4.7 Article

A Blockchain Framework for Secure Task Sharing in Multi-Access Edge Computing

期刊

IEEE NETWORK
卷 35, 期 3, 页码 176-183

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/MNET.011.2000489

关键词

Task analysis; Servers; Fabrics; Edge computing; Collaboration

资金

  1. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Casnada (NSERC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the context of a Multi-access Edge Computing (MEC) system, a task sharing mechanism among edge servers is essential for efficiency, but faces challenges in trust and real-time collaboration. This article introduces a blockchain framework with a permissioned scheme to address these challenges and provide incentives for collaboration among edge servers in a MEC environment. Experimental evaluation using Caliper tool and Hyperledger Fabric benchmarks demonstrates the effectiveness of the proposed blockchain scheme within the MEC framework.
In the context of Multi-access Edge Computing (MEC), the task sharing mechanism among edge servers is an activity of vital importance for speeding up the computing process and thereby improving the user experience. The distributed resources in the form of edge servers are expected to collaborate with each other in order to boost overall performance of a MEC system. However, there are many challenges to adopt global collaboration among the edge computing server entities and two of them are especially significant: ensuring trust among the servers and developing a unified scheme to enable real-time collaboration and task sharing. In this article, a blockchain framework is proposed to provide a trusted collaboration mechanism among edge servers in a MEC environment. In particular, a permissioned blockchain scheme is investigated to support a trusted design that also provides incentives for collaboration. Finally, Caliper tool and Hyperledger Fabric benchmarks are used to conduct an experimental evaluation of the proposed blockchain scheme embebbed in a MEC framework.

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

4.7
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