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

Abstract

Abstract-Computing devices already permeate working and living environments, while researchers and engineers aim to exploit the potential of pervasive systems in order to introduce new types of services and address inveterate and emerging problems. This process will lead us eventually to the era of urban computing and the Internet of Things (IoT). However, the longpromised improvements require overcoming some significant obstacles introduced by these technological advancements. One such obstacle is the lack of interoperable solutions, to facilitate the use, monitoring and management of the plethora of devices and their services. While seamless machine-to-machine (M2M) and human-to-machine (H2M) interactions are a necessity for secure and truly ubiquitous computing, the current status quo is that of a segregated and incompatible assortment of devices. The resource-constraints of the platforms integrated into smart environments, and their heterogeneity in hardware, network and overlaying technologies, only exacerbate these interoperability issues. Motivated by the above, this paper identifies three promising, standardized protocols, each following a different approach in addressing the above concerns. We evaluate the selected protocols in the context of designing and implementing an application requiring various M2M interactions, namely a policy-based access control framework for IoT devices. Thus, three variants of the application are developed, considering each protocol's intrinsic characteristics and features. Finally, the developed applications are evaluated on a common testbed of embedded devices, allowing us to extract useful conclusions concerning the protocols' performance, their intricacies and their applicability in similar applications.

Automated synthesis of mediators for middleware-layer protocol interoperability in the IoT

“…The authors in [12,9,13] compare the most promising IoT middleware protocols: DPWS, CoAP, MQTT, Websockets, XMPP, REST and AMQP. They recommend combining one or more protocols in an IoT application to better exploit the underlying communication infrastructure.…”

“…1). To enable the effective exploitation of the underlying communication infrastructure [9,10], each sensor/device possibly employs a different IoT middleware protocol for data exchange, as depicted in Fig. 1.…”

“…Each one of the above protocols implements different APIs and primitives for sending/receiving data of different formats [12,9,13]. Hence, to enable such a scenario, the heterogeneity between the involved peers (e.g., WebSocket → REST) must be tackled.…”

Design and Implementation of an Interworking IoT Platform and Marketplace in Cloud of Things

“…Computing devices have significant importance in the current environment but researchers and engineers are aiming to exploit the functions of pervasive systems [29]. Pervasive systems provide different types of services that are capable of solving real-time and complex problems.…”

A Comprehensive IoT Node Proposal Using Open Hardware. A Smart Farming Use Case to Monitor Vineyards

“…Five analyzed projects (including SEnviro) follow RESTFul communication. This kind of protocol is not appropriate for IoT solutions when considering the resource, bandwidth, and energy restrictions of IoT devices [46].…”