Internet of Things: A General Overview between Architectures, Protocols and Applications
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- Consumer IoT (smartphones, smart car, smartwatch, etc.);
- Commercial IoT (IoT Healthcare, Smart City, etc.);
- Industrial IoT (includes various types of devices for industrial use).
2. Most Common IoT Architectures
- scalable, in order to manage the increasing number of devices and services without degrading their performance;
- interoperable, so that devices from different vendors can cooperate to achieve common goals;
- distributive, to allow to create of a distributed environment in which, after being collected from different sources, data are processed by different entities in a distributed way;
- able to operate with few resources, since objects generally have little computing power;
- secure so as not to allow unauthorized access.
2.1. Three-Level Architecture
- Perception, which represents the physical layer of objects and groups all the features;
- Network, which represents the communication layer responsible for the transmission of data to the application layer through various technologies and protocols;
- Application, which represents the application layer in which the software offering a specific service is actually implemented.
2.1.1. Perception Layer
- Communication: objects can connect to each other and to resources on the Internet to use data and services, update their status, and cooperate to achieve common goals;
- Identification: objects must be uniquely identified.
- Addressability: objects can be directly reachable, i.e., addressed, to be interrogated and/or configured remotely;
- Sensing and actuation: objects can collect information about the surrounding world and manipulate it through the use of sensors and actuators;
- Embedded information processing: the smart objects are equipped with calculation capabilities to process the results of the sensors and drive the actuators;
- Localization: objects are aware of their physical location or can be located;
- User interface: objects can communicate appropriately with users via displays or other interfaces.
2.1.2. Network Layer
2.1.3. Application Layer
- Cloud computing, where services such as storage or data processing are provided from a set of pre-existing resources, configurable and remotely available in the form of distributed architecture;
- Edge computing, where data processing is partially distributed on the peripheral nodes of the network to increase the performance of IoT systems.
- binary-based, small size but not readable by human beings;
- text-based, larger size but readable by human beings.
2.2. Service-Oriented Based Architecture
2.3. Middleware Architecture
- Support on various applications;
- Runs on various operating systems and platforms;
- Distributed computing and the interaction of services among heterogeneous networks, devices, and applications;
- Support standard protocols;
- Provides standard interfaces, providing portability and standard protocols to enable interoperability, and making middleware play an important role in standardization;
- Provides a stable high-level interface for applications.
2.4. Other Used Architectures
2.4.1. Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Protocol Stack
2.4.2. Server-Based Architecture
2.4.3. Cloud-Based Architectures
2.4.4. Edge Computing-Based Architectures
- Minimizes latency; many actions are taken very close to where the action is;
- Allows for bandwidth saving, avoiding over dimensioning the band to the Cloud;
- Solves some security issues, because many decisions are taken in a subnet and are not exposed to the risks arising from the external Internet.
2.4.5. Social Internet of Things Architecture
- The structure of SIoT can be modeled to ensure the navigability of the network. The discovery of objects and services can be performed effectively, and the scalability is also guaranteed, as in the case of social networks formed by people;
- A level of reliability can be defined to establish the degree of interaction with objects;
- The models developed for the study of typical social networks made up of people can be reused.
3. The Enabling Technologies and Most Common Protocols
- IEEE 802.15.4 is a protocol designed for the physical layer and the MAC layer in wireless personal area networks (WPANs). This protocol is used to focus on low-rate WPANs, providing low rate connections of all things in a personal area with low energy consumption, low rate transmission, and low cost [46].
- Low-power WPANs (LoWPANs) are organized by many low-cost devices connected via wireless communications (Tan and Koo 2014). In comparison with other types of networks, LoWPAN has several advantages (small packet sizes, low power, low bandwidth, etc.). 6LoWPAN protocol (an enhancement of LoWPANs), designed combining IPv6 and LoWPAN, has several advantages: great connectivity and compatibility with legacy architectures, low-energy consumption, ad-hoc self-organization, etc.
