Mobile Netw Appl (2018) 23:147–154

DOI 10.1007/s11036-017-0835-8

Standards, Security and Business Models: Key Challenges

Published online: 20 February 2017

Abstract The number of physical objects connected to the solve these problems. Finally, we provide a simulation anal-
Internet constantly grows and a common thought says the ysis that emphasizes issues and suggests practical research
IoT scenario will change the way we live and work. Since directions.
IoT technologies have the potential to be pervasive in almost
every aspect of a human life, in this paper, we deeply ana- Keywords Internet of things · Communication protocols ·
lyze the IoT scenario. First, we describe IoT in simple Interoperability · Security · Privacy · Business model
terms and then we investigate what current technologies
can achieve. Our analysis shows four major issues that may
limit the use of IoT (i.e., interoperability, security, privacy, 1 The IoT scenario
and business models) and it highlights possible solutions to
In recent years, the term Internet of Things (IoT) has
received considerable attention by both academia and indus-
try, with governments making the first regulatory steps
enabling their deployment [1, 2]. In the IoT scenario, people
 Marco Furini and physical objects are connected and are able to communi-
marco.furini@unimore.it cate with each other, to improve life quality [3–9]. Vehicles,
Armir Bujari home appliances, smartphones, home and wearable sensors,
abujari@math.unipd.it personal and public devices are examples of objects that can
Federica Mandreoli become smart in order to be part of an IoT scenario. Indeed,
federica.mandreoli@unimore.it by providing the ability to communicate, even through non
Riccardo Martoglia conventional paradigms [10, 11], these objects can share
riccardo.martoglia@unimore.it captured data. This data might be the base of an integrated
Manuela Montangero analysis that aims to produce intelligent services [12].
manuela.montangero@unimore.it Probably one of the most known IoT applications is home
Daniele Ronzani automation, for which many systems are already available
dronzani@math.unipd.it on the marketplace. Nevertheless, the IoT scenario is def-
initely wider: a city may become smart by using sensors
1 Dipartimento di Matematica, Università di Padova, Via Trieste and devices to monitor and manage traffic, to improve the
63, Padova, Italy
efficiency of waste management, to plan urban and trans-
2 Dipartimento di Comunicazione ed Economia, Università portation changes, etc.; health-care may become smart by
di Modena e Reggio Emilia, Viale Allegri 9, Reggio Emilia, using sensors and devices to improve emergency services,
42121, Italy to provide elderly home assistance and medical aids, etc.;
3 Dipartimento di Scienze Fisiche, Informatiche e Matematiche,
industries may use IoT to improve security in automotive
Università di Modena e Reggio Emilia, Via Campi 213/a, transportation, to make logistics more efficient, to enhance
Modena, 41125, Italy industrial automation, etc.; energy providers may use IoT to
148 Mobile Netw Appl (2018) 23:147–154

Fig. 1 The IoT architecture [18]

intelligently manage energy distribution [3, 13]. There is no reserves e50 million to digital development projects related
doubt in saying that the IoT scenario has the potential to be to embedded software and connected objects [17].
pervasive in almost every aspect of human life [3–7]. However, although many research studies state that IoT
Technically speaking, the IoT can be thought of as the technologies will affect several domains, there are some
interconnection of objects with the Internet, as shown in critical open issues, including interoperability, security and
Fig. 1. At objects level we have sensors that perform actions privacy, that need to be addressed.
like “feel”, “ear”, “measure”, “check” and we have actu- The remainder of the paper is organized as follows:
ators that perform actions through electrical, hydraulic, In Section 2, we describe the most promising application
pneumatic or mechanical movements. All these objects domains for the IoT; in Section 3 we analyze the IoT
communicate with each other through sensor networks [14– scenario, highlighting open issues and possible directions
16] that use data link protocols like NFC, RFID, LTE, that might help removing these burdens. Section 4 presents
Wi-Fi, Zigbee, etc., and interact with the platform and an original experimental assessment of state-of-the-art IoT
with the application levels through Internet communication internetworking approaches, whereas conclusions are drawn
technologies. in Section 5.
Millions of physical objects are currently connected to
the Internet [14] and several research reports agree that by
2020 the IoT scenario will include more than 20 billion of 2 Fields of applications
smart objects. These objects are enabled by several tech-
nological changes that caused, among others, a lowering In recent years, academic and private researches have pro-
of the production costs of sensors and devices, an increase posed many different fields of application for the IoT. In the
of computational capacity and an ubiquitous networking following, we will first briefly describe two well-known IoT
coverage. For these reasons, different ICT consulting firms fields of application and then we will focus on four most
foresee an exponential growth of the IoT over the next few promising ones.
years. For instance, Gartner1 forecasts that the IoT will
generate revenue exceeding $300 billion in 2020, result-
ing in $1.9 trillion in global economic value-add through Smart home Smart home is a firm and important field of
sales into diverse end markets. Moreover, also public gov- application with a market expected to reach $121 billion
ernments are reserving large fundings to IoT research: in by 2022 [19]. Comfort, security and energy efficiency are
2015, the UK government committed around e50 million to among the main benefits that a smart home can bring [20].
IoT research; Germany has earmarked up to e200 million For instance, house owners might use their smartphone to
to projects related to internet-based manufacturing; France control Wi-Fi enabled home electronics (e.g., appliances,
heaters, air conditioning, coffee machines, etc.) from any-
1 https://www.gartner.com/doc/2625419/forecast-internet-things-world where, might increase home security (e.g., by using Wi-Fi
wide- connected cameras, sensors, and alarms) and might manage
Mobile Netw Appl (2018) 23:147–154 149

