RPL AND COAP PROTOCOLS, EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS FOR IOT: A CASE STUDY

International Journal of Ad hoc, Sensor & Ubiquitous Computing (IJASUC) Vol.10, No.2, April 2019
DOI : 10.5121/ijasuc.2019.10201 1
RPL AND COAP PROTOCOLS, EXPERIMENTAL
ANALYSIS FOR IOT: A CASE STUDY
Sharwari Satish Solapure and Harish H.Kenchannavar
Assistant Professor, CSE Department, Walchand College of Engineering,Sangli -
Maharashtra –India.
Professor and HoD of IS Department,Gogate Institute of Technology,Belgavi-karnataka-
India.
ABSTRACT
Internet of Things(IoT) in recent days playing a vital role in networking related applications. However,
there are several protocols available for building IoT applications, but RPL and CoAP are important
protocols.There is a customized protocol requirement for specific IoT applications, while working on
specific research problems. Further, adequate platforms are required to evaluate the performance of these
protocols. These platforms need to be configured for the protocol, which is very crucial and time-
consuming task. At present, there is no collective and precise information available to carry out this work.
This paper discusses two different open source platforms available for IoT. Also,various IoT research ideas
need to design of IoT protocols. A few IoT communication technologies are mentioned in the paper. The
detail analysis of, two common protocols, namely Routing Protocol for Low-Power Lossy Networks (RPL)
and Constrained Application layer protocol (CoAP) is carried out with respect to latency delay and packet
delivery ratio. The results, discussion and conclusion presented in this paper are useful for researchers,
who are interested to work with IoT protocols and standards.
KEYWORDS
6LowPAN, IoT , RPL , CoAP, WSN, 6LoWPAN
1 INTRODUCTION
Wireless Sensor Network (WSN) [4] technologies exist across a number of fields in today’s
modern lifestyle. The communicating, actuating network of sensors and actuators connected to the
Internet is known as Internet of Things (IoT) [1]. It is the collaboration of physical and virtual
world together mostly without human interaction.The different essences of this basic are very
famous in the research community such as: Industrial IoT(IIoT) [1], Internet of Everything (IoE)
[1], etc. It is an emergent area, which connects all types of vehicles, industrial components, and
sensors to the Internet with the help of cloud process. It has the capacity to transform everybody’s
life. IoT devices use both wired and wireless for communication.Numerous smart applications of
IoT available for homes, cities, logistics and agriculture[2]. The smart device intelligence makes
IoT vision very similar to reality. IoT mechanism depends on a reliable less-power wireless
technology and a communication protocol stack for the devices. The IETF (Internet Engineering
Task Force)[1] has defined a protocol stack for a limited resource devices. It includes IPv6 low-
power wireless personal area network (6LoWPAN) ,IEEE802.15.4, RPL [23],and CoAP
[24][21].6LoWPAN architectures are of different types as described in [3][4].The Fig.2.1 in paper
[4] depicts 3-layer architecture model. In Fig 2.2 of [4] other IoT architectures of 5 layers are

2
shown.The Software defined wireless network (SDWN) [4] is best suitable for low mobility.A
ZigBee and 6LoWPAN perform better in dynamic situation [4].
IoT devices have constraint of memory and storage.Thus, the operating system(OS) used by IoT
devices should be aware of all these constraints.IoT OS provides the software interaction
techniques and without this IoT devices would be just a dumb device.The tiny tendencies of IoT
gadgets are not suitable for the heavyweight protocols. Therefore, an aim is to plan green and
reliable lightweight protocols. IoT protocols for the functions: routing, QoS, resource
allocation,protection,interoperability needs to be light-weight,scalable and reliable.The limitations
of IoT explores new openings towards different research areas [2] for researchers.A scope to
upgrade functionalities of existing protocols in each area.The evaluation of newly designed IoT
protocols prior to their deployment requires proper testing and evaluation using various tools. An
IoT research process starts with an innovative ideas and ends with real-time deployment.It
involves both simulated and physical elements.Then there is a requirement to develop a scheme
for analyzing real time methodology using simulation and experimentation on a test-bed.The aim
of this paper is to just give a good prerequisite to researchers for their painstaking research in IoT
protocols and standards.
This article highlights a technical discussion, which will help the researcher to select a proper
platform and do research work efficiently. Section 2 explains the need of designing/implementing
new protocols & gives an overview of IoT research related ideas. Section 3 discuss in detail
survey of IoT, and its most useful protocols. In Section 4 IoT protocol details are explained.
Section 5 gives details of IoT platforms. Results & performance evaluation of selected protocols
on both platforms are open in Section 6.Thereafter Section 7 concludes the paper.
2. NEED OF DESIGNING NEW PROTOCOLS
Research in IoT demands, modification in existing IoT protocols/algorithms.In today’s world,
everybody is interested in smart applications. To make an application user friendly is not an easy
job. To develop a smart application, involvement of wireless sensor devices, communication
protocols, power consumption and smart machine learning algorithms is necessary.According to
this, there are some research areas [1] [2] where the researcher needs to focus on redesign and
analyze protocols. Some of the research areas are listed as follows:
I. Deployment of Internet Protocol (IPv6) [1]: IoT growth is very difficult to handle with
IPv4[1] addressing due to its limitation of address space.They need advance technologies
such as IPv6. This protocol makes the management of the network easier due to large
address space, auto configuration capabilities and extra feature of security.
II. Sensor energy: sensors are battery operated independent devices. The replacing of
batteries in the billions of deployed devices across the world would not an easy task.The
sensors should generate electricity from surrounding environment such as the vibration of
light/sound, sunlight and airflow etc.
III. Heterogeneous Things: IoT devices are mostly dissimilar in nature with respect to data
location, data collection and data storage. It is a tough challenge to build a protocol,
which supports communication between these heterogeneous devices
IV. Power: The IoT devices use wireless communication.Demanding and continued research
efforts have been dedicated for sensor monitoring type applications [6].These types of

