Chat
Order Now

Abstract – The Internet of Things presents a lot of challenges because of hazards to data security, physical security, devices security, and privacy. All of these hazards should be addressed prior to the time when the Internet of Things appears as a commonplace. The current paper demonstrates how Software Defined Networking can benefit security in the Internet of Things.

Get a price quote

- +

I. Introduction

Hackers appear to be an immutable hazard to organizations, indefatigably looking for possibilities to utilize weak points in computer systems in an attempt to profit from the compromised data. It is also important to mention that network traffic is elevating in regards with the cloud computing data centers and enterprises. It practically means that security operations teams appear to be highly burdened by requirements to sieve through security alarms and adjust security engines for the newest hazards. Thus, security requirements will merely increase due to the fact that the Internet of Things (IoT) proceeds in evolving. One method of bridging this elevating security gap stands for intelligent incident discernment and automated reaction through Software Design Networking.

II. The Internet of Things

The expansion of the Internet of Things (IoT) concept has inflicted innovative complicated necessities and requirements to both networking and internetworking schemes in present and prospective networks, particularly the Internet [1]. In order to make it real, networks should precept and approve heterogeneity not merely in appliances, but also in networking conduct and incumbent records. This is caused by the fact that each IoT object (appliance or thing) has been adjusted or even created to attain particular aims and purposes. In addition, the complete setting, in which some objects are installed, is typically created in accordance with a specialized objective [2]. In fact, the IoT insinuates a wide correlation of a number of heterogeneous networks, objects, which create them, settings, in which they are operating, upper and lower layer records, which they utilize, and even unparalleled aims, which they have. One of the most prevalent approaches for building such view stands for the adjustment of general and corporate records to all settings and objects. In fact, this has been the function of IP for the Internet and it is frequently suggested as a resolution for the IoT, particularly with the appearance of IPv6 [3].

Nevertheless, such immense undertaking appears to be far from being practical and it even has its own shortcomings and challenges. The major negative influence stands for the detriment of the inherent heterogeneity in regards with the network level. Records and objects have particular designs due to the fact that they are supposed to comply with particular needs and aims. It practically means that their coercion aimed at fitting with corporeal and exceptional protocols cannot be an ideal alternative for the majority of object designers [4]. Software Defined Networking (SDN) approach appears to be an opposing perspective of the network. It incorporates extensive programmability of network constituents, including both endpoints and intermediary components. The first step towards this immense undertaking is determination of generic layouts of separating controls and data projects standing for shifting and directing constituents. This has to be pursued along with the reduction of intermediary network components, which currently become simple packet conveyers, as well as determination of generic control layouts, which are utilized in order to appoint them with required conveying regulations so as to attain the general aim of the network [5]. Moreover, this layout also suggests a conceptually consolidated brain, which appreciates topology and status of the network in order to take decisions regarding packet forwarding, delineates them into forwarding regulations, and communicates them to the convey undertakings.

Save 25% on your ORDER Save 25% on your ORDER

Benefit from our service: save 25%

Along with the first order offer - 15% discount (code firstorder), you save an extra 10% since we provide 300 words/page instead of 275 words/page.

Real-life IoT realignment is essentially heterogeneous; it frequently arises from the amalgamation of separately developed IoT sub-networks featured by highly heterogeneous implements and connectivity capacities. The co-existence of discrepant kinds of network processings is caused by legacy promptings and distinct specialties in dissimilar sub-domains. Prospective networks might incorporate single-hop wireless transmissions grounded initially into ZigBee and Near Field Communications between adjoining devices and between devices and reloading locations (at minimum in the vision of huge industrial players such as ENEL and Siemens involved in the above-mentioned projects), while solitary/multi-hop IEEE 802.11p and WiFiDirect rapports equip extension of beneficial reloading data among operational devices. Moreover, 4G-grounded access to the stereotyped Internet infrastructure will empower the actual-time gathering of controlling and monitoring data at datacenters either immediately from devices (frequently via smartphone-grounded gateways) or through intermediate gatherers at road side elements [6]. This heterogeneity poses innovative challenging problems for both industrial and academic researchers, particularly in order with respect to the issue of how to synergically derive profit from heterogeneous network resources emergently accessible in an open IoT realignment continuity.

In fact, heterogeneous network and device resources generate possibilities for a broad scope of appliances (meaning semantic assignments) with different service necessities to be implemented simultaneously. Anticipated categories of assignments for Software Defined Networking Architecture might incorporate three different types of applications [7].

The first one stands for simple point-to-point client-server applications, which ask for actual-time, reliable, and high-caliber message interchange, for example, actual time data regarding the route/vehicle state from end implements (highway camera or vehicle) to the data center. These implementations ask for decreased delays and dependable data delivery.

The second one encompasses controlling and monitoring appliances, which gather information on a periodical basis from a great number of information sources, for example, reloading sites, observing and tracking optimization, and global awareness condition. A representative inquiry might stand for getting availability of reloading sites and traffic statistics on charged vehicles. This is a case in which there are no severe requirements to latency and message detriment, but a comparatively substantive quantity of modernizations from traffic is frequently created in a highly asymmetric manner [8].

The third one incorporates an opportunistic interchange of monitoring/individual information, particularly between devices and Internet access points. This is a case, which demonstrates that because of multiple parties’ interaction a decreased jitter is necessary, while throughput time might appear to be less significant. At the same time, when possibilities for innovative application classes are generated in this heterogeneous setting, new challenges emerge [9].

The first issue incorporates common provision of sensor resources and network across exploitations for effectiveness. In regards with the heterogeneous IoT setting, discrepant user-outlined objectives might operate simultaneously, especially taking into account the common space in which they operate. It means that they frequently share the same sensing/networking resources with diverging caliber requisition in regards with dependability (packet detriment), latency, jitter, and bandwidth. Due to the randomized character of IoT tasks, these appliances are frequently evolved, developed, and precipitated in a badly organized manner. Optimized sharing of communication and sensing resources together with coordinating messaging in this context is challenging.

The second problem stands for the compatibility challenge, which appears when heterogeneous devices utilize discrepant information formats for simulating data and variegated records for machine-to-machine (M2M) information interchange, which is frequently charged by legacy requirements and the peculiarity of the domain where they are applied. Diverse throughput, latency, and jitter necessities of applications’ discrepant needs and characteristics stimulate the complicacy of state capturing and resource provision. This is a case in which Software Defined Networking (SDN) technologies help in achieving versatile resource harmonization and effective flow monitoring/control in an industrial regrouping setting. This is a case in which an innovative IoT multinetwork controller grounded on a layered architecture facilitates flexible and dynamic utilization of IoT networking capabilities for discrepant IoT tasks [10].

III. SDN Techniques and Benefits

The advantages of using SDN techniques in IoT settings are becoming acknowledged in different domains by both researchers and industry practitioners. For instance, it helps in developing a vigorous communication and control platform in smart grid settings. Analogous tentatives have been utilized in the smart home domains, in which IoT implements appear to be highly heterogeneous, ranging from traditional tables and smartphones to home implements and equipment with magnified and amplified capacities. The latest developments incorporate a home network slicing mechanism, which enables complex service providers to share a corporate infrastructure and support regulating business models and policies for spendings sharing in the smart home setting. In regards with a lower device level, it is possible to employ SDN techniques in order to sustain policies and regulations of managing Wireless Sensor Networks.

