Remote Users Access Verification
The paper proposed a method for verification which can ensure the operation of internet of
things access point and provide verification for the HTTP command exchange and the UPnP
scan of devices.
While working with the UPnP verification, you can use Intel’s tool which is designed by
UPnP developers, known as the Intel Software for UPnP Technology. What this tool does is
that carries the Device Snier that can track the packet delivery of the UPnP devices. More-
over, it contains Device Spy which can help to detect the existing devices running on the UPnP
networks.
Furthermore, there is a renderer, server, and controller that power these applications to run
on a Windows OS. This chapter will focus on smartphones, computer, desktop computers, and
notebooks to establish a connection with the specified IoT AP via Wi-Fi and making use of the
Device Spy to verify the broadcasting of the ZigBee devices via the UPnP.
Afterwards, the chapter provides the verification of the command exchange which was
using HTTP. This can be a web browser like Internet Explorer, Firefox, or Google Chrome which
can take input and use them to send commands. In case, a command is processed then results
include the IEEE address, device name, network address, and device types are showed on the
browser.
Performance Evaluation
In order to verify the performance and reliability of the proposed internet of things access point,
emphasis is required on the response time from ZigBee. The response time is the time required
for the internet of things access point to send a command to the ZigBee devices and get back the
command from the relevant ZigBee device. Consider the following table.
Parameter Value
Wireless Protocol IEEE 802.11n; IEEE 802.15.4
Flash Memory 64 MB
Network Protocol TCP
Simulation rep 200
SoC Chip 384 MHz MIPS24Ke
Channel Variation Wi-Fi: CH1–CH14; ZigBee: CH11–CH26
Band Variation Wi-Fi: 2.412–2.484 GHz; ZigBee: 2.405–2.480 GHz
In this table, parameters are listed which are used for the verification of the existing Wi-Fi
network and ZigBee network. A Java verification program is used to verify this response time,
while the TCP method is used to send and receive all the commands to make sure that the
commands reach the right destination.
In this figure, the variation between bands is represented for dierent throughputs of
Wi-Fi (0 KBps, 2000 KBps, and 4000 KBps) along with the response time for ZigBee. The ZigBee
testing channel is modified and the Wi-Fi channel is set to CH1 (2.412) GHz. The vertical axis is
used to represent the response time of the ZigBee whereas the variation in bands between the
Wi-Fi and ZigBee is represented by the horizontal axis. According to the above figure, if the
Chapter 7 IoT Implementation Strategies 191
Internet_of_Things_CH07_pp171-200.indd 191 9/3/2019 10:14:44 AM
response time of the ZigBee is 21 ms then the variation of bands between the Wi-Fi and ZigBee
are not aected much when the throughputs of Wi-Fi are 0 KBps and 2000 KBps.
However, when the throughput reaches 4000 KBps, the ZigBee bands grow near to the
Wi-Fi band, providing more response time. When the Wi-Fi packets are increased, the number
and probability of collision with ZigBee become higher. Hence, for such cases, it is necessary to
resend the packets to boost the response time of ZigBee. Still, the commands are reliably sent
for ZigBee devices, making the average response time less than 45 ms.
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Wi-Fi Throughput (KB/s)
CH12
CH13
CH14
CH15
0
0
0
0
10
0.002
0.003
0.007
0.008
0.013
0.018
0.023
0.028
0.033
0.038
0.043
0.048
0.053
0.058
0.063
0.068
20
30
ZigBee Response Time (ms)
40
50
ZigBee/WiFi Band Variation (GHz)
0 KB/s
2000 KB/s
4000 KB/s
In the above figure, the ZigBee response time is disrupted by many Wi-Fi throughputs
which aect dierent channels. The CH1 (2.412 GHz) is used to fix the Wi-Fi channel while the
throughput is adjusted for testing. The vertical axis is used to represent the response time of
ZigBee. The horizontal axis is used to represent the varied Wi-Fi throughputs.
When the throughput of Wi-Fi remains from 0 KB to 3000 KBps, only negligible impact
occurs on the response time of ZigBee, less than 22 ms. After the throughput is more than
192 Internet of Things
Internet_of_Things_CH07_pp171-200.indd 192 9/3/2019 10:14:44 AM
3000KBps, ZigBee’s channel inch near to the Wi-Fi channels, boosting the response time of
ZigBee. The number and probability of packet collisions from ZigBee boost the response time.
