INTEROPERABILITY, FLEXIBILITY AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGN REQUIREMENTS IN THE IoT
1. INTEROPERABILITY, FLEXIBILITY AND INDUSTRIAL
DESIGN REQUIREMENTS IN THE IoT.
The Internet of things is the internetworking of physical devices, vehicles (also referred to as
"connected devices" and "smart devices"), buildings and other items embedded with electronics,
software, sensors, actuators, and network connectivity that enable these objects to collect and
INTEROPERABILITY OF COMPONENTS:
In this world of technology, the IoT gain to much importance. The reason behind this fact is
interoperability and flexibility. Interoperability becomes a quality of increasing importance for
information technology products as the concept that "The network is the computer" becomes a
reality. But interoperability is also the worried factor for people. IoT devices easily coupled and
decoupled according to which system demand. The flexibility factor in IoT devices is to reuse in
new and different system and context. You can also modify the IoT without effecting the other
ABOUT INDUSTRIAL DESIGN:
Industrial design refers to the engineering work associated with user’s demand, comfort design,
functionality and/or serviceability of the product.
SELF-DEFINING COMPONENTS AND ARCHITECTURE:
IoT devices element would be define in such a way they define its own properties in order to
increase interoperability, flexibility and to perform plug and play activities. IoT system will
easily connect to the different components according to the people needs. IoT basically is all
about mixing and matching services to develop a new service. IoT devices element uses serial or
Mac address to identify to provide details about the element.
IoT devices and object should be able to adapt the satiation where they find themselves. So
adaption is also a key factor for the IoT devices. Adaption in many application and services of
IoT is much complex and important. Adaption is not limited to the end devices but extended
across the many asset of IoT (gateways, networks).
2. Devices will not only roam to wherever the best connectivity is to be found, but will also
combine different wireless technologies at the same time to get aggregated bandwidth. For
instance, your carrier’s fourth-generation (4G) connections plus your in-home Wi-Fi together
give you wireless 500 Mbps combined. Under such conditions, the route of data through the
network will be almost nondeterministic (unpredictable). Another factor which must be kept in
mind which service level to provide to what data? Different IoT services might require different
service levels for different properties, like availability (latency), integrity (loss), and
confidentiality. Which access network should the gateway use? The risk manager needs to make
choices taking into account all requirements and provide a recommendation.
INCLUSIVITY OF THINGS:
The definition of thing is not defined correctly yet. Some words we use to define the thing that
makeup of IoT should be flexible and open-ended. But some definition of the thing restricts
thing industrial sensors or machine that run on automated basis. This type of definition induces
risk in IoT system.
i. Network sharing: Shared asset at the end points.
ii. Shared technologies: monoculture in many ways. Uses same hardware, chips, memory,
IP and built on a common platform.
So, no IoT system exists on its own, in true, complete and unique isolation.
Scalability in IoT means to support the large number of applications, devices, workload and
complexity as possible.
i. Poor scalability drives many risk in IoT systems, including impacts to availability
resulting from lack of capacity and an inability for the management system.
ii. Integration: One of the major factor in scalability in IoT devices is integration with the
iii. Operating environment: The term environment includes operation of the software and
hardware according to the imagine atmosphere.
When we integrate the IoT devices with the other systems, the interfaces should be based on
well-defined, interpretable, and unambiguous standards. Many of the technologies supporting the
3. IoT are open, not closed. They have been developed by special interest groups (SIG). One major
example of a standardized interface is that which is required for hardware or machine-based
authentication. In the human world, there are a variety of operational and technical techniques
that are considered standardized, but really, they are conventional. There are currently no
accepted conventions for interfaces or processes for machine-type/hardware-based
authentication, and this is a major gap in the requirements and risk in the IoT.
LIMIT OR MINIMIZE BLACK-BOX COMPONENTS:
There is often a tension between the desire to keep proprietary and competitive advantages secret
and the benefits of being flexible and interoperable with other products. The factors that effect
the IoT components in term of black box are complexity, trouble shooting and debugging
solutions and vendor lock-in. Managing complexity risks requires better insight into the working
for the discrete parts of the system, not lots of little secrets. Managing complexity risks requires
better insight into the working for the discrete parts of the system, not lots of little secrets. Open
source components will increase and the software business models will increasingly shift toward
supporting open-source products, not proprietary code.
LEGACY DEVICE SUPPORT:
Legacy devices and systems are those that were designed and deployed in the past. Engineers
and risk managers need to assess carefully to what extent the IoT systems and architecture
should support legacy component integration and migration.
IP ADDRESS TRANSLATION: IPv4 AND IPv6:
In several of the earlier chapter we discussed Internet protocol version 6 (IPv6), and how it will
be increasingly present in the IoT. We have exhausted the Internet protocol version 4 (IPv4)
address space that contained roughly 4.3 billion addresses. IPv6 is the next generation of
IP address and has an address space that is logarithmically larger. It is difficult to imagine
exhausting IPv6 address space—as long as we are limited to the planet earth, or even our solar
systems, as our networking domain. It is very common for carriers to support both IPv4 and IPv6
in parallel and in serial for instance, IPv4 and IPv6 running end to end beside each other on the
same layer 2 transport.
4. THE IoT NETWORK SECURITY PERIMETER: HARD ON THE OUTSIDE:
A large number of devices come onto the network and become attack. So, the devices push or
Pull more data onto the network. In this scenario, DOS attack, may be take place. Security
capabilities need to be both flexible and interoperable in the network, with the ability to apply
security monitoring, detection, prevention, coordination, and mitigation at multiple locations.
Use SSL for communication or encrypted text rather than left in plain text.
Some techniques we use to overcome these types of challenges.
CONTROL THE “NET WITHIN THE ‘NET’”: NETWORK SEGMENTATION:
In this technique, we make logical networks for different logical assets, which share the same
physical network (VLANs, Network Function Virtualization, Software Define networks). The
benefit of this approach (frequently referred to as network segmentation or just segmentation) is
that different quality-of-service levels might be applied to different networks and the IoT assets
they support. But downside is network become more complex.
TRANSPORTABILITY OF SUBSCRIPTIONS AND SERVICE: SUPPORTING
COMPETITIVE SERVICE PROVISION:
Transportability usually refers to the ability to migrate from one service provider to another
service provider—versus from one product vendor to another. Transportability will reduce both
business risks and operational risks by allowing for more diversity of services and basically
options in the event that new risks emerge associated with a particular provider.
User preferences and interface design requirements address the fact that people don’t know what
data the IoT is collecting about them if they are not told or cannot see it somehow. In order, to
reduce risks associated with perceived and actual regulatory breaches, establishing clear,
adaptable, and flexible requirements for user management and configuration of interfaces can do
a lot. Applications sometimes offer trade-offs between data collection on the one hand and
features and functions on the other. For instance, most mobile map applications can be installed
without allowing GPS location information to be collected and sent back to the central servers.