energy more efficiently (e.g., by using Wi-Fi outlets to turn Retail industry The IoT retail market size is expected to
off electronics when not in use). reach $54 billion by 2022 [28]. Better customer experience,
more efficient and secure supply chain, and the development
of new channels and revenue streams are among the main
Smart city Smart cities market is estimated to grow from
benefits that smart retail industry can bring. For instance,
$52 billion in 2015 to $147 billion by 2020 [21]. Smarter
sensors can be used to track customers’ behaviors in order
utilization and deployment of public resources (e.g., lights,
to better organize products placements; RFID can be used
roads, parkings), better efficiency of services (e.g., waste
to track products in the supply chain [29, 30] and to update
management, public transportation)[22, 23], better quality
in real time inventories information from off-the-shelves
life (e.g., pollution and traffic control) and, in general, a
products; smart price tags, smart codes and sensors can be
reduction of wastes and costs for the public administration
used to automate many functions that are currently manually
are among the main benefits of smart cities [4, 24]. For
performed [31].
instance, simple objects equipped with LoRaWAN and Sig-
fox communication technologies can transform the act of
parking, allowing citizens to detect available parking spots
Smart factory The smart factory market size is expected
in an easy way. This would not only save citizens time, but
to reach $75 billion by 2020 [32]. In a Smart Factory [33],
it would also help to reduce pollution, thus improving the
the manufacturing solutions exploit flexible and adaptive
lives of citizens.
production processes, where the actors are equipped with
enough computing and communication capabilities to give
Smart mobility The market for smart mobility infrastruc- them an ability to act independently, without direct human
ture and services is expected to exceed $25 billion in 2024 intervention. For example, BMW has developed a track-
[25]. The key advantages of smart mobility are automation, ing system based on RFIDs to enhance motor production
safety, and comfort. For instance, modern vehicle connec- and client customization: an RFID tag attached to each
tion interfaces, exploiting the cars’ OBD2 connectors and engine enhances the performance of the assembly line. This
Bluetooth technologies, can automatically record routes and brings to higher levels of automation, but also to reduction
refueling stops on smartphones, keeping an eye on data such of unnecessary labor and waste of resources. The benefits
as odometer reading and tank fill level; intelligent streets, could also go beyond the actual production of goods. For
digital railways, Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks (VANETS) instance, in a food supply chain scenario, IoT can enhance
and advances in cognitive ability are transforming the way the whole process, from farms to processing plants, from
autonomous vehicles react to hazards and traffic. Further- processing plants to stores and from stores to consumers
more, it is predicted that, in the next 20 years, most vehicles [29].
will be fully automated, transforming current drivers into Although at first sight the above examples may look
simple passengers [26]. like a successful realization of IoT technologies, to a closer
look they are just independent IoT applications and do
not implement a global IoT scenario. Indeed, such exam-
Health-care Medical and health-care are very attractive
ples also show one of the main limitations for a successful
fields for the IoT [3] and this market is expected to cre-
employment of IoT technologies: the lack of interoperabil-
ate about $1.1 - $2.5 trillion in value by 2025 [27]. Cost
ity between objects of the same scenario. For instance,
efficiency, reliability and safety are among the main ben-
a city using many independent IoT applications, cannot
efits that smart health-care can bring: patients monitoring
be addressed as a real smart city. Analogously, health-
might be done in remote and in real-time through the use of
care companies are proposing a large variety of interesting
smart objects and sensors, smart objects might be used to
sensor-based applications, but what is lacking is a system-
replace human regular checks of patients vital signs, home
atic and smart integration of the collected data, potentially
health might be improved by issuing alerts if some irregu-
together with personal information records. The current IoT
larity is detected. For example, smart prescription bottles2
scenario reminds the ICT scenario of the 70s, composed of
have sensors that register actions on bottles (as opening,
many networks (e.g., milnet, nsf-net, cs-net, etc.) unable to
or reducing their content) and are rechargeable using a
communicate with each other and many applications and
standard micro-USB port. Bottles use the cellular communi-
operating systems that were unfortunately unable to inter-
cation technology to (world wide) interact with the service
act with the others. The fragmented scenario of the 70s was
provider that checks on the patient activity in real time and
virtually unified by the standardization of protocols and ser-
promptly reacts if needed.
vices provided by TCP/IP. As discussed in the following
section, we suggest to follow a similar path to make the IoT
2 https://adheretech.com/ a successful scenario.
150 Mobile Netw Appl (2018) 23:147–154