- ZigBee is a wireless network technology, designed for short-term communication with low-energy consumption and great reliability. In ZigBee protocol, five layers are included: physical layer, MAC layer, transmission layer, network layer, and application layer.
- The main objective of Z-wave is to provide reliable transmission between a control unit and one or more end-devices; Z-wave is suitable for networks with low bandwidth. Although both ZigBee and Z-wave support the shortrange wireless communication with low cost and low energy consumption, there are some differences between them.
- LoRaWAN is a cloud-based MAC (Media Access Control) layer protocol but primarily serves as a network layer protocol for managing communications between LPWAN (Low Power Wide Area Network) gateways and end-node devices such as routing protocol, managed by LoRa Alliance. Version 1.0 of the LoRaWAN specification was released in June 2015. LoRaWAN defines the communication protocol and system architecture for the network, while the physical LoRa layer allows long-range communication link. LoRaWAN is also responsible for managing communication frequencies, data rates, and power for all devices. Devices in the network are asynchronous and transmit when they have data available for sending. Data transmitted by a device (called an endpoint) are received by multiple gateways, which forward data packets to a centralized network server (or network server). The network server filters out duplicate packets, performs security checks, and manages the network. Data are then forwarded to the application servers. The technology shows high reliability for moderate load; however, it does present some performance issues related to sending acknowledgments.
- The Sigfox standard is based on ultra narrow band RF communication with very low consumption. It takes advantage of the 868 MHz frequency and is not subject to concessions. The possible applications are countless: for example, the remote detection of sensors and meters.
- Narrowband Internet of Things is an LPWAN radio technology standard developed by 3GPP to enable communication for a wide range of cellular devices and services, the specifications of which were frozen in 3GPP Release 13, in June 2016. Other 3GPP IoT technologies include eMTC and EC-GSM-IoT.
- Message Queue Telemetry Transport (MQTT) uses a publish/subscribe technique: it is a messaging protocol, which is used to collect measured data on remote sensors and transmit them to servers. MQTT is a simple and lightweight protocol and supports networks with low bandwidth and high latency.
- Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) is a messaging protocol based on representational state transfer (REST) architecture [47,48]. CoAP has been proposed to modify some HTTP functions to meet the requirements for IoT; in fact, it is an application layer protocol in the 6LoWPAN protocol stack and aims to enable resources constrained devices to achieve RESTful interactions.
- Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP) is an instant messaging protocol based on XML streaming protocols. XMPP inherits features from XML protocol, so it has great scalability, addressing, and security capabilities, and it can be used for multiparty chatting, voice and video streaming, and tele-presence.
- Data distribution service (DDS) is a publish/subscribe protocol for supporting high performance device-to-device communication. DDS has been developed by object-manage-group and is a data centric protocol, in which multicasting can be supported to achieve great QoS and high reliability.
- Advanced Message Queuing Protocol (AMQP) is an open standard message queuing protocol used to provide message service (queuing, routing, security, reliability, etc.) in the application layer; it focuses on message-oriented environments and can be considered as a message-oriented middleware protocol.
