BMRF: Bidirectional Multicast RPL Forwarding

Lorente, Guillermo Gastón; Lemmens, Bart; Carlier, Matthias; Braeken, An; Steenhaut, Kris

doi:10.1016/j.adhoc.2016.10.004

Cited by 43 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This approach becomes too expensive in a large routing tree, provoking communication overhead and high end-to-end latency. Thus, to mitigate the problem found in SMRF with a more robust method than proposed by ESMRF, Lorente et al [72] introduced a new multicast routing protocol named Bidirectional Multicast RPL Forwarding (BMRF). BMRF seeks to merge the best features of RPL and SMRF.…”

Section: Enhanced Routing Solutions For Internet Of Things Networkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Routing Protocols for Low Power and Lossy Networks in Internet of Things Applications

Sobral

Rodrigues

Rabêlo

et al. 2019

Sensors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The emergence of the Internet of Things (IoT) and its applications has taken the attention of several researchers. In an effort to provide interoperability and IPv6 support for the IoT devices, the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) proposed the 6LoWPAN stack. However, the particularities and hardware limitations of networks associated with IoT devices lead to several challenges, mainly for routing protocols. On its stack proposal, IETF standardizes the RPL (IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks) as the routing protocol for Low-power and Lossy Networks (LLNs). RPL is a tree-based proactive routing protocol that creates acyclic graphs among the nodes to allow data exchange. Although widely considered and used by current applications, different recent studies have shown its limitations and drawbacks. Among these, it is possible to highlight the weak support of mobility and P2P traffic, restrictions for multicast transmissions, and lousy adaption for dynamic throughput. Motivated by the presented issues, several new solutions have emerged during recent years. The approaches range from the consideration of different routing metrics to an entirely new solution inspired by other routing protocols. In this context, this work aims to present an extensive survey study about routing solutions for IoT/LLN, not limited to RPL enhancements. In the course of the paper, the routing requirements of LLNs, the initial protocols, and the most recent approaches are presented. The IoT routing enhancements are divided according to its main objectives and then studied individually to point out its most important strengths and weaknesses. Furthermore, as the main contribution, this study presents a comprehensive discussion about the considered approaches, identifying the still remaining open issues and suggesting future directions to be recognized by new proposals.

show abstract

Section: Enhanced Routing Solutions For Internet Of Things Networkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Routing Protocols for Low Power and Lossy Networks in Internet of Things Applications

Sobral

Rodrigues

Rabêlo

et al. 2019

Sensors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As the multicast engine, Bidirectional Multicast RPL Forwarding (BMRF) [18] is used. BMRF combines the best features of RPL multicast on the one hand and those of Stateless Multicast RPL Forwarding (SMRF) on the other hand, with a minimal increase in memory usage.…”

Section: Multicast Enginementioning

confidence: 99%

Symmetric-Key-Based Security for Multicast Communication in Wireless Sensor Networks

2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents a new key management protocol for group-based communications in non-hierarchical wireless sensor networks (WSNs), applied on a recently proposed IP-based multicast protocol. Confidentiality, integrity, and authentication are established, using solely symmetric-key-based operations. The protocol features a cloud-based network multicast manager (NMM), which can create, control, and authenticate groups in the WSN, but is not able to derive the actual constructed group key. Three main phases are distinguished in the protocol. First, in the registration phase, the motes register to the group by sending a request to the NMM. Second, the members of the group calculate the shared group key in the key construction phase. For this phase, two different methods are tested. In the unicast approach, the key material is sent to each member individually using unicast messages, and in the multicast approach, a combination of Lagrange interpolation and a multicast packet are used. Finally, in the multicast communication phase, these keys are used to send confidential and authenticated messages. To investigate the impact of the proposed mechanisms on the WSN, the protocol was implemented in ContikiOS and simulated using COOJA, considering different group sizes and multi-hop communication. These simulations show that the multicast approach compared to the unicast approach results in significant smaller delays, is a bit more energy efficient, and requires more or less the same amount of memory for the code.

show abstract

“…Instead, SMRF relies on a multicast tree limiting the dissemination scope and greatly reducing traffic. Other protocols (e.g., BMRF [25]), although not readily available in Contiki, could easily support mcast.…”

Section: Mcastmentioning

confidence: 99%

Route or Flood? Reliable and Efficient Support for Downward Traffic in RPL

Istomin

Iova

Picco

et al. 2019

ACM Trans. Sen. Netw.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Modern protocols for wireless sensor networks efficiently support multi-hop upward traffic from many sensors to a collection point, a key functionality enabling monitoring applications. However, the ever-evolving scenarios involving low-power wireless devices increasingly require support also for downward traffic, e.g., enabling a controller to issue actuation commands based on the monitored data. The IETF Routing Protocol for Low-power and Lossy Networks (RPL) is among the few tackling both traffic patterns. Unfortunately, its support for downward traffic is significantly unreliable and inefficient compared to its upward counterpart. We tackle this problem by extending RPL with mechanisms inspired by opposed, yet complementary, principles. At one extreme, we retain the route-based operation of RPL and devise techniques allowed by the standard but commonly neglected by popular implementations. At the other extreme, we rely on flooding as the main networking primitive. Inspired by these principles, we define three base mechanisms, integrate them in a popular RPL implementation, analyze their individual and combined performance, and elicit the resulting tradeoffs in scalability, reliability, and energy consumption. The evaluation relies on simulation, using both real-world topologies from a smart city scenario and synthetic grid ones, as well as on testbed experiments validating our findings from simulation. Results show that the combination of all three mechanisms into a novel protocol, T-RPL (i) yields high reliability, close to the one of flooding, (ii) with a low energy consumption, similar to route-based approaches, and (iii) improves remarkably the scalability of RPL with respect to downward traffic.

show abstract

BMRF: Bidirectional Multicast RPL Forwarding

Cited by 43 publications

References 5 publications

Routing Protocols for Low Power and Lossy Networks in Internet of Things Applications

Routing Protocols for Low Power and Lossy Networks in Internet of Things Applications

Symmetric-Key-Based Security for Multicast Communication in Wireless Sensor Networks

Route or Flood? Reliable and Efficient Support for Downward Traffic in RPL

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About