Geneva, Switzerland, 18 February 2014 Lightweight Architecture and Protocols for the Internet of Things Laurent TOUTAIN, Associate Professor, IMT/Télécom Bretagne ITU Workshop on the “Internet of Things - Trend and Challenges in Standardization” (Geneva, Switzerland, 18 February 2014)

2 Institut Mines-Télécom National coverage Palaiseau-Saclay Paris Evry Fontainebleau Brest Rennes Pau Toulouse Saint-Etienne Alès Nimes Albi Gardanne Nantes Douai 10 GRADUATE SCHOOLS : 6 MINES AND 4 TÉLÉCOM Mines Albi-Carmaux - Albi, Saint-Dié Mines Alès - Alès, Montpellier, Nimes, Pau Mines Douai - Douai Mines Nantes - Nantes Mines ParisTech - Paris, Palaiseau-Saclay, Evry, Fontainebleau, Sophia Antipolis Mines Saint-Etienne - Saint-Etienne, Gardanne Télécom Bretagne - Brest, Rennes, Toulouse Télécom Ecole de Management - Evry, Palaiseau-Saclay, Paris Télécom ParisTech - Paris, Sophia Antipolis Télécom SudParis - Evry Lille Nancy Sophia Antipolis 2 SUBSIDIARY SCHOOLS Eurecom - Sophia Antipolis Télécom Lille1 - Lille 1 STRATEGIC PARTNER SCHOOL Mines Nancy - Nancy, Saint-Dié Saint-Dié 11 ASSOCIATED SCHOOLS ENSEEIHT - Toulouse Enseirb-Matmeca - Bordeaux ENSG - Vandœuvre-lès-Nancy ENSIIE - Evry ESIGELEC - Rouen Grenoble Ecole de Management - Grenoble IFMA - Clermont-Ferrand Sup’Com Tunis - Tunis Télécom Nancy - Villers-lès-Nancy Télécom Physique Strasbourg - Strasbourg Télécom Saint-Etienne - Saint-Etienne Bordeaux Strasbourg Rouen Clermont-Ferrand Tunis Montpellier Grenoble

Key figures 3 Institut Mines-Télécom 10 schools 2 subsidiary schools 2 strategic partners 11 associated schools 4, 800 staff members 2 Carnot Institutes €121 M research- generated income per year Near 100 business start- ups per year at the schools’ incubators 12,555 students 1,725 PhD students graduates per year Including over 2,500 engineers 8% engineering degrees issued in France 32 % foreign students 38 % grant holders Total 2012 Figures excluding associated schools and Mines Nancy (Université de Lorraine)

Geneva, Switzerland, 18 February Internet Architecture Model Very successful for almost 30 years Connecting almost everything Flexible On top of many links Low speed, high speed, variable latencies Large variety of applications File transfer, streaming, voip,…

Few protocols Geneva, Switzerland, 18 February Steve Deering The Evolution of Layered Protocol Stacks Leads to an Hourglass-Shaped Architecture Saamer Akhshabi, Constantine Dovrolis Sigcomm 2011

Internet Protocol Interoperability, But ossification. Geneva, Switzerland, 18 February Steve Deering

IP is: Geneva, Switzerland, 18 February IP Packet Format -Management -Interoperability -Forwarding Addresses -Allocation -Display -Routing P A R P 4 ≠P 6 A 4 ≠A 6 R 4 =R 6

New areas for Networking Internet of Things Cheap Moore’s law reduces costs, does not increase power Low Memory Low Energy Different Time cycle Legacy devices 20 year lifetime Geneva, Switzerland, 18 February 20148

IPv6 IPv6 slowly introduced P6≠P4, A6≠A4: No interoperability Metcalfe’s law against IPv6 Forwarding is not the most difficult part IPv6 has advantages for IoT Auto-configuration Simpler Layer 2 agnostic But difficult to make IPv6 evolve Geneva, Switzerland, 18 February 20149

Constraints Geneva, Switzerland, 18 February IoT Deployed IPv6 6LoWPAN Header Compression M-U capabilities Fragmentation P 6LP = P IPv6 A 6LP = A IPv6

ARESA2 Project ANR Verso 2009 project Urban Wireless Sensor Networks AMI, Smart Grid, M2M... One of the challenges: IPv6 Mesh network. Minimize code footprint, minimize energy consumption. Geneva, Switzerland, 18 February

Reduce 6LoWPAN impact Toward a flexible 6LoWPAN Simplify addresses allocation A 6LP ⊂ A IPv6 Forwarding based on 6LoWPAN Add functionalities for WSN P 6LP ⊃ P IPv6 Maintain end to end capabilities Need for “local” information IPv6 remains universal format Multi-homing Geneva, Switzerland, 18 February

6LoWPAN in Contiki Geneva, Switzerland, 18 February

Example Geneva, Switzerland, 18 February

Architecture Geneva, Switzerland, 18 February IPv66LoWPAN Extension IPv6 6LoWPAN + parameters

Conclusions and Recommendations New constraints: A single protocol cannot cover all needs Introduce more flexibility “a la IEEE” Core protocols/Fringe protocols Other alternatives: REST, but less generic in term of traffic Geneva, Switzerland, 18 February

Reasearch on IoT at Télécom Bretagne OCIF research team: Architecture: Internet evolution, REST, M2M, Access Network: NAN, Long Range Radio, community network,… Context Awareness: Security, … Models: Game Theory, Peak Erasing,… Application domains: ITS, SmartGrid, Smart Clothes,… Geneva, Switzerland, 18 February