A Performance Analysis of Internet of Things Networking Protocols: Evaluating MQTT, CoAP, OPC UA
Source abstract
Abstract
IoT data exchange is supported today by different communication protocols and different protocolar frameworks, each of which with its own advantages and disadvantages, and often co-existing in a way that is mandated by vendor policies. Although different protocols are relevant in different domains, there is not a protocol that provides better performance (jitter, latency, energy consumption) across different scenarios. The focus of this work is two-fold. First, to provide a comparison of the different available solutions in terms of protocolar features such as type of transport, type of communication pattern support, security aspects, including Named-data networking as relevant example of an Information-centric networking architecture. Secondly, the work focuses on evaluating three of the most popular protocols used both in Consumer as well as in Industrial IoT environments: MQTT, CoAP, and OPC UA. The experimentation has been carried out first on a local testbed for MQTT, COAP and OPC UA. Then, larger experiments have been carried out for MQTT and CoAP, based on the large-scale FIT-IoT testbed. Results show that CoAP is the protocol that achieves across all scenarios lowest time-to-completion, while OPC UA, albeit exhibiting less variability, resulted in higher time-to-completion in comparison to CoAP or MQTT.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Caching and Content Delivery · IoT and Edge/Fog Computing · IoT Networks and Protocols
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Cognitive and People-Centric Research Unit (COPELABS), University Lusofona de Humanidades e Tecnologias, 1749-024 Lisbon, Portugal
Fortiss—Research Institute of the Free State of Bavaria for Software Intensive Services and Systems, 80805 Munich, Germany
Department of Informatics Engineering, University Lusofona de Humanidades e Tecnologias, 1749-024 Lisbon, Portugal
References (35)
Show source-provided references
1. De Caro, N., Colitti, W., Steenhaut, K., Mangino, G., and Reali, G. (2013, January 21). Comparison of two lightweight protocols for smartphone-based sensing. Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE 20th Symposium on Communications and Vehicular Technology in the Benelux (SCVT), Namur, Belgium.10.1109/SCVT.2013.6735994 ↗
2. A comparison of lightweight communication protocols in robotic applications10.1016/j.procs.2015.12.318 ↗
3. Liri, E., Singh, P.K., Rabiah, A.B., Kar, K., Makhijani, K., and Ramakrishnan, K. (2018, January 25–27). Robustness of IoT Application Protocols to Network Impairments. Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE International Symposium on Local and Metropolitan Area Networks (LANMAN), Washington, DC, USA.10.1109/LANMAN.2018.8475048 ↗
4. Gündoğan, C., Kietzmann, P., Lenders, M., Petersen, H., Schmidt, T.C., and Wählisch, M. (2018). NDN, CoAP, and MQTT: A Comparative Measurement Study in the IoT. arXiv.10.1145/3267955.3267967 ↗
5. Durkop, L., Czybik, B., and Jasperneite, J. (2015, January 17–19). Performance evaluation of M2M protocols over cellular networks in a lab environment. Proceedings of the 2015 18th international conference on Intelligence in Next Generation Networks, Paris, France.10.1109/ICIN.2015.7073809 ↗
6. Bacco, M., Colucci, M., and Gotta, A. (2017, January 21–25). Application protocols enabling internet of remote things via random access satellite channels. Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC), Paris, France.10.1109/ICC.2017.7997292 ↗
7. Profanter, S., Tekat, A., Dorofeev, K., Rickert, M., and Knoll, A. (2019, January 13–15). OPC UA versus ROS, DDS, and MQTT: Performance Evaluation of Industry 4.0 Protocols. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Industrial Technology (ICIT), Melbourne, VIC, Australia.10.1109/ICIT.2019.8755050 ↗
8. Proos, D.P., and Carlsson, N. (2020, January 22–26). Performance Comparison of Messaging Protocols and Serialization Formats for Digital Twins in IoV. Proceedings of the 2020 IFIP Networking Conference (Networking), Paris, France.
9. Adlink Tech (2019, June 22). Messaging Technologies for the Industrial Internet and the Internet of Things Whitepaper. Technical Report, Adlink Tech. Available online: https://iotbusinessnews.com/download/white-papers/PRISMTECH-messaging-technologies-for-Industrial-Internet-and-IoT.pdf.
10. OASIS (2019, June 10). AMQP Advanced Message Queuing Protocol. Available online: http://www.amqp.org/.
11. Advanced message queuing protocol10.1109/MIC.2006.116 ↗
12. Garcia, C.G., Garcia-Diaz, V., Garcia-Bustelo, B., and Lovelle, J.M.C. (2018). Protocols and Applications for the Industrial Internet of Things, IGI Global.
13. Sebastian Raff (2019, June 10). The MQTT Community. Available online: https://github.com/mqtt/mqtt.github.io/wiki.
14. Shelby, Z., Hartke, K., and Bormann, C. (2021, May 11). The Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP). Available online: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7252.
15. Selander, G., Mattsson, J., Palombini, F., and Seitz, L. (2021, May 11). IETF RFC8313 Object Security for Constrained RESTful Environments (OSCORE). Available online: https://www.hjp.at/doc/rfc/rfc8613.html.
16. Analysis of OPC UA performances10.1016/j.csi.2013.06.004 ↗
17. OPC Foundation (2019, June 22). OPC Unified Architecture Interoperability for Industrie 4.0 and the Internet of Things. Available online: https://opcfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/OPC-UA-Interoperability-For-Industrie4-and-IoT-EN.pdf.
18. Leitner, S.-H., and Mahnke, W. (2006). OPC-UA/Service-Oriented Architecture for Industrial Applications, ABB Corporate Research Center. Technical Report.
19. OMG (2019, June 10). DDS Data Distribution Service. Available online: http://portals.omg.org/dds/what-is-dds-3/.
20. Langley, A., Iyengar, J., Bailey, J., Dorfman, J., Roskind, J., Kulik, J., Westin, P., Tenneti, R., Shade, R., and Hamilton, R. (2017, January 21–25). The QUIC Transport Protocol. Proceedings of the Conference of the ACM Special Interest Group on Data Communication SIGCOMM ’17, Los Angeles, CA, USA.10.1145/3098822.3098842 ↗
21. Eggert, L., Nottigham, M., and Dawkins, S. (2019, August 27). QUIC Working Group. Available online: https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/quic/about/.
22. Meddeb, M. (2017). Information-Centric Networking, a Natural Design for IoT Applications?. [Ph.D. Thesis, INSA Toulose].
23. Kutscher, D. (2021, May 11). IRTF Information-Centric Networking Research Group (ICNRG). Available online: https://datatracker.ietf.org/rg/icnrg/about/.10.1145/3517212.3558089 ↗
24. C Sofia, R., and M Mendes, P. (2019). An Overview on Push-Based Communication Models for Information-Centric Networking. Future Internet, 11.10.3390/fi11030074 ↗
25. Stanford-Clark, A., and Truong, H.L. (2013). MQTT For Sensor Networks ( MQTT-SN ) Protocol Specification. IBM Protoc. Specif., 28.
26. Kerrouche, A., Senouci, M.R., and Mellouk, A. (2016, January 22–27). QoS-FS: A new forwarding strategy with QoS for routing in Named Data Networking. Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.10.1109/ICC.2016.7511378 ↗
27. Amadeo, M., Campolo, C., Molinaro, A., and Ruggeri, G. (2018, January 2–4). IoT Data processing at the Edge with Named Data Networking. Proceedings of the European Wireless 2018, 24th European Wireless Conference, Catania, Italy.
28. Yang, J. (2012, January 17–21). Data Distribution Service for Industrial Automation. Proceedings of the IEEE 17th Conference in Emerging Technologies and Factory Automation (ETFA), Krakow, Poland.10.1109/ETFA.2012.6489544 ↗
29. Baccelli, E., Mehlis, C., Hahm, O., Schmidt, T., and Wählisch, M. (2014, January 24). Information Centric Networking in the IoT: Experiments with NDN in the Wild. Proceedings of the 1st ACM Conference on Information-Centric Networking, Paris, France.10.1145/2660129.2660144 ↗
30. Adjih, C., Baccelli, E., Fleury, E., Harter, G., Mitton, N., Noel, T., Pissard-Gibollet, R., Saint-Marcel, F., Schreiner, G., and Vandaele, J. (2015, January 14–16). FIT-IoT Lab: A large scale open experimental IoT testbed. Proceedings of the Internet of Things (WF-IoT), 2015 IEEE 2nd World Forum, Milan, Italy.10.1109/WF-IoT.2015.7389098 ↗
31. Soares, J., Silva, D., and Sofia, R.C. (2019). The IoT Testbed at Copelabs Descripion and Experiments, COPELABS, University Lusofona. Technical Report.
32. Kim, J., and Lee, J.W. (2014, January 6–8). OpenIoT: An open service framework for the Internet of Things. Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE World Forum on Internet of Things (WF-IoT), Seoul, Korea.10.1109/WF-IoT.2014.6803126 ↗
33. RabbitMQ (2019, July 08). Available online: https://www.rabbitmq.com.
34. Mosquitto (2019, July 08). Available online: https://mosquitto.org.
35. Fambon, O., Fleury, E., Harter, G., Pissard-Gibollet, R., and Saint-Marcel, F. (2014). FIT-IoT Lab tutorial: Hands-on practice with a very large scale testbed tool for the Internet of Things. 10èmes J. Francoph. Mobilité Ubiquité UbiMob2014.