Going by the above figure, it can be estimated that the ZigBee’s channel 15 is managed to be
lesser than 22 ms for the Wi-Fi throughputs.
20
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Bandwdith Occupancy Ratio (%)
IoT Gateway + AP IoT AP
22
24
Event Response Time (ms)
26
28
In the above figure, the event response time is assessed. It is measured from the time interval
when the event occurred to the time period when the Internet server gets the report of an event.
The internet of things access point which is proposed is used in comparison with the gateway
that was itself proposed in “Design and implementation of an IoT multi-interface gateway for
establishing a digital art interactive system” paper (http://wireless.csie.tku.edu.tw/~cychang/
IJAHUC21-3.pdf). This gateway is created to accumulate and gather sensing data and use Wi-Fi
AP to send it to the internet server.
The proposed internet of things access point gets data from sensors and forwards it to
the Internet server. These processes can be executed with help from the IoT AP’s internal
modules. Going by the above figure, the IoT device was assigned to show data it got from
“sensing” and send it to the proposed internet of things access point and the compared gate-
way after an hour interval. The current bandwidth of the Wi-Fi network is defined in the form
of a percentage in the range of 40–90%. If the response time is compared, the proposed inter-
net of things access point outpaces the IoT gateway. This is because the time interval needed
to transmit data to the Internet from the gateway is already stored in the proposed internet
of things access point.
No. Avg. Time (ms) Longest Time (ms) Shortest Time (ms)
1 98 1170 31
2 97 1218 31
3 97 1264 31
This table represents the handheld devices’ measure response time while they are linked
with the internet of things access point via the HTTP communication protocol and Wi-Fi con-
nection for controlling the ZigBee devices. The ZigBee channel is set to CH 15 while the Wi-Fi
channel is set to CH 1. Hence, they do not have any impact on each other According to the table,
Chapter 7 IoT Implementation Strategies 193
Internet_of_Things_CH07_pp171-200.indd 193 9/3/2019 10:14:44 AM
the shortest time period is 31 ms while the average time period is 97 ms. The reason behind this
result is that the RT3052 development board is backed by high CPU performance.
This figure represents the response time for the execution of commands which is forwarded
from a handheld device to the internet of things access point via the Wi-Fi network while work-
ing with dierent Wi-Fi throughputs. The ZigBee channel is configured to CH 12 while the
Wi-Fi channel is configured to CH 1. The range of the Wi-Fi throughput falls in the range of
0–5000 KB/s.
The ZigBee and HTTP response times are represented by the vertical axis. The varied Wi-Fi
throughputs are represented by the horizontal axis. If the throughput ranges of the Wi-Fi fall
between 0 KBps and 3000 KBps, there is negligible impact on the total Wi-Fi response time. If the
Wi-Fi throughput goes above 3000 KBps, then the ZigBee and HTTP response times are disrupted
due to the interference from their backgrounds, resulting in a higher time period for response.
The performance and reliability of the proposed internet of things access point can be
verified by studying the ZigBee response time of two parameters: the Wi-Fi throughput and the
ZigBee/Wi-Fi band variation.
According to the simulations, it is seen that the response time of ZigBee can be boosted
through a lower packet collisions probability. The Wi-Fi interference can be decreased if the devel-
oped internet of things access point can check the channels which are used by access points and
other devices and then notifying the ZigBee device management module to determine the most
ecient communication channel to establish a ZigBee network having minimized interference.
This configuration for the channel assists ZigBee and Wi-Fi to operate without any interfer-
ence. Lastly, when this configuration is used to manage the ZigBee devices, it has quite a short
HTTP response time.
The above figure studies the consumption of energy by the proposed internet of things
access point and the existing product which is comprised of a Wi-Fi access point and an IoT
gateway. Since the firmware and hardware modules are integrated tightly in the proposed
internet of things, thus the consumption of energy can be stored accordingly. Many existing
systems need the internet of things devices to first send data to the IoT gateway and then
the gateways provide the access point with the data. This procedure increases the energy
consumption of the transfer of data between the access point and the IoT gateway. According to
0
0
20
80
79
82
81
90
95
58
45
23
20
17
17
40
60
80
100
120
140
HTTP Response Time
ZigBee Response Time
Response Time (ms)
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Wi-Fi Throughtput (KB/s)
194 Internet of Things
Internet_of_Things_CH07_pp171-200.indd 194 9/3/2019 10:14:45 AM
..................Content has been hidden....................
You can't read the all page of ebook, please click here login for view all page.