Due to the fact that the involvement of IoT connected devices is growing, carriers already experience the issue of complicated control over constituents and overloaded networks. Thus, if the network is not prepared, the flood of IoT, in which things appear to be traffic producers, could make the network paralyzed. Moreover, IoT devices are getting wirelessly connected to the Internet, serving a high amount of application, whereby no single wireless norm can appropriately prevail. Therefore, selection of adequate wireless connectivity and formulation of a potential control over an IoT wireless device appear to be another challenging objective, which traditional networks are insufficient to meet. This is a main reason of SDN application as it helps in increasing the networking bandwidth and reinforcing their networks. SDN wide acceptance by the industry ensures SDN capability of developing a tighter connection within the ecosystem of the IoT, which connecrs cyberspace to every involved object. There are several major essential benefits of the IoT and SDN integration. Thus, SDN has a potential to intelligently route traffic and apply underused network resources. In fact, this will essentially enforce network’s capability, which will facilitate the process of network preparation for the data onslaught of the IoT. Firstly, this will also exclude defiles to effective processing of the data generated by the IoT without putting a huge tension on the network, particularly on the Wi-Fi network. Secondly, SDN integration with the IoT will facilitate data obtainment, data analysis, decision making, and operation execution procedure. Thirdly, the deployment of SDN in the IoT will provide the semblance of access management and network resources based on user, category, device, and application, which ultimately empowers the capability to interchange information aptitude between devices and users. Fourthly, researchers and scientists have been creating intelligent algorithms in SDN, which will be presented later in the paper in order to formulate an efficient traffic scheme and a pattern analyzer, which facilitate data collection from IoT devices. This alleviates the design of novel debugging implements. In fact, IoT networks will actually benefit from the consolidation of Software Defined Wireless Networking (SDWN) technology, which strengthens networks monitoring/controlling capacity. It is important to understand that SDWN helps IoT networks in becoming more flexible and scalable depending on the demand scope [11].

VIPTop 10 writers support

Your order will be assigned to the most experienced writer in the relevant discipline. The highly demanded expert, one of our top 10 writers with the highest rate among the customers.

Hire a top writer
vip img

IV. SDN Controller Architecture

Due to the fact that the IoT is characterized by the heterogeneous nature, it appears to be challenging to optimize and coordinate utilization of heterogeneous resources with the objective of satisfying as many tasks as possible. In fact, the SDN paradigm seems to be a perfect candidate for solving the resource management requirement of IoT setting [12].

Firstly, SDN permits and provides possibilities for a distinct division of concerns between services in the control panel and the data panel. The separation stimulates abstractions of decreased-level network functional possibilities into greater level services. Moreover, it consequently facilitates the task of network administrators.

In fact, the heterogeneous network and device resources generate possibilities for a broad scope of appliances (meaning semantic assignments) with different service necessities that can be implemented simultaneously. The anticipated categories of assignments for Software Defined Networking Architecture might incorporate three different types of applications.

Secondly, SDN helps in creating a perfect balance between the level of consolidated control/concordance via the presence of a distinct SDN controller and decentralized acts via flow-grounded routing and rescheduling within the network components. In fact, this balance is accomplished via the interplay between controlled devices and controllers. Nevertheless, present implementations of SDN processings are still far from directing heterogeneous and dynamic requirements of IoT Multinetworks. The current collective usage of SDN technologies stands for DCNs, which is concentrated on the gathering of specified network statistics (e.g. bandwidth consumption) from interchanged networks through rapid correlations within the datacenter. In contrast, a usual IoT multinetwork environment collects state data from devices disseminated over a more fluently coupled (and apparently broad location) network.

Furthermore, implementation metrics of interest in IoT Multinetworks surpasses bandwidth utilization. It demonstrates that it is evenly significant to lower the gathering overheads and sustain efficiency of overall data requirements. In contrast to DCNs, in which network necessities initially circulate around connection application and throughput, IoT Multinetworks environment presents supplementary timely connected requirements, including delays, jitter, packet detriment, and throughput.

Thirdly, unlike the DCN setting, connection and interchange capacities in IoT Multinetworks are highly heterogeneous and utilization needs are discrepant. This implies that the sole objective optimization methods in DCN flow scheduling, including bin packing and synthetical standardization, is not instantly applicable in IoT Multinetworks [13].

