2018 International Workshop on Architectures for Future Mobile Computing and Internet of Things

Optimized GTS Utilization for IEEE 802.15.4

Standard
Ahmad Naseem Alvi∗ , Rahat Mehmood∗ , Muhammad Talha Ahmed∗ , Malik Abdullah∗ , Safdar H. Bouk∗∗
∗ Department of Electrical Engineering, COMSATS Institute of Information Technology, Islamabad, Pakistan.
∗∗ Department of Information and Communication Engineering, DGIST, Daegu 42988, Korea.

Abstract—Low rate and low processing wireless applications  


are under high demands since last decade. Most of these applica-  !! 
tions use IEEE 802.15.4 standard on their physical and Medium
 




Access Control (MAC) layers. The standard operates in 868MHz,
 




915MHz, and 2400MHz frequency bands, and offers superframe
structure in its beacon enabled modes. This superframe structure
comprises of Contention Access Period (CAP) and Contention
Free Periods (CFP). During CFP, nodes are allocated Guaranteed
Time Slots (GTS) to transfer their data. In this work, CFP slots
of superframe structure have been fine-tuned for better link
utilization. A knapsack optimization algorithm is designed to
accommodate more CFP requesting nodes. The proposed scheme
improves the link utilization and accommodates more nodes as
compared to the existing standard. The analytical results show
that our proposed work improves the link utilization almost 50%
and allows up to double of nodes as compared to the standard
on all three frequency bands.
I. I NTRODUCTION
Low rate Wireless Personal Area Network (WPAN) appli-
cations are under high demand since last decade. Due to their
increased demands, lot of short range technologies have been
designed such as, ZigBee, Bluetooth, INSTEON etc. WPAN,
mostly require short distance technologies, such as Wireless
Sensor Networks (WSNs). WSNs are used in diverse and wide
range of applications, such as home automation, cattle farming,
agriculture precision, healthcare, liquid flow in pipe lines, and
military applications.
WSNs comprise of tiny wireless nodes with small energy
source. Most of WSNs applications demand for the deploy-
ment of these nodes in such remote and hard areas, where
human approach is almost impossible and nodes can not be
replaced easily. To keep WSNs active for longer time interval,
wireless sensor nodes should be energy efficient. In addition to
energy limitations, WSNs demands for the timely data trans-
mission without excessive delay. At the same time, throughput
or link utilization should be encourage to improve the WSNs
efficiency. To meet these challenges, multiple Medium Access
Control (MAC) protocols have been designed. IEEE released
802.15.4 standard in 2003 [1]. The standard is designed for
low data rate, low power WPAN [2] applications, that offers
a very low duty cycle even less than 0.1%.
The standard operates in two modes, such as beacon en-
abled mode and non-beacon enabled modes separately. Nodes
communicate in an adhoc manner during non-beacon enabled
mode by following un-slotted CSMA/CA algorithm. During
beacon enabled mode, nodes communicate in a star topology
by sending their data to a PAN-coordinator. Beacon enabled
978-1-5386-4248-1/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE
Fig. 1. Superframe Structure of IEEE 802.15.4
mode offers a superframe structure. A superframe structure
comprises of active and non active period. Active period
is known as Superframe Duration (SD), that comprises of
a beacon, Contention Access Period (CAP) and Contention
Free Period (CFP). Duration from the start of beacon till the
start of next beacon is known as Beacon Interval (BI). A
BI is a combination of active and optional inactive periods.
Fig.1 shows a complete superframe structure of IEEE 802.15.4
standard.
A SD comprises of 16 equal duration slots. CAP along
with beacon in a SD must have at least 9 slots where as CFP
consists of maximum 7 slots. When there is no CFP request
by any of the WPAN node, then CAP expands its size and
SD only comprises of beacon and CAP. Nodes having data
requests are required to send their GTS requests during CAP.
PAN coordinator assigns requested CFP slots to requested
nodes during next beacon frame on First Come First Serve
(FCFS). Some limitations of the standard during the allocation
of CFP slots are observed as:
1) PAN coordinator can only allocate CFP slots to maxi-
mum 7 nodes in a WPAN.
2) Slots utilization is not optimal.
In this work, these limitations of IEEE 802.15.4 regarding
GTS allocation are addressed. The main features of this work
are given below:
• A new super-frame structure is introduced in which CFP
slots have been doubled by dividing CFP duration to half
of its original duration, however complete CFP duration
remains same.
• A Knapsack optimization technique is proposed for better
GTS utilization instead of FCFS.
• The proposed Superframe model is fully compatible with
existing parameters of the existing standard.
Rest of the paper is organized as follows: Previous related
work is described in section II followed by an overview of
IEEE 802.15.4 standard. The proposed work is discussed in
125
 2018 International Workshop on Architectures for Future Mobile Computing and Internet of Things

