1. Seung-Hoon Lee, Sewook Jung, Alexander Chang, Dea-Ki Cho, and Mario Gerla Network Research Lab Department of Computer Science University of California, Los Angeles

2.  Overview of wireless networks in HealthNet  Bluetooth networks in HealthNet  A new protocol using BT 2.1  Simulation  Conclusion

3.  Interests in health care considerably increased  BodyLAN based wireless sensor platforms  Monitoring patient status Sensor Network

4.  Wireless networks for cable replacement HealthNet Sensor

5.  Wireless networks for cable replacement ◦ Issues: Small, cheap, power efficient ◦ Wi-fi, ZigBee, Bluetooth HealthNet Sensor

6.  Bluetooth ◦ Small enough being attached on sensors ◦ Cheap, power efficient ◦ Widely being used – Most of cell phone, laptop  Issues ◦ Long connection delay  Connection establishment: 5 ~ 10 seconds ◦ Causes severe problem on time critical applications (i.e., emergency health applications) ◦ BT cannot be utilized for EMERGENCY uses.

7.  Bluetooth 2.1 ◦ Recently published (July 2007) ◦ Introducing new enhancement features  Customizing two new features of BT 2.1 ◦ EIR (Extended Inquiry Response) ◦ SSP (Secure Simple Pairing)

8.  Bluetooth 2.1 ◦ Recently published (July 2007) ◦ Introducing new enhancement features  Customizing two new features of BT 2.1 ◦ EIR (Extended Inquiry Response)  Original purpose: Inquiry Response message   Propagating emergency data ◦ SSP (Secure Simple Pairing)  Original purpose: security mechanism for data   Protecting EIR data Bluetooth 2.1

9.  Comparison of data dissemination stages ◦ Bluetooth 2.0  Peer discovery: Find other peers within the communication range  Paging: Connection setup  Connection established: Data delivery ◦ Bluetooth 2.1  Peer discovery

10.  Bluetooth 2.0

11. ◦ Peer Discovery Bluetooth 2.1 Inquiry

12.  Bluetooth 2.0 ◦ Peer Discovery Bluetooth 2.1 Inquiry

13.  Bluetooth 2.0 ◦ Peer Discovery Bluetooth 2.1 Inquiry Response

14.  Bluetooth 2.0 ◦ Paging Bluetooth 2.1 Exchange device information Channel synchronization

15.  Bluetooth 2.0 ◦ Connected Bluetooth 2.1 Connection established Data delivery

16.  Bluetooth 2.1 ◦ Peer Discovery Bluetooth 2.1 Inquiry

17.  Bluetooth 2.1 ◦ Peer Discovery Bluetooth 2.1 Inquiry

18.  Bluetooth 2.0 ◦ EIR Data Delivery Bluetooth 2.1 Data delivery

19.  EIR based data delivery ◦ Connectionless ◦ Not protected by BT Security mechanisms  Secure Simple Pairing (SSP) ◦ Customizing SSP procedures ◦ Protecting EIR data ◦ PKI based security method ◦ Keys generated by SSP stages ◦ Encrypt/Decrypt EIR data with the keys

20.  Simulation ◦ NS2 + UCBT + BT 2.1 implementation  UCBT: Bluetooth simulation module  UCBT not supporting BT 2.1 ( BT 2.1 recently published)

21.  HealthNet Scenario ◦ Patient monitoring system without any network infrastructure. ◦ Emergency data delivered by Peer-to-Peer overlay ◦ Three different nodes:  Patient: Emergency data source (static)  Nurse: Delivering data by P2P (mobile)  Data Collector: Collecting data (static) Patient Body Sensors Nurses (Mobile) Collection Center peer-to-peer

22.  HealthNet Scenario ◦ Patient monitoring system without any network infrastructure. ◦ Emergency data delivered by Peer-to-Peer overlay ◦ Three different nodes:  Patient: Emergency data source (static)  Nurse: Delivering data by P2P (mobile)  Data Collector: Collecting data (static) Patient Body Sensors Nurses (Mobile) Collection Center peer-to-peer

23.  HealthNet Scenario ◦ Patient monitoring system without any network infrastructure. ◦ Emergency data delivered by Peer-to-Peer overlay ◦ Three different nodes:  Patient: Emergency data source (static)  Nurse: Delivering data by P2P (mobile)  Data Collector: Collecting data (static) Patient Body Sensors Nurses (Mobile) Collection Center peer-to-peer

24.  HealthNet Scenario ◦ Patient monitoring system without any network infrastructure. ◦ Emergency data delivered by Peer-to-Peer overlay ◦ Three different nodes:  Patient: Emergency data source (static)  Nurse: Delivering data by P2P (mobile)  Data Collector: Collecting data (static) Patient Body Sensors Nurses (Mobile) Collection Center peer-to-peer

25. Our protocol using BT 2.1 works a lot better than the conventional scheme Number of nodes: Various Node Speed: 1 m/s Area: 50x50 m 2

26. Our protocol using BT 2.1 works a lot better than the conventional scheme Number of nodes: 30 Node Speed: 1 m/s Area: Various

27.  Resolving a connection delay problem of Bluetooth devices in HealthNet with keeping the same security level ◦ Customizing EIR and SSP  Simulation results confirm the improvement of BT 2.1 based data delivery ◦ Delay and Power Consumption  Bluetooth devices are applicable for emergency applications in HealthNet

28.  Questions?