Abstract
Many IoT deployments rely on an access network that is characterized by densely distributed power constrained devices. Power restrictions, in turns, lead to transmission rate limitations and increased bit errors responsible of network packet loss. Among the many technologies available to deal with these issues, the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) introduces an efficient session layer mechanism that provides, as the Hypertext Transport Protocol (HTTP), Representational State Transfer (REST) functionality. However, as opposed to HTTP that relies mostly on the transmission of TCP segments, CoAP has been standardized to support both UDP and TCP transport layers. In IoT scenarios, the CoAP transport protocol selection combined with network conditions can greatly affect overall application Quality of Service (QoS). Under HTTP, the Quick UDP Internet Connection (QUIC) protocol has been introduced as a hybrid alternative to TCP. In this paper, we analyze, model and compare the use of QUIC transport against that of both UDP and TCP in the context of CoAP traffic.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Betzler A, Gomez C, Demirkol I, Paradells J. Coap congestion control for the internet of things. IEEE Communications Magazine. 2016;54(7):154–60. https://doi.org/10.1109/MCOM.2016.7509394.
Bhalerao R, Subramanian SS, Pasquale J. An analysis and improvement of congestion control in the coap internet-of-things protocol. In: 2016 13th IEEE Annual Consumer Communications Networking Conference (CCNC), 2016;889–894. https://doi.org/10.1109/CCNC.2016.7444906
Biswal P, Gnawali O. Does quic make the web faster? In: 2016 IEEE Global Communications Conference (GLOBECOM), 2016;1–6
Bormann C, Lemay S, Tschofenig H, Hartke K, Silverajan B, Raymor B. CoAP (Constrained Application Protocol) over TCP, TLS, and WebSockets. RFC 8323, 2018. https://doi.org/10.17487/RFC8323. https://rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8323.txt
Bujari A, Palazzi CE, Quadrio G, Ronzani D. Emerging interactive applications over quic. In: 2020 IEEE 17th Annual Consumer Communications Networking Conference (CCNC), 2020;1–4
Chen Y, Kunz T. Performance evaluation of iot protocols under a constrained wireless access network. In: 2016 International Conference on Selected Topics in Mobile Wireless Networking (MoWNeT), 2016;1–7 . https://doi.org/10.1109/MoWNet.2016.7496622
Collina M, Bartolucci M, Vanelli-Coralli A, Corazza GE. Internet of things application layer protocol analysis over error and delay prone links. In: 2014 7th Advanced Satellite Multimedia Systems Conference and the 13th Signal Processing for Space Communications Workshop (ASMS/SPSC), pp. 398–404 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1109/ASMS-SPSC.2014.6934573
Elliott EO. Estimates of error rates for codes on burst-noise channels. The Bell System Technical Journal. 1963;42(5):1977–97. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1538-7305.1963.tb00955.x.
Gilbert EN. Capacity of a burst-noise channel. The Bell System Technical Journal. 1960;39(5):1253–65. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1538-7305.1960.tb03959.x.
Hartke K. Observing Resources in the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP). RFC 7641 (2015). https://doi.org/10.17487/rfc7641. https://rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7641.txt
Herrero, R.: Media communications in internet of things wireless sensor networks. Internet Technology Letters 0(0), e46. https://doi.org/10.1002/itl2.46
Herrero, R. Dynamic coap mode control in real time wireless iot networks. IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 2018;1–1. https://doi.org/10.1109/JIOT.2018.2857701
Herrero R. Encapsulation of real-time iot coap traffic. Trans. Emerging Telecommunications Technologies 2018;29(3). https://doi.org/10.1002/ett.3287.
Hohlfeld O, Geib R, Hasslinger G. (2008). Packet loss in real-time services: Markovian models generating qoe impairments. In: 2008 16th Interntional Workshop on Quality of Service, pp. 239–248. https://doi.org/10.1109/IWQOS.2008.33
Lee JJ, Chung SM, Lee B, Kim KT, Youn HY. Round trip time based adaptive congestion control with coap for sensor network. In: 2016 International Conference on Distributed Computing in Sensor Systems (DCOSS), pp. 2016;113–115. https://doi.org/10.1109/DCOSS.2016.35
Nepomuceno K, d. Oliveira IN, Aschoff RR, Bezerra D, Ito MS, Melo W, Sadok D, Szabo G. Quic and tcp: A performance evaluation. In: 2018 IEEE Symposium on Computers and Communications (ISCC), 2018;00045–00051
Oda N, Yamaguchi S. Http/2 performance evaluation with latency and packet losses. In: 2018 15th IEEE Annual Consumer Communications Networking Conference (CCNC), 2018;1–2
Seufert M, Schatz R, Wehner N, Casas P. Quicker or not? -an empirical analysis of quic vs tcp for video streaming qoe provisioning. In: 2019 22nd Conference on Innovation in Clouds, Internet and Networks and Workshops (ICIN), 2019;7–12
Slabicki M, Grochla K. Performance evaluation of coap, snmp and netconf protocols in fog computing architecture. In: NOMS 2016 - 2016 IEEE/IFIP Network Operations and Management Symposium, pp. 2016;1315–1319. https://doi.org/10.1109/NOMS.2016.7503010
Thombre S, Islam RU, Andersson K, Hossain MS. Performance analysis of an ip based protocol stack for wsns. In: 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Communications Workshops (INFOCOM WKSHPS), 2016;360–365. https://doi.org/10.1109/INFCOMW.2016.7562102
VPS+: Visual protocol stack emulator. https://www.l7tr.com
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.
Ethical approval
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