3
applications need energy efficient protocols for communication.
V. Real-time Solution: It is too difficult to execute the ‘Anytime, Anywhere, Anything’
concept of IoT in reality. Real-time systems need to be executed efficiently to
significantly respond with respect to time.
VI. Intelligence: Machine to Machine communication significance in Smart technologies
needs to be highly intellectual to handle automatic systems. The cognition is talented by
cognitive computing, artificial intelligence and machine learning techniques.
VII. Secrecy: The security arrangements for each workspace must be established as per the
present demand and requirement.
VIII Addressing and Identification: All devices are interconnected with each other and it
makes them vulnerable to malicious attacks.The various addressing and configuration
problems are handled by designing various tiny protocols and schemes.
3. LITERATURE SURVEY
3.1 GENERAL SURVEY
IoT middleware makes connections of sensors and actuators to the net.These middleware has to
satisfy the numerous needs of different stakeholders (device suppliers, designers, and consumers)
in the system. The evaluation of these platforms is done accordingly in [3]. The evaluation always
focused on user-friendly options than the underlying technologies.The Model Networks have a
broad implementation in testing NGN-services [5].IoT is widely used In a telecommunication
field.Therefore, it is suitable to built IoT application on model networks. This article [5] have
presented the structure of the model network. The model network is shown in Fig 1 of the paper
[5].The model network is made up of five segments as follows: self-organizing network, flying
ubiquitous sensor network (FUSN)[5], Indoor positioning system, Software-defined networking
(SDN) [5] and Cloud IoT-platform.The network design of devices with limited resources is a big
deal. The industrial authorities will offer a network infrastructure for real-world applications. A
summary of commercial ecosystem, detail strategy, corporate device handling techniques, and
most recent research movement used for WSN system is presented [6].The efficient approach for
infrastructure is a cross-layer design.
In IoT various communication media and protocols for data are usually unsuited for each other
and they need coordination. An increase in the data usage creates a huge data volume and it is a
big issue in IoT. The necessities for real time IoT analysis is not considered by an existing
analytics network. The survey examines the cutting edge of the analytical network best practices
for real time IoT [7].The essentials of the live IoT evaluation, software platforms and various use
cases are described by the author. It also explains the limitations of the network methodologies.
Further investigation guidelines towards in time IoT analytics are mentioned in the paper. The
Fig.3.1.3 explains in brief the architecture of IoT[7]. It is a connection of sensing, distributing and
analytics network.

