Implementing lora smartcity doin

#ESCBOS #ESCBOS

Implemen'ng LoRa RF layer in an IoT SmartCity applica'on Jonny Doin – GridVortex

#ESCBOS

Agenda

• Introduc+on • Intelligent infrastructure: SmartCity becomes SecureCity • Mul+standard connec+vity • LoRa specs: PHY layer • LoRa pros and cons • Ultralow cost IoT nodes: a hard challenge • LoRa integra+on into SmartCity networks • Network traffic challenges • The Future: integra+on and convergence

#ESCBOS

Intro

At GridVortex we design and implement SmartCity and Mission Cri+cal Embedded Systems.

We’re working on integra+on of seemingly diverse networks that are part of a disjoint array of infrastructure services:

•  Intelligent ligh+ng systems

•  Smart water meters

•  Distributed smart city sensors

•  Transporta+on

#ESCBOS

Intelligent Infrastructure All these networked applica+ons share some essen+al aspects:

•  Cri+cality •  Need for strong cyber security •  Need resiliency on cyber war scenarios •  Service-‐oriented: a purpose-‐driven network

The requirements imposed on node design are far greater than enabling the basic func+onality of the services.

By extension, the requirements imposed on the network are far greater than enabling the connec+vity for the services.

#ESCBOS

SecureCity We evolved our vision of the SmartCity into the SecureCity. The Smart Infrastructure needs to be as resilient to disrup+on as the classic Infrastructure it replaces. The cost of disrup+ng a “passive” infrastructure is exponen+al: one needs to physically damage lampposts, substa+ons, transmission lines, water pipes, roads and bridges. To achieve large-‐scale disrup+on, the costs scale up to a full-‐fledged military engagement. If the SmartCity is not based on strong and effec+ve cybersecurity, the costs of breaking the whole network can be as low as the cost of breaking a single node.

h[p://www.sourcesecurity.com/images/moreimages/PCSC-‐fault-‐tolerance-‐250.jpg

#ESCBOS

SecureCity (2)

-‐  If the SmartCity is not the SecureCity, it will be a dangerous place to live in

-‐  SmartCity nodes must respond well to cyber security a[acks

-‐ More complex nodes, with proper cryptography and failsafe design

-‐  Security and proper authen+ca+on eats A LOT of data payload real estate -‐  The requirements for network data capacity increases with security

-‐  Fault tolerancy needs mul+rou+ng or adap+ve rou+ng

-‐  There is no single protocol or plaaorm: integra+on and interopera+on occurs at the backhaul

#ESCBOS

Intelligent Infrastructure (2) -‐  Local, distributed intelligence with security state awareness

-‐  Design for hacking: failsafe against a[acks -‐  Capable of opera+ng offline during cyber a[acks

-‐  Capable of local organiza+on -‐ Mission-‐oriented: follows the logic of the service

-‐  Interconnected: allows data transport over dissimilar networks

#ESCBOS

Mul:standard Connec:vity

•  6LoWPAN over 802.15.4

• Mul+ple ac+ve RF channels per node

•  IPv6 implemented upon the PHY layers

•  LoRa: integra+on of dissimilar networks

•  Flexible reconfigura+on of sectors of the network

•  Longer range for sparse regions

• New set of requirements h[p://www.case.edu/innova+onsummit/wp-‐content/uploads/2014/07/iStock_000068530825_Small.jpg

#ESCBOS

Mul:standard Connec:vity (2)

-‐  Challenges include more complex data protocols

-‐  Each node is a data gateway -‐ More complex border routers

-‐  Encapsula+on of IP networking through tunneling -‐  Extremely limited packet sizes impose harsh limits on networking

-‐  Rewards x Complexity must be placed in perspec+ve

-‐  Ul+mate goal is achieving more resiliency and connec+vity

h[ps://s3.eu-‐central-‐1.amazonaws.com/euobs-‐media/13167e02ea074cbb16f2d3e9c811ce72.jpg

#ESCBOS

LoRa specs: spread spectrum

•  Link budget: -‐140dB in some cases

• Range: > 5km in some cases

• High In-‐band noise rejec+on •  Flexible RF PHY • Dynamic modula+on scheme

•  Selectable data rates: spreading vs. variable data bandwidth • Very basic data protocol: can be used to encapsulate other packets •  Targeted for very low data rates: supports FHSS for very long packets

