Trigger-Action Computing in Local Broadcast Beaconing Networks
Pages 48 - 55
Abstract
Computational elements---often in the form of microcontrollers---are increasingly embedded in and controlling the appliances that we use and the environments in which we live. In typical deployments a set of these elements, connected by an infrastructure network, comprises a distributed system under a cloud or edge based control. This introduces a number of inefficiencies: 1) cloud servers and edge gateways are points of indirection that increase latencies over direct interactions, 2) infrastructure networks incur monetary costs for the equipment, as well as energy and complexity costs, and 3) the resulting systems tend to be centralized and siloed, reducing their ability to interact, interoperate and share resources. As one possible way to solve these problems, we propose and evaluate a system integrating the trigger-action model of computing and highly constrained local broadcast beaconing based networking (e.g., Bluetooth LE, LoRa, VLC). The system requires no gateways or servers, minimizes inter-device latencies, and enables dynamic instantiation of local services by orchestrating nearby devices via trigger-action programs.
References
[1]
M. Aazam, K. A. Harras, and A. E. Elgazar. 2018. Delay tolerant computing: The untapped potential. In Proc. ACM CHANTS workshop.
[2]
Harold Abelson, Gerald Jay Sussman, and Julie Sussman. 1996. Structure and interpretation of computer programs. Justin Kelly.
[3]
Sobia Arshad, Muhammad Awais Azam, Mubashir Husain Rehmani, and Jonathan Loo. 2018. Recent advances in information-centric networking-based Internet of Things (ICN-IoT). IEEE Internet of Things Journal 6, 2 (2018), 2128--2158.
[4]
Onur Ascigil, Sergi Reñé, George Xylomenos, Ioannis Psaras, and George Pavlou. 2017. A keyword-based ICN-IoT platform. In Proceedings of the 4th ACM Conference on Information-Centric Networking. ACM, 22--28.
[5]
Emmanuel Baccelli, Christian Mehlis, Oliver Hahm, Thomas C Schmidt, and Matthias Wählisch. 2014. Information centric networking in the IoT: Experiments with NDN in the wild. In Proceedings of the 1st ACM Conference on Information-Centric Networking. ACM, 77--86.
[6]
C. Cicconetti, M. Conti, and A. Passarella. 2019. Low-latency Distributed Computation Offloading for Pervasive Environments. In Proc. IEEE PerCom.
[7]
M. Conti, S. K. Das, C. Bisdikian, M. Kumar, L. M. Ni, A. Passarella, G. Roussos, G. Tröster, G. Tsudik, and F. Zambonelli. 2012. Looking ahead in pervasive computing: Challenges and opportunities in the era of cyber--physical convergence. Elsevier Pervasive and Mobile Computing 8, 1 (Feb. 2012), 2--21.
[8]
E. Cuervo, A. Balasubramanian, D. ki Cho, A. Wolman, S. Saroiu, R. Chandra, and P. Bahl. 2010. Maui: making smartphones last longer with code offload. In Proc. ACM MobiSys.
[9]
Robin Kravets, Albert F Harris III, and Roy Want. 2016. Beacon trains: blazing a trail through dense BLE environments. In ACM Chants 2016.
[10]
Michal Krol, Karim Habak, David Oran, Dirk Kutscher, and Ioannis Psaras. 2018. RICE: Remote Method Invocation in ICN. In ACM ICN.
[11]
M. Krol, S. Mastorakis, D. Oran, and D. Kutscher. 2019. Compute First Networking: Distributed Computing meets ICN. In Proc. ACM ICN.
[12]
Dirk Kutscher, Teemu Kärkkäinen, and Jörg Ott. 2019. Directions for Computing in the Network. Internet Draft draft-kutscher-coinrg-dir.
[13]
Martine Lenders, Peter Kietzmann, Oliver Hahm, Hauke Petersen, Cenk Gün-doğan, Emmanuel Baccelli, Kaspar Schleiser, Thomas C Schmidt, and Matthias Wählisch. 2018. Connecting the world of embedded mobiles: The RIOT approach to ubiquitous networking for the Internet of Things. arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.02833 (2018).
