Performance Comparison of MQTT and CoAP Protocols in Different Simulation Environments

Smart healthcare is among the most significant IoT applications. The Internet of Things (IoT) revolutionizes our viable needs that include the healthcare system. This review paper presents an overview of the two extensively used application layer protocols for IoHT systems: MQTT and CoAP. However, the choice of a standard and efficacious application layer protocol out of the two is a challenging task since it requires knowledge about the area of application and its messaging requirements. Hence, it is important to introduce their characteristics comparatively along with the selection of appropriate simulator tools to test, analyze, and validate the preexisting concepts and optimize the performance of prototypes. Subsequently, it has performed relative research based on interdependent criteria and different simulation tools to have an in-depth understanding of their pros and cons. Therefore, researchers can select their relevant application layer protocol and simulation tools based on their suitability and necessity.

[1]  Kazi Masudul Alam,et al.  An empirical study of CoAP based service discovery methods for constrained IoT networks using Cooja simulator , 2017, 2017 20th International Conference of Computer and Information Technology (ICCIT).

[2]  Apostolos P. Fournaris,et al.  Evaluating CoAP End to End Security for Constrained Wireless Sensor Networks , 2019, 2019 10th IFIP International Conference on New Technologies, Mobility and Security (NTMS).

[3]  Mazri Tomader,et al.  Comparison Between CoAP and MQTT in Smart Healthcare and Some Threats , 2018, 2018 International Symposium on Advanced Electrical and Communication Technologies (ISAECT).

[4]  Anna Calveras Augé,et al.  TinyCoAP: A Novel Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) Implementation for Embedding RESTful Web Services in Wireless Sensor Networks Based on TinyOS , 2013, J. Sens. Actuator Networks.

[5]  Adam Dunkels,et al.  Contiki - a lightweight and flexible operating system for tiny networked sensors , 2004, 29th Annual IEEE International Conference on Local Computer Networks.

[6]  Xiaoping Ma,et al.  Performance evaluation of MQTT and CoAP via a common middleware , 2014, 2014 IEEE Ninth International Conference on Intelligent Sensors, Sensor Networks and Information Processing (ISSNIP).

[7]  Kanchana P. Naik,et al.  Performance analysis of constrained application protocol using Cooja simulator in Contiki OS , 2017, 2017 International Conference on Intelligent Computing, Instrumentation and Control Technologies (ICICICT).

[8]  Kannan Govindan,et al.  End-to-end service assurance in IoT MQTT-SN , 2015, 2015 12th Annual IEEE Consumer Communications and Networking Conference (CCNC).

[9]  Thomas Noël,et al.  Adding value to WSN simulation using the IoT-LAB experimental platform , 2013, 2013 IEEE 9th International Conference on Wireless and Mobile Computing, Networking and Communications (WiMob).

[10]  Abolghasem Sadeghi-Niaraki,et al.  Ubiquitous sensor network simulation and emulation environments: A survey , 2017, J. Netw. Comput. Appl..

[11]  Daniel Krajzewicz,et al.  SUMO - Simulation of Urban MObility An Overview , 2011 .

[12]  Carsten Bormann,et al.  The Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) , 2014, RFC.

[13]  Sherali Zeadally,et al.  Internet of Things (IoT): Research, Simulators, and Testbeds , 2018, IEEE Internet of Things Journal.

[14]  Malti Bansal,et al.  Application Layer Protocols for Internet of Healthcare Things (IoHT) , 2020, 2020 Fourth International Conference on Inventive Systems and Control (ICISC).

[15]  Joel J. P. C. Rodrigues,et al.  Enabling Technologies for the Internet of Health Things , 2018, IEEE Access.

[16]  Kyung-Sup Kwak,et al.  The Internet of Things for Health Care: A Comprehensive Survey , 2015, IEEE Access.