O slideshow foi denunciado.
Utilizamos seu perfil e dados de atividades no LinkedIn para personalizar e exibir anúncios mais relevantes. Altere suas preferências de anúncios quando desejar.

R&s 10 juin 2015 sigfox christophe

Conférence débat du 10 juin 2015, organisée par le groupe Réseaux et Services de Telecom ParisTech Amumni "Quels réseaux pour l'Internet des Objets ?"
présentation de Christophe Fourtet (Sigfox)

Livros relacionados

Gratuito durante 30 dias do Scribd

Ver tudo
  • Seja o primeiro a comentar

R&s 10 juin 2015 sigfox christophe

  1. 1. The technical challenges of future IoT networks and their consequences on modem’s and SoC’s design Christophe Fourtet
  2. 2. SIGFOX in few words M2M & IoT : The “arena” – Challenges, paradoxes and “rationals” The Ultra Narrow Band Approach Cognitive SDR Backend : The forgotten essential element Consequences on modems, chips and SoC Q&A’s
  3. 3. SIGFOX in few wordsInitially founded in 2008 with a technical charter oriented toward multi-signal cognitive SDR for “tiny signals” SDR and UNB fundamental radio blocks designed between 2008 and 2010 End 2010 : Association with Ludovic Le Moan, founder of Anywhere Technology (now Sierra) and co-founder of ScoopIT… Re-foundation of SIGFOX with a new charter : IoT operatorcharter : IoT operator The “New SIGFOX” starts : Orientation to M2M/IoT network technology and operator business model 2011 – 2012 : first large subscription contracts signed. Development of partner eco-system - SIGFOX moves to TIC-Valley 2013 : France fully covered. Netherland and Spain to come. 2014 : Netherland, Spain covered. Large contracts signed. Anne Lauvergeon joins SIGFOX as chairman of the board 2015 : 100 collaborators – Historic raising of 120 M - UK, Portugal, US, Asia, Germany and Italy are engaged.… Stay tuned !
  4. 4. SIGFOX in few words Christophe Fourtet - CSO Ludovic Le Moan - CEO Anne Lauvergeon – Chairman of the board
  5. 5. Startup…In a garage ! A classic ?
  6. 6. Flexible RF Signal processing Power supply Connectivity Base station HTTPS Web browser Client SIGFOX network Back-end servers Ethernet, 3G or custom IP links Ethernet, 3G Front-end servers Crawling Flexible RF Signal processing Power supply Connectivity Base station Ethernet, 3G or custom IP links Client HTTPS Web browser
  7. 7. A global plan : 60+ countries in 5 years Mid 2015 status UmeåUmeå • 1m km² coverage in Europe while aggressive global rollout ambitions USAUSA FRANCEFRANCE SPAINSPAIN UKUK NLNL PTPT Menlo ParkMenlo Park KoreaKorea MumbaiMumbai WarsawWarsaw MunichMunich MilanMilan DublinDublin GrazGraz Montgomery county Montgomery county AntwerpAntwerp Country launched On-going country deployment Pilot cities SingaporeSingapore MumbaiMumbai SantiagoSantiago BogotaBogota
  8. 8. The ecosystem
  9. 9. The Ecosystem More than 60 SIGFOX Ready™ solutions today
  10. 10. SIGFOX today • SIGFOX BACKED BY MOBILE NETWORK OPERATORS, FINANCIAL & INDUSTRY LEADERS • 30 patents $150$150 M• 10 nationalities • France, USA, Spain far M raised so far 10
  11. 11. M2M / IoT : The “Arena” – Challenges, paradoxes and “rationals”
  12. 12. Quick panorama of today’s M2M/IoT Cellular : GPRS, 3G … Optimized 4G in Pro’s Large networks exist Con’s Cost.Consumption! (terminals must be… Optimized 4G in few years PMR : Mobitex, Tetra, specific ISM : Proprietary, mesh, ZigBee… exist Large networks exist. Reliable Low cost (terminals must be disciplined) High cost. Dedicated to Pro No clear standard. Often too simple.mesh, ZigBee… Satellite Low cost Large coverage Often too simple. Not scalable Relatively high cost. Not flexible
  13. 13. Key facts about available spectrum Cellular spectrum is, and will stay very expansive Private spectrum as well ISM spectrum is not large and drastically limited and constrainedISM spectrum is not large and drastically limited and constrained (power, duty cycle…) TV White space are not global, if not just a “Mirage” Potential future specific allocations for M2M will take a long time, as ever (10 years ?)ever (10 years ?) You should better get organized for a maximum optimization !!!
  14. 14. Key goals for tomorrow’s M2M / IoT Low cost … And even ultralow cost Ultra low current drain Consequence of above : Keep devices as “low talker” or “listener” asConsequence of above : Keep devices as “low talker” or “listener” as possible, and avoid to “discipline” them through complex protocol… However : Need for high scalability … Ten’s of billion of objects Keep CAPEX and thus infrastructure as low cost as possible at startup Plan to standardize ! Many things to be reinvented compared to classical networks !
  15. 15. The paradoxes You need large cells for minimum CAPEX, thus long ranges But you want low power And despite large cells, you still want scalability on tiny spectrums, thusAnd despite large cells, you still want scalability on tiny spectrums, thus very high capacity per MHz However … devices are not disciplined for low consumption and low complexity/cost … It seems you need to put intelligence in the network and use advanced techniques like Cognitive SDR !!!
  16. 16. Behind the technology : The rational Main objective : Keep network cost as low as possible Most actors in M2M still think in a peer to peer way. But the essential “market booting factor” is “having a low cost wide area network, transparent to final customer” cells as large as possible Second objective : low cost / low consumption modems Keep it as simple as possible But with as high capacity as possible Optimize the resource. Thus please Be at Nyquist criteria ! X bit per second = X Hz bandwidth You need high performance high selectivity SDR cognitive able to handle a large number of signals in parallel : That’s where you can put your effort and money ! Simplify protocol, particularly for low volume transactions Focus on the low data volume market and operate modems at low datarate to drastically improve budget link. Cellular is 140/150 dB. Let’s go for 160 dB despite 20 dB less RF power Network should not ask modems for long disciplining processes. But it should be at the service of modems to compensate for put your effort and money ! Design the clever backend that fits with it, so that it is seamless to final customer the service of modems to compensate for their imperfections, contributing to their low cost Develop ecosystem and applications
  17. 17. Summary of rational Large cells but high capacity Try to be @ Nyquist for very low datarates You must implement high selectivity's or high “logic channel” separation Do not discipline your devices. Keep them simple without needs for accuracy. Network will compensate static error, drifts and imperfections – Network “is at the service” of devices !service” of devices ! But sophisticate your infrastructure to push service quality as high as possible with deep possibilities of further upgrade Particularly, design your nodes as “multi-instantiation” as possible Optimize your budget links as far as possible Do everything you can to migrate complexity from device to infrastructureDo everything you can to migrate complexity from device to infrastructure All choices must be coherent within the complete system Once again, bet on cognitive SDR + agile backhaul
  18. 18. Ultra Narrow Band Approach
