supporting emergency- response by retasking network infrastructures presented by: michael lemay carl...
TRANSCRIPT
Supporting Emergency-Response by Retasking Network Infrastructures
Presented by: Michael LeMay
Carl A. Gunter
Outline
• Introduction• Emergencies and Hazards to Networks• Networking Requirements During
Emergencies• Traditional Emergency-Response• Network Topology and Application Trends• Emergency-Response with Retaskable
Networks• Discussion
Introduction
• Networks face various hazards during emergencies, and may cease to function as a result
• Additional networking requirements may also arise during emergencies
• Network availability during emergencies could be improved by allowing users to route communications over robust network infrastructures that managed to survive
Emergencies and Hazards to Networks
• Katrina: Only significant operational network in downtown was wireless mesh for surveillance cameras– Hazards: Flooding, high winds
• 9/11: Disrupted many networks routed through WTC– Hazards: Terrorist bombing
• Kobe earthquake: ERNs could have helped prevent misdirection of recovery resources
Special Network Requirements During Emergencies
• Distress signaling from victims to rescuers
• Messaging (text, voice, or perhaps video) between and among victims and rescuers
• Command and control for rescuers
Traditional Emergency Response
• Dedicated ERNs: Often government-funded– Limited in scope according to budget
• Ad-hoc mobile nodes deployed on an as-needed basis– May not penetrate to central parts of
hazardous disaster zones
• Manual retasking of existing networks (e.g. Katrina surveillance camera mesh)– Only utilizes a small portion of infrastructure
elements, may not support necessary ERN application-level protocols
Network Topology and Application Trends
• Self-healing mesh networks being used in increasingly-practical applications:– Advanced electric meters– Building and home automation systems– Parking garage monitoring– Surveillance cameras– Municipal wireless
• May not be necessary for their original intended purpose when disaster occurs, so could support recovery efforts instead
Emergency-Response with Retaskable Networks
• Proposal: Retask robust networks that survive a disaster to be used for emergency-response applications
• Three primary challenges:– Emergency detection mechanisms and
policies– Platform support– Topological readiness planning and
assessment
Emergency Detection Mechanisms and Policies
• Mechanisms:– Emergency declarations from central authorities– Sensor inputs (e.g. power outage detection on
meters)– Human inputs (e.g. panic button on
programmable communicating thermostat [PCT])
• Reasonable policy:– Digitally-signed indications from central
authorities trusted absolutely– Sensor and human inputs weighted and
compared to a threshold value
Hardware Platform Support
• Network compatibility: All communicating devices must use compatible network protocols, or appropriate gateways/bridges must be available– Not yet widely available for all interesting
protocols• Network availability: A sufficient subset of
network devices and linkages must be operational to support ERN services
• Device availability: Devices must be adequately protected against prevalent hazards in the deployment zone, and equipped with sufficient power reserves
Platform Support Examples
Wired networks
GSM Gateway
ZigBee Gateway
ZigBeeMeters
Rescuer Communicator w/ ZigBee Interface
GSM Mobile Phone
ZigBee Programmable Communicating Thermostat with ERN Enhancements
Software Platform Support
• Software support must be provided for all desired ERN services
• Potential approaches:– Software extensibility: Make network elements
reconfigurable, so they can load any software components required for ERN services dynamically
– Protocol standardization: Standardize simple protocols for ERN services that will have longevity due to their simplicity
Security Challenges
• ERN functionality of retaskable networks must not negatively affect the network during normal operating conditions– Malicious users must not be able to trick
network into falsely believing an emergency has occurred, to steal service
• Network should provide best QoS to those who are at the highest risk in the emergency and those best equipped to assist them
ERN Topology Planning
• Challenge: Varying capabilities of different types of networks (bandwidth, etc.), and unpredictable mobile nodes
• Current topology optimization algorithms can potentially be adapted to ERN planning problems
• We investigate the non-uniform buy-at-bulk approximation algorithm proposed by C. Chekuri, et. al. and adapt it to ERN planning
Adaptation of ERN Planning Algorithm
• Rather than optimizing strictly for financial cost of resulting network, use artificial cost that prefers network links that are:– Robust against the particular hazards
prevalent in the area under consideration– Financially inexpensive; particularly favorable
for existing, retaskable infrastructure– Low latency
• Provisional links that might be installed are included.
Example Topology
250kbps 100Mbps 11Mbps
1. Every node requires 50kbps
bw. to every other node except the central ZigBee routers and A
2. Every node requires 100kbps bw. to gateway A
Future Research
• Application-level protocols suitable for emergency-response
• Security and QoS protocols for ERNs
• Routing on dynamic networks with redundancy
Concluding Remarks
• Robust networks are being deployed in practical applications
• By retasking such networks after a disaster, emergency-response can be aided
• There are significant problems to be overcome in:– Emergency detection– Hardware platform support for emergency-
response– Software platform support for emergency-
response
Questions?
• Michael LeMay: [email protected]
• Carl A. Gunter: [email protected]
• Parent project page: http://seclab.uiuc.edu/attested-meter