IoT: Publish/Subscribe vs. Command/Response
VerifiedAdded on 2020/02/24
|10
|1746
|174
AI Summary
This assignment examines the advantages of using a publish/subscribe communication model over a command/response approach in Internet of Things (IoT) applications. It specifically focuses on how this redesign can save time within an application's budget by eliminating round-trip propagation delays. The analysis considers factors like sensor processing time, application processing time, and network latency to illustrate the potential time savings achievable through publish/subscribe.
Contribute Materials
Your contribution can guide someone’s learning journey. Share your
documents today.
Running Head: INTERNET OF THINGS
Journal article review
Student’s name
Name of the Institute
Journal article review
Student’s name
Name of the Institute
Secure Best Marks with AI Grader
Need help grading? Try our AI Grader for instant feedback on your assignments.
INTERNET OF THINGS
Analysis – Internet of Things
Q1) What does the statement "the best interface for a system is no User Interface"? When
might this apply and provide two examples.
In recent times, there has been changes in the way users interact with the things around
him or her. A decade back it was the era of graphical user interface. That was the era when users
used to interact with machine through a graphical user interface. It can be said that GUI is still
working for people and machines. However, the continuous focus is to evolve the user interfaces.
The next big thing is VUI (Voice User Interface) where the commands are given over the voice.
However, it is debated that the best interface is no user interface (Mumtaz & Alsohaily, 2017). It
is correct to say that as people want to interact with machines and tools around with natural
behavior. People do not want that any extra layer or interface should exist between them and
machine and this made the statement, ‘the best interface for a system is no User Interface’ true.
The applicability of ‘no user interface’ can be discussed as below:
i. Users can use the sensory organs to manage their cell phones. For example, IRIS scanner
to login in the phone.
ii. Users can use the voice or shake features to open the camera in the phone.
It can be said that the world is moving towards the stage of no user interface, or at least the
vision with the technology is to reach the stage of no user interface. There are various other
examples or applications of no user interface (Mumtaz & Alsohaily, 2017). The driverless car is
a perfect example of no user interface.
Q2) Compare the bandwidth, distance, interference rating, cost and security of a) twisted
pair cable, b) coaxial cable and 3) fibre optic cable. Use current data, give specific details
Analysis – Internet of Things
Q1) What does the statement "the best interface for a system is no User Interface"? When
might this apply and provide two examples.
In recent times, there has been changes in the way users interact with the things around
him or her. A decade back it was the era of graphical user interface. That was the era when users
used to interact with machine through a graphical user interface. It can be said that GUI is still
working for people and machines. However, the continuous focus is to evolve the user interfaces.
The next big thing is VUI (Voice User Interface) where the commands are given over the voice.
However, it is debated that the best interface is no user interface (Mumtaz & Alsohaily, 2017). It
is correct to say that as people want to interact with machines and tools around with natural
behavior. People do not want that any extra layer or interface should exist between them and
machine and this made the statement, ‘the best interface for a system is no User Interface’ true.
The applicability of ‘no user interface’ can be discussed as below:
i. Users can use the sensory organs to manage their cell phones. For example, IRIS scanner
to login in the phone.
ii. Users can use the voice or shake features to open the camera in the phone.
It can be said that the world is moving towards the stage of no user interface, or at least the
vision with the technology is to reach the stage of no user interface. There are various other
examples or applications of no user interface (Mumtaz & Alsohaily, 2017). The driverless car is
a perfect example of no user interface.
Q2) Compare the bandwidth, distance, interference rating, cost and security of a) twisted
pair cable, b) coaxial cable and 3) fibre optic cable. Use current data, give specific details
INTERNET OF THINGS
for at least 3 types of cable within each category, these should have different specifications,
rather than simply different brands of the same type.
The comparison can be shown in the form of a below table
Twisted pair cable Coaxial cable Fiber optic cable
Bandwidth Lowest bandwidth High bandwidth, 80
X more transmission
capacity than Twisted
Cable
Highest bandwidth,
26,000 X more
transmission capacity
than Twisted Cable
Distance Preferable for low
distance
Can be used for high
distance
Can be used for very
large distances also
Interface Rating Lowest Average, ideal for
video consumption
Best
Cost Low Average Most expensive
among all
Security Least secure among
all the alternatives
Average security Most secure among
the three. Minimal
resistance from
external interfaces
The three types of cable within each category can be discussed as:
Twisted pair cable:
i. Landline Telephone wires
ii. Home appliances system like Transistor
iii. Radio and media devices
Coaxial cable
i. TV cables
ii. Connect computers within the network
iii. Cell Phone systems
for at least 3 types of cable within each category, these should have different specifications,
rather than simply different brands of the same type.