Finally, the character of interactions in present realizations of SDN (for instance, OpenFlow) is restricted to south-bound, meaning lower layer reciprocity between controller and devices such as switches. The alleged north-bound interplay between applications/service and controller has obtained less attention and is not systematized. Despite the fact that there are proposals, which uphold the usage of a network configuration language to express different regulations and policies, these policies still concentrate on lower layer parameters of the network stack. In fact, the current practice demonstrates that SDN techniques appear to be employed in wireless networks. Thus, OpenRadio suggests the concept of control plane separation from the data plane to sustain simplicity of transmission for users from one kind of network to another. Thus, for instance, CellSDN empowers regulations of cellular implications, which are dictated by subscriber requirements instead of physical locations, which would ensure better control of network flows than formerly possible. Therefore, the OpenWireless prototype sustains effortless handover between WiMax and Wi-Fi networks in cases when video data are streamed, applying OpenFlow controllers [14]. The wireless SDN resolution provides required building blocks for controlling IoT Multinetworks, but they are not affluent. The south-bound approach maintains its concentration on connecting to a particular lower-level access network. Therefore, its implication to IoT Multinetworks should sustain arrangements, which subtract network heterogeneity. In addition, the framework should sustain north-bound greater layer interplay, which is associated with heterogeneous implications and their requisitions [15].

V. SDN Implementation in the IoT

The common viewpoint of the integration of SDN and the IoT incorporates a minimal assortment of functionary blocks diverging by the plane and actor to which they belong, i.e. network or object, data or control plane. Therefore, two objects connected to an SDN-empowered network will be capable of cooperating with the IoT controller by applying their inner IoT agents. The main aim stands for the provision of context data to the controller for it to take required decisions and repulse them into the incumbent network. Despite the fact that the IoT controller is typically outlined as merely one functionary block, it is inwardly modular so that innovative functionality might be supplemented to the IoT overlay without impacting other constituents or the requirement of initiation of innovative connection with the SDN controller [16]. The present network protocols and architectures demonstrate that a normal conjunction starts when a network object, meaning the requester, demands the network to send information message or packet of some type to another network object, i.e. the responder. In fact, the requester is supposed to recognize the identifier or address of the responder due to the fact that it has to be defined in the transaction. The network designates a path from the requester to the responder, which might be either logical (constant connection or circuit establishment) or virtual (solely adhering to routing tables). This is a period when SDN enters into the game in order to provide objects with a possibility to communicate with each other [7]. Therefore, SDN arrangements can be applied to formulate a path, which connects both endpoints. IoT controller has to obtain the communication interest from the requester, find the responder in the network graph, calculate the path while applying some routing algorithm, create the forwarding regulations relying on the character of the protocols utilized by the objects, and finally communicate such rules to the SDN controller for it to set them into the forwarders. In fact, the controller is supposed to calculate a path, which links and secures both objects by performing a routing algorithm with topology data from both IoT and SDN levels. This is a method used for ensuring that the resulting path suits the network and adheres to possible regulations established by network administrators at IoT or SDN levels [1].

Flexibility of the above-mentioned algorisms suggested by SDN can be efficiently utilized to allow objects connected to heterogeneous networks to communicate with each other. Therefore, SND can perfectly fit into IoT scenarios. Restricted computation or communication capability appears to be a significant factor, which defines the shape of IoT networks and protocols they utilize. It means that design of particular records for specialized purposes, which are generally incompatible with each other, does not allow the objects to easily interact. This issue can be easily resolved by applying mechanisms suggested by SDN and by merely creating a network service on its top, which provides support to IoT objects [14].

VI. Conclusion

The current paper demonstrates benefits of Software Design Networking for the Internet of Things securing. The paper reveals that integration of SDN in the IoT network can possibly bring exciting benefits and opportunities. Due to the fact that the traditional network implements of collecting, storing, processing, and forwarding massive data appear to be inefficient and cannot meet critical future IoT network requirements, SDN can essentially simplify the network control and management requirements. The greatest benefit of SDN-enabled security stands for the fact that it offers a possibility for intelligent reaction and response on a granular ground by selectively blocking malicious traffic, while permitting normal traffic flows. Moreover, SDN security appliances are capable of operating on any abnormalities by diverting particular network flows to specific enforcement pints or security services, including intrusion prevention and detection systems. Therefore, the paper demonstrates that SDN has a potential for achieving higher network security visibility and accelerating the pace of implementing new security services.

Discount applied successfully