Performance Evaluation of CoAP and MQTT_SN Protocols

Al-Qassab, Rahaf A.; Aal-Nouman, Mohammed I.

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-97255-4_17

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…CoAP and MQTT performed better when transmitting smaller messages, while AMQP and MQTT are in the pole position for QoS reliability, and XMPP and AMQP lead in security. Al-Qassab and Aal-Nouman [91] conducted a simulation study to compare the most power-efficient protocol for wireless sensor networks using CoAP and MQTT-SN. The results showed that CoAP consumed less power.…”

Section: Survey Of Network Protocolsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Investigation of Data Quality Assurance across IoT Protocol Stack for V2I Interactions

Suleman,

Shibl,

Ansari

2023

Smart Cities

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Networking protocols have undergone significant developments and adaptations to cater for unique communication needs within the IoT paradigm. However, meeting these requirements in the context of vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I) communications becomes a multidimensional problem due to factors like high mobility, intermittent connectivity, rapidly changing topologies, and an increased number of nodes. Thus, examining these protocols based on their characteristics and comparative analyses from the literature has shown that there is still room for improvement, particularly in ensuring efficiency in V2I interactions. This study aims to investigate the most viable network protocols for V2I communications, focusing on ensuring data quality (DQ) across the first three layers of the IoT protocol stack. This presents an improved understanding of the performance of network protocols in V2I communication. The findings of this paper showed that although each protocol offers unique strengths when evaluated against the identified dimensions of DQ, a cross-layer protocol fusion may be necessary to meet specific DQ dimensions. With the complexities and specific demands of V2I communications, it’s clear that no single protocol from our tri-layered perspective can solely fulfil all IP-based communication requirements given that the V2I communication landscape is teeming with heterogeneity, where a mixture of protocols is required to address unique communication demands.

show abstract

Section: Survey Of Network Protocolsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Investigation of Data Quality Assurance across IoT Protocol Stack for V2I Interactions

Suleman,

Shibl,

Ansari

2023

Smart Cities

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The main architecture of MQTT is based on client server model and the main components are: publisher, subscriber, MQTT broker [9]. This is mainly known as publish/subscribe communication, which is an asynchronous communication, where mass communication takes place from publishers to broker to intended subscribers [10]. The publishers generate data according to the constraints and conditions laid out by the IoT system and publish it to the message broker.…”

Section: Mqttmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Table 1. Difference between CoAP and MQTT [10] MQTT CoAP It is a many-to-many communication protocol for transfer of data between the sender and the receiver through the message broker.…”

Section: Coapmentioning

confidence: 99%

Message queue telemetry transport and lightweight machine-to-machine comparison based on performance efficiency under various scenarios

Singh

Gupta

et al. 2022

IJECE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

<span>Internet of things (IoT) is been advancing over a long period of time in many aspects. For data transfer between IoT devices in a wireless sensor network, various IoT protocols are proposed. Among them, the most widely used are constrained application protocol (CoAP) and message queue telemetry transport (MQTT). Overcoming the limitations of CoAP, lightweight machine-to-machine (LwM2M) framework was designed above CoAP. Recent statistics show that LwM2M and MQTT are the widely used, but LwM2M is still less used than MQTT. Our paper is aimed at comparing both MQTT and LwM2M on the basis of performance efficiency, which will be achieved by sending same file through both protocols to the server. Performance efficiency will be calculated in two scenarios, i) when the client makes a connection with the server i.e., while initial connection and ii) while sending data file to server i.e., while data transfer. Both the protocols will be tested on the number of packets sent and the variability of packet size throughout the session. Experimental results indicated that LwM2M outperformed MQTT in both above scenarios by almost 69%. Therefore, we concluded by stating that LwM2M is best choice over MQTT, but MQTT can still be used in some situations if necessary.</span>

show abstract

Efficient Deployment of Nodes in a WSN Using a Modified PSO Algorithm

Abdullah,

Aal-Nouman

2024

2024 1st International Conference on Emerging Technologies for Dependable Internet of Things (ICETI)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Performance Evaluation of CoAP and MQTT_SN Protocols

Cited by 3 publications

References 15 publications

Investigation of Data Quality Assurance across IoT Protocol Stack for V2I Interactions

Investigation of Data Quality Assurance across IoT Protocol Stack for V2I Interactions

Message queue telemetry transport and lightweight machine-to-machine comparison based on performance efficiency under various scenarios

Efficient Deployment of Nodes in a WSN Using a Modified PSO Algorithm

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About