Name
Abstract | ||
|---|---|---|
With the development of Internet of Things (IoT), bridging wireless sensor networks (WSNs) and other networks has become important. We divide bridging solutions into two categories: hardware solutions and middleware solutions. Hardware solutions have both low power short distance wireless interfaces and other types of transmission interfaces, e.g. GPRS, 3G/4G, via hardware implementations. This kind of solutions is more stable and more applicable for deployed sensor networks. In middleware solutions, the whole system processes appropriate protocol conversion. This kind of solutions is more independent of hardware, making it easier to be reused in different networks. This paper briefly presents key points of each solution and evaluates advantages and disadvantages of them in terms of different criteria. Eventually, we derive the most appropriate situation for each solution from our comparisons and discussions. |
Year | DOI | Venue |
|---|---|---|
2013 | 10.1109/MSN.2013.98 | MSN |
Keywords | Field | DocType |
wsn,integration,wireless sensor networks,gatewaying,vip bridge,hardware solution,sensor network,different criterion,cellular radio,middleware solution,hardware implementation,middleware,3g-4g,wireless sensor network,short distance wireless interfaces,iot,different network,transmission interfaces,gprs,usdcard,packet radio networks,appropriate protocol conversion,6lowpan,3g mobile communication,access protocols,hijack,gateway,appropriate situation,short distance wireless interface,4g mobile communication,protocol,internet of things | Middleware,Key distribution in wireless sensor networks,Wireless,Computer science,Bridging (networking),Computer network,Default gateway,6LoWPAN,General Packet Radio Service,Wireless sensor network,Distributed computing | Conference |
ISBN | Citations | PageRank |
978-0-7695-5159-3 | 0 | 0.34 |
References | Authors | |
0 | 8 | |
Name | Order | Citations | PageRank |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wenlong Yue | 1 | 6 | 1.59 |
| Yuanyuan Zhang | 2 | 3 | 1.07 |
| Zhenquan Qin | 3 | 76 | 14.43 |
| Zhu Ming | 4 | 6 | 6.18 |
| Cheng Jin | 5 | 7 | 1.24 |
| Lei Wang | 6 | 433 | 64.21 |
| Shu Lei | 7 | 2927 | 216.78 |
| Canfeng Chen | 8 | 386 | 34.20 |