OpenTestBed: Poor Man's IoT Testbed

Munoz, Jonathan; Rincon, Fabian; Chang, Tengfei; Vilajosana, Xavier; Vermeulen, Brecht; Walcarius, Thijs; Meerssche, Wim Van de; Watteyne, Thomas

doi:10.1109/infcomw.2019.8845269

Cited by 28 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We use the OpenTestbed [ 29 ] to extract the performance of the OpenWSN stack with the extensions detailed in Section 4 . This section demonstrates the architecture of the OpenTestbed experimental setup ( Section 5.1 ) and the methodology for the experiment design and performance evaluation ( Section 5.2 ).…”

Section: Experiments Setup and Methodologymentioning

confidence: 99%

No Free Lunch—Characterizing the Performance of 6TiSCH When Using Different Physical Layers

Rady

Lampin

Barthel

et al. 2020

Sensors

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Low-power wireless applications require different trade-off points between latency, reliability, data rate and power consumption. Given such a set of constraints, which physical layer should I be using? We study this question in the context of 6TiSCH, a state-of-the-art recently standardized protocol stack developed for harsh industrial applications. Specifically, we augment OpenWSN, the reference 6TiSCH open-source implementation, to support one of three physical layers from the IEEE802.15.4g standard: FSK 868 MHz which offers long range, OFDM 868 MHz which offers high data rate, and O-QPSK 2.4 GHz which offers more balanced performance. We run the resulting firmware on the 42-mote OpenTestbed deployed in an office environment, once for each physical layer. Performance results show that, indeed, no physical layer outperforms the other for all metrics. This article argues for combining the physical layers, rather than choosing one, in a generalized 6TiSCH architecture in which technology-agile radio chips (of which there are now many) are driven by a protocol stack which chooses the most appropriate physical layer on a frame-by-frame basis.

show abstract

Section: Experiments Setup and Methodologymentioning

confidence: 99%

No Free Lunch—Characterizing the Performance of 6TiSCH When Using Different Physical Layers

Rady

Lampin

Barthel

et al. 2020

Sensors

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In [ 10 ], authors describe OpenTestBed; an open-source testbed, with comparatively cheap setup costs, replicable with its open-source and off-the-shelf nature of its components. It is simple in its nature by generically logging information through serial connections to best facilitate a variety of tests.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Addressing the Security Gap in IoT: Towards an IoT Cyber Range

Nock

Starkey

Angelopoulos

2020

Sensors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paradigm of Internet of Things has now reached a maturity level where the pertinent research goal is the successful application of IoT technologies in systems of high technological readiness level. However, while basic aspects of IoT connectivity and networking have been well studied and adequately addressed, this has not been the case for cyber security aspects of IoT. This is nicely demonstrated by the number of IoT testbeds focusing on networking aspects and the lack of IoT testbeds focusing on security aspects. Towards addressing the existing and growing skills-shortage in IoT cyber security, we present an IoT Cyber Range (IoT-CR); an IoT testbed designed for research and training in IoT security. The IoT-CR allows the user to specify and work on customisable IoT networks, both virtual and physical, and supports the concurrent execution of multiple scenarios in a scalable way following a modular architecture. We first provide an overview of existing, state of the art IoT testbeds and cyber security related initiatives. We then present the design and architecture of the IoT Cyber Range, also detailing the corresponding RESTful APIs that help de-associate the IoT-CR tiers and obfuscate underlying complexities. The design is focused around the end-user and is based on the four design principles for Cyber Range development discussed in the introduction. Finally, we demonstrate the use of the facility via a red/blue team scenario involving a variant of man-in-the-middle attack using IoT devices. Future work includes the use of the IoT-CR by cohorts of trainees in order to evaluate the effectiveness of specific scenarios in acquiring IoT-related cyber-security knowledge and skills, as well as the IoT-CR integration with a pan-European cyber-security competence network.

show abstract

“…The Network Gateway may run at the testbed infrastructure and be physically connected to the serial port of IUTs, or run at OpenBenchmark premises and communicate with the IUTs over an emulated serial port. This emulated serial port is provided through the software component of the companion OpenTestbed project [2], which transports the serial data over the MQTT protocol. OpenBenchmark provides the necessary integration and provisioning of the OpenTestbed software on supported testbeds, such that this complexity is hidden from the user.…”

Section: The Openbenchmark Platformmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Experimental research has been an indispensable instrument in transitioning the Internet of Things (IoT) from a theoretic concept to state-of-the-practice. Testbed infrastructure on IoT communication technologies is present worldwide [1], [2].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Networking stacks [6] implementing the latest Internet standards are freely available. Hardware platforms are offered at prices several times lower than in the past 2 . Yet, tedious firmware development and debugging, the stochastic nature of the radio channel and unpredictable results, lack of user-friendly interfaces on IoT devices, remote testbed access, all add up to the list of challenges a researcher needs to overcome to develop and evaluate her proposal in real-world conditions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

OpenBenchmark: Repeatable and Reproducible Internet of Things Experimentation on Testbeds

Vučinić

Skrbic

Kočan

et al. 2019

IEEE INFOCOM 2019 - IEEE Conference on Computer Communications Workshops (INFOCOM WKSHPS)

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Experimentation on testbeds with Internet of Things (IoT) devices is hard. The tedious firmware development, the lack of user interfaces, the stochastic nature of the radio channel, the testbed learning curve, are some of the factors that make the evaluation process error prone. The impact of such errors on published results can be quite unfortunate, leading to misconclusions and false common wisdom. The selection of experiment conditions or performance metrics to evaluate one's own proposal may not lead to perfectly fair comparisons with state-of-the-art, either. Our research community is well aware of these problems and is actively working on solutions. We present OpenBenchmark, a cloud-based, reproducible, repeatable and comparable IoT benchmarking service. OpenBenchmark facilitates and improves the IoT experimentation workflow: it runs the experiments on supported testbeds, instruments the supported firmware according to the industry-relevant test scenarios, and collects and processes the experiment data to produce Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). This paper introduces the OpenBenchmark platform, discusses its applicability, design and implementation.

show abstract

OpenTestBed: Poor Man's IoT Testbed

Cited by 28 publications

References 4 publications

No Free Lunch—Characterizing the Performance of 6TiSCH When Using Different Physical Layers

No Free Lunch—Characterizing the Performance of 6TiSCH When Using Different Physical Layers

Addressing the Security Gap in IoT: Towards an IoT Cyber Range

OpenBenchmark: Repeatable and Reproducible Internet of Things Experimentation on Testbeds

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About