#ESCBOS

LoRa specs (2): direct modula:on •  OOK and FSK modula+on: direct bandwidth vs. data rate •  Allow narrow band response •  Requires high precision TCXO crystal oscillator •  Enable direct modula+on of the RF front-‐end by external bitstream •  May require external SAW filter (for OOK modes) to increase performance

•  Very flexible FSK block: (G)FSK, (G)MSK modem •  Can be used in low interfering noise and at close ranges •  Allow prac+cal data rates of up to ~150Kbps •  Simple interface and rela+vely quick reprogramming •  Payloads of up to 256 bytes with CRC.

#ESCBOS

LoRa specs (3): LoRa modem

•  LoRa modem: spread spectrum data modula+on

•  Excellent sensi+vity due to signal spreading • Very important for long range (> 2km) links

•  Large spreading factor yields low data rates • Prac+cal data rates of less than 10Kbps (~2km)

• May yield high channel dwell +mes: FHSS for very low data rates

• Payloads of up to 256 bytes with CRC.

#ESCBOS

LoRa specs (4): driver implementa:on

• Chip communica+on via SPI and Interrupt signals

•  Fast, friendly to firmware interfacing

• Data for TX/RX packets interface via FIFO • Register programming for opera+ng modes

•  Fast interfacing, once register programming is done

•  Top Level Sequencer (TLS) with well defined states •  Synchroniza+on with Driver state machine

#ESCBOS

LoRa specs (5): driver implementa:on •  Top Level Sequencer (TLS) state machine:

#ESCBOS

LoRa pros and cons

Pros: •  Excellent sensi+vity due to spread-‐spectrum modula+on

•  Flexible RF Front-‐End, empowering user drivers reconfigura+on

•  Very long range (at low bit rates)

Cons: •  Much Lower data rates when compared to other RF PHY schemes

•  High cost

#ESCBOS

Ultralow cost IoT nodes: hard challenge

•  Smart water meters with full custom ASIC chips

• Distributed sensor arrays for sub-‐$1 nodes

• RF cost needs to be a frac+on of the chip cost

•  The percep+on is that LoRa is too expensive for these applica+ons

•  External transceiver chip costs more than the rest of the system

•  IP integra+on: costs may be too high for small (< 1M) deployments

#ESCBOS

Integra:ng LoRa We are wri+ng our transport layer as the upper layers of the LoRa links on our nodes.

Interoperability with the LoRa consor+um is not our top priority, but integra+on with our nodes and packet traffic is. The final integra+on will have IPv6 running on all networks.

The challenges so far are response +mes and effec+ve link establishment for packet tunneling. As many of our nodes are always-‐powered, the specula+ve link establishment is one of the best approaches. PPP over private links is also being tested, with UDP-‐type messaging for data and control flows.

One challenge is that the places where LoRa is very appealing it’s also where it has the lowest data throughput.

#ESCBOS

Network Traffic Challenges Low-‐power networks require crea+ve thinking on the upper layers of the applica+on, and also a degree of distributed knowledge by the nodes about the quality of the network.

Protocols that demand a high degree of broadcast control data, or request-‐response data flows tend to rapidly clog these networks.

h[p://tatacommunica+ons-‐newworld.com/wp-‐content/uploads/2014/09/shu[erstock_136136840.jpg

On the other hand, trust and secrecy are expensive to implement on any reduced payload data transport.

The use of mul+ple channels simultaneously can alleviate the data bandwidth, at the cost of increased data management.

We are looking to LoRa as one addi+onal layer on this problem.

#ESCBOS

Future

The future of SmartCi+es is being driven by its problems, rather than by its solu+ons.

What can be said at this moment is that any applica+on that does not properly address the security and resiliency of the services is bound to fail.

Or worse: it might succeed.

h[p://cdn.toonvectors.com/images/35/22680/toonvectors-‐22680-‐140.jpg

#ESCBOS

Thank you

Jonny Doin [email protected]

Implementing lora smartcity doin

Technology

Transcript of Implementing lora smartcity doin