4
Fig.3.1.3 The IoT Network Architecture
3.2 PROTOCOL SURVEY
3.2.1 RPL
A smart city idea is built with the help of monitoring information gathered by WSN. A new
technique to overcome limitations ,by combining sensing technologies in a cost effective way is
proposed in [8].
The paper [9] discussed a clustering function. It is implemented on each layer by considering
routing metric like ETX and energy consumption for hierarchical routing.
The main focus is on two main constraints of the network, i.e. packet loss and power depletion.
The mentioned system [10] is using the following steps to solve the problem:
1. Make use of Context aware objective feature, which computes the status of the next node
2. Design of Routing metric, considering the status of utilization of power and queue.
3. Selection mechanism of new parent.
In the battery powered WSN, energy is an important resource. An improved and relatively
balanced routing protocol IRPL has overcome the drawback of RPL[11]. An efficient clustering
algorithm is used for the protocol design.RPL, is a distance-vector protocol for IoT routing. It
builds a graph called DODAG (Destination Oriented Directed Acyclic Graph) [12], which
establish the paths towards the sink. DODAG regulates the route based on specific metrics of the
objective function.The paper [12] mentions an evaluation of RPL performance, with Cooja
simulator [25], with respect to the number of sinks in the network. This change affects the RPL
performance.The packet loss and energy consumption are minimized.The packet delivery
ratio(PDR) and throughput is maximized [12].The calculation of path using a specific method in
LLNs between a Border Router and the nodes for QoS constraints is mentioned in [13].Some
modification in RPL protocol is proposed here. A parameterized polynomial algorithms are
evaluated in the term of execution time,scalability and the number of missing nodes.The quality
of the paths from the Border Router to each node is built in DODAG.

5
3.2.2 CoAP
IoT is based on the sensor devices, which are low powered and are of different clock speed. Due
to different operating frequency synchronization techniques [14] are in high demand. The CoAP
protocol regulated by IETF and it is widely applicable for home automation.Several application
layer protocols are introduced for the resource-constrained network.The comparison of
application layer protocols used in IoT is done[15].The main emphasis is on four protocols,
CoAP, MQTT, XMPP, and Web Socket [15]. Their performance evaluation is done for smart
parking application by open source software for response time by changing traffic load.In recent
days, smart parking has gained a great demand. People waste lot of energy and time to find an
empty slot for parking. To solve such a real time problem IoT technique is used. Smarter IoT
Devices are used to forward data in networking. Reservation and navigation based parking system
is proposed in [16]. In this system lots of sensor device transmits data to the cloud using IoT
technology. Genetic algorithm is used to find the closest free slot for parking [16].CoAP enables
device management over the 6LoWPAN. It allows easy accessing of wireless resource-
constrained network [17]. It is too much time consuming and a waste of resources to find out
empty parking slot manually. A new idea where all the parking area is centralized and using
android application a mobile user can reach into the empty parking area is described [19].A real
time parking empty slot detection using Convolution neural network (CNN) is proposed [18]. This
technique is very efficient in most of the weather conditions like low intensity of light, shadow and
rainy season. The setup is tested against many scenarios. An author has utilized open source
dataset, which contains images of parking area taken in different light condition on different
occasions with different views [18].
4. DETAILS OF IOT PROTOCOLS
IoT protocols are divided into four main streams: application, service related, infrastructure and
other significant protocols. These all may not be used by every IoT application. The IoT Protocol
Stack and its protocols are shown in Fig 4.1 and mentioned as follows [20]:
Physical and Data Link Layer: The most familiar embedded methods are [20]: GSM, 3G, LTE,4G
Ethernet,WiFi, Serial with point-to-point protocol.
Network Layer: It provides connection between different networks and between the other layers.
It provides connection with an ubiquitous IP addressing.
Transport Layer: This layer is using two protocols such as TCP and UDP [20].TCP is used for
Web interaction: e-mail, browsing etc. Use of TCP for an embedded system is overloaded.
UDP is having a new space in far-off control applications and for real-time data applications. In
IoT applications gateway is used for connection of IoT devices to the Internet.
Application layer Protocols [20]:
1) HTTPS [20] and Websockets are used in the payload to deliver XML/JavaScript Object
Notation.
2) HTTP: It is for client-server communication.HTTP is preferred when only one client is
associated with IoT device.
3) WebSocket: It is utilized for full-duplex communication. It uses HTML 5 specifications. This
standard handles complication in bi-directional communication and connection management of
the device.
4) XMPP[20]: Jabber open source community developed it. It supports a decentralized messaging

