2012 IEEE International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communications Workshops 2012
DOI: 10.1109/percomw.2012.6197494
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Stateless multicast forwarding with RPL in 6LowPAN sensor networks

Abstract: Abstract-Recent research efforts have resulted in efficient support for IPv6 in Low power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPAN), with the "IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low power and Lossy Networks" (RPL) being on the forefront as the state of the art routing approach. However, little attention has been paid to IPv6 multicast for networks of constrained devices. The "Multicast Forwarding Using Trickle" (Trickle Multicast) internet draft is one of the most noteworthy efforts, while RPL's specification also atte… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

1
22
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
4
2

Relationship

2
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 34 publications
(23 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
1
22
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This paper extends our previous work [33], providing the following additional contributions: i) Extended design details for SMRF, ii) Evaluation of an additional metric: the ratio of datagrams delivered out of order by TM (sec 5.4), iii) Additional simulation experiments in a different topology for the evaluation of both algorithms on a hop-by-hop basis (sections 5.2.1, 5.3.1 and 5.5.1), iv) Results from the evaluation of both algorithms on a hardware testbed (sec. 6) and lastly v) Discussion on the code size and memory requirements for both algorithms (sec.…”
supporting
confidence: 89%
“…This paper extends our previous work [33], providing the following additional contributions: i) Extended design details for SMRF, ii) Evaluation of an additional metric: the ratio of datagrams delivered out of order by TM (sec 5.4), iii) Additional simulation experiments in a different topology for the evaluation of both algorithms on a hop-by-hop basis (sections 5.2.1, 5.3.1 and 5.5.1), iv) Results from the evaluation of both algorithms on a hardware testbed (sec. 6) and lastly v) Discussion on the code size and memory requirements for both algorithms (sec.…”
supporting
confidence: 89%
“…More specifically, our results show that BMFA outperforms TM, in terms of reducing the end-to-end delay, design complexity, code size and energy consumption, while on the other hand, TM severely outperforms BMFA in terms of reliability. Finally, note that as documented in [6,7], the performance of multicast forwarding for all engines discussed in this paper is heavily dependent on the underlying MAC layer. For a more detailed description of possible optimizations see [6,7].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 91%
“…Finally, note that as documented in [6,7], the performance of multicast forwarding for all engines discussed in this paper is heavily dependent on the underlying MAC layer. For a more detailed description of possible optimizations see [6,7].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 91%
See 2 more Smart Citations