The comparison can be shown in the form of a below table
Twisted pair cable Coaxial cable Fiber optic cable
Bandwidth Lowest bandwidth High bandwidth, 80
X more transmission
capacity than Twisted
Cable
Highest bandwidth,
26,000 X more
transmission capacity
than Twisted Cable
Distance Preferable for low
distance
Can be used for high
distance
Can be used for very
large distances also
Interface Rating Lowest Average, ideal for
video consumption
Best
Cost Low Average Most expensive
among all
Security Least secure among
all the alternatives
Average security Most secure among
the three. Minimal
resistance from
external interfaces
The three types of cable within each category can be discussed as:
Twisted pair cable:
i. Landline Telephone wires
ii. Home appliances system like Transistor
iii. Radio and media devices
Coaxial cable
i. TV cables
ii. Connect computers within the network
iii. Cell Phone systems
INTERNET OF THINGS
Fiber optic cable
i. Broadband wires
ii. Police security features
iii. GPS & Antenna
Q3) The three common ways to obtain information from IoT devices are sensors, RFID and
Video tracking. Compare the three technologies by addressing the advantages,
disadvantages, key requirements for the things. Provide two applications of each (these
applications should NOT be sourced from the textbook). You may use a table to present
the material if you wish.
The comparison between sensors, RFID and video tracking as part of Internet of Things
can be shown as:
Sensors RFID Video Tracking
Advantages Most secure among
all as there is no
chances of
duplication
Most efficient among
all as there is time
delay
Most easy to
implement and
affordable among all
due to familiarity
Disadvantages Most expensive
among all as specific
skillset is required to
develop the system
At times, it could be
complex to
implement the system
due to various
intricacies involved
The disadvantage is
that it’s not as secure
as other mediums of
Sensors & RFID
Key requirements The key requirement
is that the sensors to
be used should be
same for all the users
The RFID tags
should be made
available that could
be stick to all the
products
The infrastructure set
up should have the
available support of
video tracking
Applications Key applications
across new products
of IOT like:
i. Driver less
vehicles
ii. IRIS sensor to
open the gate
of homes
Key applications
across home
infrastructure like:
i. Library
management
system to
manage books
ii. Retail store to
manage
inventory and
Keya applications for
communication
purpose across
organizations like:
i. Video
conferencing
among
employees
from different
culture
Fiber optic cable
i. Broadband wires
ii. Police security features
iii. GPS & Antenna
Q3) The three common ways to obtain information from IoT devices are sensors, RFID and
Video tracking. Compare the three technologies by addressing the advantages,
disadvantages, key requirements for the things. Provide two applications of each (these
applications should NOT be sourced from the textbook). You may use a table to present
the material if you wish.
The comparison between sensors, RFID and video tracking as part of Internet of Things
can be shown as:
Sensors RFID Video Tracking
Advantages Most secure among
all as there is no
chances of
duplication
Most efficient among
all as there is time
delay
Most easy to
implement and
affordable among all
due to familiarity
Disadvantages Most expensive
among all as specific
skillset is required to
develop the system
At times, it could be
complex to
implement the system
due to various
intricacies involved
The disadvantage is
that it’s not as secure
as other mediums of
Sensors & RFID
Key requirements The key requirement
is that the sensors to
be used should be
same for all the users
The RFID tags
should be made
available that could
be stick to all the
products
The infrastructure set
up should have the
available support of
video tracking
Applications Key applications
across new products
of IOT like:
i. Driver less
vehicles
ii. IRIS sensor to
open the gate
of homes
Key applications
across home
infrastructure like:
i. Library
management
system to
manage books
ii. Retail store to
manage
inventory and
Keya applications for
communication
purpose across
organizations like:
i. Video
conferencing
among
employees
from different
culture
Secure Best Marks with AI Grader
Need help grading? Try our AI Grader for instant feedback on your assignments.