6
system which is open, secure, spam free. Its main purpose is for instant messaging.
5) CoAP[20]: Tiny protocol, for limited power and controlled network by IETF. It is a best
choice for low power devices.
6) MQTT- MQ Telemetry Transport (MQTT) [20]: It is basically for minimum resource devices,
high-latency and low- bandwidth networks. Embedded devices and network links using
publish-subscribe communication to applications or middleware layer is handled by this
protocol.
Fig 4.1 IoT Protocols Stack
Discovery protocols:
1) Multicast Domain Name System(mDNS) [20]: Name Resolution service is needed for IoT.
mDNS is used to handle multicast as well as unicast DNS server. mDNS is very flexible and
best for embedded Internet-based devices.
2) Domain Name System Service Discovery(DNS-SD)[20]:It is a distinct arrangement of
essential facilities by clients using mDNS. Clients can determine a set of preferred services of
DNS messages with the help of this protocol.
Infrastructure Protocols:
1) RPL[20]: The IETF-ROLL standardized a routing protocol for IPv6 and minimal resource
devices called RPL. RPL is very efficient to build a dominant topology above lossy links. It
supports point, point-to-multipoint and multipoint-to-point communication.
2) 6LowPAN[20]: It has some features like limited packet size, different address lengths, and
minimum bandwidth.IPv6 packets fits to the IEEE 802.15.4 specifications. It is fulfilled by
6LowPAN protocols.
3) IEEE 802.15.4[20]: For low-rate wireless private area networks (LR-WPAN) two sub-layers
physical layer (PHY) and Medium Access Control (MAC) are mentioned.It is having
features such as: low power consumption, less data rate, minimum cost, and high
throughput.Due to this it is highly recommended for its use in IoT, M2M, and WSN[20].
4) Bluetooth Low Energy: It usages is for a small range,less power and long time radio
operation (even for years) beside classic version. All characteristics, makes it more useful in
IoT applications.
5) EPC-Electronic Product Code [20]: It is a distinctive identity reside on an RFID tag. Supply
chain management also uses it for identification. EPC global body is playing an important
role in the development of EPC, RFID technology and standards.
6) LTE-A (Long Term Evolution-advanced) [20]: For IoT and Machine-Type -Communications

7
(MTC) , it is a set of cellular communication protocols [20]. It outperforms for service cost
and scalability.
7) Z-Wave:It is a low-power wireless communication protocol,especially for Home Automation
Networks (HAN)[20].This is improved by Z-Wave Alliance and is made for tiny data
transmission applications such as home appliance control, smart energy, fire detection and
wearable health.
As IoT is a collection of technologies, and each technology leads the IoT world.LoRaWAN and
SigFox [29] are the two major networking landscapes and players in long-range, low-power
networks (LPWAN). LPWAN technologies are well-suited for future communications aspects,
some of them are listed as follows[29[30]:
1) NB-IoT and LTE-M: LTE-M is LPWAN alternatives based on standard LTE
connectivity[30]. NB-IoT is another 3GPP build , challenging the Sigfox as well as LoRa. It
is distinct from LTE-M as it operates different than LTE.NB-IoT utilizes less power with
minimum cost, best suited for smart meters. LTE-M has benefits in roaming applications
such as vehicles or drones. LTE-M has higher data rates.
2) LoRa[31]: It is developed by an open source association.It is a wireless technology for low-
power low-data-rate and long-range applications need. Most of the functionality is similar to
SigFox[31].Different frequency channels,different data rates and encoded packets are used to
distribute information.
3) SigFox: It is used for extended range using slow modulation rate. Due to this unique design,
SigFox is an excellent option for small data requirement applications. Less data, less energy
consumption, hence longer battery life. Some of the applications are as: parking sensors,
water meters, or smart garbage cans. Its design fulfills the requirements of these applications
such as: low device cost and high network plus battery capacity.
4) Weightless: It is a special interest group for various techniques such as: Weightless-
W,N,N/NWave, P Weightless-N/NWave: Like SigFox, it’s best for sensor-based networks,
temperature readings, tank level monitoring, smart metering, and other such applications.
5. INTRODUCTION OF PLATFORMS
5.1 CONTIKI AND COOJA
Contiki [25][26]:
Contiki: Contiki is an open source, extremely portable, multi-tasking operating system. It is an
embedded system, which is memory efficient. It is designed for microcontroller with very less
amounts of memory (2 KB RAM, 40 KB ROM). It follows an IETF standard protocol stack.A
group of developers from industry and academia have developed it. It has been extensively used
in the industry.
This OS is used in numerous commercial and non-commercial applications: street light network,
electrical power meter network, energy meter, many monitoring applications: industrial, radiation,
remote etc. It is providing three network stacks: IPv4, IPv6, and Rime.The uIP TCP/IP stack is for
IPv4 and IPv6 networking [25]. Rime stack used for low-power wireless networks using a
lightweight protocol stack.
It has organized network modules in one stack: Network Protocol stack (NETSTACK) [25].
It handles the functioning of traditional OSI Layers. The mapping of layers with this Network