section IV. Section V compares the proposed scheme with the TABLE I
existing standard and section VI concludes the paper. F REQUENCY BANDS WITH DATA R ATE

Frequency Modulation Symbols/sec bit Dura- Data rate

Band (MHz) Scheme tion (sec) (bits/sec)
II. R ELATED W ORK 868 - 868.6 BPSK 20000 50*e-6 20000
Internet-of-Things (IoT) [3] is gaining rapid popularity 902 - 928 BPSK 40000 25*e-6 40000
2400 - 2483.5 O-QPSK 62500 4*e-6 250000
during current decade. Protocols and trends like IEEE 802.15.4
compliant protocols [4], future Internet [5], and Machine-to-
Machine (M2M) networks [6] are basic parameters which
take part in IOT development. Multiple projects which focus

of future internet are mainly emphasizing on high data rate 


such as, EU 4WARD [7], and WPAN remain unattended. EU



SENSEI project [8] tried to focus on LoWPAN in the current
and future global internet. M2M networks are cognitive in   
nature that can interact without human interference [9]. Most
of the low rate and low powered WPAN applications use IEEE

 




802.15.4 standard on their physical and MAC layer. That’s
why, its performance is evaluated by different researchers
in diverse prospects. Ergen et al. [10] and Fischione et al.
[11] evaluated the performance of un-slotted CSMA/CA of
the standard. In [10], an energy efficient novel approach is
introduced. Where as, duty cycle is optimized to improve the
energy conservation by introducing the sleep and idle listening
function in [11].
Kajima and Harada in [12], highlighted the energy con-
sumption during superframe structure of the standard and
optimized it by turning off beacon and proposing a dynamic re-
association procedure. In [13], Chen et al. introduced Explicit
GTS Sharing and Allocation Scheme (EGSA) to minimize the
delay in tightly bound real time communication applications.
In [14], authors reduced the delay and packet delivery ratio is
improved by introducing multi-hop communication scheme in
GTS mechanism. In [15], authors improved GTS utilization by
introducing an Unbalanced GTS Allocation Scheme (UGAS).
UGAS offered adaptive GTS scheme to meet different band-
width utilization and claimed to improve GTS Utilization by
30%.
Number of solutions are proposed for effective GTS allo-
cation to improve the QoS in LoWPAN by reducing delay,
increasing throughput and allocating CFP slots to more num-
ber of nodes as compared to the standard [16][17][18][19].
However, most of these previous schemes improves QoS by
altering superframe structure of the standard which require
additional parameters.
In this work, a novel superframe structure is proposed to
to improve the link utilization by applying modified knapsack
optimization algorithm. This optimization technique not only
increases the link utilization but also scrutinize more GTS
requesting nodes to send their data.
III. IEEE 802.15.4 OVERVIEW
IEEE 802.15.4 standard is designed for such wireless
devices which are low data rate and require low powered
wireless personal area networks (LR-WPAN) such as WSNs.
The standard operates in 868MHz, 915MHz, and 2.4GHz
frequency bands. 868 and 915MHz are licensed frequency
bands for whole world and unlicensed for only Europe and
North America respectively. However, 2.4GHz is unlicensed
126
Fig. 2. Star and Peer-to-peer network
in the whole world. The frequency details are shown in table
I.
The standard allows WPAN nodes interact with other nodes
either by following star topology or communicate in peer-
to-peer fashion. During superframe structure, end devices are
associated with coordinator and they are required to send their
data to the coordinator directly by following star topology
whereas, each coordinator exchanges this accumulated data
with other coordinators/PAN coordinators in peer-to-peer fash-
ion as shown in figure 2.
The superframe structure of the standard comprise of active
and an optional inactive period and known as beacon interval
(BI). Active period is called superframe duration (SD). BI and
SD are computed as:
BI = 15 × 2BO+6 Symbols, here 0 ≥ BO ≤ 14 (1)
SD = 15 × 2SO+6 Symbols, here 0 ≥ SO ≤ BO (2)
SD consists of 16 equal duration slots which are combina-
tion of beacon, CAP and optional CFP. Minimum 9 slots out of
16 are shared between beacon and CAP, whereas, remaining
slots are part of CFP. WPAN coordinator generates beacon
frame after regular intervals. It is mandatory for all nodes
to keep their radios ON to listen the beacon frame. Nodes
synchronizes themselves with the arrival of beacon frame.
Nodes have to contend in sending their messages during CAP,
however, nodes explicitly send their data during CFP and need
not to contend with other nodes during CFP.
If a node wants to send its data explicitly during CFP then,
it first computes the required number of CFP slots and then
send a GTS request during CAP to the PAN coordinator.
PAN coordinator informs about the slots allocation during next
beacon frame on first come first serve basis (FCFS). Maximum
7 nodes can be allocated CFP slots by the PAN coordinator
during one superframe duration.
 2018 International Workshop on Architectures for Future Mobile Computing and Internet of Things