INTERNET OF THINGS
stock out ii. Camera based
access of
home
remotely on
mobile phone
Q4) Discuss the issues associated with security and privacy in the context of the Internet of
Things.
It would be correct to say that Internet of Things is a powerful thing and there are various
strong features and benefits of IOT. However, there are various privacy issues and security
threats associated with IOT. These issues can be discussed as:
i. There are various end points or the touch points where the data can be leaked. There is
always a possibility that the data from the sender is not received by the user end. There is
always the issue of data theft (Ochs & Riemann, 2017).
ii. There is also the security issue of fraud associated with the implementation of Internet of
Things. There could be data and security attack from the external party that makes the use
of IOT weak (Ochs & Riemann, 2017).
iii. There are privacy challenges with the use of Internet of Things infrastructure as users’
information can be masked and used by some intruders. This can happen when there is
some breach in the network (Ochs & Riemann, 2017).
Q5) An IoT water level monitoring application requires updates from a sensor periodically,
using the command/response paradigm. The application triggers a request every 1 s. The
round-trip propagation delay between the application and the sensor is 12 ms. On average
the sensor consumes 3 ms to process each request. The application consumes 2 ms to send
or receive any message. If the application blocks on every request to the sensor, how much
of its time budget can be saved by redesigning the application to use the publish/subscribe
communication model in lieu of the command/response approach?
stock out ii. Camera based
access of
home
remotely on
mobile phone
Q4) Discuss the issues associated with security and privacy in the context of the Internet of
Things.
It would be correct to say that Internet of Things is a powerful thing and there are various
strong features and benefits of IOT. However, there are various privacy issues and security
threats associated with IOT. These issues can be discussed as:
i. There are various end points or the touch points where the data can be leaked. There is
always a possibility that the data from the sender is not received by the user end. There is
always the issue of data theft (Ochs & Riemann, 2017).
ii. There is also the security issue of fraud associated with the implementation of Internet of
Things. There could be data and security attack from the external party that makes the use
of IOT weak (Ochs & Riemann, 2017).
iii. There are privacy challenges with the use of Internet of Things infrastructure as users’
information can be masked and used by some intruders. This can happen when there is
some breach in the network (Ochs & Riemann, 2017).
Q5) An IoT water level monitoring application requires updates from a sensor periodically,
using the command/response paradigm. The application triggers a request every 1 s. The
round-trip propagation delay between the application and the sensor is 12 ms. On average
the sensor consumes 3 ms to process each request. The application consumes 2 ms to send
or receive any message. If the application blocks on every request to the sensor, how much
of its time budget can be saved by redesigning the application to use the publish/subscribe
communication model in lieu of the command/response approach?
INTERNET OF THINGS
The advantages of publish/ subscribe model over command/ response design is the
efficiency advantages. With publish/ subscribe model a lot of time can be saved as it is not
unidirectional like command/ response (Mumtaz & Alsohaily, 2017). The analysis of the budget
and the saving of the time with the use of publish/ subscribe model can be discussed as:
o Time to trigger the request: 1 s
o Round trip propagation delay: 12 ms
o Time consumed at the end of sensor: 3 ms
o Time consumed at the end of application: 2 ms
If the system design is changed to publish/ subscribe model then also the time consumed
at the end of senor and at the end of application would remain same. However, the system should
be able to save the time of round trip propagation delay. So, it would be a saving of 12 ms per
second. In percentage terms it would be:
(12/60) * 100
= 20% saving
Q6) Describe Nielson's Law. How does it relate to Moore's Law? What are the
implications for the Internet of Thing?
The Moore’s law is very simple. It says that the processing system doubles every 18
months. The Nielson’s law can be considered as the extension of Moore’s law and it states that
the bandwidth speed for high end users increases by 50% per year. The comparison of Nielson's
Law with Moore’s law suggest that the speed of bandwidth is less than the speed of technology
advancements. One of its major implications for Internet of Things is the bottleneck that could
occur due to less advancements in the speed of Bandwidth (Miraz & Excell, 2015). It means that
The advantages of publish/ subscribe model over command/ response design is the
efficiency advantages. With publish/ subscribe model a lot of time can be saved as it is not
unidirectional like command/ response (Mumtaz & Alsohaily, 2017). The analysis of the budget
and the saving of the time with the use of publish/ subscribe model can be discussed as:
o Time to trigger the request: 1 s
o Round trip propagation delay: 12 ms
o Time consumed at the end of sensor: 3 ms
o Time consumed at the end of application: 2 ms
If the system design is changed to publish/ subscribe model then also the time consumed
at the end of senor and at the end of application would remain same. However, the system should
be able to save the time of round trip propagation delay. So, it would be a saving of 12 ms per
second. In percentage terms it would be:
(12/60) * 100
= 20% saving
Q6) Describe Nielson's Law. How does it relate to Moore's Law? What are the
implications for the Internet of Thing?
