SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Mühendislik Bilimleri ve Tasarım Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 8 Sayı: 1

HYBRID APPLICATION LAYER PROTOCOL DESIGN FOR INTERNET OF THINGS

NESNELERİN İNTERNETİ İÇİN HİBRİT UYGULAMA KATMANI PROTOKOL TASARIMI

Erdal Özdoğan(GAZİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-3339-0493
O. Ayhan Erdem(GAZİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-7761-1078
Pages
285–304
Publication Date
2020-03-20
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Operating logic and packet structure of the developed protocol is examined and compared with MQTT protocol with respect to their functionality.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:One of the important factors affecting communication performance in the Internet of Things is the messaging protocol.
📊
Key Findings & Data:MQTT, XMPP and AMQP are centralized application protocols that communicate through the server.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Operating logic and packet structure of the developed protocol is examined and compared with MQTT protocol with respect to their functionality.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Nesnelerin İnterneti · IoT Protokolleri · Hibrit IoT Protokolü

Abstract

One of the important factors affecting communication performance in the Internet of Things is the messaging protocol. MQTT, XMPP and AMQP are centralized application protocols that communicate through the server. DDS and CoAP are application protocols that can communicate directly, especially in real-time applications. As the Internet of Things is becoming more widespread and usage scenarios have different requirements, new approaches to data communication are required. In this study a UDP based hybrid protocol is designed which can communicate both directly and through central server. Operating logic and packet structure of the developed protocol is examined and compared with MQTT protocol with respect to their functionality.

Özet

Nesnelerin İnternetinde, iletişim başarımını etkileyen önemli faktörlerden biri kullanılacak olan mesajlaşma protokolüdür. MQTT, XMPP ve AMQP merkezi yapıda ve sunucu aracılığıyla haberleşen uygulama protokolleridir. DDS ve CoAP ise özellikle gerçek zamanlı uygulamalarda doğrudan iletişim için kullanılan uygulama protokolleridir. Nesnelerin İnternetinin giderek yaygınlaşması ve kullanım senaryolarının farklı gereksinimlere sahip olması, veri iletişiminde yeni yaklaşımların geliştirilmesini gerekli kılmaktadır. Bu çalışmada hem merkezi sunucu aracılığıyla hem de doğrudan iletişim sağlayabilen UDP tabanlı hibrit bir protokol tasarlanmıştır. Geliştirilen protokolün çalışma mantığı, paket yapısı ele alınmış ve işlevsellik yönünden MQTT protokolü ile karşılaştırılmıştır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Özdoğan, E., Erdem, O. A. (2020). HYBRID APPLICATION LAYER PROTOCOL DESIGN FOR INTERNET OF THINGS. Mühendislik Bilimleri ve Tasarım Dergisi, Cilt: 8 Sayı: 1, 285–304. https://doi.org/10.21923/jesd.530295

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (44)