 
 Algorithm 1 Nodes Selection Algorithm

    1: procedure K NAP S ACK TABLE IMPLEMENTATION




 







! 2:
3: m ← Current slot
4: M ← Max. no. of slots
Fig. 3. Proposed superframe structure with CAP and CFP 5: i ← Node ID
6: n ← Max. no. of nodes
7: X[i, m] ← Cell value of ith node with w slot
IV. P ROPOSED M ODEL 8: mi ← No. of slots required or requested by ith node
9: for m = 0 to M do
The proposed superframe structure is designed to improve 10: X[0, m] = 0 // Initialize 1st row to 0’s
the link utilization of GTS by allowing maximum number of 11: end for
GTS requesting nodes. To achieve these results, the superframe 12: for i = 1 to v do
structure of IEEE 802.15.4 standard has been amended by 13: X[i, 0] = 0 // Initialize 1st column to 0’s
shrinking the CFP slot duration to half of the CAP slot duration 14: end for
as shown in fig.3. This doubles the capacity of CFP requesting 15: for i = 1 to v do
nodes. A knapsack algorithm optimizes the available CFP slots 16: for m = 0 to M do
to CFP requesting nodes. 17: if mi ≤ m then
18: if mi + X[i − 1, , m − mi ] > X[i − 1, m]
A. GTS Allocation Procedure in Proposed Model then
19: X[i, m] = mi + X[i − 1, m − mi ]
The proposed scheme offers 14 CFP slots instead of 7. A
20: else
GTS requesting node sends its GTS request after computing
21: X[i, m] = X[i − 1, m]
the number of slots in the same pattern as discussed in section
22: end if
III. However, node computes about number of GTS required
23: else
(GT SREQ ) to send its data D as:
24: X[i, m] = X[i − 1, m]
D 25: end if
GT SREQ = (3) end for
15 × 2SO+3 26:
27: end for
Here, Nb/s = 15 × 2SO+3 28:
The coordinator after receiving all these requests, scrutinize 29: Initialize i and w:
nodes by applying knapsack optimization algorithm. 30: v←i
31: M ←m
B. Knapsack Optimization Algorithm 32: while i > 1 and m > 1 do
33: if B[i, m] > B[i − 1, m] then
In this work, a knapsack optimization algorithm is modified 34: ith node is included in optimized solution
and applied for the selection of CFP requesting nodes instead 35: i=i−1
of FCFS to improve the link utilization. This algorithm allo- 36: m = m − mi
cates CFP slots not only to improve the CFP utilization but 37: else
also accommodate more CFP requesting nodes with following 38: i=i−1
considerations. 39: end if
• M: Maximum knapsack weight or maximum CFP slots. 40: end while
th
• mi : CFP slots requested by i node. 41: end procedure
• m: current slot number that ranges from 0 to M.
• j: Total requesting slots

If J ≤ M , then coordinator assigns GTSs to all GTS C. Link Utilization

requesting nodes by applying shortest job first algorithm only.
If J > M
then coordinator scrutinize CFP requesting nodes by apply-
ing knapsack algorithm as described in algorithm 1.
Suppose maximum CFP slots and number of nodes are 7
and 5 respectively. let these 5 nodes requested for 14 CFP slots
such as, a, b, c, d, and e have requested for 2, 2, 1, 4, and 5
slots respectively. Coordinator manages these GTS requesting
nodes by arranging their number of slots in an ascending order,
such as c, a, b, d, and e. The coordinator fills the proposed
knapsack table and assigns GTS to nodes a, b, and d as shown
in II.
Link utilization is measured as ratio between actual amount
of transmitted data during a slot and maximum capability of
amount of data that can be transmitted during that slot. IEEE
802.15.4 standard does not accommodates GTS optimally,
particularly when slot size is large enough to handle more
data traffic. It has been addressed by reducing the GTS size.
If node x wants to send data Dx , and tx is the time required
by node x in transmitting this data to PAN coordinator, then
tx is computed as:
Dx
tx = (4)
R

127
 2018 International Workshop on Architectures for Future Mobile Computing and Internet of Things

Parameters Values
TABLE II
Number of Nodes 20
K NAPSACK TABLE
Network Size 100m × 100m
Node GTS GTS GTS GTS GTS GTS GTS GTS Data Rate (868MHz) 20Kbps
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Data Rate (915MHz) 40Kbps
Nil 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Data Rate (2.4GHz) 250Kbps
c 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Offered Load in bits (Data Set 1) 200:30:770
a 0 1 2 3 3 3 3 3 Offered Load in bits (Data Set 2) 96:30:666
b 0 1 2 3 4 5 5 5 Offered Load in bits (Data Set 3) 400:30:970
d 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Superframe Order 0:1:5
e 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Beacon Order 0:1:5
GTS Duration in 802.15.4 (868MHz) 3 to 48 msec
GTS Duration in 802.15.4 (915MHz) 1.5 to 24 msec
Here, R is the offered data rate. If node requires Kx slots to GTS Duration in 802.15.4 (2.4MHz) 0.96 to 15 msec
send its data, then these slots are computed as: GTS Duration in Proposed (868MHz) 1.5 to 24 msec
GTS Duration in Proposed (915MHz) 0.75 to 12 msec
Dx GTS Duration in Proposed (2.4MHz) 0.48 to 7.5 msec
Kx = (5) TABLE III
Nb/s S IMULATION PARAMETERS

Link utilization (Ux ) for node x in transmitting Dx data is

calculated as:
14

tx Conventional for Data set 1.

Ux = (6) Proposed for Data set 1.

Kx × t s 12
Conventional for Data set 2.
Proposed for Data set 2.
Conventional for Data set 2.
here, ts is the time of each CFP slot in seconds. If coordinates

No of nodes assigned GTS.

10
Proposed for Data set 3

allocates ktot slots to n nodes successfully, then accumulated

P rop
GTS utilization, LUGT
8

S , for n nodes is computed as:

n

6

P rop tx
LUGT S = (7)
i=1
Ktot × ts 4

However, link utilization of same node x in IEEE 802.15.4
standard, LU15.4 , is computed as:
tx
LU15.4 = (8)
M15.4 × t15.4
here, M15.4 is number of GTS required to send the required
data in the standard. If coordinator assigns Mtot slots to y
15.4
nodes, then link utilization LUGT S is calculated as:
y
 IEEE 802.15.4 standard.
15.4 tx
LUGT S =
i=1
Mtot × t15.4
V. A NALYSIS AND O BSERVATIONS
This section evaluates the performance comparison between
our proposed MAC and the existing standard. The perfor-
mance analysis includes number of successfully assigned GTS
requesting nodes, transmitted data and GTS utilization. To
validate our analysis, three different ranges of random data
sets are chosen for varying values of SO. A complete list of
parameters are shown in table III.
A. Number of GTS assigning nodes
When nodes have data to send, they send their request for
GTS allocation to coordinator. The standard allocates GTS by
applying FCFS. In this work, number of CFP slots have been
increased by reducing each CFP slot size without compromis-
ing the over CFP duration as specified in the standard. By
applying Knapsack optimization technique to scrutinize nodes
for slot allocation, which makes sure that maximum number
of nodes are entertained in the given CFP. Results shown in
figures 5 and 4 verifies that number of nodes assigned in
2
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
SO=BO
Fig. 4. Number of nodes assigned GTS for 868 and 915MHz
proposed protocol are greater than, or at least equal to the
(9) Fig.4 shows number of nodes successfully allocated GTS for
three different data sets in 868MHz and 915MHz. It is evident
from the results that proposed model allows more nodes to
send their data for higher SO value and accommodates 14 GTS
requesting nodes whereas, IEEE 802.15.4 standard allows only
7 nodes.
For 2.4GHz frequency band, proposed protocol shows even
better results for same data sets as shown in fig. 5. When
SO=0, number of nodes selected for GTS are same for data set
2 and 3. Whereas, for data set 1, proposed model allows more
nodes as compared to the standard. However, the proposed
MAC accommodates more GTS requesting nodes with the rise
in SO.
B. Data Transmission
Amount of data transmitted during CFP directly depends
on number of node assigned GTS. It can be calculated by
accumulating the amount of data that has been transmitted
during CFP. The transmitted data is calculated for different
data sets, with varying SO parameter, and for all frequency
bands.

128
 2018 International Workshop on Architectures for Future Mobile Computing and Internet of Things

14 9000
Conventional for Data set 1.
Conventional for Data set 1. Proposed for Data set 1.
Proposed for Data set 1. 8000
Conventional for Data set 2.
12 Conventional for Data set 2.
Proposed for Data set 2.
Proposed for Data set 2. 7000
Conventional for Data set 2.
No of nodes assigned GTS.

Data Transmitted (Bytes).

Conventional for Data set 2.
Proposed for Data set 3 Proposed for Data set 3
10 6000

5000

4000

6 3000

2000

1000

2 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
SO=BO SO=BO

Fig. 5. Number of nodes assigned GTS for 2400MHz Fig. 7. Transmitted data vs varying SO for 2400MHz

9000 100
Conventional for Data set 1. Conventional for Data set 1.
Proposed for Data set 1. Proposed for Data set 1.
8000 90 Conventional for Data set 2.
Conventional for Data set 2.
Proposed for Data set 2. Proposed for Data set 2.
7000 Conventional for Data set 2. 80 Conventional for Data set 2.
Proposed for Data set 3
Data Transmitted (Bytes).

Proposed for Data set 3

GTS utilization.(%)
6000 70

5000 60

4000 50

3000 40

2000 30

1000 20

0 10
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
SO=BO SO=BO

Fig. 6. Transmitted data vs varying SO for 868 and 915MHz Fig. 8. GTS Utilization vs SO for 868 and 915MHz

For 868 MHz and 915 MHz frequency bands, the proposed 83.33%-15.89%, 74%-10.74%, and 83.33%-26.3% with the
MAC transmits more data as compared to the standard for same rise in SO for data sets 1, 2, and 3 respectively, as shown
all three data sets and all values of SO. It is evident from in fig.8.
the results shown in fig.6, that the proposed scheme transmits Comparing the performance of proposed MAC with the
up to 126%, 153%, and 106% more data for data set 1, 2 standard on 2.4GHz frequency band, it has been observed that
and 3, respectively, as compared to the standard for varying proposed MAC offers better utilization as compared to the
0 ≤ SO ≤ 5. standard as shown in fig.9. It has also been observed from
In 2.4GHz frequency band, the proposed MAC transmits the results that GTS utilization in 2.4GHz frequency bands is
up to 145%, 153%, and 106% more data for data sets 1, 2, much smaller than 868MHz and 915MHz. Because, 2.4GHz
and 3 respectively, as compared to IEEE 802.15.4 standard for accommodate 4 times more data for the same GTS duration
varying 0 ≤ SO ≤ 5 as shown in fig.7. as compared to 868 and 915MHz.
It is evident from the results that proposed scheme offers
24.18%-157%, 17.57%-183%, and 9.37%-136% better GTS
C. GTS Utilization
utilization as compared to the standard for data set 1, 2, and
GTS Utilization is measured as ratio between transmitted 3 respectively.
data and maximum GTS capacity. Results shown in figures From above observations it is clear that percentage link
9 and 8 verifies that GTS utilization in all frequency bands utilization for 2.4GHz is considerably lower than 868GHz and
decreases with the rise in SO for same amount of data limits. 915GHz. The reason behind this is that slot size for 2.4GHz
However, GTS utilization is more in the proposed scheme as is larger than that of 868 and 915MHz.
compared to the standard.
In 868MHz and 915MHz, GTS utilization in proposed VI. C ONCLUSION
scheme decreases from 97.62%-41.15%, 88.75%-30.35%, and In this paper, an efficient GTS allocation scheme for
95.24%-61.89% with the rise in SO value for data set 1,2, IEEE 802.15.4 standard is proposed without compromising
and 3 respectively. However in the standard, it decreases from on existing parameters. The proposed scheme improved the

129
 2018 International Workshop on Architectures for Future Mobile Computing and Internet of Things

[13] J. Chen, L.L. Ferreira,E. Tovar, "‘An explicit GTS allocation algorithm
90
Conventional for Data set 1. for IEEE 802.15.4", IEEE 16th Conference on Emerging Technologies
80
Proposed for Data set 1. and Factory Automation (ETFA), pp. 18 Sept. 2011.
Conventional for Data set 2.
Proposed for Data set 2. [14] WoongChul Choi and SeokMin Lee, "Novel GTS Mechanism for Reli-
70 Conventional for Data set 2. able Multihop Transmission in the IEEE 802.15.4 Network", International
Proposed for Data set 3
Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks, vol. 2012, Article ID 796426,
GTS utilization.(%)

60
10 pages, 2012.
50 [15] Nam Tuan Le, Sunwoong Choi and Yeong Min Jang, "A New QoS
Resource Allocation Scheme Using GTS for WPANs", Journal of Wire-
40
less Pers Communication, Vol. 67, No. 1, Nov. 2012. sensor networks",
30
Journal of Systems Architecture, Vol. 59, Issue 10, Part D, Nov. 2013.
[16] Yu-Kai Huang, Ai-Chun Pang, and Hui-Nien Hung, "An Adaptive GTS
20 Allocation Scheme for IEEE 802.15.4", IEEE Transactions on Parallel
and Distributed Systems, Vol.19, No.5, pp.641-651, May 2008.
10
[17] Ahmad Naseem Alvi, S. H. Ahmed, M. A. Yaqub, N. Javaid, Safdar
0 H. Bouk, and Dongkyun Kim, "An Improved IEEE 802.15.4 Superframe
0 1 2 3 4 5
SO=BO Structure with Minimum Delay and Maximum CFP Link Utilization",
AHSWN 35.1-2, pp.151-171, 2017.
[18] N. Le, S. Choi, and Y. Jang, "A New QoS Resource Allocation Scheme
Fig. 9. GTS Utilization vs SO for 2400MHz Using GTS for WPANs", Journal of Wireless Personal Communications,
Vol. 67, No. 1, pp. 25-45, November 2012.
[19] Lu Yang and Shen Zeng, "A new GTS allocation schemes for IEEE
802.15.4", In Proc. of the 5th International Conference on Biomedical
Engineering and Informatics (BMEI), 2012, pp.1398-1401, Oct. 2012.
link utilization and allowed more GTS requesting nodes by
optimizing these GTS. The results verified that the proposed
scheme improved the GTS utilization a lot and accommodated
more GTS requesting nodes as compared to the standard in
all three frequency bands.

R EFERENCES
[1] IEEE standard for information technology telecommunications and infor-
mation exchange between systems local and metropolitan area network
specific requirements part 15.4: Wireless Medium Access Control and
Physical layer specifications for low rate wireless personal area networks,
IEEE std 802.15.4-2004, pages 1-670, 2003.
[2] IEEE Standard for Information Technology Local and Metropolitan Area
Networks Specific Requirements, Part 15.4: Wireless Medium Access
Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications for Low Rate
Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs), Mar. 2016, [online] Avail-
able: https://standards.ieee.org.
[3] G. Yi, J. H. Park, S. Choi, "Energy-efficient distributed topology control
algorithm for low-power IoT communication networks", IEEE Access,
vol. 4, pp. 9193-9203, 2016.
[4] A. Biason et al., "EC-CENTRIC: An energy- and context-centric per-
spective on IoT systems and protocol design", IEEE Access, vol. 5, pp.
6894-6908, 2017.
[5] A. Munir, P. Kansakar, S. U. Khan, "IFCIoT: Integrated fog cloud IoT:
A novel architectural paradigm for the future Internet of Things", IEEE
Consum. Electron. Mag., vol. 6, pp. 74-82, Jul. 2017.
[6] L. Wang, X. Zhang, S. Wang, J. Yang, "An online strategy of adaptive
traffic offloading and bandwidth allocation for green M2M communica-
tions", IEEE Access, vol. 5, pp. 6444-6453, 2017.
[7] L.M.Correia, H.Abramowicz, M. Johnsson, K. Wnstel, "Architecture
and Design for the Future Internet" 4WARD Project, Dordrecht, The
Netherlands:Springer, 2011.
[8] G. Tselentis, A. Galis, Towards the Future Internet: Emerging Trends
from European Research, Amsterdam, The Netherlands:IOS Press, 2010.
[9] A. Aijaz, A. H. Aghvami, "Cognitive machine-to-machine communica-
tions for Internet-of-Things: A protocol stack perspective", IEEE Internet
Things J., vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 103-112, Apr. 2015.
[10] S. C. Ergen, C. Fischione, D. Marandin, A. Sangiovanni-Vincentelli,
"Duty-cycle optimization in unslotted 802.15.4 wireless sensor networks",
Proc. Global Telecommun. Conf. (IEEE GLOBECOM), pp. 1-6, Nov.
2008.
[11] C. Fischione, S. C. Ergen, P. Park, K. H. Johansson, A. Sangiovanni-
Vincentelli, "Medium access control analytical modeling and optimization
in unslotted IEEE 802.15.4 wireless sensor networks", Proc. 6th Annu.
IEEE Commun. Soc. Conf. Sensor Mesh Ad Hoc Commun. Netw.
(SECON), pp. 1-9, Jun. 2009.
[12] Kojima, F.; Harada, H., "Long Lived Smart Utility Network Management
Using Modified IEEE 802.15.4 MAC", Communications Workshops
(ICC), 2010 IEEE International Conference on , vol. 1, no. 5, pp. 23-
27, May 2010.

130