A Comparison of Lightweight Communication Protocols in Robotic Applications

Amaran, Muhammad Harith; Noh, Nazmin Arif Mohd; Rohmad, Mohd Saufy; Hashim, Habibah

doi:10.1016/j.procs.2015.12.318

Cited by 53 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Using a gateway is mandatory in MQTT-SN. The authors in [76] proved MQTT-SN performs 30% faster than CoAP. 6) CoAP (Constrained Application Protocol): CoAP eliminates the overhead of TCP by relying on UDP [77], [78], and DTLS is used to secure the connections.…”

Section: A Iot Application Layer Protocolsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implementation and analysis of QUIC for MQTT

Kumar

Dezfouli

2019

Computer Networks

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Transport and security protocols are essential to ensure reliable and secure communication between two parties. For IoT applications, these protocols must be lightweight, since IoT devices are usually resource constrained. Unfortunately, the existing transport and security protocols -namely TCP/TLS and UDP/DTLS -fall short in terms of connection overhead, latency, and connection migration when used in IoT applications. In this paper, after studying the root causes of these shortcomings, we show how utilizing QUIC in IoT scenarios results in a higher performance. Based on these observations, and given the popularity of MQTT as an IoT application layer protocol, we integrate MQTT with QUIC. By presenting the main APIs and functions developed, we explain how connection establishment and message exchange functionalities work. We evaluate the performance of MQTTw/QUIC versus MQTTw/TCP using wired, wireless, and long-distance testbeds. Our results show that MQTTw/QUIC reduces connection overhead in terms of the number of packets exchanged with the broker by up to 56%. In addition, by eliminating half-open connections, MQTTw/QUIC reduces processor and memory usage by up to 83% and 50%, respectively. Furthermore, by removing the head-of-line blocking problem, delivery latency is reduced by up to 55%. We also show that the throughput drops experienced by MQTTw/QUIC when a connection migration happens is considerably lower than that of MQTTw/TCP.

show abstract

Section: A Iot Application Layer Protocolsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implementation and analysis of QUIC for MQTT

Kumar

Dezfouli

2019

Computer Networks

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In [21], the authors evaluate CoAP and MQTT-SN for robot communications. For the experiments they use a Raspberry Pi B (ARMv6 processor) connected to the network through a Local Area Network Ethernet cable, using CON and QoS 1.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We use the UDP-adapted version of MQTT, MQTT-SN, since TCP is inappropriate for the constrained IoT, as pointed out in [29]. From all the related works,only [21], [25], and [29] include in their study CoAP and MQTT-SN. In [21] and [25] the study is conducted using one Raspberry or VirtualBox VMs, without considering the effects of several devices and multihop scenarios, and they measure delay and packet transferred but not energy consumption, which is a key parameter in constrained environments.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…From all the related works,only [21], [25], and [29] include in their study CoAP and MQTT-SN. In [21] and [25] the study is conducted using one Raspberry or VirtualBox VMs, without considering the effects of several devices and multihop scenarios, and they measure delay and packet transferred but not energy consumption, which is a key parameter in constrained environments. [29] is the most complete work to date, including multihop scenarios and energy consumption measurements, but its focus is different from ours, since it compares protocols based on ICN versus IP-based protocols, not IoT application layer protocols.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Performance Evaluation of CoAP and MQTT_SN in an IoT Environment

Sempere

Garcia-Rubio

Campo

2019

13th International Conference on Ubiquitous Computing and Ambient ‪Intelligence UCAmI 2019‬

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The fast growth of the Internet of Things (IoT) has made this technology one of the most promising paradigms of recent years. Wireless Sensor Networks (WSNs) are one of the most important challenges of the Internet of things. These networks are made up of devices with limited processing power, memory, and energy. The constrained nature of WSNs makes it necessary to have specific restricted protocols to work in these environments. In this paper, we present an energy consumption and network traffic study of the main IoT application layer protocols, the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP), and the version of Message Queue Telemetry Transport (MQTT) for sensor networks (MQTT_SN). The simulations presented evaluate the performance of these protocols with different network configurations.

show abstract

“…Existem diversos protocolos para aplicações em IoT que possam atender às necessidades do desenvolvimento de uma rede de sensores em ambiente marinho, destacando-se o Message Queue Telemetry Transport for Sensor Networks (MQTT-SN) [10] e o Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) [11]- [13]. Embora alguns trabalhos tenham discutido as diferenças entre os protocolos MQTT e CoAP [14], [15] e, sucintamente, entre o MQTT-SN e CoAP [16], não há uma análise dos principais parâmetros de comunicação e de outras características aplicadas a nós sensores. Para isso, é necessário realizar uma comparação entre seus desempenhos em termos de latência, tempo de tráfego na rede, quantidade de dados transmitidos, consumo de energia dos nós, entre outras características.…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

Desenvolvimento de uma rede de sensores sem fio para processamento de sinais acústicos marinhos.

Durante¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

pelo convite para minha participação no projeto de Auxílio Pesquisa FAPESP No. 2014/50174-8, suas contribuições em artigos em conjunto, críticas e ideias. Agradeço ao Prof. Linilson Rodrigues Padovese, pela grande ajuda prestada no decorrer deste trabalho com sugestões valiosas. Sem isso, não teria sido possível concluir o trabalho desta forma. Um agradecimento especial aos meus familiares pela grande ajuda ao longo dos anos e pela preocupação quanto a minha formação acadêmica e realização profissional.

show abstract

A Comparison of Lightweight Communication Protocols in Robotic Applications

Cited by 53 publications

References 5 publications

Implementation and analysis of QUIC for MQTT

Implementation and analysis of QUIC for MQTT

Performance Evaluation of CoAP and MQTT_SN in an IoT Environment

Desenvolvimento de uma rede de sensores sem fio para processamento de sinais acústicos marinhos.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About