NDN, CoAP, and MQTT

Abstract

This paper takes a comprehensive view on the protocol stacks that are under debate for a future Internet of Things (IoT). It addresses the holistic question of which solution is beneficial for common IoT use cases. We deploy NDN and the two popular IP-based application protocols, CoAP and MQTT, in its different variants on a large-scale IoT testbed in single-and multi-hop scenarios. We analyze the use cases of scheduled periodic and unscheduled traffic under varying loads. Our findings indicate that (a) NDN admits the most resource-friendly deployment on nodes, and (b) shows superior robustness and resilience in multi-hop scenarios, while (c) the IP protocols operate at less overhead and higher speed in single-hop deployments. Most strikingly we find that NDN-based protocols are in significantly better flow balance than the UDP-based IP protocols and require fewer corrective actions.

Security in IoMT Communications: A Survey

“…It is intended to be used in power constrained and lossy networks. COAP is under standardization by the IETF [80]. It works very well under constrained environments, e.g., in the health domain [81].…”

Performance Evaluation of CoAP and MQTT_SN in an IoT Environment

“…In [29], the author deploys NDN, an information-centric networking (ICN) protocol, with namebased routing and in-network caching, and the IP-based CoAP and MQTT-SN, on a large-scale IoT testbed in single-and multi-hop scenarios under varying traffic loads. The devices in the testbed use RIOT, a small, open source operating system with a focus on low-power wireless Internet of Things (IoT) devices.…”

“…From this state of the art review, we can conclude that most of the previous work on performance evaluation of IoT application layer protocols considered just CoAP, or CoAP and the not constrained version of MQTT (MQTT over TCP). 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.…”

“…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.…”

“…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.…”