[14]
Christopher S Meiklejohn, Heather Miller, and Peter Alvaro. 2019. PARTISAN: Scaling the Distributed Actor Runtime. In USENIX ATC.
[15]
Derek E. Murray, Eiko Yoneki, Jon Crowcroft, and Steven Hand. 2010. The Case for Crowd Computing. In Proc. of ACM MobiHeld.
[16]
Alessandro A Nacci, Vincenzo Rana, Bharathan Balaji, Paola Spoletini, Rajesh Gupta, Donatella Sciuto, and Yuvraj Agarwal. 2018. BuildingRules: A Trigger-Action--Based System to Manage Complex Commercial Buildings. ACM Trans. Cyber-Physical Systems 2, 2 (2018).
[17]
Mahadev Satyanarayanan. 2001. Pervasive computing: Vision and challenges. IEEE Personal Communications 8, 4 (2001), 10--17.
[18]
M. Satyanarayanan, P. Bahl, R. Caceres, and N. Davies. 2009. The Case for VM-based Cloudlets in Mobile Computing. IEEE Pervasive Computing 4 (2009), 14--23.
[19]
M. Sifalakis, B. Kohler, C. Scherb, and C. Tschudin. 2014. An information centric network for computing the distribution of computations. In Proc. of ACM ICN.
[20]
Manolis Sifalakis, Basil Kohler, Christopher Scherb, and Christian Tschudin. 2014. An information centric network for computing the distribution of computations. In Proceedings of the 1st ACM Conference on Information-Centric Networking. ACM, 137--146.
[21]
David L. Tennenhouse and David J. Wetherall. 1996. Towards an Active Network Architecture. In Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM.
[22]
Christian Tschudin and Manolis Sifalakis. 2014. Named functions and cached computations. In 2014 IEEE 11th Consumer Communications and Networking Conference (CCNC). IEEE, 851--857.
[23]
Blase Ur, Elyse McManus, Melwyn Pak Yong Ho, and Michael L Littman. 2014. Practical trigger-action programming in the smart home. In ACM SIGCHI. 803--812.
[24]
Qian Wang, Brian Lee, Niall Murray, and Yuansong Qiao. 2018. MR-IoT: An information centric MapReduce framework for IoT. In 2018 15th IEEE Annual Consumer Communications & Networking Conference (CCNC). IEEE, 1--6.
[25]
Mark Weiser. 1991. The Computer for the 21st Century. Scientific American (Sept. 1991).
[26]
Yuhang Ye, Yuansong Qiao, Brian Lee, and Niall Murray. 2016. PIoT: Programmable IoT using information centric networking. In NOMS 2016-2016 IEEE/IFIP Network Operations and Management Symposium. IEEE, 825--829.
Index Terms
- Trigger-Action Computing in Local Broadcast Beaconing Networks
Recommendations
Machine learning techniques in emerging cloud computing integrated paradigms: A survey and taxonomy
AbstractCloud computing offers Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS), Platform as a Service (PaaS), and Software as a Service (SaaS) to provide compute, network, and storage capabilities to the clients utilizing the pay-per-use model. On the ...
Drop computing: Ad-hoc dynamic collaborative computing
AbstractMobile applications nowadays generally consist of a frontend component running on the device, and a backend component running on the cloud that performs the larger computations. However, this usage model leads to high costs for ...
Highlights- The traditional mobile app model leads to high costs for developers.
- We ...
Fog Computing Qos Review and Open Challenges
Internet of Things (IoT) enables inters connectivity among devices and platforms. IoT devices such as sensors, or embedded systems offer computational, storage, and networking resources and the existence of these resources permits to move the ...
Comments
Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
December 2019
67 pages
ISBN:9781450370004
DOI:10.1145/3359993
Copyright © 2019 ACM.
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]
Sponsors
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 09 December 2019
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Research-article
- Research
- Refereed limited
Conference
CoNEXT '19
Sponsor:
CoNEXT '19: The 15th International Conference on emerging Networking EXperiments and Technologies
December 9, 2019
FL, Orlando, USA
Acceptance Rates
ENCP '19 Paper Acceptance Rate 9 of 16 submissions, 56%;
Overall Acceptance Rate 9 of 16 submissions, 56%
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 114Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)4
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 05 Jan 2025
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign in