skip to main content
10.1145/3127502.3127510acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesmobicomConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Managing IoT at the Edge: The Case for BLE Beacons

Published:16 October 2017Publication History

ABSTRACT

Managing IoT devices in urban areas is becoming crucial because the majority of people living in cities and the number of deployed IoT devices are steadily increasing. In this paper we present iConfig, an edge-driven platform dedicated to manage IoT devices in smart cities. The goal is to address three major issues in current IoT management: registration, configuration, and maintenance. The core of iConfig is its programmable edge module, which can be deployed across smartphones, wearables, and smart boards to configure and interact with physically proximate IoT devices. Through testbed experiments and usability studies, we reveal the hardship and hidden pitfalls in managing IoT devices, especially for low budget devices like Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) beacons. Our system evaluation shows that iConfig can effectively address the aforementioned IoT management challenges by harnessing the mobile and edge cooperation. To inspire community contributions, we further present concrete use cases to illustrate how iConfig can reduce operational cost and facilitate future edge-centric IoT research.

References

  1. Apple. 2017. iBeacon. (2017). Retrieved July 26, 2017 from https://developer.apple.com/ibeacon/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Bluvision. 2014. BEEKS Beacons SDK. (2014). Retrieved July 26, 2017 from http://developer.bluvision.com/developer/beeks-beacons-sdk/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Bluvision. 2016 a. BEEKS Beacon Maker. (2016). Retrieved July 26, 2017 from https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.bluvision.beaconmakerGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Bluvision. 2016 b. Specification Sheet: iBeek Sensor Beacon. (2016). Retrieved July 26, 2017 from http://bluvision.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Specs-iBEEK1.6.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Enri Dalipi, Floris van den Abeele, Isam Ishaq, Ingrid Moerman, and Jeroen Hoebeke. 2016. EC-IoT: An Easy Configuration Framework for Constrained IoT Devices Proceedings of the IEEE 3rd World Forum on Internet of Things (WF-IoT). 159--164.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. EdTech Staff. 2017. Bluetooth Beacons Could Improve Student Experience on Higher Ed Campuses. (2017). Retrieved July 26, 2017 from http://www.edtechmagazine.com/higher/article/2017/02/bluetooth-beacons-could-improve-student-experience-higher-ed-campusesGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Ramsey Faragher and Robert Harle. 2015. Location Fingerprinting With Bluetooth Low Energy Beacons. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, Vol. 33, 11 (2015), 2418--2428.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Google. 2017. Eddystone. (2017). Retrieved July 26, 2017 from https://github.com/google/eddystoneGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Albert F. Harris, Vansh Khanna, Guliz Seray Tuncay, and Robin Hillary Kravets. 2016. Smart LaBLEs: Proximity, Autoconfiguration, and a Constant Supply of Gatorade(TM) Proceedings of the First IEEE/ACM Symposium on Edge Computing (SEC). 142--154.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Michael Haus, Muhammad Waqas, Aaron Yi Ding, Yong Li, Sasu Tarkoma, and Jörg Ott. 2017. Security and Privacy in Device-to-Device (D2D) Communication: A Review. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, Vol. 19, 2 (2017), 1054--1079.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Joe Bates. 2016. LAX uses Bluetooth Beacon Technology to improve the Efficiency of Wheelchair Operations. (2016). Retrieved July 26, 2017 from http://www.airport-world.com/news/general-news/5976-lax-uses-bluetooth-beacon-technology-to-improve-wheelchair-operations.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Yan Michalevsky, Suman Nath, and Jie Liu. 2016. MASHaBLE: Mobile Applications of Secret Handshakes over Bluetooth LE Proceedings of the 22nd Annual International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking (MobiCom). 387--400. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Alessandro Montanari, Sarfraz Nawaz, Cecilia Mascolo, and Kerstin Sailer. 2017. A Study of Bluetooth Low Energy Performance for Human Proximity Detection in the Workplace Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communications (PerCom). 1--10.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Hans Schaffers, Nicos Komninos, Marc Pallot, Brigitte Trousse, Michael Nilsson, and Alvaro Oliveira. 2011. Smart Cities and the Future Internet: Towards Cooperation Frameworks for Open Innovation. The Future Internet. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. Vol. 6656. Springer, 431--446. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Statista. 2017. Internet of Things (IoT): Number of Connected Devices Worldwide from 2012 to 2020 (in Billions). (2017). Retrieved July 26, 2017 from https://www.statista.com/statistics/471264/iot-number-of-connected-devices-worldwide/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. United Nations. 2014. World Urbanization Prospects. (2014). Retrieved July 26, 2017 from https://esa.un.org/unpd/wup/publications/files/wup2014-highlights.PdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Kirill Varshavskiy, Albert F. Harris III, and Robin Kravets. 2016. MiHub: Wearable Management for IoT. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Wearable Systems and Applications (WearSys). 1--6. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Michael Wang and Jack Brassil. 2015. Managing Large Scale, Ultra-Dense Beacon Deployments in Smart Campuses Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Communications Workshops (INFOCOM WKSHPS). 606--611.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Will Glozer. 2017. wrk - a HTTP benchmarking tool. (2017). Retrieved August 09, 2017 from https://github.com/wg/wrkGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Tianyin Xu and Yuanyuan Zhou. 2015. Systems Approaches to Tackling Configuration Errors. ACM Computing Surveys Vol. 47, 4 (2015), 1--41. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Andrea Zanella, Nicola Bui, Angelo Castellani, Lorenzo Vangelista, and Michele Zorzi. 2014. Internet of Things for Smart Cities. IEEE Internet of Things Journal Vol. 1, 1 (2014), 22--32.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Vladimir Zdraveski, Kostadin Mishev, Dimitar Trajanov, and Ljupco Kocarev. 2017. ISO-Standardized Smart City Platform Architecture and Dashboard. IEEE Pervasive Computing Vol. 16, 2 (2017), 35--43. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Managing IoT at the Edge: The Case for BLE Beacons

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Login options

          Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

          Sign in
          • Published in

            cover image ACM Conferences
            SMARTOBJECTS '17: Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Experiences with the Design and Implementation of Smart Objects
            October 2017
            62 pages
            ISBN:9781450351416
            DOI:10.1145/3127502

            Copyright © 2017 ACM

            Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

            Publisher

            Association for Computing Machinery

            New York, NY, United States

            Publication History

            • Published: 16 October 2017

            Permissions

            Request permissions about this article.

            Request Permissions

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • research-article

            Acceptance Rates

            SMARTOBJECTS '17 Paper Acceptance Rate4of12submissions,33%Overall Acceptance Rate15of41submissions,37%

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader