China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Blockchain versus IOTA Tangle for Internet of Things
Published in Sonali Vyas, Vinod Kumar Shukla, Shaurya Gupta, Ajay Prasad, Blockchain Technology, 2022
C. P. Igiri, Deepshikha Bhargava, C. Udanor, A. R. Sowah
Fundamental characteristics of IoT include interconnectivity, heterogeneity, dynamism and enormity. Regarding interconnectivity, almost anything can be interconnected to this global information and communications infrastructure. These devices are mostly heterogeneous, coming from different hardware manufacturers and network architectures. Despite this heterogeneity, the devices can integrate and interface seamlessly with one another based on IoT standards. IoT devices are dynamic in their ability to change state quickly in the shortest possible time. They could move from sleep/standby to the awake or active state. They could promptly activate various sensory modes as soon as they detect a state change, moving from the disconnected to the connected state, for example. The enormous scale of IoT interconnectivity would be at least an order of magnitude exceeding the devices connected to the current Internet (Zennaro, 2016). Cisco predicted that by 2020, more than 25 billion things will be interconnected on the IoT network globally (Bansal and Rana, 2017). This magnitude far exceeds what the current TCP/IP networks can handle without compromising security and quality of service (QoS) standards. The IoT promises to be an open architecture.
Time-Triggered Ethernet
Published in Richard Zurawski, Industrial Communication Technology Handbook, 2017
Wilfried Steiner, Michael Paulitsch
Both Ares I and Orion comprise separate avionics architectures due to operational constraints and control aspects. Orion deploys an integrated modular avionics (IMA) architecture approach as this allows an open architecture, a key characteristic to NASA. With an open architecture, the system is easier to integrate and maintain. For example, the central processing unit is standardized, allowing the use of COTS hardware without any single supplier constraint and, hence, reduction of nonrecurring cost for components within the system. Similarly, the use of COTS will decrease the upgrade cost since competition drives supplier upgrades to low or no cost to the project. Additionally, maintenance costs are reduced, since the COTS producers can leverage the development and maintenance tools already available. NASA’s systems, such as the human-rated Orion, tend to be deployed for long durations. The space shuttle, for example, has been operational for about 30 years. An IMA architecture used in such systems benefits in more easily supporting midlife upgrades to the system, hence incorporating midlife technology upgrades into the system. Furthermore, with varying mission durations, it is also important that the avionics architecture allows for different safety and criticality protections. IMA architectures support this flexibility [MBV09]. Figure 42.12 shows the Orion/Ares interface and some avionics architecture aspects of Orion and Ares.
Software Design and Development
Published in Jerry C. Whitaker, Microelectronics, 2018
Because of its open architecture, the generator can be configured to reside on any new architecture (or interface to any outside environment), e.g., to a language, communications package, an internet interface, a database package, or an operating system of choice; or it can be configured to interface to the users own legacy code. Once configured for a new environment, an existing system can be automatically regenerated to reside on that new environment. This open architecture approach, which lends itself to true component based development, provides more flexibility to the user when changing requirements or architectures; or when moving from an older technology to a newer one.
Modular architecture principles – MAPs: a key factor in the development of sustainable open architecture products
Published in International Journal of Sustainable Engineering, 2020
Jaime Alberto Mesa, Iván Esparragoza, Heriberto Maury
The open architecture includes additional considerations related to the lifecycle stages. In this case, products are characterized by the use of common parts and the exchangeability of components during the use stage, and by design for an easy assembly/disassembly that provides the planning of final disposal for each module as independent, facilitating the product modification in the use stage. Even it can include the possibility of upgrading components (new modules associated with specific functions or levels) at the use lifecycle stage. Additionally, the open architecture enables the extension of the useful life of the whole product. This feature is possible because this approach allows designing products to achieve the operation range or the necessary functions using fewer components due to the sharing and swapping of modules through common interfaces. A comparison between the life cycle of modular and open architecture products is summarized in Figure 2.
Architectural choices for cyber resilience
Published in Australian Journal of Multi-Disciplinary Engineering, 2019
Geoffrey Brennan, Keith Joiner, Elena Sitnikova
As described in Moore’s law, every year communications and information systems continue to undergo exponential growth in capability (Mack 2015). Concurrently the cycles of adaptation by cyber-attackers are also increasing, placing a difficult challenge on Managed Security Service Providers (MSSPs) (Chan 2018), defended mission-critical systems and the many legacy systems without cybersecurity evaluation or defence (Joiner and Tutty 2018). This presents a dilemma for traditional project management and acquisitions processes whereby the speed in technological advancement and cyber-threat outpaces the capacity to introduce contemporary systems into service. One proposed solution to this issue has been to adopt open architectures in major systems procurement and allow for modular system components (Serbu 2013). An open architecture is ‘a technical architecture that adopts open standards supporting a modular, loosely coupled and highly cohesive system structure that includes publishing of key interfaces within the system and full design disclosure.’ (Department of Defense 2013) This concept supports a faster acquisition cycle by allowing for components to be upgraded and replaced as technology evolves without having to re-engineer the entire system, but it is predicated on robust and well-defined interface standards (Rose et al. 2014).