Comparative Analysis of IoT Communication Protocols

Burak H. Çorak, F. Y. Okay, Metehan Guzel, Sahin Murt, S. Özdemir
{"title":"Comparative Analysis of IoT Communication Protocols","authors":"Burak H. Çorak, F. Y. Okay, Metehan Guzel, Sahin Murt, S. Özdemir","doi":"10.1109/ISNCC.2018.8530963","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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.","PeriodicalId":313846,"journal":{"name":"2018 International Symposium on Networks, Computers and Communications (ISNCC)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"40","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2018 International Symposium on Networks, Computers and Communications (ISNCC)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/ISNCC.2018.8530963","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 40

Abstract

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.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
物联网通信协议比较分析
随着机器对机器通信的普及,物联网应用中出现了许多标准化的通信协议。即使在相同的运行条件下,这些协议的性能也可能存在很大差异。本文定量比较了一组著名的物联网通信协议,即 CoAP(受限应用协议)、MQTT(消息队列遥测传输)和 XMPP(可扩展消息持久协议)在实际测试平台中的性能。CoAP 采用 UDP 数据包进行传输,而其他协议则使用 TCP。为此,我们设计了一个收集实时环境数据的小型测试平台。通过设计这样一个系统,我们旨在揭示不同协议在数据包创建时间和数据包传输时间方面的差异。结果表明,XMPP 在这两个指标上都不如其他协议,而 MQTT 和 CoAP 的表现几乎相当。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
TCP performance for Satellite M2M applications over Random Access links TCP Wave estimation of the optimal operating point using ACK trains Practical Approach of Fast-Data Architecture Applied to Alert Generation in Emergency Evacuation Systems Interference and Link Budget Analysis in Integrated Satellite and Terrestrial Mobile System Underdetermined Blind Separation Via Rough Equivalence Clustering for Satellite Communications
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1