The Moore’s law is very simple. It says that the processing system doubles every 18
months. The Nielson’s law can be considered as the extension of Moore’s law and it states that
the bandwidth speed for high end users increases by 50% per year. The comparison of Nielson's
Law with Moore’s law suggest that the speed of bandwidth is less than the speed of technology
advancements. One of its major implications for Internet of Things is the bottleneck that could
occur due to less advancements in the speed of Bandwidth (Miraz & Excell, 2015). It means that
INTERNET OF THINGS
there could be situations that the IT infrastructure is ready due to technology advancements.
However, the Internet speed is not up to mark.
there could be situations that the IT infrastructure is ready due to technology advancements.
However, the Internet speed is not up to mark.
Paraphrase This Document
Need a fresh take? Get an instant paraphrase of this document with our AI Paraphraser
INTERNET OF THINGS
References
Miraz, M. H., Ali, M., Excell, P. S., & Picking, R. (2015, September). A review on Internet of
Things (IoT), Internet of Everything (IoE) and Internet of Nano Things (IoNT).
In Internet Technologies and Applications (ITA), 2015 (pp. 219-224). IEEE.
Mumtaz, S., Alsohaily, A., Pang, Z., Rayes, A., Tsang, K. F., & Rodriguez, J. (2017). Massive
Internet of Things for Industrial Applications: Addressing Wireless IIoT Connectivity
Challenges and Ecosystem Fragmentation. IEEE Industrial Electronics Magazine, 11(1),
28-33.
Ochs, T., & Riemann, U. A. (2017). The Internet of Things: From Things to Valuable Outcomes.
In The Internet of Things in the Modern Business Environment (pp. 126-146). IGI
Global.
Rayes, A., & Samer, S. (2017). Internet of Things—From Hype to Reality. Springer International
Publishing, Cham, Switzerland.
Schmidt, R., Zimmermann, A., Möhring, M., Nurcan, S., Keller, B., & Bär, F. (2015,
September). Digitization–perspectives for conceptualization. In European Conference on
Service-Oriented and Cloud Computing (pp. 263-275). Springer, Cham.
References
Miraz, M. H., Ali, M., Excell, P. S., & Picking, R. (2015, September). A review on Internet of
Things (IoT), Internet of Everything (IoE) and Internet of Nano Things (IoNT).
In Internet Technologies and Applications (ITA), 2015 (pp. 219-224). IEEE.
Mumtaz, S., Alsohaily, A., Pang, Z., Rayes, A., Tsang, K. F., & Rodriguez, J. (2017). Massive
Internet of Things for Industrial Applications: Addressing Wireless IIoT Connectivity
Challenges and Ecosystem Fragmentation. IEEE Industrial Electronics Magazine, 11(1),
28-33.
Ochs, T., & Riemann, U. A. (2017). The Internet of Things: From Things to Valuable Outcomes.
In The Internet of Things in the Modern Business Environment (pp. 126-146). IGI
Global.
Rayes, A., & Samer, S. (2017). Internet of Things—From Hype to Reality. Springer International
Publishing, Cham, Switzerland.
Schmidt, R., Zimmermann, A., Möhring, M., Nurcan, S., Keller, B., & Bär, F. (2015,
September). Digitization–perspectives for conceptualization. In European Conference on
Service-Oriented and Cloud Computing (pp. 263-275). Springer, Cham.
INTERNET OF THINGS
INTERNET OF THINGS
1 out of 10
Related Documents
Your All-in-One AI-Powered Toolkit for Academic Success.
+13062052269
info@desklib.com
Available 24*7 on WhatsApp / Email
Unlock your academic potential
© 2024 | Zucol Services PVT LTD | All rights reserved.