Cover Image


Understanding the Structure of Communication: Sorting Through the Protocols Behind the Industrial Internet

出版商 Lux Research 商品編碼 322722
出版日期 內容資訊 英文 29 Pages
商品交期: 最快1-2個工作天內
Back to Top
理解通訊結構:工業用網際網路背後的通訊協定為基礎的分類 Understanding the Structure of Communication: Sorting Through the Protocols Behind the Industrial Internet
出版日期: 2014年12月23日 內容資訊: 英文 29 Pages




  • 摘要整理
  • 市場環境
    • 智慧大樓、智慧工廠的工業用網際網路,由於目前現有的設備和專用通訊方式、標準規格的缺失等受阻礙
  • 分析
    • 中介軟體、通訊協定的市場競爭已有勝負,不過,傳輸層在利用方面受各種要求左右
  • 未來展望
  • 註腳


  • 圖:大樓、工廠內部的初級能源的最終用途:適合更佳管理手法的狀態(美國的最終用途資料)
  • 圖:智慧大樓的互相連接性:技術能力的連續體
  • 圖:OSI模式為組成架構結構的說明本身,不是通訊協定如何作用的功能方面的說明
  • 圖:TCP/IP模式與OSI模式基於類似的邏輯,但為凝結OSI模式部分層級的東西
  • 表格:BEMS(大樓能源管理系統)企業的案例,與通訊協定利用法比較
  • 圖:工業用網際網路訊息功能的課題
  • 圖:大概符合OSI及TCP/IOP模式的技術、通訊協定
  • 圖:系統可否擴張取決於網路結構
  • 表格:各種MOM通訊協定比較──每個都有獨自的優點
  • 圖:訊息主體型的中介軟體的評估,取決於安全、彈性、反應度、擴充性
  • 圖:中介軟體用通訊協定的環境:MQTT和DDS,是最適合即時通訊的通訊協定
  • 圖:DDS的架構,在分散式系統有最佳運作
  • 表格:中介軟體、通訊協定的選擇取決於使用案例
  • 表格:網際網路整合性的評估,取決於介面的安全與潛力
  • 表格:網路連接性的評估上,電力消耗量受重視
  • 圖:鏈接層/傳輸層的通訊協定環境
  • 圖:熱圖──關於「擴充性與高技術力」及「電力消耗量的大小」,哪個通訊協定最適合大樓、製造業
  • 圖:熱圖──關於「對大規模引進的適應性」及「即時功能」,哪個通訊協定最適合大樓、製造業

As IT companies are touting the $10 trillion to $20 trillion potential of Internet-connected devices, many market players are confused. Two key applications for connected devices are manufacturing processes and building systems, both of which have not fully leveraged networks to monitor, analyze, and act on collected data to manage their huge primary energy inputs. In this report, we evaluate the protocols used to manage machine-to-machine (M2M) communication, at the middleware level, and wirelessly at the transport level. We then map the disruptive potential of each of these communication modes across various sensing and control applications across building systems and manufacturing processes. While we predict open protocols will succeed, they will be a partial solution, as there is no one size fits all protocol. This analysis considers the mix of as hardware makers must closely scrutinize power inputs, security, range, and network topology end users and hardware developers must consider to enable a true industrial internet.

Table of Contents



The industrial Internet for smart buildings and smart factories is currently hampered by legacy devices, proprietary communication methods, and a lack of standardization.


Middleware protocol victors emerge, but transport layer depends on multiple application requirements.




  • Figure 1: Graphic Primary Energy End Use in Buildings and Factories Is Ripe for Better Management (U.S. end-use data)3
  • Figure 2: Graphic Smart Buildings Connectivity Is a Continuum of Capabilities
  • Figure 3: Graphic The OSI Model Is Simply a Framework and Not a Functional Description of How Protocols Work
  • Figure 4: Graphic The TCP/IP Model Follows Similar Logic to the OSI Model While Condensing Some of the OSI Model's Layers
  • Figure 5: Table Sample of BEMS Companies and a Comparison of Protocol Usage
  • Figure 6: Graphic Messaging Challenges for the Industrial Internet
  • Figure 7: Graphic Network Technologies and Protocols Roughly Align with the OSI and TCP/IP Models
  • Figure 8: Graphic Network Architecture Determines Whether or Not a System Can Be Scaled
  • Figure 9: Table Comparison of Several MOM Protocols Shows that Each Has Its Own Advantages
  • Figure 10: Graphic Message-Oriented Middleware Scores Depend on Security, Flexibility, Responsiveness, and Scalability
  • Figure 11: Graphic Landscape of Middleware Protocols Shows MQTT and DDS to Be the Best Protocols for Real-Time Communication
  • Figure 12: Graphic DDS's Architecture Works Best for Distributed Systems
  • Figure 13: Table Middleware Protocol Choice Depends on the Use Case
  • Figure 14: Table Network Integrity Score Depends on Security and Potential for Interference
  • Figure 15: Table Network Connectivity Score Heavily Considers Power Consumption
  • Figure 16: Graphic Link/Transport Layer Protocol Landscape
  • Figure 17: Graphic Heat Map Reveals Which Protocols Among “Stable and High Capacity” and “Power-hungry” are Best Suited to Building and Manufacturing Applications
  • Figure 18: Graphic Heat Map Reveals Which Protocols Among “Suitable for Mass Deployment” and “Real-time critical” are Best Suited to Building and Manufacturing Applications
Back to Top