Sara Holm
ABSTRACT
Communication standards and protocols are detrimental to the success of any Internet of Things (IoT) system or application. Selecting a communication standard and a suitable middleware or messaging protocol for IoT connectivity is challenging due to the heterogeneous resource-constrained IoT devices and their messaging requirements. Recently, several messaging/middleware protocols in the IoT field were developed and adopted in the industry. However, to date, there is no specific messaging protocol that can support all messaging use cases and fulfil the overall requirements of IoT systems. Therefore, it is critical to understand the application layer messaging and communication protocols of IoT systems to identify the most appropriate protocol that could fit and be applied in various contexts. This paper provides a comparative analysis of the MQTT, CoAP, and AMQP messaging protocols including their security.
- 2018. IOT DEVELOPER SURVEY RESULTS. https://iot.eclipse.org/community/resources/iot-surveys/assets/iot-developer-survey-2018.pdfGoogle Scholar
- Eyhab Al-Masri, Karan Raj Kalyanam, John Batts, Jonathan Kim, Sharanjit Singh, Tammy Vo, and Charlotte Yan. 2020. Investigating messaging protocols for the Internet of Things (IoT). IEEE Access 8 (2020), 94880–94911.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Thamer A Alghamdi, Aboubaker Lasebae, and Mahdi Aiash. 2013. Security analysis of the constrained application protocol in the Internet of Things. In Second international conference on future generation communication technologies (FGCT 2013). IEEE, 163–168.Google ScholarCross Ref
- T Alsbouí, Mohammad Hammoudeh, Zuhair Bandar, and Andy Nisbet. 2011. An overview and classification of approaches to information extraction in wireless sensor networks. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Sensor Technologies and Applications (SENSORCOMM’11), Vol. 255.Google Scholar
- Mohab Aly, Foutse Khomh, Mohamed Haoues, Alejandro Quintero, and Soumaya Yacout. 2019. Enforcing security in Internet of Things frameworks: A systematic literature review. Internet of Things 6 (2019), 100050.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Farag Azzedin. 2010. Trust-based taxonomy for free riders in distributed multimedia systems. In 2010 International Conference on High Performance Computing & Simulation. 362–369. https://doi.org/10.1109/HPCS.2010.5547108Google ScholarCross Ref
- Farag Azzedin and Hussah Albinali. 2021. Security in Internet of Things: RPL Attacks Taxonomy. In The 5th International Conference on Future Networks & Distributed Systems. 820–825.Google Scholar
- Farag Azzedin and Mustafa Ghaleb. 2019. Internet-of-Things and Information Fusion: Trust Perspective Survey. Sensors 19, 8 (2019). https://doi.org/10.3390/s19081929Google ScholarCross Ref
- Farag Azzedin, Husam Suwad, and Zaid Alyafeai. 2017. Countermeasureing Zero Day Attacks: Asset-Based Approach. In 2017 International Conference on High Performance Computing & Simulation (HPCS). 854–857. https://doi.org/10.1109/HPCS.2017.129Google ScholarCross Ref
- Farag Azzedin, Husam Suwad, and Md Mahfuzur Rahman. 2022. An Asset-Based Approach to Mitigate Zero-Day Ransomware Attacks. CMC-COMPUTERS MATERIALS & CONTINUA 73, 2 (2022), 3003–3020.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Zoran B Babovic, Jelica Protic, and Veljko Milutinovic. 2016. Web performance evaluation for internet of things applications. IEEE Access 4 (2016), 6974–6992.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ranbir Singh Bali, Fehmi Jaafar, and Pavol Zavarasky. 2019. Lightweight authentication for MQTT to improve the security of IoT communication. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Cryptography, Security and Privacy. 6–12.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Soma Bandyopadhyay and Abhijan Bhattacharyya. 2013. Lightweight Internet protocols for web enablement of sensors using constrained gateway devices. In 2013 International Conference on Computing, Networking and Communications (ICNC). IEEE, 334–340.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Nandeesh Basavaraju, Naveen Alexander, and Jochen Seitz. 2021. Performance Evaluation of Advanced Message Queuing Protocol (AMQP): An Empirical Analysis of AMQP Online Message Brokers. In 2021 International Symposium on Networks, Computers and Communications (ISNCC). IEEE, 1–8.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Melvin Bender, Erkin Kirdan, Marc-Oliver Pahl, and Georg Carle. 2021. Open-source mqtt evaluation. In 2021 IEEE 18th Annual Consumer Communications & Networking Conference (CCNC). IEEE, 1–4.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Raphael Cohn. 2011. A comparison of AMQP and MQTT. White Paper, StormMQ (2011).Google Scholar
- Pinchen Cui. 2017. Comparison of IoT application layer protocols. (2017).Google Scholar
