Testing Protocols for the Internet of Things on the EuWIn Platform

Several approaches have been considered by research community as possible enablers for the Internet of Things (IoT) implementation. This paper presents the results obtained by testing and comparing three different solutions. In particular, we compare a centralized solution based on software defined...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:IEEE internet of things journal 2016-02, Vol.3 (1), p.124-133
Hauptverfasser: Buratti, Chiara, Stajkic, Andrea, Gardasevic, Gordana, Milardo, Sebastiano, Abrignani, M. Danilo, Mijovic, Stefan, Morabito, Giacomo, Verdone, Roberto
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext bestellen
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Several approaches have been considered by research community as possible enablers for the Internet of Things (IoT) implementation. This paper presents the results obtained by testing and comparing three different solutions. In particular, we compare a centralized solution based on software defined network (SDN), called software defined wireless networking (SDWN), with two standard and distributed solutions, that are ZigBee and IPv6 over low-power wireless personal area networks (6LoWPAN). SDWN uses a centralized network layer protocol, where routing policies are defined by an external controller that can be positioned anywhere in the network. The other two solutions are actually the most common protocol stacks for wireless sensor networks, and they both use a distributed routing protocol. The comparison is achieved by experimentations performed on the European Laboratory of Wireless Communications for the Future Internet (EuWIn) platform developed within the network of excellence, NEWCOM#. Results show that SDWN is the best solution in static or quasi-static environments, while the performance degrades in highly dynamic conditions. However, ZigBee has a good reactivity to environmental changes. This paper reports the evaluation of several performance metrics, including packet loss rate, round-trip-time, and overhead generated in the network, under different conditions and considering different kinds of traffic.
ISSN:2327-4662
2327-4662
DOI:10.1109/JIOT.2015.2462030