skip to main content
10.1145/3584202.3584295acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesicfndsConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

A Comparative Analysis of IoT Protocols for Resource Constraint Devices and Networks

Published: 09 May 2023 Publication History

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.

References

[1]
2018. IOT DEVELOPER SURVEY RESULTS. https://iot.eclipse.org/community/resources/iot-surveys/assets/iot-developer-survey-2018.pdf
[2]
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.
[3]
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.
[4]
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.
[5]
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.
[6]
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.2010.5547108
[7]
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.
[8]
Farag Azzedin and Mustafa Ghaleb. 2019. Internet-of-Things and Information Fusion: Trust Perspective Survey. Sensors 19, 8 (2019). https://doi.org/10.3390/s19081929
[9]
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.2017.129
[10]
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.
[11]
Zoran B Babovic, Jelica Protic, and Veljko Milutinovic. 2016. Web performance evaluation for internet of things applications. IEEE Access 4 (2016), 6974–6992.
[12]
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.
[13]
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.
[14]
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.
[15]
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.
[16]
Raphael Cohn. 2011. A comparison of AMQP and MQTT. White Paper, StormMQ (2011).
[17]
Pinchen Cui. 2017. Comparison of IoT application layer protocols. (2017).
[18]
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.
[19]
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.
[20]
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.
[21]
Andrew Foster. 2015. Messaging technologies for the industrial internet and the internet of things. PrismTech Whitepaper 21 (2015).
[22]
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.
[23]
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.
[24]
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/s21092986
[25]
Ilya Grigorik. 2013. Making the web faster with HTTP 2.0. Commun. ACM 56, 12 (2013), 42–49.
[26]
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.
[27]
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.
[28]
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).
[29]
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.
[30]
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.
[31]
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.
[32]
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.
[33]
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.
[34]
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.
[35]
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.
[36]
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.
[37]
Alexey Melnikov and K Zeilenga. 2006. Simple authentication and security layer (SASL). Technical Report.
[38]
Andrew Minteer. 2017. Analytics for the internet of things (iot). Packt Publishing Ltd.
[39]
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.
[40]
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.
[41]
Giuseppe Nebbione and Maria Carla Calzarossa. 2020. Security of IoT application layer protocols: Challenges and findings. Future Internet 12, 3 (2020), 55.
[42]
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.
[43]
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.
[44]
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.
[45]
Zach Shelby, Klaus Hartke, and Carsten Bormann. 2014. The constrained application protocol (CoAP). Technical Report.
[46]
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.
[47]
J Stansberry. 2015. MQTT and CoAP: Underlying protocols for the IoT. Electronic Design (2015).
[48]
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.
[49]
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.
[50]
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.
[51]
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.
[52]
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.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Toward A Digital Twin IoT for the Validation of AI Algorithms in Smart-City ApplicationsMachine Learning for Networking10.1007/978-3-031-59933-0_8(108-117)Online publication date: 25-May-2024

Index Terms

  1. A Comparative Analysis of IoT Protocols for Resource Constraint Devices and Networks

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM Other conferences
    ICFNDS '22: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Future Networks & Distributed Systems
    December 2022
    734 pages
    ISBN:9781450399050
    DOI:10.1145/3584202
    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    Published: 09 May 2023

    Permissions

    Request permissions for this article.

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. Blockchain
    2. Covid-19
    3. E-commerce

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

    Conference

    ICFNDS '22

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)39
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)4
    Reflects downloads up to 11 Feb 2025

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2024)Toward A Digital Twin IoT for the Validation of AI Algorithms in Smart-City ApplicationsMachine Learning for Networking10.1007/978-3-031-59933-0_8(108-117)Online publication date: 25-May-2024

    View Options

    Login options

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format.

    HTML Format

    Figures

    Tables

    Media

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media