Comparative Analysis of IoT Communication Protocols

With the proliferation of machine-to-machine communication, there are many communication protocols standardized for IoT applications. Performances of these protocols may significantly deviate from each other even under the same operating conditions. In this paper, we quantitatively compare the performances of a set of well-known IoT communication protocols, namely CoAP (Constrained Application Protocol), MQTT (Message Queuing Telemetry Transport) and XMPP (Extendible Message Persistent Protocol) in a real-world testbed. CoAP employs UDP packets for transmission while others use TCP. For this purpose, we design as small testbed that collects real-time environmental data. By designing such a system, we aim to reveal the differences among protocols in terms of packet creation time and packet transmission time. The obtained results show that XMPP is worse than other protocols in both metrics and MQTT and CoAP perform almost equally.

[1]  Mohsen Guizani,et al.  Internet of Things: A Survey on Enabling Technologies, Protocols, and Applications , 2015, IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials.

[2]  Peter Saint-Andre,et al.  Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP): Core , 2004, RFC.

[3]  Ronny Klauck,et al.  Unify to bridge gaps: Bringing XMPP into the Internet of Things , 2012, 2012 IEEE International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communications Workshops.

[4]  Soma Bandyopadhyay,et al.  Lightweight Internet protocols for web enablement of sensors using constrained gateway devices , 2013, 2013 International Conference on Computing, Networking and Communications (ICNC).

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

[6]  Harry G. Perros,et al.  A comparison of IoT application layer protocols through a smart parking implementation , 2017, 2017 20th Conference on Innovations in Clouds, Internet and Networks (ICIN).

[7]  Jesus Alonso-Zarate,et al.  A Survey on Application Layer Protocols for the Internet of Things , 2015 .

[8]  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).

[9]  Hyggo Oliveira de Almeida,et al.  Integrating MQTT and ISO/IEEE 11073 for health information sharing in the Internet of Things , 2015, 2015 IEEE International Conference on Consumer Electronics (ICCE).

[10]  Carsten Bormann,et al.  CoAP: An Application Protocol for Billions of Tiny Internet Nodes , 2012, IEEE Internet Computing.

[11]  Marimuthu Palaniswami,et al.  Internet of Things (IoT): A vision, architectural elements, and future directions , 2012, Future Gener. Comput. Syst..

[12]  Thomas Kunz,et al.  Performance evaluation of IoT protocols under a constrained wireless access network , 2016, 2016 International Conference on Selected Topics in Mobile & Wireless Networking (MoWNeT).

[13]  Shusen Yang,et al.  A survey on the ietf protocol suite for the internet of things: standards, challenges, and opportunities , 2013, IEEE Wireless Communications.

[14]  Antonio Iera,et al.  The Internet of Things: A survey , 2010, Comput. Networks.

[15]  Hyeonwoo Kim,et al.  Correlation analysis of MQTT loss and delay according to QoS level , 2013, The International Conference on Information Networking 2013 (ICOIN).