How to Enable Delay Tolerant Network Solutions for Internet of Things: From Taxonomy to Open Challenges

Abstract

Internet of Things (IoT) is witnessing an increasing range of application domains (industry 4.0, eHealth, smart city, etc.). Meanwhile, IoT is still facing communication challenges because of limited capabilities in computing, storage and energy constraints of smart objects. The use of Delay Tolerant Network (DTN) as basis for communication in IoT is promising but needs more development. In this paper, we present a literature review and a classification of DTN routing protocols. Furthermore, we survey a number of DTN solutions for IoT and propose a new taxonomy to motivate the importance of enabling DTN for IoT applications. The novelty of this classification is the focus on X-DTN category, which combines Delay Tolerant schemes with new technologies (e.g., Fog Computing). We also point out some open issues for potential Delay Tolerant IoT schemes.

A Heterogeneous Layer-Based Trustworthiness Model for Long Backhaul NVIS Challenging Networks and an IoT Telemetry Service for Antarctica

“…In addition, the authors of [ 36 ] presented a data intrusion detection system to trigger false data from malicious attacks; Network Trustworthiness: It can be defined as the probability that a packet will reach its destination unaltered despite the adversities (e.g., link failure, link saturation, malicious attacks), and it is a crucial factor of low-power and lossy networks (LLNs) [ 37 ]. Improving network trustworthiness and performance is a challenge that has been addressed from different perspectives such as transmission coding [ 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 ], load balancing and redundancy protocols [ 42 ], transport protocols [ 43 ], dynamic routing and topology control protocols [ 44 , 45 ], cybersecurity mechanisms [ 46 ], and delay tolerant network (DTN) architectures and protocols [ 47 ]. In the case of routing, both proactive routing protocols (e.g., the IPv6 Routing Protocol for low-power and lossy networks (RPL) and optimized link state routing (OLSR)) and reactive routing protocols (e.g., ad hoc on-demand distance vector (AODV) and link-quality source routing (LQSR)) have been proposed in the literature to solve the drawbacks of LLNs and MANETs [ 44 , 45 ]; Social Trustworthiness: This trend has gained more attention since the irruption of the Social Internet of Things (SIoT) concept [ 48 , 49 ].…”

DTN Trustworthiness for Permafrost Telemetry IoT Network

“…The DTN was first presented as an alternative network architecture designed for challenging networks [8] which suffer from high bit error rates, lack of end-to-end connectivity, and long delays [12]. It was initially designed for interplanetary communications in space [13], given the number of disconnections that this network suffers.…”

“…However, other DTN approaches are not based on the BP but use their own routing protocol designed to be disruption-and delay-tolerant [8]. DISRN [22], PASR [23], RMDTN [24], and PROPHET [25] are some examples of this kind of approach.…”

“…However, this communication technique can be error-prone due to the variant properties of the ionosphere. It may present typical challenging network issues [8], such as intermittent connectivity, end-toend disconnection, and variable error rates, which could degrade the performance of the overall offered IoT service. Therefore, before the deployment phase of our project, we had to study and try to anticipate the expected trustworthiness of the IoT telemetry service we want to deploy.…”

“…Network trustworthiness: Defined as the likelihood of a packet to reach its destination unaltered despite the adversities (e.g., link failure, link saturation, or malicious attacks, among others), it is a relevant aspect to consider in challenging networks [53], such as the use case we propose. The network's performance and trustworthiness have been addressed from several perspectives, such as channel coding [54], transport protocols [11], dynamic routing and topology control protocols [55,56], and DTN architectures and protocols [8].…”