  19. 19. Network cost : Why Ultra Narrow Band ? How to optimize your available spectrum ? Conventional signals are stones (the protocol) containing a grain of sand (your information). You should rather fill directly with sand ! But Narrow Band techniques have been almost abandoned for more than 40 years. Why ? Because the more you work narrowband, the more tuning is complex, the more stability issues are of first importance… And thus the more expansive are your systems ! But SigFox succeeded to achieve it at low cost…
  20. 20. But then, why not other techniques ? Spread Spectrum is an other option and it helps get rid of stability issues It is also a good technique for interference robustness. In fact UNB and SS are dual technique regarding interferences DSSS or OSSS often bring a certain degree of flexibility by essence However, since you are able to solve the tuning issue at low cost, UNB might be superior on : Simplicity of terminalsSimplicity of terminals Fact that SS requires disciplining terminals for spreading code attribution Better capacity : Since you are able to achieve UNB selectivity, the narrower you operate, the higher is capacity Additionally, the narrower you operate, the lighter is protocol, going down to zero quickly No frequency/channel management. Terminals are “free running” Conclusion : if you solved the known UNB issues, you will get better resource optimization for much lower costs, less protocol overhead, if any, seamless deployment and post deployment, seamlessdeployment and post deployment, seamless connections and lower power consumptions. SDR is a way to achieve this
  21. 21. Are you sure selectivity/capacity is there ? Yes, beyond rigorous scientific study, SigFox has developed a complete set of test equipments allowing full network loading tests (with presence of interferers) on real hardware, before it can even “just starts to occur” on the field. Typically Up to 3 Million devices per day on a single BS for 3 transactions per device per day and only 8% spectrum loading
  22. 22. How did SigFox solved the UNB issues? Do not care about terminal “imperfections”, like static or dynamic stability, among others. Put effort on station’s SDR software that will compensate for it ! Highly multisession thanks to time critical software coding techniques : You cans handle thousands of simultaneous signals High dynamic BS radio (120 dB) is needed for above purpose, specially when installed at top of a large cell where electromagnetic environment is “aggressive”. Uplink is extremely simplified. Almost whatever commercial chip can be used. Dynamic frequency instabilities are corrected in the BS.be used. Dynamic frequency instabilities are corrected in the BS. Terminal is free to impose its frequency hopping. Bidirectional terminal’s receivers do not need BS sophistication because, once again, network compensates for their weaknesses. You can operate UNB without stability concern.
  23. 23. Cognitive SDR
  24. 24. SDR in 2 words Some history : SDR concept appears in the 80’s (1984) Labs like « Software Radio Proof-of-Concept laboratory » in US, or « German Aerospace Research Establishment » or companies like Raytheon, Thomson, Rockwell start prototypes. It is admitted Dr Joseph Mitola was the first in 1991 to introduce terms of « SDR », as well as « cognitive »…Considered as the « pope » of SDR, he has for example worked on projects like SPEAKeasy II for US departments First 70 Msamp/s digital IF cellular base station introduced on the market around 2000 Since then, a good example of SDR devices : Our cell phones…Since then, a good example of SDR devices : Our cell phones… You want to push channel filtering and « specialization » as far as possible SDR, or the quest of « saint – Graal » And you want to get rid of RF…
  25. 25. A practical SDR radio… in 2 words But for now … Need some compromize
  26. 26. A Cognitive multi-instantiation SDR A common RF and A/D for multiple software instantiations, each of them dynamically “discovering”, identifying and demodulating a specific UNB signal among a plurality of others One RF = N receivers Same principle for transmission : Compute a complex multi-signal (multi-carrier), sent to a unique D/A & RF
  27. 27. A Cognitive multi-instantiation SDR An example of a multi-branch demodulator Software implementation
  28. 28. Backend : Or the forgotten element
  29. 29. Do not neglect Network “backend” Backend is the “brain” of your SDR infrastructure : Provide end to end seamless connectivity to customer. Data management, web services, billings BS, site and network asset control, management and statistics Additional potential features: Geo-location. Network registration and population management. Roaming strategy.Roaming strategy. Security and surveillance algorithm. Coverage simulation tool QoS alerts based on metadata Possibilities of spectrum remote analysis. Leads to manual or automated spectrum and jamming alerts. Possibilities of improved performances through signal post processing on servers taking advantage of collaborative property of the network. Everything you can log brings value GeolocationNetwork redundancy
  30. 30. Do not neglect Network “backend” Example of integrated coverage simulation and deployment tool
  31. 31. Do not neglect Network “backend” Example of remote spectrum control : Station of Toulouse Rangueuil
  32. 32. Do not neglect Network “backend” Example of remote spectrum control : Station du Pic du Midi
  33. 33. Do not neglect Network “backend” Example of remote spectrum control : A station in San-Fransisco bay (FCC mode)
  34. 34. Consequences on modems, chips and SoC
  35. 35. Your car’s wireless key becomes SIGFOX ! From the classical approach where the network disciplines to a novel approach where it compensates for device’s TX and RX imperfections leads to basic, thus low cost, devices. No need for high RF power no need for external PA’sNo need for high RF power no need for external PA’s No need for high frequency accuracy on device No need for signal processing on device No need for high quality, low EVM TX chains on deviceNo need for high quality, low EVM TX chains on device For simple applications, not necessitating powerful µC, a pure single chip solution is possible
  36. 36. COMPANY NAME PRODUCT NAME DESCRIPTION CC112x High performance single chip radio transceiver designed for low-power and low-voltage operation in Almost every available chip can run SIGFOX ! CC112x family High performance single chip radio transceiver designed for low-power and low-voltage operation in cost-effective wireless systems SI446X High-performance, low-current transceivers covering the sub-GHz frequency bands from 119 to 1050 MHz AX 8052F143 Transceiver integrating the micro-controller into the same component, dedicated to high volume projects where every cents matters ATA 8520 System-on-Chip integrating MCU, hardware security and SIGFOX wireless connectivity solutions into one package
  37. 37. Ultimate optimization : “FOXY” from CEA-LETI High Integration thanks to Digital-Oriented Architecture Small Single-Chip made possible by thin technology CMOS nodes Demonstrated in 65nm by CEA-Léti, and possible easy scalingDemonstrated in 65nm by CEA-Léti, and possible easy scaling Ultra-Narrow Band / High Sensitivity receiver @ Low-Power Consumption : -138 dBm for 7mA under 1.2V Very Low-Power consumption Transmitter benefiting from the native Low Data Rate : +3 dBm for 5mA/1.2VLow Data Rate : +3 dBm for 5mA/1.2V Possibility of using standard accuracy crystal : The network compensate for it, in TX as well as in RX
  38. 38. Thank you