8
Protocol Stack is as follows [25]:
1.Network - NETSTACK_NETWORK
2.MAC -NETSTACK_MAC
3.RDC (Radio Duty Cycling) - NETSTACK_RDC
4. Radio layer - NETSTACK_RADIO
1. Network & Routing Layer: Contiki forms a wireless IPv6 network using routing protocol RPL.
The network layer is divided into two sub layers, the upper IPv6 layer and the lower adaption
layer for its deployment.The Adaptation Layer offers IPv6 and UDP header fragmentation and
compression techniques.
2. MAC Layer[25]: There exist two types of MAC protocols in ContikiOS: which are named as
nullmac and csma.The first one simply calls the appropriate Radio Duty Cycle (RDC)
functions[25].The second one, implements addressing, sequence number and retransmissions.
Carrier-Sense Medium Access (CSMA), the deign in Contiki OS does not rely on the carrier
sensing, as the medium access is handled by RDC protocol.
3. RDC (Radio Duty Cycling) layer [25]: It is the simplest layer in the IoT/IP stack. It mainly
handles wireless media communication.It avoids collisions or back-off, if there is traffic. Contiki
has three different duty cycling mechanisms, such as ContikiMAC, X-MAC and Low-Power
Probing (LPP) [25]. ContikiMAC with low-power listening technique gives better power
efficiency [25]. An enhanced version Contiki X-MAC, is used to reduce power consumption and
to retain good network conditions. Contiki's LPP protocol improves power consumption for
broadcast data communication within a network.
4. Radio Layer: Last layer in the Contiki Netstack.The data arrived is controlled by interrupt
handlers. The packetbuf process is polled for this.
Cooja [25][26]:
It is a network simulator explicitly designed for WSN. Cooja, is provided along with a Contiki
which is an OS for the network of memory-constrained systems for less power wireless IoT
devices. On top of the Contiki operating system, Java based simulator, cooja is used to run the
sensor network.It is a very useful tool for Contiki related development, as it permits developers to
test their code. Developers regularly do new simulations to validate the performance of their
systems. In spite of poor documentation it is a best tool for IoT protocols simulation. It can be
used to create network layouts, compile motes, and examine results with the help of Collect
plugin. You can write various scripts to produce more filtered results.Cooja is selected for
designing because of the following advantages;
1. It provides a shared library. The library is loaded in Java using JAVA Native Interfaces.
2. It works with the contiki operating system via various tasks such as handle an event, system
memory fetching for analysis.
The Contiki website provides downloads for an Instant Contiki, Zip/tar file for Contiki
installation. The majority of the support is available within Internet discussion groups.
5.2 OPEN WSN
The OpenWSN project [21][27][28] specifically for new IEEE802.15.4e,time synchronized
channel hopping is used in the OpenWSN.Along with IoT standards such as 6LoWPAN, RPL and

9
CoAP, it permits mesh ultra-low-powered networks.The tools established include,
visualization,debugging software, the Internet environment and a simulator to OpenWSN. It
shows how, the IEEE802.15.4e can be applied on standard platforms, without dedicated
hardware.The IEEE802.15.4e implementation [27] [28] is an autonomous from the OS presence
on the mote. This can be easily portable to other OS. This enables an OpenWSN network to
connect effortlessly to the IPv6 network. On top of 6LoWPAN, RPL is directing routing
topology.RPL uses two types of routing: collection routing and source routing. OpenWSN defines
different metrics for routing algorithms.CoAP, a protocol that empowers RESTful interaction
within motes is supported by OpenWSN.A mote behaves as a web browser and server.The
following protocol stack is adopted as the standard communication technology, and the Open
WSN project is providing its implementations [21] [27] :
Application Level CoAP, HTTP
Transport Level UDP, TCP
IP/routing Level RPL
Adaptation Level 6LoWPAN
Medium access Level IEEE802.15.4e
Physical Level IEEE802.15.4-2006
Fig 5.2.2 Open WSN Protocol Stack [27]
OPENSIM [27] :
It simulates an OpenWSN network without physical devices[27]. The simulated network behaves
exactly same as a real network. OpenVisualizer, is used to join sensor nodes from the Internet
along with Open Sim.OpenSim compiles mote firmware and create an instance of the resulting
class for each emulated mote. At the time of simulation these emulate motes connects with the
OpenVisualizer via eventBus[27].
The OpenVisualizer does not know whether it is emulated or real motes.
6. RESULT ANALYSIS ON BOTH PLATFORMS
Cooja([26]:
In cooja,a simulated contiki mote is simply a copy of compiled and executed contiki system.The
system is handled and evaluated by cooja. Cooja can be loaded using command “sudo ant run-
bigmem”.A new simulation can be generated in Cooja window. Cooja window is occupied by the
main simulating tools. The functionality of each tool is given below:
• Network-It defines the location of each node in the network. It visualizes the status of
node, including LED's, mote IDs, addresses, log outputs etc. After some time this window
will occupy sensors information.
• Simulation Control- This panel is used to handle the simulation parameters such as:
Pause, Start, load execution time and simulation speed. It means that the events can run
faster than actual execution [2].
• Notes-This is a simple notepad for making notes of the simulation.