3 Open issues and future directions to these problems is the dataspace paradigm [35], an emerg-
ing approach in the information integration agenda. In a
The IoT might open a wide new world of opportunities, but dataspace, data coexist while the actual integration efforts
for an actual large-scale employment it is still necessary to are faced when needed. This paradigm might represent a
address important open issues. good answer to the problem of interoperability for IoT
because of the high level of heterogeneity of the involved
3.1 Interoperability information sources and the need of a large scale deploy-
ment. To this end, the use of open source platforms might
IoT objects and devices are produced by different vendors, facilitate the development of IoT applications through plug-
have different technical characteristics and specifications in services for push/pull data connection and integrated view
(e.g., smartphones vs. simple RFID tags), use different com- creation and maintenance.
munication protocols (Zigbee, Bluetooth, Bluetooth Low
Energy, Wi-Fi, GSM, 3G and LTE, just to name few), and 3.2 Security and privacy
are often integrated with other heterogeneous sources of
information. This is a big issue: on the one side, producers IoT takes advantage of the possibility to gather large sets
that want to invest do not have clear indications on standards of data that, properly analyzed, give information that can
to adopt when developing IoT products and, when adopt- be used to provide better services. However, as any other
ing specific IoT technologies for their products, they do not device connected to the Internet, IoT objects are possible
know for how long these technologies will be supported in target to a wide range of security attacks that can lead to data
the IoT market; on the other side, users who want to buy IoT leakage and/or data manipulation. Some recent examples
products do not know for how long these will be compatible of security issues include: a smart doorbell receiving the
with the upcoming IoT scenario. video feed from someone else house, people taking unau-
Open standards seem to be the right answer to these thorized control of the security system of specific buildings
problems, as they can provide clear guidelines for com- (e.g., houses, banks, factories, etc.), attackers compromis-
panies to deliver quality products. Private companies (e.g., ing on-line car systems and stopping/speeding up cars with
AllSeen Alliance), as well as third-party institutions (e.g., malicious intent. If customers are expected to use IoT
the IEEE Standards Association3 ), are working on produc- technologies and products, they must be assured that no
ing communication standards for IoT objects with the goal accidental and/or malicious behavior might loose, steal or
of allowing different devices and sensors to communicate manipulate their data.
between themselves, regardless of their brand, category and In the IoT scenario, security solutions cannot be limited
technical equipment. Needless to say, once open standards to the single object or device, but they must be end-to-end
are defined, producers should be enforced to apply them. solutions, going from the application level to the object level
In addition, the traditional Internet architecture needs to and vice-versa. Again, the heterogeneity of IoT interact-
adapt to IoT challenges, both at low and high level. One ing objects further complicates matters as different objects
main reason is the tremendous increasing number of objects require different security levels (e.g., fitness wearables vs.
willing to connect to the Internet: 2010 has seen the sur- health-care applications). Nevertheless, it is fundamental to
pass of the number of objects connected to the Internet over provide security solutions at least for the following prob-
the earth’s human population [14]. We have to expect a lems: authentication (any object involved in a communica-
great increase of the traffic on the Internet, incurring into tion must be clearly and uniquely identified); confidentiality
possible delays and in an increase of bandwidth request. (data must be secure and available only to authorized enti-
Therefore, to allow IoT scalability, IPv6 and new generation ties); integrity (data must not be altered by anyone when
of communication protocols seem to be mandatory. traveling from one point to another, or while stored in some
Finally, there are also platform level interoperability database); fault-tolerance (even in the presence of a fault,
issues concerning the need of integrating raw data coming security services must be continuously provided).
from IoT objects with static and historical data stored in Another issue strictly related to security is privacy. In the
databases or accessible through Web services [22]. Indeed, Internet scenario, consumers are becoming more and more
information integration is a key (and costly) challenge [34] aware that data are now trading currencies for services (e.g.,
that needs to address many different interrelated problems personal information in exchange of an email account), and
like data extraction and cleaning, data transformation into they are increasingly interested in their privacy [36, 37]; the
data conforming with the unified format. A possible answer lack of clarity about who has access to data may limit the
growth of the IoT scenario. For instance, what if personal
sensitive data collected with wearable devices (e.g., heart
3 http://standards.ieee.org/innovate/iot/projects.html
rate, blood pressure, etc.) will be available also to health
Mobile Netw Appl (2018) 23:147–154 151

insurance companies? And what if these companies exploit investigate whether the adoption of MANET solutions is
users’ personal data to tune the insurance policy cost or even efficient or not for the IoT environment, in this section,
to deny the policy? Possible solutions to these privacy issues we present a simulation study that uses some representative
are new policies reassuring customers that data do not con- MANET protocols in a 3D scenario, which is a typi-
cern individuals but aggregates, clarifying the use of data, cal representation of an IoT environment. However, since
for how long these data are stored, and who has access to MANET protocols are generally designed for 2D scenarios,
them. we employ well known techniques to address 3D ones.
Generally speaking, MANET protocols are either
3.3 Business topology-based or position-based. The former approach
relies on topological information to route packets between
The IoT scenario suffers from the lack of clear, widely a source and a destination, whereas the latter relies on
accepted, and successful business models, of use cases and node locations to determine the suitable next hop. It is
of return of investment examples [38]. noteworthy to mention that position-based approaches were
Although there are some early players that successfully introduced to address some limitations of topology-based
invested in IoT (e.g., companies in the fitness and/or smart protocols. For instance, position-based protocols exploit
home scenarios), most companies are still thinking whether the Global Positioning System (GPS) to maintain, at node
joining the IoT, because the scenario has characteristics that level, an up-to-date view of the positional information of its
limit the development of a solid business model: i) diversity neighborhood. Conversely, topology-based protocols incur
of objects, ii) immaturity of innovation, and iii) unstructured in large overheads due to the need to maintain up-to-date
ecosystem [39]. The diversity of objects and the immaturity routes of path disruptions caused by node mobility.
of innovation cause the employment of several different pro- We consider two topology-based protocols (i.e., the Ad
prietary platforms and of proprietary end-to-end IoT solu- hoc On-Demand Distance Vector (AODV [40]) and the
tions, whereas the unstructured ecosystem causes doubts to Destination Sequenced Distance Vector (DSDV [41])) and
investors because the scenario is too chaotic, just like the two position-based protocols (i.e., the Greedy-Face-Greedy
Internet was in the mid-90s. (GFG [42]) and the Greedy-Random-Greedy (GRG [43])).
The solution to these problems is closely dependent on In particular, AODV considers a reactive approach to
the solution of the problems highlighted above. In particu- routing, and it builds routes on-demand whenever they are
lar, it is fundamental to first address the problems related to needed, whereas DSDV considers a proactive approach
interoperability and security, as this would make available where route changes are propagated to the entire network
IoT communication standards and IoT end-to-end security in order to have an up-to-date view of the network paths.
solutions. These solutions could be the blocks on which to Another inherent property of both protocols is the employ-
build solid business models for the IoT scenario. ment of routing tables necessary to identify the next-hop
towards a destination. State-of-the-art position-based strate-
gies rely on the Face algorithm, where packets are for-
4 Internetworking in the IoT environment warded on a planar graph following the right-hand rule [42].
The algorithm does guarantee packet delivery to the desti-
As highlighted in the previous section, one of the main nation in the context of planar (2D) networks, addressing
issues in the development of an effective IoT scenario is the issue of local minima to which a greedy approach to
the interoperability of objects and devices. A similar prob- routing is subject to. Porting the concept of planarization
lem was approached and solved within the well-known and
well studied Mobile Ad-hoc NETwork (MANET) paradigm, Table 1 Simulation parameters
where distinct pervasive and ubiquitous sensors and devices
Parameter Value
are connected to the Internet. Therefore, one may think
to employ specific MANET communication techniques to MAC type IEEE 802.11g
manage interactions among objects and devices in the IoT Simulation area 1000 m x 1000 m x 1000 m
scenario. However, the IoT networking environment also Transmission range 250 m
shows differences with the MANET scenario. Indeed, IoT Node max speed 10 m/s
exhibits peculiar features such as 3D topologies and mobil- Number of data flows 10
ity conditions that change greatly from scenario to scenario. Packet size 64 Bytes
In particular, there are environments where objects and Packet rate 2 pckt/s
devices keep moving, others where they seldom move, or Queue type Drop Tail
where just a small percentage of them move whereas the
Pause time 5s
majority is static or move nomadically. With the goal to
152 Mobile Netw Appl (2018) 23:147–154

Fig. 2 Delivery profiles

in 3D environments is not so straightforward, nevertheless rate. Focusing on the position-based approaches, GFG has
studies like [44, 45] investigate the issue and proposed pro- the worst performance when compared to GRG and this
jection techniques whereby nodes of interest are projected can be explained thinking to the protocol modus operandi,
over a 2D plane in order to create a planar sub-graph where whereby packets end up traversing long paths in projected
the Face technique can be applied. In our simulation study, faces in order to reach the destination.
we consider the Face projection algorithm described in [45], Since most IoT application scenarios require a certain
as different studies agree that it achieves the best perfor- level of data delivery, DSDV and GFG are not worth using
mance in terms of packet delivery ratio. GFG and GRG due to their low data delivery rates. On the other hand, even
interleave operational phases whenever packet delivery is if AODV achieves a good level of data delivery, it unfor-
stuck in a local minima. In specifics, both approaches start tunately experiences high delivery delays (e.g., on average,
with a greedy operational phase whereby packets are greed- few hundreds of milliseconds could be spent to deliver a
ily forwarded close to the destination and, whenever packet packet), as shown in Fig. 2b. Therefore, it is unable to
advancement is not possible (i.e., stuck in a local minima), support real time and interactive traffic (e.g., road safety, on-
the next node is chosen either randomly or according to the line games/chat, distributed control). These performances
Face strategy. are affected by the necessity of establishing a route towards
the destination before beginning the transmission of the
4.1 Experimental scenario and results data.
Since the ability to support real-time and interactive traf-
The simulation scenario consists of a set of nodes randomly fic is crucial for IoT applications (e.g., to support safety and
positioned inside a cube of length 1000 units and a transmis- distributed control for automated vehicles, or just for enter-
sion range of 250 units. To asses the protocols, we consider a tainment applications), it is necessary to develop routing
mixed scenario comprised of 20 mobile and 80 static nodes. solutions specifically tailored to IoT. Needless to say, these
In particular, mobile nodes are randomly positioned inside solutions should be released as open standards and should
the scenario boundaries, move in a 3D space and follow a be secured to malicious attacks.
Random Way Point mobility mode. In order to increase the
confidence of the outcome, we perform 40 runs of each con-
figuration scenario and report the average values. Moreover, 5 Conclusions
the simulation duration is set to 100s and the traffic consists
of 10 flows (different sources and destinations) of CBR traf- In this paper, we analyzed the IoT scenario: we observed
fic. Table 1 summarizes the considered mobility parameters. a very fragmented scenario that might compromise the
It is noteworthy to point out that position-based protocols successful employment of IoT. Major issues regard the pro-
are equipped with a beaconing mechanism, whereby nodes liferation of communication technologies, the absence of
announce their presence every 0.5s in the neighborhood. end-to-end security solutions and the lack of solid business
In Fig. 2a we can observe that DSDV and GFG achieve models. To this aim, we provided a simulation analysis that
the lowest performance, with AODV having the best per- emphasized issues and suggested practical research direc-
formance in terms of delivery rate. When analyzing the tions. Finally, we highlighted some future research direc-
delivery time (Fig. 2b), DSDV outperforms the other pro- tions that might help addressing the identified issues, thus
tocols, however at the cost of achieving the lowest delivery making the IoT a real pervasive and successful scenario.
Mobile Netw Appl (2018) 23:147–154 153

References 19. Markets and Markets. Smart Home Market by Product, Secu-
rity & Access Control, HVAC, Entertainment, Home Healthcare
and Smart Kitchen, Software & Service and Geography - Global
1. Federal Aviation Administration. Unmanned Aircraft Systems
Forecast to 2022. Technical report, 2016
Registration, 2016
20. Alam M, Reaz B, Ali M (2012) A Review of Smart Homes - Past,
2. European Parliament and Council. General Data Protection Regu-
Present, and Future. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and
lation, 2016
Cybernetics
3. Islam SMR, Kwak D, Kabir MH, Hossain M, Kwak KS (2015) 21. Markets and Markets. Internet of Things (IoT) in Smart Cities
The Internet of Things for Health Care: A Comprehensive Survey. Market by Solutions Platform Application - Global Forecast to
IEEE Access 3:678–708 2020. Technical report, 2016
4. Zanella A, Bui N, Castellani A, Vangelista L, Zorzi M (Feb 2014) 22. Carafoli L, Mandreoli F, Martoglia R, Penzo W (2016) A data
Internet of things for smart cities. IEEE Internet Things J 1(1):22– management middleware for its services in smart cities. J UCS
32 22(2):228–246
5. Roccetti M, Ferretti S, Palazzi CE, Salomoni P, Furini M (2008) 23. Carafoli L, Mandreoli F, Martoglia R, Penzo W (2013) A frame-
Riding the Web Evolution From Egoism to Altruism In: Proceed- work for ITS data management in a smart city scenario. In:
ings of the IEEE Consumer Communications and Networking Proceedings of the International Conference on Smart Grids and
Conference (CCNC), pp 1123–1127 Green IT Systems, pp 215–221
6. Ferretti S, Furini M, Palazzi CE, Roccetti M, Salomoni P (2010) 24. De Michele R, Furini M (2016) Understanding the City to make
WWW recycling for a better world. Commun ACM 53(4):139– it Smart. In: Internet of Things, vol 169. Springer International
143 Publishing, pp 239–244
7. Montangero M, Furini M (2015) TRank: Ranking Twitter Users 25. Navigant Research. Urban Mobility in Smart Cities. Technical
According to Specific Topics. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Con- report, 2015
sumer Communications and Networking Conference (CCNC), pp 26. Deloitte. Transport in the Digital Age - Disruptive Trends for
767–772 Smart Mobility. Technical report, 2015
8. Furini M, Montangero M (2016) TSentiment: On gamifying Twit- 27. Manyika J, Chui M, Bughin J, Dobbs R, Bisson P, Marrs A
ter sentiment analysis. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on (2013) Disruptive Technologies: Advances that will transform life,
Computers and Communication (ISCC), pp 91–96 business, and the global economy. Technical report
9. Bujari A, Furini M, Lainà N (Jan 2017) On using cashtags to 28. Inc. Grand View Research. Gypsum Board Market Analysis By
predict companies stock trends. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Product (Wallboard, Ceiling Board, Pre-Decorated Board), By
Consumer Communications and Networking Conference (CCNC) Application (Residential, Corporate, Commercial, Institutional)
10. Palazzi CE, Bujari A, Bonetta S, Marfia G, Roccetti M, Amoroso And Segment Forecasts To 2022. Technical report, 2016
A (2011) MDTN Mobile delay/disruption tolerant network. In: 29. Xiaorong Zh, Honghui F, Hongjin Zh, Zhongjun F, Hanyu F
Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Com- (2015) The Design of the Internet of Things Solution for Food
munications and Networks (ICCCN), pp 1–6 Supply Chain. In: Proceedings of EMIM
11. Palazzi CE, Bujari A, Marfia G, Roccetti M (2014) An overview 30. Haider Razia, Mandreoli Federica, Riccardo Martoglia (2014)
of opportunistic ad hoc communication in urban scenarios. In: RPDM A system for RFID probabilistic data management. JAISE
