Performance evaluation of M2M protocols over cellular networks in a lab environment

Abstract

According to the vision of the Internet of Things the seamless and flexible networking of everyday objects will become an important field of application for Internet-based communication. The simple integration of these devices into a communication system often requires wireless technologies, especially when there is no wired infrastructure available. Cellular networks of the third and fourth generation are promising enablers for embedding a variety of different devices into the Internet of Things. However, cellular networks use a completely different approach for data transmission and media access than wired networks like Ethernet. Therefore, it is necessary to investigate the transmission behavior of common protocols for machine-to-machine (M2M) communication with respect to the peculiarities of cellular networks. In this paper, three M2M protocols – CoAP, MQTT and OPC UA – are compared to each other with regard to their transport mechanisms to evaluate the transmission times and analyzing potentials for optimization. For the evaluation a laboratory test environment with cellular network emulators for EDGE, UMTS and LTE is used to analyze the protocols without interference of delays caused by the Internet or by other users allocating resources of the cellular network

Application protocols enabling internet of remote things via random access satellite channels

“…Future work will focus on M2M/IoT communications in presence of higher traffic rates, where the performance provided by CoAP may still need further investigation. 6 TCP NewReno (RFC 6582) is in use in this scenario.…”

“…Conversely, application-layer protocols are explicitly compared in [6], [7], [8]. In [6], three classes of protocols for M2M communications are compared: protocols targeting the Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA); protocols implementing the Representational State Transfer (REST) paradigm; and message-oriented protocols. As SOA protocol, the authors consider OPC 1 Unified Automation (UA), a platformindependent middleware, whereas CoAP and MQTT are chosen as representative of REST architectures and messageoriented protocols, respectively.…”

Introspecting IoT Protocols for Resources-Constrained Applications

“…IoT network protocols aim to achieve superior performance, energy efficiency, reliability and robustness. There are three protocols which claims to attain these attributes in an optimized way namely Message Queuing Telemetry Transport (MQTT) [5], and second is Constrained Application Protocol (COAP) [4], and last one is MQTT for Sensor networks (MQTT-SN) [6,7]. By measuring the energy efficiency, performance, and resource usage (Memory and CPU), the significance of the technique can be analyzed.…”

Which IoT Protocol? Comparing Standardized Approaches over a Common M2M Application

“…Authors in [25] have also compared the two protocols, using a common middleware which allowed them to assess the protocols' behavior in changing network conditions (as in scenarios with high packet loss). Another lab-based comparison of CoAP and MQTT, along with OPC-UA, in the context of communications over cellular networks, can be found in [26]. Finally, there is a significant body of work in the literature aiming to combine various IoT protocols.…”