4. Applications in IoT
- Smart Wearable: are wearable devices, low energy consumption, equipped with sensors and networked to collect data on users in order to monitor daily physical activity (to keep track of progress) or other information useful for health (heartbeat, quantity, and quality of sleep, etc.) to identify possible problems on time and do prevention;
- Smart Vehicle and Connected Vehicle: systems that were once mechanical (steering, brakes, etc.) have been replaced by electronic control units (ECUs) able to communicate with each other and with the outside world. This is to efficiently exploit the fuel and increase the driver’s safety by monitoring parameters of interest thanks to electronics. The internet connection can be used to monitor traffic (and then choose the most appropriate route to get to a specific destination or find parking quickly), send signals in case of failure, receive timely assistance, and have access to infotainment services and many other applications. In this case, the ECUs form a network of smart objects inside the car, but also the car itself, seen in a broader context (like a smart city), becomes a smart object;
- e-Health: the goal is to monitor patients’ health through devices (which can also be placed inside the human body) to make prevention and make diagnoses and treatments even when patients are far from the hospital. Additionally, monitoring the demand for healthcare services makes it possible to invest efficiently in specific areas of healthcare;
- Smart Building and Smart Home: smart objects can be used to monitor the structural integrity of buildings (and thus ensure more excellent safety), environmental parameters (such as temperature or humidity), or the presence of people in specific places. All this to make the environment comfortable and at the same time efficiently manage light, electricity, heating, etc.;
- Smart City: a network of sensors can be used to efficiently manage water resources, transport, energy, waste collection, etc., which would reduce pollution and waste and increase the comfort of citizens. Two possible examples could be intelligent parking management and public lighting management. In the first case, citizens could avoid wasting time looking for a free parking space, and the pollution caused by the car would be reduced; in the second case, the lighting could be managed according to the transit of pedestrians and vehicles, which would allow energy savings;
- Smart Metering and Smart Grid: thanks to the monitoring of the electricity grid, it is possible to manage the distribution and generation of energy (even that generated by small generators such as wind or photovoltaic plants scattered throughout the territory);
- Smart Agriculture (or precision agriculture): thanks to a network of sensors and actuators, you can monitor the health and the actual needs of crops to exploit resources (water, fertilizers, etc.) in an efficient and targeted way;
- Smart Factory (or Industry 4.0): by integrating new technologies in production processes, working conditions could be improved (an example could be the support of a robot to the human operator) as well as safety and productivity in an industry.
5. Technological Challenges in the IoT Field
- Standardization: in order to ensure the development of the IoT, it is crucial to have open standards for the connectivity of systems, interoperability of the various elements, etc. This process would facilitate both technological innovation (thanks to the public availability of standards) and independence from specific technologies or vendors;
- Availability and reliability: data must be available anytime and anywhere for each authorized object. Therefore, mechanisms are needed for the object’s interoperability and the transfer and restoration (in case of unexpected data events). Additionally, the mobility of devices must be managed appropriately;
- Data storage, processing, and visualization: New methods must be found to efficiently manage and visualize the vast amount of data coming from smart objects;
- Scalability: research on this topic serves to make it possible to add new services and devices to existing IoT systems without degrading their presentations. In particular, it is necessary to take into account constraints such as memory, computing power, bandwidth, etc.;
- Management and self-configuration: the user can efficiently manage a large number of devices. Additionally, smart objects must be able to self-configure in response to external events as much as possible, always in order to simplify management;
- Unique identification of smart objects: each smart object must have unique identification in order to be reached by all the others. This process represents a problem, especially concerning the considerable increase of smart objects present;
- Energy consumption: smart objects must manage energy efficiently. They often communicate with other devices via wireless technologies and have batteries as a power source that cannot always be replaced easily;
- Security and privacy: as far as security is concerned, in general, we have that: Communications between devices are often wireless, and this makes it easy to “eavesdrop”; the low computing capacity they have makes it challenging to implement elaborate countermeasures. As far as privacy is concerned, one of the main problems lies in the fact that smart objects collect a considerable amount of information about users; a possible attacker could have access not only to users’ data but also to their habits and information about their health, etc. Moreover, in an IoT application, the concepts of “safety” (security of physical objects and people) and “security” (security of data and information systems) tend to converge on the same level, since the objects have gained the ability to interact with the surrounding world.