Proceedings of the Mediterranean Ad Hoc Networking Workshop 6(6):707–722
(MED-HOC-NET), pp 146–149 31. Furini M, Pitzalis C (2016) Smart cart: when food enters the IoT
12. Mahmoud R, Yousuf T, Aloul F, Zualkernan I (2015) Internet of scenario. In: Internet of Things, vol 169. Springer International
Things (IoT) Security: Current status, Challenges and Prospec- Publishing, pp 284–289
tive Measures. In Proceedings of the International Conference 32. marketsandmarkets.com. Smart Factory Market by Technology
for Internet Technology and Secured Transactions (ICITST), pp (PLM, MES, PLC, SCADA, ERP, DCS, HMI), Component
336–341 (Sensors & Actuators, Communication Technologies, Industrial
13. Bellavista P, Cardone G, Corradi A, Foschini L (2013) Conver- Robotics, Machine Vision), Industry (Process, Discrete), and
gence of MANET and WSN in IoT Urban Scenarios. IEEE Sens J Geography - Global Forecast to 2022 . Technical report, 2016
13(10):3558–3567 33. Katalinic B, Radziwon A, Bilberg A, Bogers M, Madsen ES
14. Al-Fuqaha A, Guizani M, Mohammadi M, Aledhari M, Ayyash (2014) The Smart Factory: Exploring Adaptive and Flexible Man-
M (2015) Internet of Things: A Survey on Enabling Technolo- ufacturing Solutions. Proced Eng 69:1184–1190
gies, Protocols, and Applications. IEEE Commun Surv Tutorials 34. Bernstein PA, Haas LM (2008) Information Integration in Ehe
17(4):2347–2376. Fourthquarter enterprise. Commun ACM 51(9):72–79
15. Bononi L, Donatiello L, Furini M (June 2009) Real-time traffic in 35. Franklin MJ, Halevy AY, Maier D (2008) A first tutorial on
Ad-Hoc sensor networks. In: Proceedings of IEEE International dataspaces. PVLDB 1(2):1516–1517
Conference on Communications (ICC) 36. Furini M, Tamanini V (2015) Location privacy and public meta-
16. Donatiello L, Furini M (2003) Networks: Ad Hoc A Protocol data in social media platforms: Attitudes, Behaviors and opinions.
for Supporting QoS Applications. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Multimed Tools Appl 74(21):9795–9825
International Parallel andamp; Distributed Processing Symposium 37. Furini M (2014) Users behavior in location-aware services: digi-
(IPDPS) tal natives vs digital immigrants. Advances in Human-Computer
17. Davis R (2015) The internet of things. European Parliamentary Interaction, pp 2014
Research 38. Laya A, Bratu V, Markendahl J (2013) Who is investing in
18. Furini M, Mandreoli F, Martoglia R, Montangero M (2016) IoT: machine-to-machine communications?. In: Proceedings of ITS
science fiction or real revolution?. In: Proceedings of the Con- 39. Westerlund M, Leminen S, Rajahonka M (Jun 2014) Designing
ference on Smart Objects and Technologies for Social Good, Business Models for the Internet of Things. Technol Innov Manag
GoodTechs Rev 4:5–14
154 Mobile Netw Appl (2018) 23:147–154

40. Perkins C, Belding-Royer E, Das S (2003) Ad hoc on-demand 43. Flury R, Wattenhofer R (2008) Randomized 3D geographic rout-
distance vector (AODV) routing ing. Proceedings of INFOCOM
41. Narra H, Cheng Y, Çetinkaya EK, Rohrer JP, Sterbenz JPG (2011) 44. Abdallah AE, Fevens T, Opatrny J (2006) Randomized 3D
Destination-sequenced distance vector (dsdv) routing protocol position-based routing algorithms for Ad hoc networks. Proceed-
implementation in ns-3. In: Proceedings of the ICST Conference ings of MOBIQUITOUS, pp 1–8
on Simulation Tools and Techniques, pp 439–446 45. Kao G, Fevens T, Opatrny J (2007) 3D localized position-based
42. Bose P, Morin P, Stojmenovic I (1999) Routing with guaranteed routing with nearly certain delivery in mobile Ad hoc networks.
delivery in Ad hoc wireless networks. Proceedings of ACM DIAL- Proceedings of the International Symposium on Wireless Perva-
M/Mobicom Workshop sive Computing (ISWPC)