Reliability side-effects in Internet of Things application layer protocols

With the widespread use of IoT devices in safety-critical applications, new constraints should be addressed in designing IoT infrastructures. Reliability is one of the most important characteristics of an IoT system which should be satisfied with high consideration. The way how IoT devices communicate with each other in different layers of architecture, plays an important role in building a reliable IoT infrastructure. Maintaining the desired level of reliability in IoT applications through application layer protocols, imposes a noticeable amount of overhead to different characteristics of IoT systems. In this paper, we are going to investigate these overheads through practical evaluations on a conventional IoT infrastructure. To this end, we will compare two well-known application layer protocols, i.e., MQTT with many reliable features and CoAP with fewer reliability mechanisms, from different aspects. Conducted experiments in Arduino test-beds illustrate while MQTT provides more reliable and predictable infrastructure for IoT devices, on average, it imposes 364uW of more power consumption than CoAP for delivering the same amount of data. Furthermore, utilizing MQTT as a reliable application layer protocol, imposes 4.99x of more latency in comparison with CoAP.

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

[2]  Eric Rescorla,et al.  Datagram Transport Layer Security Version 1.2 , 2012, RFC.

[3]  Jacques Bughin,et al.  The internet of things: mapping the value beyond the hype , 2015 .

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

[5]  Hong Linh Truong,et al.  MQTT-S — A publish/subscribe protocol for Wireless Sensor Networks , 2008, 2008 3rd International Conference on Communication Systems Software and Middleware and Workshops (COMSWARE '08).

[6]  Jeremy G. Frey,et al.  Sensor networks and grid middleware for laboratory monitoring , 2005, First International Conference on e-Science and Grid Computing (e-Science'05).

[7]  Gianluca Reali,et al.  Comparison of two lightweight protocols for smartphone-based sensing , 2013, 2013 IEEE 20th Symposium on Communications and Vehicular Technology in the Benelux (SCVT).

[8]  Eric Rescorla,et al.  The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2 , 2008, RFC.

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

[10]  Anantha P. Chandrakasan,et al.  Low-power CMOS digital design , 1992 .