Comparison of CoAP and CoCoA+ congestion control mechanisms for different IoT application scenarios

CoAP is a web transfer protocol that provides basic RESTful services for IoT devices. Since CoAP operates on top of UDP, CoAP must support additional congestion control and reliability mechanisms. However, CoAP is originally designed to allow implementations that do not maintain any end-to-end connection information. Thus, the default congestion control mechanisms are not capable of adapting to network conditions. A few enhancements of the basic congestion control mechanism of CoAP have been recently proposed, and CoCoA+ is commonly considered the most mature of these proposals. However, the shortcomings of CoCoA+ have not been sufficiently investigated in the literature. In this paper, we present an in-depth analysis of the congestion control mechanisms of CoCoA+ and CoAP for a variety of traffic patterns under realistic IoT setups. The results of this evaluation indicate that CoCoA+ can perform significantly worse than default CoAP, especially with bursty traffic and in networks with few clients as a result of an improper selection of the retransmission timeouts. Furthermore, large variability of RTO values in CoCoA+ makes difficult to meet end-to-end delay requirements of typical IoT monitoring applications.

[1]  Hee Yong Youn,et al.  Enhancement of congestion control of Constrained Application Protocol/Congestion Control/Advanced for Internet of Things environment , 2016, Int. J. Distributed Sens. Networks.

[2]  August Betzler,et al.  CoAP Simple Congestion Control/Advanced , 2016 .

[3]  August Betzler,et al.  CoCoA+: An advanced congestion control mechanism for CoAP , 2015, Ad Hoc Networks.

[4]  Pascal Thubert,et al.  Compression Format for IPv6 Datagrams over IEEE 802.15.4-Based Networks , 2011, RFC.

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

[6]  Adam Dunkels,et al.  Cross-Level Sensor Network Simulation with COOJA , 2006, Proceedings. 2006 31st IEEE Conference on Local Computer Networks.

[7]  Siarhei Kuryla,et al.  RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low power and Lossy Networks , 2010 .

[8]  August Betzler,et al.  CoAP congestion control for the internet of things , 2016, IEEE Communications Magazine.

[9]  Gennaro Boggia,et al.  Standardized Protocol Stack for the Internet of (Important) Things , 2013, IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials.

[10]  Eleonora Borgia,et al.  The Internet of Things vision: Key features, applications and open issues , 2014, Comput. Commun..

[11]  Thomas Pötsch,et al.  Performance Evaluation of CoAP Using RPL and LPL in TinyOS , 2012, 2012 5th International Conference on New Technologies, Mobility and Security (NTMS).

[12]  Zach Shelby,et al.  Constrained RESTful Environments (CoRE) Link Format , 2012, RFC.

[13]  Markku Kojo,et al.  Experimental evaluation of alternative congestion control algorithms for Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) , 2015, 2015 IEEE 2nd World Forum on Internet of Things (WF-IoT).

[14]  Masafumi Katoh,et al.  Traffic engineering for IoT , 2016, 2016 International Conference on Information Networking (ICOIN).

[15]  Vern Paxson,et al.  Computing TCP's Retransmission Timer , 2000, RFC.