PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS OF CONGESTION CONTROL MECHANISMS WITH RPL OBJECTIVE FUNCTIONS IN IOT NETWORKS

Öz

The Internet of Things (IoT) was developed to allow physical objects to communicate continuously via sensors and software, to take more place in our daily lives. Unlike IP networks, IoT networks do not yet have established protocols. Existing protocols' appropriateness and the need for new protocols are being researched. Congestion control is one of important research topics because of continuous and intense information flow in IoT networks. Since UDP is favored in IoT networks unlike IP networks, congestion control is handled by CoAP at the application layer. In the literature, there are performance analyses comparing different CoAP congestion control mechanisms, but no study investigating the relationship and its effects on performance between the CoAP congestion control mechanisms and the various objective functions of the RPL. In this study, all network stack combinations designed using different protocols are simulated in Cooja simulator. The average latency and throughput metrics acquired from all simulations where the number of clients is 3 to 9 and the packet delivery ratios are 80%, 90%, and 100% are investigated. CoCoA Strong was determined to be the best performing congestion control method, outperforming Objective Function 0 (OF0) and the Minimum Rank of Hysteresis Objective Function (MRHOF).

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Internet of Things
• RPL Objective Functions.
• Congestion Control,
• CoAP,

NESNELERİN İNTERNETİ AĞLARINDA TIKANIKLIK KONTROL MEKANİZMALARI İLE RPL AMAÇ FONKSİYONLARININ KARŞILIKLI PERFORMANS ANALİZİ

Öz

Fiziksel nesnelerin duyargalar ve yazılımlar aracılığıyla sürekli olarak haberleşmesini sağlamak için geliştirilen Nesnelerin İnterneti (IoT) teknolojileri gün geçtikçe hayatımıza daha fazla girmektedir. Ancak, IoT ağları henüz IP ağlarındaki gibi standartlara sahip değildir. Bu ağlar için mevcut protokollerin ne kadar yeterli olduğu ve yeni protokollere ihtiyaç olup olmadığı hala araştırma konusudur. Tıkanıklık kontrolü de bu konulardan biri olup, IoT ağlarındaki sürekli ve yoğun bilgi akışından dolayı büyük öneme sahiptir. IoT ağlarında IP ağlarının aksine UDP tercih edildiğinden tıkanıklık kontrolü uygulama katmanında CoAP tarafından yapılır. Literatürde farklı CoAP tıkanıklık kontrol mekanizmaların karşılaştırıldığı performans analizleri bulunsa da CoAP tıkanıklık kontrol mekanizmaları ile yönlendirme protokolü RPL'in farklı amaç fonksiyonları arasındaki ilişkiyi ve performansa etkisini inceleyen bir çalışma bulunmamaktadır. Bu çalışma kapsamında farklı protokoller kullanılarak tasarlanan ağ yığını kombinasyonları Cooja benzetim ortamında araştırılmıştır. İstemci sayısının 3 ve 9, paket teslim oranı değerinin ise %80, %90 ve %100 olarak alındığı tüm benzetimlerden elde edilen ortalama gecikme ve işlem hacmi metrikleri incelendiğinde Objective Function 0 (OF0)’ın, Minimum Rank of Hysteresis Objective Function (MRHOF) algoritmasına göre daha iyi performans gösterdiğini ve CoCoA Strong'un en iyi performans gösteren tıkanıklık kontrolü mekanizması olduğu görülmüştür.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Nesnelerin İnterneti
• Tıkanıklık Kontrolü
• CoAP
• RPL Amaç Fonksiyonları

Kaynakça

1. A Quick Introduction to the Erbium (Er) REST Engine. (2016). Çevrimiçi: https://github.com/contiki-os/contiki/tree/master/examples/er-rest-example (Erişim tarihi: 11.12.2020)
2. Abuein, Q., Yassein, M. B., Shatnawi, M. Q., & Bani-Yaseen, L. (2016). Performance Evaluation of Routing Protocol (RPL) for Internet of Things. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, 7.
3. Betzler, A., Gomez, C., Demirkol, I., & Paradells, J. (2015). CoCoA+: An advanced congestion control mechanism for CoAP. Ad Hoc Networks, 33, 126-139.
4. Betzler, A., Gomez, C., Demirkol, I., & Paradells, J. (2016). CoAP Congestion Control for the Internet of Things. IEEE Communications Magazine, 54(7), 154-160.
5. Buratti, C., Martalo, M., Ferrari, G., & Verdone, R. (2011). Sensor Networks with IEEE 802.15.4 Systems: Distributed Processing, MAC, and Connectivity (1 ed.). Berlin: Springer.
6. Buratti, C., Martalo, M., Verdone, R., & & Ferrari, G. (2011). Sensor Networks with IEEE 802.15.4 Systems. In Signals and Communication Technology. Berlin: Springer.
7. CoAP in Java. (2020). Çevrimiçi: http://www.eclipse.org/californium (Erişim tarihi: 14.10.2020)
8. Contiki-NG: The OS for Next Generation IoT Devices. (2020). Çevrimiçi: https://github.com/contiki-ng/contiki-ng (Erişim tarihi: 18.03.2021)