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Aazam, M.; Zeadally, S.; Harras, K.A. Deploying fog computing in industrial internet of things and industry 4.0. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. 2018, 14, 4674–4682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giusto, A.; Iera, D.; Morabito, G.; Atzori, L. The Internet of Things; Springer: New York City, NY, USA, 2010; ISBN 978-1-4419-1673-0. [Google Scholar]
- Weiser, M. The computer for the 21 st century. ACM SIGMOBILE Mob. Comput. Commun. Rev. 1999, 3, 3–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anand, P. Towards evolution of M2M into Internet of Things for analytics. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE Recent Advances in Intelligent Computational Systems (RAICS), Trivandrum, India, 10–12 December 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Ashton, K. That ’Internet of Things’ thing. RFID J. 2009, 22, 97–114. [Google Scholar]
- Meneghello, F.; Calore, M.; Zucchetto, D.; Polese, M.; Zanella, A. IoT: Internet of threats? A survey of practical security vulnerabilities in real IoT devices. IEEE Internet Things J. 2019, 6, 8182–8201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shukla, R.M.; Munir, A. An efficient computation offloading architecture for the Internet of Things (IoT) devices. In Proceedings of the 2017 14th IEEE Annual Consumer Communications & Networking Conference (CCNC), Las Vegas, NV, USA, 8–11 January 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Al-Turjman, F.; Radwan, A. Data delivery in wireless multimedia sensor networks: Challenging and defying in the IoT era. IEEE Wirel. Commun. 2017, 24, 126–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abdmeziem, M.R.; Tandjaoui, D.; Romdhani, I. Architecting the Internet of Things: State of the art. Sens. Clouds 2015, 36, 55–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Fuqaha, A.I.; Guizani, M.; Mohammadi, M.; Aledhari, M.; Ayyash, M. Internet of Things: A survey on enabling technologies, protocols, and applications. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. 2015, 17, 2347–2376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Čolaković, A.; Hadžialić, M. Internet of Things (IoT): A review of enabling technologies, challenges, and open research issues. Comput. Netw. 2018, 144, 17–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taivalsaari, A.; Mikkonen, T. A taxonomy of IoT client architectures. IEEE Softw. 2018, 35, 83–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mattern, F.; Floerkemeier, C. From the internet of computers to the Internet of Things. Lect. Notes Comput. Sci. 2010, 6462, 242–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sharma, C.; Gondhi, N.K. Communication protocol stack for constrained IoT systems. In Proceedings of the 2018 3rd International Conference on Internet of Things: Smart Innovation and Usages (IoT-SIU), Bhimtal, India, 23–24 February 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Miorandi, D.; Sicari, S.; De Pellegrini, F.; Chlamtac, I. Internet of Things. Ad Hoc Netw. 2012, 10, 1497–1516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Xu, L.D. Enterprise systems: State-of-the-art and future trends. IEEE Trans. Ind. Informat. 2011, 7, 630–640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ilie-Zudor, E.; Kemény, Z.; van Blommestein, F.; Monostori, L.; van der Meulen, A. Survey paper: A survey of applications and requirements of unique identification systems and RFID techniques. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2011, 62, 227–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Han, C.; Jornet, J.M.; Fadel, E.; Akyildiz, I.F. A cross-layer communication module for the Internet of Things. Comput. Netw. 2013, 57, 622–633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ngu, A.H.H.; Gutierrez, M.; Metsis, V.; Nepal, S.; Sheng, M.Z. Iot middleware: A survey on issues and enabling technologies. IEEE Internet Things J. 2016, 4, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gang, G.; Zeyong, L.; Jun, J. Internet of Things security analysis. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Internet Technology and Applications (iTAP), Wuhan, China, 16–18 August 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Dizdarević, J.; Carpio, F.; Jukan, A.; Masip-Bruin, X. A survey of communication protocols for Internet of Things and related challenges of fog and cloud computing integration. ACM Comput. Surv. 2019, 51, 1–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Botta, A.; De Donato, W.; Persico, V.; Pescapé, A. Integration of Cloud computing and Internet of Things: A survey. Futur. Gener. Comput. Syst. 2016, 56, 684–700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ammar, M.; Russello, G.; Crispo, B. Internet of Things: A survey on the security of IoT frameworks. J. Inf. Secur. Appl. 2018, 38, 8–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bonomi, F.; Milito, R.; Zhu, J.; Addepalli, S. Fog computing and its role in the Internet of Things. MCC Work. Mob. Cloud Comput. MCC ’12 2012, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, J.; Yu, W.; Zhang, N.; Yang, X.; Zhang, H.; Zhao, W. A survey on internet of things: Architecture, enabling technologies, security and privacy, and applications. IEEE Internet Things J. 2017, 4, 1125–1142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hamdan, S.; Ayyash, M.; Almajali, S. Edge-computing architectures for Internet of Things applications: A survey. Sensors 2020, 20, 6441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Atzori, L.; Iera, A.; Morabito, G.; Nitti, M. The Social Internet of Things (SIoT)–When social networks meet the Internet of Things: Concept, architecture and network characterization. Comput. Netw. 2012, 56, 3594–3608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andrea, I.; Chrysostomou, C.; Hadjichristofi, G.C. Internet of Things: Security vulnerabilities and challenges. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE Symposium on Computers and Communication (ISCC), Larnaca, Cyprus, 6–9 July 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Zhao, K.; Ge, L. A Survey on the Internet of Things security. In Proceedings of the 2013 Ninth International Conference on Computational Intelligence and Security, Emeishan, China, 14–15 December 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Finkenzeller, D.M.C. RFID Handbook: Fundamentals and Applications in Contactless Smart Cards, Radio Frequency Identification and Near-Field Communication, 3rd ed.; Wiley: Chichester, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Akyildiz, I.; Su, W.; Sankarasubramaniam, Y.; Cayirci, E. A survey on sensor networks. IEEE Commun. Mag. 2002, 40, 102–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lin, J.; Yang, X.; Yu, W.; Fu, X. Towards effective en-route filtering against injected false data in wireless sensor networks. In Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE Global Telecommunications Conference-GLOBECOM 2011, Houston, TX, USA, 5–9 December 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Spiess, P.; Karnouskos, S.; Guinard, D.; Savio, D.; Baecker, O.; De Souza, L.M.S.; Trifa, V. SOA-based integration of the internet of things in enterprise services. In Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE International Conference on Web Services, Los Angeles, CA, USA, 6–10 July 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Want, R. An Introduction to RFID technology. IEEE Pervasive Comput. 2006, 5, 25–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kshetrimayum, R.S. An introduction to UWB communication systems. IEEE Potentials 2009, 28, 9–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ferro, E.; Potorti, F. Bluetooth and wi-fi wireless protocols: A survey and a comparison. IEEE Wirel. Commun. 2005, 12, 12–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McDermott-Wells, P. What is Bluetooth? IEEE Potentials 2004, 23, 33–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Howitt, I.; Gutierrez, J.A. IEEE standard for local and metropolitan area networks—Part 15.4: Low-rate wireless personal area networks (LR-WPANS). IEEE Std. 2011, 15, 4–2011. [Google Scholar]