10
• Mote output-Output of all the nodes is in one window. If required, separate window for
each node in the simulation is also possible.
• Timeline-Here messages and events such as channel variation, log output, LEDs changes
are displayed.
Mainly two protocols are analyzed in this paper using the Contiki operating system and Cooja
simulator: RPL and CoAP[26].The reason behind selecting these two is, as simple as researchers
mostly use them to develop a real time application.The researcher needs basic analysis details, so
that they can extend their work for further application development.
Simulation is event based therefore it is more realistic to analyze any scenario on it. A sample
network is designed in the Cooja simulator for 10 sender nodes and 1 sink node as a root. The
network state is shown in Fig 6.1.
Fig. 6.1 Network scenario under Cooja simulators
The one sample application of sink- sender using UDP is used for analysis. Cooja plugin is used
to create an output log file, which will be useful for analysis. In order to introduce lossyness, in
wireless medium the Cooja Unit Disk Graph Medium (UDGM) model [26] is used.It presents
lossy-ness with respect to radio medium relative distances of nodes.The environment parameters
for the Simulation are mentioned in Table 6.1

11
Table 6.1 Environment Parameters
Parameters Value
Radio Medium Unit disk graph
Startup delay of mote 1000 ms
Simulation period Half an Hour/ One
Hour
No of nodes 10
RPL MOP No DOWNWARD
ROUTES
OF MRHOF
DIO Min 12
DIO Doublings 8
Send Interval 4
RX Ratio 30-100%
TX Ratio 100%
TX and Interference
Distance Range
50 m
Normally, the packet begins to transmit after small start delay. No Downward mode of RPL
operation is used for analysis. Multipoint to point traffic is used for the evaluation. Contiki RPL
default values are set for DIO Min and DIO Doublings[26]. The reception ratio (RX) [26] defines
lossyness of the radio medium. Results obtained in terms of different parameters, for various
number of nodes are as shown below in Table 6.2.
Table 6.2 Analysis of RPLfor various attributes
CoAP:
The environment is same as mentioned in Table 6.3 for CoAP analysis. The sample application of
client-server using UDP is used for analysis. A sample network in the Cooja simulator is having
10 client nodes and single sink/server node. The simulation time is 10 minutes. The packet
delivery ratio is captured as the average of all nodes. Following Table 6.3 mention the PDR and
latency delay. The Result shows that the with simple 10 CoAP client node PDR is 92.30%. In
addition, the latency delay for simple CoAP in 205.27millisecond.
No. of
Nodes
Simulation
time(min)
Average latency
(ms)
Packets
delivery
ratio(%)
Average power
consumption
Sink Sender
10 30 20810 26100 82 0.24525
10 60 10016 15187 83 0.3565
50 30 30810 23400 81 0.3845
50 60 40828 34084 80 0.35675
100 30 410810 39400 78 0.7745
100 60 41449 54979 81 0.4695

12
Table 6.3 PDR and Latency Delay for 10 nodes
For 10 Nodes using CoAP protocol
Packet delivery ratio in % 92.30
Latency Delay in msec 205.27
OPEN WSN [27]:
The Open Visualizer along with Open Sim consists of core modules and different types of user
interfaces as follows[27]:Graphical user interface (GUI),command-line interface (CLI) and web
interface.Python Language is used for interaction.It includes python modules for operation such
as :open Visualizer Gui, moteProbe etc.To get started with the visualizer, point your browser to
the URL: http://localhost:8080. Simulation is event based so it is more realistic to analyze any
scenario.RPL and CoAP protocols are analyzed with one very simple application.A small network
is considered in the OpenWSN simulator,which includes 10 sender nodes and 1 sink node as a
root. The network is shown in Fig 6.3.
Fig 6.3 Network Scenario in OpenWSN
A simulation of 10 min is done and the results are taken at the sink node side.The packet delivery
ratio and latency delay are calculated and using Wireshark output.The values are as exhibited in
Table 6.4
Table 6.4 Analysis of CoAP for 10 nodes for 10 min
For 10 Nodes using CoAP protocol
Packet delivery ratio in % 80.92
Latency Delay in msec 221
7. CONCLUSION
The emergent idea of the IoT is improving our life style with smart devices, technologies, and
smart applications. The paper has briefly described the need and use of two different platforms for
IoT protocols. The primary analysis of two protocols RPL and CoAP using parameters PDR and
Latency delay is done. The result indicates that both platforms are suitable for experimentation.
The comparative study emphasizes that cooja platform is proper, as cooja log file is maintaining