9. Cooja Simulator. (2016). Çevrimiçi: http://anrg.usc.edu/contiki/index.php/Cooja_Simulator (Erişim tarihi: 14.10.2020)
10. Demir, A. K., & Abut, F. (2018). Comparison of CoAP and CoCoA Congestion Control Mechanisms in Network Topologies. GÜFBED CMES 2018 Sempozyum Ek Sayısı, (pp. 53-60). Gümüşhane.
11. Development tools Archives. (2017). Çevrimiçi: https://zolertia.io/product-category/development-tools/ (Erişim tarihi: 23.03.2020)
12. Dunkels, A. (2011). The ContikiMAC Radio Duty Cycling Protocol.
13. Dunkels, A., Gronvall, B., & Voigt, T. (2004). Contiki - a lightweight and flexible operating system for tiny networked sensors. 29th Annual IEEE International Conference on Local Computer Networks., (pp. 455-462). Tampa, FL, USA.
14. Halcu, I., Stamatescu, G., Stamatescu, I., & Sgârciu, V. (2016). IPV6 Sensor Networks Modeling for Security and Communication Evaluation. In E. Pricop, & G. Stamatescu, Recent Advances in Systems Safety and Security (p. 251). Berlin: Springer International Publishing.
15. IEEE 802.15 WPAN™ Task Group 4 (TG4). (2010). Çevrimiçi: https://www.ieee802.org/15/pub/TG4.html (Erişim tarihi: 12.05.2020)
16. Insense Examples. (2011). Çevrimiçi: https://insense.cs.st-andrews.ac.uk/examples (Erişim tarihi: 23.03.2020)
17. Kovatsch, M., Lanter, M., & Shelby, Z. (2014). Californium: Scalable cloud services for the Internet of Things with CoAP. International Conference on the Internet of Things, (pp. 1-6). Seoul, Korea.
18. Lamaazi, H., Benamar, N., & Jara, A. J. (2017). Study of the Impact of Designed Objective Function ın the RPL-Based Routing Protocol. In R. El-Azouzi, D. Menasche, E. Sabir, F. De Pellegrini, & M. Benjillai, Advances in Ubiquitous Networking 2. UNet 2016. Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering (Vol. 397). Singapore: Springer.
19. Locke, D. (2010). MQ telemetry transport (MQTT) v3. 1 protocol specification. IBM developerWorks Technical Library.
20. MAC protocols in ContikiOS. (2014). Çevrimiçi: https://anrg.usc.edu/contiki/index.php/MAC_protocols_in_ContikiOS (Erişim tarihi: 23.12.2019)
21. Mardini, W., Ebrahim, M., & Al-Rudaini, M. (207). Comprehensive performance analysis of RPL objective functions in IoT networks. International Journal of Communication Networks and Information Security, 9, 323-332.
22. Pradeska, N., Widyawan, Najib, W., & Kusumawardani, S. S. (2016). Performance analysis of objective function MRHOF and OF0 in routing protocol RPL IPV6 over low power wireless personal area networks (6LoWPAN). 2016 8th International Conference on Information Technology and Electrical Engineering (ICITEE), (pp. 1-6). Yogyakarta.
23. Qasem, M., Altwassi, H. S., Yassein, M. B., & Al-Dubai, A. Y. (2015). Performance Evaluation of RPL Objective Functions. 2015 IEEE International Conference on Computer and Information Technology; Ubiquitous Computing and Communications; Dependable, Autonomic and Secure Computing; Pervasive Intelligence and Computing, 1606-1613.
24. Rayes, A., & Salam, S. (2017). Internet of Things From Hype to Reality: The Road to Digitization. Springer.
25. RFC768, “User Datagram Protocol”, (2012).
26. RFC6550, "RPL: IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks", (2012).
27. RFC6552, "Objective Function Zero for the Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPL)", (2012).
28. RFC6719, "The Minimum Rank with Hysteresis Objective Function", (2012).
29. RFC7228, "Terminology for Constrained-Node Networks", (2014).
30. The Z1 Mote. (2018). Çevrimiçi: https://github.com/Zolertia/Resources/wiki/The-Z1-mote (Erişim tarihi: 25.12.2019)
31. Vasseur, J.-P., & Dunkels, A. (2010). Interconnecting Smart Objects with IP. San Francisco, CA, USA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.
32. Vilajosana, X., Tuset, P., Watteyne, T., & Pister, K. (2015). OpenMote: Open-Source Prototyping Platform for the Industrial IoT. ADHOCNETS, 155.
33. Vilajosana, X., Watteyne, T., Chang, T., Vučinić, M., Duquennoy, S., & Thubert, P. (2020). IETF 6TiSCH: A Tutorial. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 22(1), 595-615.