Page 76 - ITU Journal Future and evolving technologies – Volume 2 (2021), Issue 2

ITU Journal on Future and Evolving Technologies, Volume 2 (2021), Issue 2

term that also includes the mobile edge computing cuss previous work. Abbas et al. [18] provide a de ini‑

paradigm. MEC is the most promising candidate for tion of MEC and its application. They also provide in‑

mission‑critical and time‑critical applications, because sight of MEC related research and technologies. Vhora

of its proximity, good mobility support for mobile users and Gandhi [19] introduce a review on MEC architec‑
and integration of multiple access technologies. In ture, related research and challenges, tools for simula‑

MEC networks, local servers are limited in resources tion and inally MEC applications. Peng et al. [21] review

and as a recent paradigm, it undertakes open service adoption and provision for MEC. They consider
challenges to manage these limited‑capacity resources MEC service adoption, i.e task of loading, from the mobile
[5, 13]. Thus, MEC resources need to be properly users’ perspective and MEC service provision, i.e resource
managed to handle ef iciently the users’ requests. The allocation and server placement, from the edge server
resource management in MEC is divided in three aspects : side. Wang et al. [22] review service migration in MEC
i), of loading decision, ii), resource allocation and iii), that they de ine and compare with previous existing con‑
users mobility management, i.e service migration. cepts. They discuss the state‑of‑art methods and techni‑
cal service hosting solutions. Zamzam et al. [23] propose
In mission‑critical scenarios, edge resources may be em‑
a resource management survey using machine learning
barked on mobile units, such as drones and vehicles. In‑

deed, communication networks are often damaged by methods. They organize the research by goals and classify

disaster or are nonexistent due to remote location [14]. machine learning methods. There also are surveys about
Thus, drones and vehicles have the necessary mobility to public safety and mission‑critical wireless network solu‑
be deployed rapidly in emergency areas, temporarily and tions [24, 25, 26, 27] or technology solutions [15, 2, 28].
Baldini et al. [24] survey public safety organization use

are lexible enough to move to follow the demands’ dy‑

cases, requirements and their wireless communications
namic (which occurs when users are mobile or in situa‑
standard. Jarwan et al. [25] provide design requirements,
tions where demands are highly dynamic in a single de‑
architecture solutions and standards for public safety net‑
vice) [15, 16, 17]. The resource management is then en‑

larged with a fourth aspect : iv) mobile resource works based on LTE. These works also provide a testing

management which includes the deployment of the and evaluation framework for such networks using Net‑
resources, i.e., their number and location, their path work Simulator NS‑3. Yu et al. [27] describe the layered

planning and new costs such as deployment delays. architecture of public safety communication. Then they

In this survey, we start by presenting related surveys review communication technologies for device‑to‑device

in Section 2. We then present two main use cases of communications and dynamic wireless networks. They

mission‑critical applications that may use edge also discuss the integration of some technologies in pub‑
computing in Section 3. As MEC is a recent ield, we lic safety networks like 5G and edge computing. Kumbhar

also include other edge com‑ puting paradigms like fog et al. [26] introduce public safety networks standards and

computing or cloudlets. We then review in Section 4 challenges with a focus on LTE, Land Mobile Radio System

resource allocation methods for MEC, not only for (LMRS) and Software‑De ined Radio (SDR). The white pa‑
mobile resources, as again there is not enough work on per [15] reports technologies employed in public safety
it. Finally, we review resource deployment schemes for applications and highlights gaps and the technology that

MEC in Section 5 and provide open challenges and future can ill them. The authors provide thorough use cases and

research direction in Section 6. With that survey, we their technologies’ opportunities. Works [2, 28] study the

aim to provide tools and insight for the design of robust application of IoT technologies for disaster management

MEC resource management schemes that are be itting for operations and future research directions. We can note
real life hard‑constrained use cases. To the best of our that none of these surveys focus on MEC. This survey is

knowledge, it is the irst survey that provides a review complementary to these previous ones as it browses MEC
about MEC resource management through the scope of resource management work and discusses them by their
mission‑critical applications. suitability depending on the applications, with a focus on
mission‑critical applications.
2. RELATED WORKS
3. MISSION‑CRITICAL APPLICATIONS USE

Several surveys about MEC exist in the literature. They CASES

are either general [6, 18, 19, 20] or focus on different

aspects and methods [21, 22, 23]. Mao et al. [6] in‑ MEC offer computing services independently from the

troduce MEC with the modelling of MEC communication Internet and at proximity to requesting users and de‑
and computation, mobile devices and edge server. They vices [8]. This proximity allow new low‑latency ser‑

then review and classify resource management, and i‑ vices such as object or speech recognition [10] or aug‑

nally identify open research directions. Mach and Bec‑ mented/virtualreality [19, 11]. It also offers a newtype of

var [20] present a thorough survey about MEC of loading, location‑aware and context‑aware services [6, 29]. The‑
resource allocation, user mobility management and its ar‑ ses MEC services may be employed by mobile users but
chitecture. They highlight what to take into account when also by IoT devices [19, 11], such as security cameras [17,
designing MEC computation of loading schemes and dis‑ 30]. Mission‑critical applications may pro it from these
62 © International Telecommunication Union, 2021