13
all log records. These log records are very useful for analysis if we extend our simulation for
various simulation parameters. This study can be further extended to solve real time problems.
REFERENCES
[1] Balwinder Kaur Dr. Vijay Dhir, (2017) “Internet of things: Vision, Challenges and Future Scope”, In:
International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer Science, vol. 8(4).
[2] M. Chernyshev, Z. Baig, O. Bello, S. Zeadally, (2018) “Internet of Things (IoT): Research,
Simulators, and Testbeds”, In: IEEE Internet of Things Journal, Vol: 5, Issue: 3, pp 1637 – 1647.
[3] Julien Mineraud, Oleksiy Mazhelis, Xiang Su, Sasu Tarkoma, (2016) “A gap analysis of Internet-of-
Things platforms”, In: Elesvier Journal, Vol. 89–90( 1), pp 5-16. [4] M. Chernyshev, Z. Baig,
O. Bello, S. Zeadally, (2018) “Internet of Things (IoT): Research, Simulators, and Testbeds”, In:
IEEE Internet of Things Journal, Vol: 5, Issue: 3, pp 1637 – 1647.
[4] Solapure S.S, Kenchannavar Harish, (2016) “Internet of Things: A survey related to various recent
Architectures and Platforms available”, In IEEE International Conference on Advances in
Computing, Communications and Informatics (ICACCI) , DOI: 10.1109/ICACCI.2016.7732395.
[5] Ruslan Kirichek, Andrei Vladyko, Maxim Zakharov, Andrey Koucheryavy, (2015) “Model Networks
for Internet of Things and SDN”, In: IPSN '15, USA.
[6] Gonçalo Marques, Nuno Garcia, Nuno Pombo, (2017) “A Survey on IoT: Architectures, Elements,
Applications, QoS, Platforms and Security Concepts”, In: Advances in Mobile Cloud Computing and
Big Data in the 5G Era. Studies in Big Data, Vol. 22, Springer, Cham.
[7] Shikhar Verma, Yuichi Kawamoto, Zubair Md. Fadlullah, Hiroki Nishiyama, and Nei Kato, (2017) “A
Survey on Network Methodologies for Real-Time Analytics of Massive IoT Data and Open Research
Issues”, In: IEEE COMMUNICATIONS SURVEYS & TUTORIALS, Vol. 19( 3).
[8] Yahya Al Sawafi, Abderezak, Touzene Khaled Day, Nasser Alzeidi, (2018) “Toward hybrid RPL
based IoT sensing for smart city”, In: International Conference on Information Networking (ICOIN),
pp 599 – 604.
[9] Sofia Biju, N. M. Shekokar, (2017) “Optimize the energy efficiency of RPL based 6L0WPAN by FL
clustering”, In International Conference on Published In Big Data, IoT and Data Science (IEEE), pp
159 – 166.
[10] Seyed Reza, Taghizadeh Hossein Bobarshad, Halima Elbiaze, (2018) “CLRPL: Context-Aware and
Load Balancing RPL for IoT Networks under Heavy and Highly Dynamic load”, IEEE Access
Journal, Vol: 6, pp 23277 – 23291.
[11] Seelam Srinivasa Rao, N. Chenna Keshava Reddy, (2017) “An energy efficient improved RPL routing
protocol”, In: International Conference on Intelligent Computing and Control (I2C2-IEEE), pp 1 – 7.
Article history: 10.1109/I2C2.2017.8321954.
[12] Ibtissem Zaatouri, Nouha Alyaoui, Awatef Benfradj Guiloufi, Abdennaceur Kachouri, (2017)
“Performance evaluation of RPL objective functions for multi-sink”, Published in 18th International
Conference.: Sciences and Techniques of Automatic Control and Computer Engineering (STA-IEEE),
pp 661 – 665. Article history:10.1109/STA.2017.8314933.
[13] Jinpeng Wang, (2017) “On the QoS routing with RPL”, In: International Conference Performance
Evaluation and Modeling in Wired and Wireless Networks (PEMWN), pp 1 – 5.

