## 6 Use Case of One Smart Building and Its Applications
In the second hypothetical scenario involving multiple SBs, a Fog computing approach or a hybrid Fog and IEC model is adopted; this implementation is out of the scope of this study. This ensures the necessary SB functionality and acceptable SLA (as contract), minimizing deployment and operational costs, and enabling rapid recovery from disasters to prevent serious problems for residents, such as prolonged power outages (several hours), partial building fires or unforeseen temporary service disruptions; for example, last-mile network outages or edge server failures, despite the proposed redundancy in a single SB. The values in each cell of Table 1 reflect the findings from the literature review in Section 3 and represent an optimized framework based on three factors: quality, performance and cost considerations for the SB solution, resulting in the right category of IoT device, and selected Cloud solution. A glossary of abbreviations and acronyms is provided in auxiliary Table 2.  
For instance, what decision was made in the cell at column 2 and row 2 of Table 1, regarding the issue of latency and packet loss in E2E communication between the SB and Fog or IEC (edge with devices IoT and Cloud) for video surveillance and virtual concierge applications using real videos and VIoT? Considering the critical nature of video over IP and voice data within IoT systems, the recommendation is to employ video-enabled IoT smart devices (categorized as high-end IoT devices, or category 3) and to implement a Fog architecture. For a single Smart Building (SB), this Fog architecture should ideally be deployed without software-defined networking (SDN) and network functions virtualization (NFV). Conversely, for a federation of Smart Buildings, a Fog architecture incorporating both SDN and NFV is advisable. Moreover, you can validate a part of this technical decision based on references [21; 23; 41]. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline
**Problems Columns:** & **Jitec Background** & **Latency and Packet Loss on** & **Security Challenges** & **QoS, QE Video** \\
**No.** & **Noise, Wi-Fi and Its** & **E2E Communication** & **Data Privacy, Governance and** & **Streaming and Vul** \\
**Application Cycles (Lines I-IVs)** & **Interference Signal CBB** & **BSG-FOC or IEC-Cloud** & **Access Entance (SS and Cloud)** & **(SS-FOC/GRGR/Cisco-Cloud)** \\ \hline () Voice over IoT (ViC), WiC, WiC IP Telephorhood & (2) and PSN for EC & (3) and PSN for ENN & (2) (0) and ANY & (2) (0) and PSN or ENN \\ the communication between IoT and Faces and SP Server & articles: [12,8,6,7] & articles: [12,8,26,9] & articles: [12,8,27] & articles: [12,8,27] & articles: [12,8,38,41] \\ () Video surveillance, included Virtual categories & (3) and ANY & (3) and PSG or PSN & (3) and PC for PSN & (3) and PC for PSN \\ (Vilot, video) & articles: [12,38,9] & articles: [12,32] & articles: [12,31,47] & articles: [12,38] \\ (III) Video (Traffic Computer vs/ViC, Video) & (3) and ANY & (3) and PSN for ENN & (4) and PSN for ENN \\ (IV) Channel Integration with CC, Cloud DB/ViC on SB & (1) (2) and PC for PSN & (1) (2) and ANY & (1) and PSN for ENN \\  & private Virtual Concep & (1) (2) and PC for PSN & (1) (2) and ANY & (1) and PC for PSN \\  & & articles: [12,9,32,44,9] & articles: [12,9,38,42] & articles: [12,9,38,42] \\  & & articles: [12,9,32,44,9] & articles: [12,9,38,42] & articles: [12,9,38,42] \\  & & & & \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: An overview of the main issues of SBs adopting a. the best category of IoT devices, b. preferred architecture: Fog or IEC, c. adoption or not of SDN/NFV-the methodological decision is based on research (referenced articles) and for each cell seeks the best cost-benefit ratio (see Table 2: Table below are the acronyms) adopted to understand it). Further research is needed to evaluate the quality of service, higher uptime, SLA and security aspects, representing a promising area for future investigation of the SBs using IoT smart devices.