Advertisement

Internet Traffic Flow Analysis in Fog Computing: An Experimental Case Study

  • Waleed Rafiq
  • Abdul Wahid
  • Munam Ali Shah
  • Adnan AkhunzadaEmail author
Chapter
Part of the EAI/Springer Innovations in Communication and Computing book series (EAISICC)

Abstract

Fog computing (FC) is a new model, which extends cloud computing services to the edge of computing networks. Different aspects of FC, such as security, have been extensively explored in the existing research. However, the research focuses on how to identify and secure the FC devices and how these devices communicate within the intranet. We believe that it is very important to investigate how the extant infrastructure responses, when a huge amount of data is generated by FC devices. We also need to make sure that the existing network infrastructure will not be chocked, causing the existing services to block. Additionally, the security and privacy are huge concerns for FC. Consequently, by applying the security policies, how will the network respond? Will it make it even worse or improve the performance? In this research, our contribution is twofold. Firstly, we integrate the performance issues of FC network infrastructure for parameters such as throughput, delay, load, etc. Secondly, we analyze the overheads that are generated because of deploying security in FC.

Keywords

Fog computing IoT OPNET Simulation Traffic analysis 

References

  1. 1.
    Khan, F., ur Rahman, I., Khan, M., Iqbal, N., & Alam, M. (2016, September). CoAP-based request-response interaction model for the internet of things. In International Conference on Future Intelligent Vehicular Technologies (pp. 146–156). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Al-Fuqaha, A., Guizani, M., Mohammadi, M., Aledhari, M., & Ayyash, M. (2015). Internet of things: A survey on enabling technologies, protocols, and applications. Communications Surveys and Tutorials, IEEE, 17(4), 23472376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jin, J., Gubbi, J., Luo, T., & Palaniswami, M. (2012). Network architecture and QoS issues in the internet of things for a smart city. In 2012 International Symposium on Communications and Information Technologies (ISCIT) (p. 956961). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Khan, F., ur Rehman, A., Usman, M., Tan, Z., & Puthal, D. (2018). Performance of cognitive radio sensor networks using hybrid automatic repeat ReQuest: Stop-and-wait. Mobile Networks and Applications, 1–10.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zanella, A., Bui, N., Castellani, A., Vangelista, L., & Zorzi, M. (2014). Internet of things for smart cities. IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 1(1), 2232. [Online]. Available: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/lpdocs/epic03/wrapper.htm?arnumber=6740844
  6. 6.
    Jan, M. A., Jan, S. R. U., Alam, M., Akhunzada, A., & Rahman, I. U. (2018). A comprehensive analysis of congestion control protocols in wireless sensor networks. Mobile Networks and Applications, 23(3), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ijaz, S., & Shah, M. A. (2016). Smart cities: A survey on security concerns. International Journal in Advanced Computer Science and Applications (IJACSA), 7(2), 612–625.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Akhunzada, A., Gani, A., Anuar, N. B., Abdelaziz, A., Khan, M. K., Hayat, A., et al. (2016). Secure and dependable software defined networks. Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 61, 199–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Akhunzada, A., Sookhak, M., Anuar, N. B., Gani, A., Ahmed, E., Shiraz, M., et al. (2015). Man-at-the-end attacks: Analysis, taxonomy, human aspects, motivation and future directions. Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 48, 44–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jan, M. A., Tan, Z., He, X., & Ni, W. (2018). Moving towards highly reliable and effective sensor networks. Philadelphia: Old City Publishing.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Usman, M., Yang, N., Jan, M. A., He, X., Xu, M., & Lam, K. M. (2018). A joint framework for QoS and QoE for video transmission over wireless multimedia sensor networks. IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, 17(4), 746–759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jan, M. A., Nanda, P., He, X., Tan, Z., & Liu, R. P. (2014, September). A robust authentication scheme for observing resources in the internet of things environment. In 2014 IEEE 13th International Conference on Trust, Security and Privacy in Computing and Communications (TrustCom) (pp. 205–211). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jan, M. A., Khan, F., Alam, M., & Usman, M. (2017). A payload-based mutual authentication scheme for internet of things. Future Generation Computer Systems.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Khan, F., Khan, M., Iqbal, Z., ur Rahman, I., & Alam, M. (2016, September). Secure and safe surveillance system using sensors networks-internet of things. In International Conference on Future Intelligent Vehicular Technologies (pp. 167–174). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jan, M., Nanda, P., Usman, M., & He, X. (2017). PAWN: A payload-based mutual authentication scheme for wireless sensor networks. Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience, 29(17).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Khan, F. (2014). Secure communication and routing architecture in wireless sensor networks. In 2014 IEEE 3rd Global Conference on Consumer Electronics (GCCE) (pp. 647–650). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Waleed Rafiq
    • 1
  • Abdul Wahid
    • 1
  • Munam Ali Shah
    • 1
  • Adnan Akhunzada
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceCOMSATS Institute of Information TechnologyIslamabadPakistan

Personalised recommendations