- Gama, K.; Touseau, L.; Donsez, D. Combining heterogeneous service technologies for building an Internet of Things middle-ware. Comput. Commun. 2012, 5, 405–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guinard, D.; Trifa, V.; Karnouskos, S.; Spiess, P.; Savio, D. Interacting with the SOA-based internet of things: Discovery, query, selection, and on-demand provisioning of web services. IEEE Trans. Serv. Comput. 2010, 3, 223–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Liu, H.; Hua, S.; Zhuo, X.; Chen, D.; Cheng, X. Cooperative spectrum sharing of multiple primary users and multiple secondary users. Digit. Commun. Netw. 2016, 2, 191–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wang, S.; Wang, C. Joint optimization of spectrum and energy efficiency in cognitive radio networks. Digit. Commun. Netw. 2015, 1, 161–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zheng, K.; Hu, F.; Wang, W.; Xiang, W.; Dohler, M. Radio resource allocation in LTE-advanced cellular networks with M2M communications. IEEE Commun. Mag. 2012, 50, 184–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Khan, R.; Khan, S.U.; Zaheer, R.; Khan, S. Future internet: The internet of things architecture, possible applications and key challenges. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Frontiers of Information Technology, Islamabad, Pakistan, 17–19 December 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Tan, J.; Koo, S.G. A Survey of technologies in Internet of Things. In Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE International Conference on Distributed Computing in Sensor Systems, Marina Del Rey, CA, USA, 26–28 May 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Molisch, A.F.; Balakrishnan, K.; Chong, C.C.; Emami, S.; Fort, A.; Karedal, J.; Kunisch, J.; Schantz, H.; Schuster, U.; Siwiak, K. IEEE 802.15. 4a channel model-final report. IEEE P802 2004, 15, 0662. [Google Scholar]
- Bormann, C.; Castellani, A.P.; Shelby, Z. CoAP: An application protocol for billions of tiny internet nodes. IEEE Internet Comput. 2012, 16, 62–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gao, W.; Nguyen, J.; Yu, W.; Lu, C.; Ku, D. Assessing performance of constrained application protocol (CoAP) in MANET using emulation. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Big Data and Internet of Thing-BDIOT2017, London, UK, 20–22 December 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Perera, C.; Zaslavsky, A.B.; Christen, P.; Georgakopoulos, D. Context aware computing for The Internet of Things: A survey. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. 2014, 16, 414–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Colace, F.; Lombardi, M.; Pascale, F.; Santaniello, D. A multi-level approach for forecasting critical events in Smart Cities (S). In Proceedings of the 24th International DMS Conference on Visualization and Visual Languages, San Francisco Bay, CA, USA, 29–30 July 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Colace, F.; Lombardi, M.; Pascale, F.; Santaniello, D. A Multilevel graph representation for Big Data interpretation in real scenarios. In Proceedings of the 2018 3rd International Conference on System Reliability and Safety (ICSRS), Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Barcelona, Spain, 24–26 November 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Colace, F.; De Santo, M.; Lombardi, M.; Pascale, F.; Santaniello, D.; Tucker, A. A multilevel graph approach for predicting bicycle usage in London area. Adv. Intell. Syst. Comput. 2020, 1027, 353–362. [Google Scholar]
- Cheng, G.-J.; Liu, L.-T.; Qiang, X.-J.; Liu, Y. Industry 4.0 Development and Application of Intelligent Manufacturing. In Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Information System and Artificial Intelligence (ISAI), Hong Kong, China, 24–26 June 2016; pp. 407–410. [Google Scholar]
- Da Xu, L.; He, W.; Li, S. Internet of Things in Industries: A Survey. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. 2014, 10, 2233–2243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Argenio, F.; Colace, F.; Clarizia, F.; Lombardi, M.; Lorusso, A.; Pascale, F.; Santaniello, D. A Context Aware Approach to En-Hance Urban Areas; FrancoAngeli: Milano, Italy, 2019; ISBN 9788891798428. [Google Scholar]
- Skouby, K.E.; Lynggaard, P. Smart home and smart city solutions enabled by 5G, IoT, AAI and CoT services. In Proceedings of the 2014 International Conference on Contemporary Computing and Informatics (IC3I), Mysore, India, 27–29 November 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Talari, S.; Shafie-Khah, M.; Siano, P.; Loia, V.; Tommasetti, A.; Catalão, J.P.S. A Review of Smart Cities Based on the Internet of Things Concept. Energies 2017, 10, 421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Andrews, J.G.; Buzzi, S.; Choi, W.; Hanly, S.V.; Lozano, A.E.; Soong, A.C.K.; Zhang, J.C. What Will 5G Be? IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. 2014, 32, 1065–1082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, X.; Huang, Q.; Wu, D. Distributed large-scale co-simulation for IoT-aided smart grid control. IEEE Access 2017, 5, 19951–19960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clarizia, F.; Gallo, D.; Landi, C.; Luiso, M.; Rinaldi, R. Smart meter systems for smart grid management. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE International Instrumentation and Measurement Technology Conference Proceedings, Taipei, Taiwan, 23–26 May 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Vitali, M.; Pernici, B. Interconnecting processes through IoT in a health-care scenario. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE International Smart Cities Conference (ISC2), Trento, Italy, 12–15 September 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Arnaud, S.; Ahouandjinou, R.M.; Assogba, K.; Motamed, C. Smart and pervasive ICU based-IoT for improving intensive health care. In Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Bio-engineering for Smart Technologies (BioSMART), Dubai, UAE, 4–7 December 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Galache, J.A.; Yonezawa, T.; Gurgen, L.; Pavia, D.; Grella, M.; Maeomichi, H. ClouT: Leveraging cloud computing techniques for improving management of massive iot data. In Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE 7th International Conference on Service-Oriented Computing and Applications, Matsue, Japan, 17–19 November 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Carrillo, E.; Benitez, V.; Mendoza, C.; Pacheco, J. IoT framework for smart buildings with cloud computing. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE First International Smart Cities Conference (ISC2), Guadalajara, JA, Mexico, 25–28 October 2015; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
- Sezer, O.B.; Dogdu, E.; Ozbayoglu, M.; Onal, A. An extended IoT framework with semantics, big data, and analytics. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data), Washington, DC, USA, 5–8 December 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Bashir, M.R.; Gill, A.Q. Towards an IoT Big Data analytics framework: Smart buildings systems. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE 18th International Conference on High Performance Computing and Communications, Sydney, NSW, Australia, 12–14 December 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Baranwal, T.; Pushpendra, N.; Pateriya, K. Development of IoT based smart security and monitoring devices for agriculture. In Proceedings of the 2016 6th International Conference-Cloud System and Big Data Engineering (Confluence), Noida, India, 14–15 January 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Kapoor, A.; Bhat, S.I.; Shidnal, S.; Mehra, A. Implementation of IoT (Internet of Things) and image processing in smart agriculture. In Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Computation System and Information Technology for Sustainable Solutions (CSITSS), Bengaluru, India, 6–8 October 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Novo, O. Blockchain meets IoT: An architecture for scalable access management in IoT. IEEE Internet Things J. 2018, 5, 1184–1195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, M.; Wang, K.; Cai, X.; Guo, S.; Guo, M.; Rong, C. A comprehensive survey of blockchain: From theory to IoT applications and beyond. IEEE Internet Things J. 2019, 6, 8114–8154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lao, L.; Li, Z.; Hou, S.; Xiao, B.; Guo, S.; Yang, Y. A survey of IoT applications in blockchain systems: Architecture, consensus, and traffic modeling. ACM Comp. Surv. (CSUR) 2020, 53, 1–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Saghiri, A.M.; Vahdati, M.; Gholizadeh, K.; Meybodi, M.R.; Dehghan, M.; Rashidi, H. A framework for cognitive Internet of Things based on blockchain. In Proceedings of the 2018 4th International Conference on Web Research (ICWR), Tehran, Iran, 25–26 April 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Awin, F.A.; Alginahi, Y.M.; Abdel-Raheem, E.; Tepe, K. Technical issues on cognitive radio-based internet of things systems: A survey. IEEE Access 2019, 7, 97887–97908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, J.H.; Salim, M.M.; Jo, J.H.; Sicato, J.C.S.; Rathore, S.; Park, J.H. CIoT-Net: A scalable cognitive IoT based smart city network architecture. Hum. Centric Comp. Inf. Sci. 2019, 9, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Q.; Zhu, C.; Hu, X.; Zhao, W. CIS: Community-based information sharing mechanism for automotive IoT. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE 2nd World Forum on Internet of Things (WF-IoT), Milan, Italy, 14–16 December 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Datta, S.K.; Haerri, J.; Bonnet, C.; Da Costa, R.F. Vehicles as connected resources: Opportunities and challenges for the future. IEEE Veh. Technol. Mag. 2017, 12, 26–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Casillo, M.; Coppola, S.; De Santo, M.; Pascale, F.; Santonicola, E. Embedded intrusion detection system for detecting attacks over CAN-BUS. In Proceedings of the 2019 4th International Conference on System Reliability and Safety (ICSRS), Rome, Italy, 20–22 November 2019; pp. 136–141. [Google Scholar]
- Díaz, M.; Martín, C.; Rubio, B. State-of-the-art, challenges, and open issues in the integration of Internet of things and cloud com-puting. J. Netw. Comp. Appl. 2016, 67, 99–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Erhan, L.; Ndubuaku, M.; Di Mauro, M.; Song, W.; Chen, M.; Fortino, G.; Bagdasar, O.; Liotta, A. Smart anomaly detection in sensor systems: A multi-perspective review. Inf. Fusion 2021, 67, 64–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Scheme 4 | Used Technologies |
---|---|
Communication | Zigbee, Bluetooth, Wifi, Near Field Communication (NFC), Radio-Frequency IDentification (RFID), etc. |
Identification | Electronic Product Code (EPC), Ubiquitous Code (uCode), Quick Response (QR), etc. |
Addressability | IPv4, IPv6 |
Sensing e Actuation | Micro Electro-Mechanical Systems (MEMS) e Micro-Opto-Electro-Mechanical Systems (MOEMS), embedded sensors, etc. |
Embedded information processing | Field Programmable Gate Array (FPGA), Programmable Logic Controller (PLC), microcontrollers, Single-board computer, System-on-Chip (SoC) |
Localization | Global Position System (GPS), Galileo, etc. |
User interface | Displays, remote control, etc. |
Application Layer | |||
CoAP, MQTT, AMQP, XMPP, DSS | |||
Service Discovery: mDMS, DNS-SD, SSDP | |||
Security: TLS, DTLS | |||
Transport Layer | |||
TCP, UDP | |||
Network Layer | |||
Addressing: IPv4/IPv6 | Routing: RPL, CORPL, CARP, etc. | ||
Adaption Layer | |||
6LoWPAN, 6TiSCH, 6Lo, etc. | |||
Data Link Layer | |||
IEEE 802.15.4 (ZigBee, etc.) | IEEE 802.15.1 (Bluetooth) | LPWAN (LoRaWAN, etc.) | RFID, NFC |
IEEE 802.11 (WiFi) | IEEE 802.3 (Ethernet) | IEEE 1901 (PLC) | Z-Wave |
Physical Layer |
Architectures Adapted to the IoT Context | Architectures from Scratch |
---|---|
IETF Protocol stack | Cloud-based architectures |
Server-based architecture | Edge computing-based architectures |
Social Internet of Things (SIoT) architectures |
Protocol | Layer |
---|---|
IEEE 802.15.4 | Perception Layer |
LoWPANs | Network Layer |
ZigBee | Network Layer |
Z-wave | Network Layer |
LoraWLAN | Network Layer |
Sigfox | Network Layer |
NB-IoT | Network Layer |
Message Queue Telemetry Transport (MQTT) | Application Layer |
Constrained application protocol (CoAP) | Application Layer |
Extensible messaging and presence protocol (XMPP) | Application Layer |
Data distribution service (DDS) | Application Layer |
Advanced message queuing protocol (AMQP) | Application Layer |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Lombardi, M.; Pascale, F.; Santaniello, D. Internet of Things: A General Overview between Architectures, Protocols and Applications. Information 2021, 12, 87. https://doi.org/10.3390/info12020087
Lombardi M, Pascale F, Santaniello D. Internet of Things: A General Overview between Architectures, Protocols and Applications. Information. 2021; 12(2):87. https://doi.org/10.3390/info12020087
Chicago/Turabian StyleLombardi, Marco, Francesco Pascale, and Domenico Santaniello. 2021. "Internet of Things: A General Overview between Architectures, Protocols and Applications" Information 12, no. 2: 87. https://doi.org/10.3390/info12020087
APA StyleLombardi, M., Pascale, F., & Santaniello, D. (2021). Internet of Things: A General Overview between Architectures, Protocols and Applications. Information, 12(2), 87. https://doi.org/10.3390/info12020087