4.6 Article

Insights into the Issue of Deploying a Private LoRaWAN

期刊

SENSORS
卷 22, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/s22052042

关键词

IoT; LPWA; LoRaWAN; LoRa; indoor; private; public

资金

  1. Technology Agency of the Czech Republic [TK02030013]
  2. Academy of Finland [318927, 341111, 336060]
  3. Academy of Finland (AKA) [336060] Funding Source: Academy of Finland (AKA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper explores the characteristics of LoRaWAN technology in supporting both public and private network deployments and compares their performance, aiming to assist in selecting the optimal deployment option.
The last decade has transformed wireless access technologies and crystallized a new direction for the internet of things (IoT). The modern low-power wide-area network (LPWAN) technologies have been introduced to deliver connectivity for billions of devices while keeping the costs and consumption low, and the range of communication high. While the 5G (fifth generation mobile network) LPWAN-like radio technologies, namely NB-IoT (narrowband internet of things) and LTE-M (long-term evolution machine type communication) are emerging, the long-range wide-area network (LoRaWAN) remains extremely popular. One unique feature of this technology, which distinguishes it from the competitors, is the possibility of supporting both public and private network deployments. In this paper we focus on this aspect and deliver original results comparing the performance of the private and public LoRAWAN deployment options; these results should help understand the LoRaWAN technology and give a clear overview of the advantages and disadvantages of the private versus public approaches. Notably, we carry the comparison along the three dimensions: the communication performance, the security, and the cost analysis. The presented results illustratively demonstrate the differences of the two deployment approaches, and thus can support selection of the most efficient deployment option for a target application.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据