    Seja o primeiro a comentar

    Entre para ver os comentários

  • asantos_2000

    Aug. 5, 2015
  • yannickquentel

    Aug. 25, 2015
  • Swipe4cash

    Oct. 8, 2015
  • jn1566

    Oct. 24, 2015
  • ssuserdb257f

    Nov. 2, 2015
  • colinkohnatrual

    Dec. 4, 2015
  • oimctony

    Dec. 4, 2015
  • NiclasGranqvist

    Dec. 6, 2015
  • DanielGuevara19

    Dec. 8, 2015
  • hibigaku

    Dec. 14, 2015
  • MaudFORESTI

    Dec. 24, 2015
  • nicolsc-slides

    Apr. 28, 2016
  • costadino

    May. 10, 2016
  • ShachideviTK

    Nov. 1, 2016
  • dansvlad

    Feb. 11, 2020

Conférence débat du 10 juin 2015, organisée par le groupe Réseaux et Services de Telecom ParisTech Amumni "Quels réseaux pour l'Internet des Objets ?" présentation de Christophe Fourtet (Sigfox)

Vistos

Vistos totais

10.705

No Slideshare

0

De incorporações

0

Número de incorporações

4.037

Ações

Baixados

406

Compartilhados

0

Comentários

0

Curtir

15

×