to access the Internet raises novel challenges, which need to be tackled before taking advantage of the many benets of such integration. The main contributions of this paper can be summarized as follows: We look at WSNs and the Internet holistically, in line with the vision where WSNs will be a part of an Internet of Things. Thereby, we identify representative application scenarios for WSNs (see Section II) from the multidimensional WSN design space [2], in order to obtain insights into issues involved with the integration. These representative application scenarios open up different schemes for integrating the WSNs into the Internet, which we present and compare in Section III. A closer investigation of the integration possibilies then helps us identify critical challenges (see Section IV), which need to be addressed if the full potential of the integration of WSNs and the Internet has to be realized. Finally, in Section V we summarize our discussion, giving pointers for possible solutions to address the identied challenges while regarding the resource limitations present in common WSN nodes.

31

presenting the highest abstraction between networks, the rst proposed approach (Fig. 1) consists of connecting both independent WSN and the Internet through a single gateway.

WSN WSN WSN

G G G

G G G

Gateway Gateway Gateway

Internet Internet Internet

Showing an the second Showing an increasing integration degree, the second Showing(Fig.2) an increasing degree, the second apapproach forms a integration hybrid network composed of both Showing an integration degree, the but second approach (Fig.2) forms hybrid network composed of both considered network structure remaining independent, few proach (Fig. 2)increasing forms aa hybrid network, still composed of approach (Fig.2) forms a hybrid network composed ofaccess both considered network structure remaining independent, but few dual sensor nodes can access the Internet. independent networks, where few dual sensor nodes can considered structure remaining dual sensor network nodes can access the Internet.independent, but few the Internet. dual sensor nodes can access the Internet. WSN WSN WSN G G G G G G G G G

Figure Independent network Fig. 1. 1: Independent network Figure 1: Independent network Figure 1: Independent network increasing integration degree,

G G G

Gateway Gateway Sensor node Gateway Sensor node Sensor node

Internet Internet Internet

Illustrated by Fig.3, from current Illustrated by Fig.3, theforms last approach inspired access from current WLAN structure and a denseis802.15.4 point Illustrated Fig. 3,last theapproach last approach is inspired from Illustrated byby Fig.3, the inspired from current WLAN and forms a nodes denseis 802.15.4 access point network,structure where multiple sensor can join the Internet in current WLAN structure and forms a dense 802.15.4 access WLAN structure and forms a dense 802.15.4 access point network, one hop. where multiple sensor nodes can join the Internet in point network, sensor can join the network, where where multiplemultiple sensor nodes cannodes join the Internet in one hop. Internet in one hop. one hop. WSN WSN WSN G G G

Figure 2: Hybrid network Fig. 2. 2: Hybrid network Figure Hybrid network Figure 2: approach Hybrid network the last is inspired

G G G

G G G

Gateway Gateway Gateway Gateway Sensor node Gateway Gateway Sensor node Sensor node

Internet Internet Internet

However, the point of failure However, first approach presents a single point of failure due to thethe gateway uniqueness. Gateway dysfunction would However, first approach a presents single point of failure due to obvious thethe gateway uniqueness. Gateway dysfunction would break down the connection between both WSN and the It is that the rst presents approach a single point due to down the gateway uniqueness. Gateway dysfunction would break the between both and the Internet networks. With several gateways andWSN access points, of failure due to theconnection gateway uniqueness. Gateway dysfunction break down the connection between both WSN and the Internet networks. With several gateways andsuch access points, the second and third scenarios do not present weakness. Internet networks. With several gateways andsuch access points, the second and third scenarios do not present weakness. the second and third scenarios do not present such weakness.

Figure 3: Access point network Figure 3: Access point network Fig. 3. 3: Access point network network Access point first Figure approach presents a single

