Supporting Emergency- Response by Retasking Network Infrastructures Presented by: Michael LeMay Carl A. Gunter.

Supporting Emergency-Response by Retasking Network Infrastructures

Presented by: Michael LeMay

Carl A. Gunter

Outline

• Introduction• Emergencies and Hazards to Networks• Networking Requirements During

Emergencies• Traditional Emergency-Response• Network Topology and Application Trends• Emergency-Response with Retaskable

Networks• Discussion

Introduction

• Networks face various hazards during emergencies, and may cease to function as a result

• Additional networking requirements may also arise during emergencies

• Network availability during emergencies could be improved by allowing users to route communications over robust network infrastructures that managed to survive

Emergencies and Hazards to Networks

• Katrina: Only significant operational network in downtown was wireless mesh for surveillance cameras– Hazards: Flooding, high winds

• 9/11: Disrupted many networks routed through WTC– Hazards: Terrorist bombing

• Kobe earthquake: ERNs could have helped prevent misdirection of recovery resources

Special Network Requirements During Emergencies

• Distress signaling from victims to rescuers

• Messaging (text, voice, or perhaps video) between and among victims and rescuers

• Command and control for rescuers

Traditional Emergency Response

• Dedicated ERNs: Often government-funded– Limited in scope according to budget

• Ad-hoc mobile nodes deployed on an as-needed basis– May not penetrate to central parts of

hazardous disaster zones

• Manual retasking of existing networks (e.g. Katrina surveillance camera mesh)– Only utilizes a small portion of infrastructure

elements, may not support necessary ERN application-level protocols

Network Topology and Application Trends

• Self-healing mesh networks being used in increasingly-practical applications:– Advanced electric meters– Building and home automation systems– Parking garage monitoring– Surveillance cameras– Municipal wireless

• May not be necessary for their original intended purpose when disaster occurs, so could support recovery efforts instead

Emergency-Response with Retaskable Networks

• Proposal: Retask robust networks that survive a disaster to be used for emergency-response applications

• Three primary challenges:– Emergency detection mechanisms and

policies– Platform support– Topological readiness planning and

assessment

Emergency Detection Mechanisms and Policies

• Mechanisms:– Emergency declarations from central authorities– Sensor inputs (e.g. power outage detection on

meters)– Human inputs (e.g. panic button on

programmable communicating thermostat [PCT])

• Reasonable policy:– Digitally-signed indications from central

authorities trusted absolutely– Sensor and human inputs weighted and

compared to a threshold value

Hardware Platform Support

• Network compatibility: All communicating devices must use compatible network protocols, or appropriate gateways/bridges must be available– Not yet widely available for all interesting

protocols• Network availability: A sufficient subset of

network devices and linkages must be operational to support ERN services

• Device availability: Devices must be adequately protected against prevalent hazards in the deployment zone, and equipped with sufficient power reserves

Platform Support Examples

Wired networks

GSM Gateway

ZigBee Gateway

ZigBeeMeters

Rescuer Communicator w/ ZigBee Interface

GSM Mobile Phone

ZigBee Programmable Communicating Thermostat with ERN Enhancements

Software Platform Support

• Software support must be provided for all desired ERN services

• Potential approaches:– Software extensibility: Make network elements

reconfigurable, so they can load any software components required for ERN services dynamically

– Protocol standardization: Standardize simple protocols for ERN services that will have longevity due to their simplicity

Security Challenges

• ERN functionality of retaskable networks must not negatively affect the network during normal operating conditions– Malicious users must not be able to trick

network into falsely believing an emergency has occurred, to steal service

• Network should provide best QoS to those who are at the highest risk in the emergency and those best equipped to assist them

ERN Topology Planning

• Challenge: Varying capabilities of different types of networks (bandwidth, etc.), and unpredictable mobile nodes

• Current topology optimization algorithms can potentially be adapted to ERN planning problems

• We investigate the non-uniform buy-at-bulk approximation algorithm proposed by C. Chekuri, et. al. and adapt it to ERN planning

Adaptation of ERN Planning Algorithm

• Rather than optimizing strictly for financial cost of resulting network, use artificial cost that prefers network links that are:– Robust against the particular hazards

prevalent in the area under consideration– Financially inexpensive; particularly favorable

for existing, retaskable infrastructure– Low latency

• Provisional links that might be installed are included.

Example Topology

250kbps 100Mbps 11Mbps

1. Every node requires 50kbps

bw. to every other node except the central ZigBee routers and A

2. Every node requires 100kbps bw. to gateway A

Future Research

• Application-level protocols suitable for emergency-response

• Security and QoS protocols for ERNs

• Routing on dynamic networks with redundancy

Concluding Remarks

• Robust networks are being deployed in practical applications

• By retasking such networks after a disaster, emergency-response can be aided

• There are significant problems to be overcome in:– Emergency detection– Hardware platform support for emergency-

response– Software platform support for emergency-

response

Questions?

• Michael LeMay: [email protected]

• Carl A. Gunter: [email protected]

• Parent project page: http://seclab.uiuc.edu/attested-meter