- Niccolò De Caro, Walter Colitti, Kris Steenhaut, Giuseppe Mangino, and Gianluca Reali. 2013. Comparison of two lightweight protocols for smartphone-based sensing. In 2013 IEEE 20th Symposium on Communications and Vehicular Technology in the Benelux (SCVT). IEEE, 1–6.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jasenka Dizdarević, Francisco Carpio, Admela Jukan, and Xavi Masip-Bruin. 2019. A survey of communication protocols for internet of things and related challenges of fog and cloud computing integration. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 51, 6 (2019), 1–29.Google ScholarDigital Library
- P Dobbelaere and Esmaili KS Kafka versus RabbitMQ. 2017. A comparative study of two industry reference publish/subscribe implementations. In Proceedings of the 11th ACM International Conference on Distributed and Event-based Systems. 227–238.Google Scholar
- Andrew Foster. 2015. Messaging technologies for the industrial internet and the internet of things. PrismTech Whitepaper 21 (2015).Google Scholar
- Weichao Gao, James H Nguyen, Wei Yu, Chao Lu, Daniel T Ku, and William Grant Hatcher. 2017. Toward emulation-based performance assessment of constrained application protocol in dynamic networks. IEEE Internet of Things Journal 4, 5 (2017), 1597–1610.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ibrahim Ghafir, Vaclav Prenosil, and Mohammad Hammoudeh. 2015. Botnet command and control traffic detection challenges: a correlation-based solution. Int J Adv Comput Netw Secur 7, 2 (2015), 2731.Google Scholar
- Mustafa Ghaleb and Farag Azzedin. 2021. Towards Scalable and Efficient Architecture for Modeling Trust in IoT Environments. Sensors 21, 9 (2021). https://doi.org/10.3390/s21092986Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ilya Grigorik. 2013. Making the web faster with HTTP 2.0. Commun. ACM 56, 12 (2013), 42–49.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Mohammad Hammoudeh, Alexander Kurz, and Elena Gaura. 2007. Mumhr: Multi-path, multi-hop hierarchical routing. In 2007 International Conference on Sensor Technologies and Applications (SENSORCOMM 2007). IEEE, 140–145.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Mohammad Hammoudeh, Robert Newman, Christopher Dennett, Sarah Mount, and Omar Aldabbas. 2015. Map as a service: a framework for visualising and maximising information return from multi-modal wireless sensor networks. Sensors 15, 9 (2015), 22970–23003.Google ScholarCross Ref
- NS Han. 2015. Semantic service provisioning for 6LoWPAN: powering internet of things applications on Web (Doctoral dissertation). Available from Institut National des Telecommunications.(tel-01217185) (2015).Google Scholar
- Sahmi Imane, Mazri Tomader, and Hmina Nabil. 2018. Comparison between CoAP and MQTT in smart healthcare and some threats. In 2018 International Symposium on Advanced Electrical and Communication Technologies (ISAECT). IEEE, 1–4.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jetendra Joshi, Vishal Rajapriya, SR Rahul, Pranith Kumar, Siddhanth Polepally, Rohit Samineni, and DG Kamal Tej. 2017. Performance enhancement and IoT based monitoring for smart home. In 2017 International Conference on Information Networking (ICOIN). IEEE, 468–473.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ngo Manh Khoi, Saguna Saguna, Karan Mitra, and Christer Ahlund. 2015. IReHMo: An efficient IoT-based remote health monitoring system for smart regions. In 2015 17th International Conference on E-health Networking, Application & Services (HealthCom). IEEE, 563–568.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jorge E Luzuriaga, Miguel Perez, Pablo Boronat, Juan Carlos Cano, Carlos Calafate, and Pietro Manzoni. 2014. Testing AMQP protocol on unstable and mobile networks. In International Conference on Internet and Distributed Computing Systems. Springer, 250–260.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jorge E Luzuriaga, Miguel Perez, Pablo Boronat, Juan Carlos Cano, Carlos Calafate, and Pietro Manzoni. 2015. A comparative evaluation of AMQP and MQTT protocols over unstable and mobile networks. In 2015 12th Annual IEEE Consumer Communications and Networking Conference (CCNC). IEEE, 931–936.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Gregory Marsh, Ajay P Sampat, Sreeram Potluri, and Dhabaleswar K Panda. 2008. Scaling advanced message queuing protocol (AMQP) architecture with broker federation and infiniband. Ohio State University, Tech. Rep. OSU-CISRC-5/09-TR17 (2008), 38.Google Scholar
- Mónica Martí, Carlos Garcia-Rubio, and Celeste Campo. 2019. Performance evaluation of CoAP and MQTT_SN in an IoT environment. Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute Proceedings 31, 1 (2019), 49.Google Scholar
- Marco Mellia, Michela Meo, and Claudio Casetti. 2005. TCP smart framing: a segmentation algorithm to reduce TCP latency. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking 13, 2 (2005), 316–329.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Alexey Melnikov and K Zeilenga. 2006. Simple authentication and security layer (SASL). Technical Report.Google Scholar