would break down the connection between both WSN and the Internet. With several gateways and access points, the second and third scenarios do not present such weakness. To ensure network robustness, they would consequently be preferred, if Ensuring network robustness, they consequently the application supports this type of would network structure. be Ensuring network robustness, they would consequently be preferred. The choice between both remaining integration approaches Ensuring network they integration would consequently preferred. The choice betweenrobustness, both remaining approaches be is is inuenced by the WSN application scenario. Allowing preferred. The choice between remaining integration approaches is influenced by the both WSN application scenario. Allowing to cover important distances, the second second approach canbe be The choice between both remaining integration approaches is influenced by the distances, WSN application scenario. Allowing covering important the approach can envisaged for organized mesh topology. Accordinfluencedimportant by the WSN application Allowing covering distances, theinsecond approach can be envisaged forWSNs WSNs organized inscenario. mesh topology. covering important distances, theparticularly second can ingly, this approach would be adapted to be deenvisaged for organized in approach mesh topology. Accordingly, this WSNs approach would be particularly adapted to envisaged for WSNs organized in mesh topology. ployments belonging to the rst Monitoring space and the Accordingly, this approach would be particularly adapted to deployments belonging to the first monitoring space and the Accordingly, this approach would be particularly adapted to second Monitoring interactions between objects and space deployments belonging to the first monitoring space and the second monitoring interactions between objects and space deployments belonging to the first monitoring space and the second monitoring interactions between objects and space categories previously introduced in the theproposed proposed application categories previously introduced in application second monitoring interactions between objects and space categories previously introduced in the proposed application classification. By Internet access in the third classication. By offering offering Internet access inone-hop, one-hop, the third categories previously introduced in the application classification. By offering Internet access in one-hop, the requirthird and lastapproach approach can be adopted byproposed WSN applications and last can be adopted by WSN applications classification. offeringand Internet access in one-hop, the third and last latency approach be adopted WSN applications requiring lowBy latency therefore direct connections. ing low andcan therefore direct by connections. Presenting and last approach can be adopted by WSN applications requiring latency and therefore direct connections. Presenting mainly star WSNs topology, concerned WSNs can mainly starlow topologies, can the maintain such organization requiring low latency and by therefore direct connections. Presenting mainly star topology, the concerned WSNs can conserve such organization having a central gateway by having a central gateway instead of a common base station Presenting mainly star topology, the concerned WSNs can conserve such organization by having a central gateway instead of a common base station without Internet access. By without Internet access. By by considering the previous WSN conserve such organization having a central gateway instead of a the common base station without Internet access. this By considering previous WSN application classification, application this third approach canaccess. be suitable instead of a classication, common station without By considering the previous WSN application classification, this third approach can bebase suitable for objects Internet and human beings for monitoring of be object andfor human beings, and [10-11] may be considering the can previous WSN application classification, this third approach suitable objects and human beings monitoring and may be employed in the [6-7] and employed in the [6], [7], [10], [11] deployments for example. third approach can be suitable for objects and human beings monitoring and may be employed in the [6-7] and [10-11] deployments for example. monitoring and may be employed in integration the [6-7] and [10-11] It is important to remark that both second and third indeployments for example. Nevertheless, both second and third approaches deployments for example. tegration approaches only and support static network conguraNevertheless, both second third integration support only static network configuration. Indeed,approaches each new Nevertheless, both second and third integration tions. Indeed, each new device wanting to join approaches the Internet support only static network configuration. Indeed, each new device wanting to join the Internet requires time-consuming support only static network configuration. Indeed, each new device wanting to join the Internet requires time-consuming requires time-consuming gateway reprogramming. Therefore, gateway reprogramming. Therefore, the flexibility wanted by device wanting to join the Internet requires time-consuming gateway reprogramming. Therefore, the flexibility wanted by the exibility future Internet of the Tings cannot be achieved by cannot both the wanted by the future Internet of Things gateway reprogramming. the flexibility wanted by the future Internet ofapproaches the Therefore, Tings be achieved by both approaches in their current form. cannot be achieved by both in their current form. the future the Internet of the Tings cannot be achieved by both approaches in their current form. ToTo fulfill flexibility expectation, adopting the IP to the fulll the exibility expectation, adopting the IP to the approaches in their current form. To fulfill the flexibility expectation, adopting the IP to the Field paradigm [13] be In Field paradigm [13] may may be appropriate. appropriate. Inthe theconsidered considered To fulfill the flexibility expectation, adopting the IP to the Field paradigm [13] may be appropriate. In the considered paradigm, sensor nodes are expected to be intelligent network paradigm, sensor [13] nodes are be expected to be In intelligent network Field paradigm may appropriate. considered paradigm, sensor nodes are be intelligent network components, which will no expected more be to limited tothe sensing tasks. components, which willare no more beto limited to sensing tasks. paradigm, sensor nodes be sensor intelligent network components, which will no expected more be to sensing tasks. By transferring the intelligence to limited the nodes, the By transferring the intelligence to the sensor nodes, the gatecomponents, which will no more be limited to sensing tasks. By transferring the intelligence the sensor nodes, and the gateways functionalities would be to restricted to repetition ways functionalities would bebe restricted to forwarding and By transferring the Consequently, intelligence to the sensor nodes, and the gateways functionalities would restricted to repetition protocol translation. gateway reprogramming protocol translation. Consequently, gateway reprogramming gateways functionalities would be restricted to repetition and protocol translation. Consequently, gateway reprogramming operations would no more be required and dynamic network protocol translation. Consequently, gateway reprogramming operations would no more be required required anddynamic dynamic network operations would no more be and network configuration could be attained. Additionally, this intelligence operations would no more be required and dynamic conguration could be attained. Additionally, thisnetwork shift of configuration could be attained. Additionally, this geographicintelligence transfer will open new perspectives including configuration could attained. Additionally, this geographicintelligence intelligence open new perspectives including geographictransfer willwill open new perspectives including based addressing forbe example. transfer will open new perspectives including geographicbased addressing for example. based addressing for example. NTELLIGENT IV. I based addressing for example. SENSOR CHALLENGES S ENSOR C IV.introduced INTELLIGENT IV. HALLENGES FOR WSN S IN AN IHALLENGES NTERNET OF T HINGS The C formerly IP to the Field paradigm involves SENSOR CHALLENGES IV. INTELLIGENT The formerly introduced IP to to the Field involves assigning additional responsibilities to paradigm sensor nodes in The formerly introduced IP the Field paradigm involves The formerly introduced IP to the Field involves assigning additional responsibilities to paradigm sensor nodes in addition to their usual sensing functionality. To highlight and assigning additional responsibilities to sensor nodes in addition assigning additional responsibilities to sensor nodes in addition to their usual sensing functionality. To highlight and discuss the challenges emerging from such novel to their usual sensing functionality. To highlight and discuss addition to their usual sensing functionality. To highlight and discuss the assignment, challenges we emerging from potential such novel responsibility selected tasks the challenges emerging from such novelthree responsibility assigndiscuss the assignment, challenges emerging from such novel responsibility we selected three potential tasks that the sensor nodes would have to accomplish: security and ment, we selected three potential tasks that the sensor tasks nodes responsibility assignment, we selected three potential that the sensor nodes would have to accomplish: security and quality of service management, and network configuration. would to nodes accomplish: Security and configuration. quality of service that thehave sensor would have to accomplish: security and quality of service management, and network A. Security (QoS) management, and network quality of service management, andconguration. network configuration. A. common Security WSNs without Internet access, the sensor nodes In A. Security Security A. In common WSNs Internet access, may already playwithout an important role the to sensor ensure nodes data In common WSNs without Internet access, the sensor nodes may already play an important role tothe ensure data confidentiality, integrity, availability and authentication In common WSNs without Internet access, sensor nodes may already play an important role to ensure data confidentiality, integrity, availability and authentication depending on the application sensitivity. However, the current may already play an important role to ensure data condentialconfidentiality, integrity, availability and authentication depending on the application sensitivity. However, the current identified attack scenarios require a physical presence near the ity, integrity, availability and authentication depending on the depending on the application sensitivity. However, the current identified attack scenarios require a physical presence near the targeted WSN in order to jam, capture or introduce malicious application sensitivity. However, the current identied attack identified attack require a physical presence near the targeted WSN inscenarios order to jam, capture or introduce malicious nodes for example. By opening WSNs to scenarios require a physical presence near theInternet, targeted such WSN targeted WSN in order tono jam, capture or introduce nodes for example. By opening WSNs to Internet, such location proximity will more be required and malicious attackers in order to jam, capture or introduce malicious nodes for nodes for example. By no opening WSNs to Internet, such location proximity will more be required and attackers would be able to threaten WSNs from everywhere. location will no more be everywhere. required and attackers would be proximity able to threaten WSNs from would be able to threaten WSNs from everywhere.

