QCF: QoS-Aware Communication Framework for Real-Time IoT Services

  • Omid TavallaieEmail author
  • Javid Taheri
  • Albert Y. Zomaya
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11895)


Routing Protocol for Low-power Lossy Networks (RPL) is designed by Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) as the de facto routing standard for Internet of Things (IoT). Supporting mobility and providing Quality of Service (QoS) in the timeliness domain were not addressed in the IETF standard. RPL performs poorly when it comes to satisfying QoS constraints and adaptability to changes in the network topology. In this paper, we address this formidable problem by proposing QCF, a QoS-aware Communication Framework for real-time IoT services. Our proposed framework provides a lightweight practical approach to support timeliness requirements, and node mobility. It applies fuzzy logic to balance energy resources and traffic loads in the network. QCF estimates node mobility and the one-hop delay by using two novel methods. It employs two-hop neighbor information to enhance the parent selection process, and estimates the remaining time to the packet’s deadline without using synchronized clocks. We integrate QCF into the Contiki operating system and implement it on Zolerita IoT motes. Emulation results show that QCF improves the deadline delivery ratio by up to 67% and reduces the end-to-end delay by up to 63%.


Internet of Things (IoT) Quality of Service (QoS) Service-oriented networking Real-time services 


  1. 1.
    Martocci, J., De Mil, P., Riou, N., Vermeylen, W.: Building automation routing requirements in low-power and lossy networks. IETF RFC 5867 (2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pister, K., Thubert, P., Dwars, S., Phinney, T.: Industrial routing requirements in low-power and lossy networks. IETF RFC 5673 (2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Spano, E., Niccolini, L., De Pascoli, S., Iannacconeluca, G.: Last-meter smart grid embedded in an Internet-of-Things platform. IEEE Trans. Smart Grid. 6(1), 468–476 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Liu, X., Sheng, Z., Yin, C., Ali, F., Roggen, D.: Performance analysis of routing protocol for low power and lossy networks (RPL) in large scale networks. IEEE Internet Things J. 4(6), 2172–2185 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Winter, T., et al.: RPL: IPv6 routing protocol for low-power and lossy networks. IETF RFC 6550 (2012)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Thubert, P.: Objective function zero for the routing protocol for low-power and lossy networks (RPL). IETF RFC 6552 (2012)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Vasseur, J.P., Kim, M., Pister, K., Dejean, N., Barthel, D.: Routing metrics used for path calculation in low-power and lossy networks. IETF RFC 6551 (2012)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kim, H.-S., Kim, H., Paek, J., Bahk, S.: Load balancing under heavy traffic in RPL routing protocol for low power and lossy networks. IEEE Trans. Mobile Comput. 16(4), 964–979 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kamgueu, P.O., Nataf, E., Ndie Djotio, T.: On design and deployment of fuzzy-based metric for routing in low-power and lossy networks. In: LCN Workshops 2015, pp. 789–795. IEEE (2015)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Qiu, T., Lv, Y., Xia, F., Chen, N., Wan, J., Tolba, A.: ERGID: an efficient routing protocol for emergency response Internet of Things. J. Netw. Comput. Appl. 72, 104–112 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Contiki operating system.
  12. 12.
  13. 13.
    Li, Y., Chen, C.S., Song, Y.-Q., Wang, Z., Sun, Y.: Enhancing real-time delivery in wireless sensor networks with two-hop information. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. 5(2), 113–122 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mamdani, E.H., Assilian, S.: An experiment in linguistic synthesis with a fuzzy logic controller. Int. J. Man Mach. Stud. 7(1), 1–13 (1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kurose, J., Ross, K.: Computer Networking: A Top-Down Approach, 6th edn. Addison Wesley, Boston (2013)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tahir, Y., Yang, S., McCann, J.: BRPL: backpressure RPL for high-throughput and mobile IoTs. Trans. Mobile Comput. 17(1), 29–43 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mamdouh, M., Elsayed, K., Khattab, A.: RPL load balancing via minimum degree spanning tree. In: WiMob 2016, pp. 1–8. IEEE (2016)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Qasem, M., Al-Dubai, A., Romdhani, I., Ghaleb, B., Gharibi, W.: A new efficient objective function for routing in Internet of Things paradigm. In: CSCN 2016, pp. 1–6. IEEE (2016)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Shakya, N.M., Mani, M., Crespi, N.: SEEOF: smart energy efficient objective function: adapting RPL objective function to enable an IPv6 meshed topology solution for battery operated smart meters. In: Global Internet of Things Summit (GIoTS), pp. 1–6. IEEE (2017)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zhao, M., Ho, I.W., Chong, P.H.J.: An energy-efficient region-based RPL routing protocol for low-power and lossy networks. IEEE Internet Things J. 3(6), 1319–1333 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Omid Tavallaie
    • 1
    Email author
  • Javid Taheri
    • 2
  • Albert Y. Zomaya
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Computer ScienceThe University of SydneySydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceKarlstad UniversityKarlstadSweden

Personalised recommendations