14
[14] Seung-Chul Son, Nak-Woo Kim, Byung-Tak Lee, Chae Ho Cho, and Jo Woon Chong, (2016) “A
Time Synchronization Technique for CoAP-based Home Automation Systems”, In: IEEE
Transactions on Consumer Electronics , Vol: 62( 1), pp 10 – 16.
[15] Paridhika Kayal, Harry Perros, (2017) “A Comparison of IoT application layer protocols through a
smart parking implementation”, In 20th Conference on Innovations in Clouds, Internet and Networks
(ICIN-IEEE), pp 331 – 336.
[16] IIhan Aydin, Mehmet Karakose, Ebru Karakose, (2017) “A navigation and reservation based smart
parking platform using genetic optimization for smart cities”, In: 5th International Istanbul Smart
Grid and Cities Congress and Fair (ICSG-IEEE), pp 120 – 124.
[17] Zhengguo Sheng, Hao Wang, Changchuan Yin, Xiping Hu, Shusen Yang, Victor C. M. Leung, (2015)
“Lightweight Management of Resource-Constrained Sensor Devices in Internet of Things”, In: IEEE
Internet of Things Journal, Vol: 2(5), pp 402 – 411.
[18] Giuseppe Amato, Fabio Carrara, Fabrizio Falchi, Claudio Gennaro, Claudio Vairo, (2016) “Car
parking occupancy detection using smart camera networks and Deep Learning”, In: IEEE Symposium
on Computers and Communication (ISCC), pp 1212 – 1217.
[19] Nastaran Reza Nazar Zadeh, Jennifer C. Dela Cruz, (2016) “Smart urban parking detection system”,
In 6th IEEE International Conference on Control System, Computing and Engineering (ICCSCE-
IEEE), pp 370 – 373.
[20] Ala Al-Fuqaha, Mohsen Guizani, Mehdi Mohammadi, Mohammed Aledhari, Moussa Ayyash, (2015)
“Internet of Things: A Survey on Enabling Technologies, Protocols, and Applications”, In: IEEE
communication surveys & tutorials, Vol: 17(4), pp 2347 – 2376.
[21] Thomas Watteyne, Xavier Vilajosana, Branko Kerkez, Fabien Chraim, Kevin Weekly, QinWang,
Steven Glaser and Kris Pister, (2012) “OpenWSN: a standards-based low-power wireless
development environment, Trans Emerging Telecommunications Technologies”, Vol:23(5), pp 480-
493.
[22] Industrial Low-Power Network, (2018) https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5673(accessed on 8.21.2018).
[23] RPL, (2018) https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6550(accessed on 9.21.2018).
[24] CoAP, (2018) https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7252(accessed on 7.1.2018).
[25] ContikiOS1, (2018) http://www.contiki-os.org/ (accessed on 8.21.2018).
[26] Contiki OS2, (2018) http://anrg.usc.edu/contiki/index.php/Main_Page(accessed on 9.21.2018).
[27] OpenWSN Project, (2018) http://openwsn.org/(accessed on 9.21.2018).
[28] OpenMote Tech, (2018) http://www.openmote.com/(accessed 9.21.2018).
[29] Dali Ismail, Mahbubur Rahman, Abusayeed Saifullah,(2018) “Low-Power Wide-Area Networks:
Opportunities, Challenges,and Directions”in Workshops ICDCN ’18, January 4–7, 2018, Varanasi,
India , ISBN: 978-1-4503-6397-6.
[30] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lpwan-overview-10(accessed on 4.01.2019).
[31] Aiju Thomas, N V Eldhose(2019)” Scalability concerns of chirp spread spectrum for
PLWANapplications” in International Journal of Ad hoc, Sensor & Ubiquitous Computing (IJASUC)
Vol.10, No.1, February 2019 ,DOI : 10.5121/ijasuc.2019.10101.

15
AUTHOR :
Mrs.Sharwari S Solapure received her Masters of Technology in Computer Science and Engineering from
CSE Department of Walchand College of Engineering, Sangli,Maharashtra, India.She is pursuing her
research in the routing protocol of IoT at Research Center, CSE Department of GIT College of
engineering,Belgavi,Karnataka, India. She is having 10 years of industrial experience and 13 years as
faculty in CSE Department of Walchand College of engineering, Sangli,Maharashtra,India.Her field of
interest includes Computer networks, IoT,wireless communication,Sensor network,SDN etc.
Dr.Harish Kenchanavar received his Ph.D. degree in CSE.As a research guide for VTU University, his
research interests include computer network,wireless sensor networks, IoT etc.He is currently working as a
Professor and HoD of IS Department in GIT College of engineering, Belgavi,Karnataka,India and guiding
six research projects currently is having 15 years of experience. He has published a number of journal
papers in reputed journals.He guided many UG,PG projects in the same area.

RPL AND COAP PROTOCOLS, EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS FOR IOT: A CASE STUDY

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot (17)

Similar to RPL AND COAP PROTOCOLS, EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS FOR IOT: A CASE STUDY (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

RPL AND COAP PROTOCOLS, EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS FOR IOT: A CASE STUDY