32

example. By opening WSNs to Internet, such location proximity will no more be required and attackers would be able to threaten WSNs from everywhere. In addition to this novel location diversity, WSNs may have to address new threats like malware introduced by the Internet connection and evolving with the attacker creativity. Most current WSNs connected to the Internet are protected by a central and unique powerful gateway ensuring efcient protection. However, a direct reuse of such existing security mechanisms is made impossible by the scarce energy, memory, and computational resources of the sensor nodes. In fact, common Mica2 motes offer 7.3 MHz 8-bit microcontrollers with 128 Kbytes of reprogrammable ash memory, 4 Kbytes of RAM and 4 Kbytes of EEPROM [14]. At last, many services on the Internet make use of cryptography with large key lengths such as RSA-1024, which are not currently supported by sensor nodes. Consequently, innovative security mechanisms must be developed according to the resource constraints to protect WSNs from novel attacks originating from the Internet. B. Quality of Service With gateways acting only as repeater and protocol translators, sensor nodes are also expected to contribute to quality of service management by optimizing the resource utilization of all heterogeneous devices that are part of the future Internet of Things. Not considered as a weakness, the device heterogeneity opens new perspectives in terms of workload distribution. In fact, resource differences may be exploited to share the current workload between nodes offering available resources. Improving the QoS, such collaborative work is consequently promising for mechanisms requiring high amount of resources like security mechanisms. Nevertheless, the existing approaches ensuring QoS in the Internet are not applicable in WSNs, as sudden changes in the link characteristics can lead to signicant reconguration of the WSN topology. It is therefore mandatory to nd novel approaches towards ensuring delay and loss guarantees. C. Conguration In addition to security and QoS management, sensor nodes can also be required to control the WSN conguration, which includes covering different tasks, such as address administration to ensure scalable network constructions and ensuring self-healing capabilities by detecting and eliminating faulty nodes or managing their own conguration. However, selfconguration of participating nodes is not a common feature in the Internet. Instead, the user is expected to install applications and recover the system from crashes. In contrast, the unattended operation of autonomous sensor nodes requires novel means of network conguration and management. V. C ONCLUSION In this rst analysis step to integrate WSNs into the Internet of Things, we have considered selected application scenarios