- Andrew Minteer. 2017. Analytics for the internet of things (iot). Packt Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
- Steve Moffat, Mohammad Hammoudeh, and Robert Hegarty. 2017. A survey on ciphertext-policy attribute-based encryption (CP-ABE) approaches to data security on mobile devices and its application to IoT. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Future Networks and Distributed Systems.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Nitin Naik. 2017. Choice of effective messaging protocols for IoT systems: MQTT, CoAP, AMQP and HTTP. In 2017 IEEE international systems engineering symposium (ISSE). IEEE, 1–7.Google Scholar
- Giuseppe Nebbione and Maria Carla Calzarossa. 2020. Security of IoT application layer protocols: Challenges and findings. Future Internet 12, 3 (2020), 55.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Vipin Kumar Rathi, Vinay Chaudhary, Nikhil Kumar Rajput, Bhavya Ahuja, Amit Kumar Jaiswal, Deepak Gupta, Mohamed Elhoseny, and Mohammad Hammoudeh. 2020. A blockchain-enabled multi domain edge computing orchestrator. IEEE Internet of Things Magazine 3, 2 (2020), 30–36.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Shahid Raza, Hossein Shafagh, Kasun Hewage, René Hummen, and Thiemo Voigt. 2013. Lithe: Lightweight secure CoAP for the internet of things. IEEE Sensors Journal 13, 10 (2013), 3711–3720.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jibran Saleem, Bamidele Adebisi, Ruth Ande, and Mohammad Hammoudeh. 2017. A state of the art survey-Impact of cyber attacks on SME’s. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Future Networks and Distributed Systems.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Zach Shelby, Klaus Hartke, and Carsten Bormann. 2014. The constrained application protocol (CoAP). Technical Report.Google Scholar
- Fathan Abdul Shodiq, Rizka Reza Pahlevi, and Parman Sukarno. 2021. Secure MQTT Authentication and Message Exchange Methods for IoT Constrained Device. In 2021 International Conference on Intelligent Cybernetics Technology & Applications (ICICyTA). IEEE, 70–74.Google Scholar
- J Stansberry. 2015. MQTT and CoAP: Underlying protocols for the IoT. Electronic Design (2015).Google Scholar
- Upendra Tandale, Bashirahamad Momin, and Deva P Seetharam. 2017. An empirical study of application layer protocols for IoT. In 2017 International Conference on Energy, Communication, Data Analytics and Soft Computing (ICECDS). IEEE, 2447–2451.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Dinesh Thangavel, Xiaoping Ma, Alvin Valera, Hwee-Xian Tan, and Colin Keng-Yan Tan. 2014. Performance evaluation of MQTT and CoAP via a common middleware. In 2014 IEEE ninth international conference on intelligent sensors, sensor networks and information processing (ISSNIP). IEEE, 1–6.Google Scholar
- Priyanka Thota and Yoohwan Kim. 2016. Implementation and comparison of M2M protocols for Internet of Things. In 2016 4th Intl Conf on Applied Computing and Information Technology/3rd Intl Conf on Computational Science/Intelligence and Applied Informatics/1st Intl Conf on Big Data, Cloud Computing, Data Science & Engineering (ACIT-CSII-BCD). IEEE, 43–48.Google Scholar
- Nguyen Quoc Uy and Vu Hoai Nam. 2019. A comparison of AMQP and MQTT protocols for Internet of Things. In 2019 6th NAFOSTED Conference on Information and Computer Science (NICS). IEEE, 292–297.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Wei Zhou, Yan Jia, Anni Peng, Yuqing Zhang, and Peng Liu. 2018. The effect of iot new features on security and privacy: New threats, existing solutions, and challenges yet to be solved. IEEE Internet of things Journal 6, 2 (2018), 1606–1616.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- A Comparative Analysis of IoT Protocols for Resource Constraint Devices and Networks
Recommendations
IoT Protocols – MQTT versus CoAP
NISS '21: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Networking, Information Systems & SecurityThe usage of Internet of Things has increased in the recent years allowing a new way of connecting devices together. Many transactions happen over the IoT calling for protocols to ensure the efficiency and management of the communication traffic. This ...
Analysis and evaluation of communication Protocols for IoT Applications
SITA'20: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Intelligent Systems: Theories and ApplicationsThe communication protocols are an essential part for the data communication of Internet of Things (IoT) applications. However, the selection of a communication protocol is challenging because it depends on the nature of the IoT system and its data ...
Blockchain applications for Internet of Things (IoT): A review
Nowadays, Blockchain is very popular among industries to solve security issues of information systems. The Internet of Things (IoT) has security issues during multi-organization communication, and any organization approves no such robust framework. The ...
Comments