Ce diaporama a bien été signalé.
Nous utilisons votre profil LinkedIn et vos données d’activité pour vous proposer des publicités personnalisées et pertinentes. Vous pouvez changer vos préférences de publicités à tout moment.
AN OVERVIEW OF
LoRa, SigFox, and IEEE
802.11ah
Faheem Zafari
Computer & Information Technology
Purdue University
faheem0@p...
AGENDA
• LoRa
• SigFox
• IEEE 802.11ah
• Differences between LoRa, SigFox, IEEE 802.11ah
• Use cases
• Problem with IEEE 8...
LoRa
• Physical Layer LPWAN solution
• High range (max 15km), low power, low data rate (0.3-
37.5 kbps), wideband, sub-GHz...
LoRa
• The MAC layer is basically ALOHA protocol controlled by
the LoRa NetServer.
• The LoRa MAC is designed to mimic IEE...
• SIGFOX
• First LPWAN technology.
• The physical layer uses
Ultra-Narrow Band (UNB)
wireless modulation.
• Network layer ...
• IEEE 802.11ah
• Physical layer based on 802.11ac.
• Low Data Rate (~100kpbs), extended range (up to 1km),
low energy con...
• IEEE 802.11ah
MAIN DIFFERENCES
Parameter LoRa Sigfox IEEE 802.11ah
Data rate (kbps) 0.3-37.5 0.1 >100
Coverage (km) Rural: 10-15
Urban: ...
USE CASES
Technology Use Cases
LoRa Garbage collection bin fill level for pick up
route optimization
Sigfox Smart meters, ...
PROBLEM WITH IEEE 802.11ah
• As pointed out by Adame et al., a potential challenge in
802.11ah is the performance of Non-T...
COEXISTENCE PROBLEM
• One of the problems with the coexistence of Sigfox and
LoRa is that, Sigfox is based on UNB sub-GHz ...
REFERENCES
• Adame, T., Bel, A., Bellalta, B., Barcelo, J., & Oliver, M. (2014). IEEE
802.11 AH: the WiFi approach for M2M...
An Overview of LoRA, Sigfox, and IEEE 802.11ah
Prochain SlideShare
Chargement dans…5
×

An Overview of LoRA, Sigfox, and IEEE 802.11ah

5 232 vues

Publié le

The slides provide an insight into different IoT and M2M specific protocols. Their main features and differences are highlighted. Potential research area in IEEE 802.11ah is identified. The slides also identifies the coexistence problem between Lora and Sigfox

Publié dans : Ingénierie
  • Soyez le premier à commenter

An Overview of LoRA, Sigfox, and IEEE 802.11ah

  1. 1. AN OVERVIEW OF LoRa, SigFox, and IEEE 802.11ah Faheem Zafari Computer & Information Technology Purdue University faheem0@purdue.edu
  2. 2. AGENDA • LoRa • SigFox • IEEE 802.11ah • Differences between LoRa, SigFox, IEEE 802.11ah • Use cases • Problem with IEEE 802.11ah • Co-existence problem
  3. 3. LoRa • Physical Layer LPWAN solution • High range (max 15km), low power, low data rate (0.3- 37.5 kbps), wideband, sub-GHz • The architecture consists of • LoRa end-devices • LoRa Gateways • LoRa Network Servers (NetServer) Taken from Centenaro et al.
  4. 4. LoRa • The MAC layer is basically ALOHA protocol controlled by the LoRa NetServer. • The LoRa MAC is designed to mimic IEEE 802.15.4 Mac to allow the accommodation of other protocols such as CoAP, 6LoWPAN etc. Taken from Centenaro et al.
  5. 5. • SIGFOX • First LPWAN technology. • The physical layer uses Ultra-Narrow Band (UNB) wireless modulation. • Network layer protocols are ‘secret sauce’. • Low throughput (~100 bps), low power, extended range (up to 50 km). • The end device must use SIGFOX modem to connect to the SIGFOX network • The device should initiate the communication.
  6. 6. • IEEE 802.11ah • Physical layer based on 802.11ac. • Low Data Rate (~100kpbs), extended range (up to 1km), low energy consumption, sub-GHz. • One hop network topology. • Supports MIMO, Single user beamforming etc on the Physical layer. • Three different types of stations supported • Traffic Indication Map (TIM): Listens to AP for data transfer • Non-TIM stations: Directly negotiate with AP during association process to obtain transmission time on Periodic Restricted Access Window (PRAW) • Unscheduled Stations: does not listen to any beacons and uses poll to access channels.
  7. 7. • IEEE 802.11ah
  8. 8. MAIN DIFFERENCES Parameter LoRa Sigfox IEEE 802.11ah Data rate (kbps) 0.3-37.5 0.1 >100 Coverage (km) Rural: 10-15 Urban: 3-5 Rural: 30-50 Urban: 3-10 1 Nodes per BS ≈ 104 ≈ 106 8191 Frequency (MHz) Various, Sub-Ghz 969 or 902 902-928 (US) Initiation Both node and NetServer Device Both device and the AP Energy Consumption Very low low slightly higher Dedicated Network No Yes No
  9. 9. USE CASES Technology Use Cases LoRa Garbage collection bin fill level for pick up route optimization Sigfox Smart meters, smoke detectors IEEE 802.11 ah Backhaul network for Sensors, Video Surveillance, wearable consumer electronics
  10. 10. PROBLEM WITH IEEE 802.11ah • As pointed out by Adame et al., a potential challenge in 802.11ah is the performance of Non-TIM and unscheduled stations, and their integration with TIM stations in a single WLAN. The problem is interesting to explore for further research. • The number of stations that IEEE 802.11ah is also much lesser than Sigfox and LoRa.
  11. 11. COEXISTENCE PROBLEM • One of the problems with the coexistence of Sigfox and LoRa is that, Sigfox is based on UNB sub-GHz while LoRa is wideband sub-GHz. The wideband solution is prone to the interference from UNB technologies. This problem can be interesting to explore for further research.
  12. 12. REFERENCES • Adame, T., Bel, A., Bellalta, B., Barcelo, J., & Oliver, M. (2014). IEEE 802.11 AH: the WiFi approach for M2M communications. Wireless Communications, IEEE, 21(6), 144-152 • Centenaro, M., Vangelista, L., Zanella, A., & Zorzi, M. (2015). Long- Range Communications in Unlicensed Bands: the Rising Stars in the IoT and Smart City Scenarios. arXiv preprint arXiv:1510.00620. • Centenaro, M., Vangelista, L., Zanella, A., & Zorzi, M. (2015). Long- Range Communications in Unlicensed Bands: the Rising Stars in the IoT and Smart City Scenarios. arXiv preprint arXiv:1510.00620. • Keysight Technology. Explosion of the Internet of Things: What does it mean for wireless devices? June, 2015

×