presenting a high diversity in terms of monitored subjects and environments. By taking into account their main characteristics, we have analyzed three integration approaches and demonstrated that they were inappropriate in their current state to allow sensor nodes joining dynamically the Internet of Things. We consider applying the IP to the Field paradigm, which implies assigning additional responsibilities to the sensor nodes as an adequate solution to integrate WSNs with the Internet. We have selected three important task assignments in order to highlight the challenges emerging from the paradigm adoption: Security, QoS, and conguration management. Their analysis revealed that the solutions currently deployed in the Internet are not suitable for the limited sensor node resources and consequently, novel mechanisms have to be developed to adapt to the capabilities and constraints of WSNs. We plan to investigate existing approaches and nd suitable modications for resource-constrained sensor platforms to tackle these challenges. ACKNOWLEDGMENT This work was supported by CASED (www.cased.de). The authors would like to thank Matthias Hollick for the fruitful discussions. R EFERENCES
[1] Internet of Things in 2020: Roadmap for the Future, 2008, online, http://www.smart-systems-integration.org/public/internet-of-things. [2] K. R omer and F. Mattern, The Design Space of Wireless Sensor Networks, Wireless Communications, IEEE, vol. 11, no. 6, 2004. [3] D. Culler, D. Estrin, and M. Srivastava, Guest Editors Introduction: Overview of Sensor Networks, vol. 37, no. 8, 2004. [4] K. Martinez, R. Ong, and J. Hart, Glacsweb: a Sensor Network for Hostile Environments, in Proceedings of the Sensor and Ad Hoc Communications and Networks Conference (SECON), 2004. [5] I. Talzi, A. Hasler, S. Gruber, and C. Tschudin, PermaSense: investigating permafrost with a WSN in the Swiss Alps, in Proceedings of the workshop on Embedded networked sensors (EmNets), 2007. [6] R. Lee, K. Chen, S. Chiang, C. Lai, H. Liu, and M.-S. Wei, A Backup Routing with Wireless Sensor Network for Bridge Monitoring System, in Proceedings of the Communication Networks and Services Research Conference(CNSR), 2006. [7] P. Katsikogiannis, E. Zervas, and G. Kaltsas, A Wireless Sensor Network for Building Structural Health Monitoring and Seismic Detection, physica status solidi (c), vol. 5, 2008. [8] D. Hughes, G. Blair, G. Coulson, P. Greenwood, B. Porter, P. Smith, and K. Beven, An Adaptable WSN-based Flood Monitoring System, in Proceedings of the European Conference on Smart Sensing and Context (EuroSSC), 2007. [9] W. Werner-Allen, K. Lorincz, M. Ruiz, O. Marcillo, J. Johnson, J. Lees, and M. Welsh, Deploying a Wireless Sensor Network on an Active Volcano, IEEE Internet Computing, vol. 10, no. 2, 2006. [10] M. H. Teicher, Actigraphy and Motion Analysis: New Tools for Psychiatry, Harvard Review of Psychiatry, vol. 3, 1995. [11] A. Wood, G. Virone, T. Doan, Q. Cao, L. Selavo, Y. Wu, L. Fang, Z. He, S. Lin, and J. Stankovic, ALARM-NET: Wireless Sensor Networks for Assisted-living and Residential Monitoring, 2006. [12] R. Roman and J. Lopez, Integrating Wireless Sensor Networks and the Internet: a Security Analysis, Internet Research: Electronic Networking Applications and Policy, vol. 19, no. 2, 2009. [13] Smart Energy Alliance, online, http://www.smart-energyalliance.com/solutions/ip-to-the-eld/. [14] Crossbow Technology, online, http://www.xbow.com.

33