Abstract
The amount of connected entities has already gone beyond the total amount of human being few years ago, and it is predicted to reach 50 billion by the end of 2025. As more and more devices are being introduced in our regular life, it has created immense pressure on communication in terms of routing. Therefore, the necessities of application-specific communication protocols have risen up and will continue in future days to come. This paper is mainly focused on a comparative analysis of the three protocols 6LoWPAN, RPL, and CoAP and finding out the best protocols among them for the communication between IoT nodes. The performance of these protocols has been compared depending on different criteria like total packets, received packets, number of nodes, simulation time, and number of IoT nodes on cooja platform. According to the result, packet transfer rate of CoAP is fair but slow. On the contrary, RPL packet loss rate was high but demonstrated fast communication; however, most importantly, 6LoWPAN performed better than RPL and CoAP in our simulations.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Ray PP (2018) A survey on Internet of things architectures. J King Saud Univ 291–319
Stroud F (2018) Iot-Internet of things. Lecture notes in Iot. Webopedia
Talari S, Shafie-Khah M, Siano P, Loia V, Tommasett A, Catalão JPS (2017) A review of smart cities based on the Internet of things concept. MDPI, Open Access J
Frangos J-M (2017) The Internet of things will power the fourth industrial revolution annual meeting of the new champions. World Economic Forum
Nedeltchev P (2015) The Internet of everything is the new economy. COSCO
Ranger S (2018) What is the IoT? Everything you need to know about the Internet of things right now, ZDNet. Cybersecurity in an IoT and mobile world
Panaseyko E (2018) Internet technologies and communication protocols. My Assignment Help
Mulligan G (2007) The 6LoWPAN architecture, semantic scholar. Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence
Farej KZ, Abdul-Hameed AM (2015) Performance comparison among (Star, Tree and Mesh) topologies for large scale WSN based IEEE 802.15.4 standard. Int J Comput Appl
Vasseur JP, Agarwal N, Hui J, Shelby Z, Bertrand P, Chauvenet C (2011) RPL: The IP routing protocol designed for low power and lossy networks. Internet Protocol for Smart Objects (IPSO). Alliance
Khan MR (2012) Performance and route stability analysis of RPL protocol. Masters’ Degree Project Stockholm, Sweden
Chen X (2012) Constrained application protocol for Internet of things, research paper on computer science. Washington University
Teklemariam GK, Hoebeke J, Moerman I, Demeester P (2013) Facilitating the creation of IoT applications through conditional observations in CoAP. EURASIP J Wirel Commun Netw
Mulligan G (2007) The 6LoWPAN architecture. In: 4th Workshop on embedded networked sensors
Mehta S, Sultana N, Kwak KS (2010) Network and system simulation tools for next generation networks: a case study, book of modelling, simulation and identification
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this paper
Cite this paper
Mahmud, A., Hossain, F., Choity, T.A., Juhin, F. (2020). Simulation and Comparison of RPL, 6LoWPAN, and CoAP Protocols Using Cooja Simulator. In: Uddin, M., Bansal, J. (eds) Proceedings of International Joint Conference on Computational Intelligence. Algorithms for Intelligent Systems. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-7564-4_28
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-7564-4_28
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-13-7563-7
Online ISBN: 978-981-13-7564-4
eBook Packages: Intelligent Technologies and RoboticsIntelligent Technologies and Robotics (R0)