  1. Anjum, A., Ilyas, M. U., Gorden, D., Gar, C., & Guo vd., 2014. Internet of Things – From Research and Innovation to Market Deployment. (O. Vermesan & P. Friess, Eds.)Lect. Notes Comput. Sci. (including Subser. Lect. Notes Artif. Intell. Lect. Notes Bioinformatics) (Vol. 6). River Publishers.
  2. Atzori, L., Iera, A., & Morabito, G., 2010. The Internet of Things: A Survey. Computer Networks: The International Journal of Computer and Telecommunications Networking, 54(15), 2787–2805. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.comnet.2010.05.010
  3. Bellavista, P., & Zanni, A., 2016. Towards better scalability for IoT-cloud interactions via combined exploitation of MQTT and CoAP. 2016 IEEE 2nd International Forum on Research and Technologies for Society and Industry Leveraging a Better Tomorrow, RTSI 2016. http://doi.org/10.1109/RTSI.2016.7740614
  4. Chen, Y., & Kunz, T., 2016. Performance evaluation of IoT protocols under a constrained wireless access network. In 2016 International Conference on Selected Topics in Mobile and Wireless Networking, MoWNeT 2016. http://doi.org/10.1109/MoWNet.2016.7496622
  5. Choi, D., Jung, J., Kang, H., & Koh, S., 2017. Cluster-based CoAP for Message Queueing in Internet-of-Things Networks, 584–588.
  6. Collina, M., Bartolucci, M., Vanelli-Coralli, A., & Corazza, G. E., 2014. Internet of Things application layer protocol analysis over error and delay prone links. In 2014 7th Advanced Satellite Multimedia Systems Conference and the 13th Signal Processing for Space Communications Workshop, ASMS/SPSC 2014 (s. 398–404). http://doi.org/10.1109/ASMS-SPSC.2014.6934573
  7. Dizdarevic, J., Carpio, F., & Jukan, A., 2018. Survey of Communication Protocols for Internet-of-Things and Related Challenges of Fog and Cloud Computing Integration. CoRR, 1(1), 1–27.
  8. Florea, I., Rughinis, R., Ruse, L., & Dragomir, D., 2017. Survey of Standardized Protocols for the Internet of Things. Proceedings - 2017 21st International Conference on Control Systems and Computer, CSCS 2017, 190–196. http://doi.org/10.1109/CSCS.2017.33
  9. Fortino, G., Guerrieri, A., Russo, W., & Savaglio, C., 2014. Integration of agent-based and Cloud Computing for the smart objects-oriented IoT. Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE 18th International Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design, CSCWD 2014, 493–498. http://doi.org/10.1109/CSCWD.2014.6846894
  10. Grygoruk, A., & Legierski, J., 2016. IoT gateway – implementation proposal based on Arduino board. In Proceedings of the Federated Conference on Computer Science (Vol. 8, s. 1011–1014). http://doi.org/10.15439/2016F283
  11. Gubbi, J., Buyya, R., Marusic, S., & Palaniswami, M., 2013. Internet of Things (IoT): A vision, architectural elements, and future directions. Future Generation Computer Systems, 29(7), 1645–1660. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2013.01.010
  12. Gündoğan, C., Kietzmann, P., Lenders, M., Petersen, H., Schmidt, T. C., & Wählisch, M., 2018. NDN, CoAP, and MQTT: A Comparative Measurement Study in the IoT. http://doi.org/arXiv:1806.01444v2
  13. Höller, J., Tsiatsis, V., Mulligan, C., Karnouskos, S., Avesand, S., & Boyle, D., 2014. Part III. IoT Use Cases. From Machine-To-Machine to the Internet of Things, 233–235. http://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-407684-6.00033-4
  14. Huo, C., 2014. A Centralized IoT Middleware System for DevicesWorking Across Application Domains Using Self-descriptive Capability Profile. Doktora Tezi, California Üniversitesi.
  15. Ishaq, I., Carels, D., Teklemariam, G., Hoebeke, J., Abeele, F., Poorter, E., vd., 2013. IETF Standardization in the Field of the Internet of Things (IoT): A Survey. Journal of Sensor and Actuator Networks (Vol. 2). http://doi.org/10.3390/jsan2020235
  16. ITU-T. (2014). Focus Group on M2M service layer: APIs and protocols overview. Çevrimiçi, https://www.itu.int/opb/publications.aspx?parent=T-FG&selection=6&sector, Son Erişim 18.02.2019
  17. Jara, A. J., Martinez-Julia, P., & Skarmeta, A., 2012. Light-weight multicast DNS and DNS-SD (lmDNS-SD): IPv6-based resource and service discovery for the web of things. Proceedings - 6th International Conference on Innovative Mobile and Internet Services in Ubiquitous Computing, IMIS 2012, 731–738. http://doi.org/10.1109/IMIS.2012.200
  18. Johnsen, F. T., Landmark, L., Hauge, M., Larsen, E., & Kure, O., 2018. Publish/Subscribe Versus a Content-Based Approach for Information Dissemination. In MILCOM 2018 - 2018 IEEE Military Communications Conference (MILCOM) (s. 1–9). http://doi.org/10.1109/MILCOM.2018.8599786
  19. Kang, B., Kim, D., & Choo, H., 2017. Internet of Everything: A Large-Scale Autonomic IoT Gateway. IEEE Transactions on Multi-Scale Computing Systems, 3(3), 206–214. http://doi.org/10.1109/TMSCS.2017.2705683
  20. Kim, H., 2017. Securing the Internet of Things via Locally Centralized, Globally Distributed Authentication and Authorization.
  21. Kim, S. M., Choi, H. S., & Rhee, W. S., 2016. IoT home gateway for auto-configuration and management of MQTT devices. 2015 IEEE Conference on Wireless Sensors, ICWiSE 2015, 12–17. http://doi.org/10.1109/ICWISE.2015.7380346
  22. Kimsey, T., Jeffords, J., Moghaddam, Y., & Rucinski, A., 2015. An IoT Based Service System as a Research and Educational Platform. New Trends in Intelligent Information and Database Systems, 598, (s. 249–257). http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16211-9_26
  23. Klauck, R., & Kirsche, M., 2012. Bonjour Contiki: A Case Study of a DNS-Based Discovery Service for the Internet of Things. In X.-Y. Li, S. Papavassiliou, & S. Ruehrup (Eds.), Ad-hoc, Mobile, and Wireless Networks (pp. 316–329). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
  24. Lars, D., 2015. Performance Evaluation of M2M Protocols Over Cellular Networks in a Lab Environment. In Conference: 18th International Conference on Intelligence in Next Generation Networks (ICIN), 2015, Paris, Fransa (s. 70–75). http://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICIN.2015.7073809
  25. Luzuriaga, J. E., Perez, M., Boronat, P., Cano, J. C., Calafate, C., & Manzoni, P., 2015. A comparative evaluation of AMQP and MQTT protocols over unstable and mobile networks. In 2015 12th Annual IEEE Consumer Communications and Networking Conference, CCNC 2015 (s. 931–936). http://doi.org/10.1109/CCNC.2015.7158101
  26. M. Koster, & Keranen, A., 2015. Message Queueing in the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP). Online: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-koster-core-coapmq-00, Son Erişim: 20.02.2019
  27. Menyah, N., 2017. A Real Time Demonstrative Analysis Of Lightweight Payload Encryption in Resource Constrained Devices Based on MQTT. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Sakarya Üniversitesi.
  28. Naik, N., 2017. Choice of Effective Messaging Protocols for IoT Systems: MQTT, CoAP, AMQP and HTTP.
  29. Ngu, A. H., Gutierrez, M., Metsis, V., & Sheng, Q. Z. (2017). IoT Middleware: A Survey on Issues and Enabling Technologies. IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 4(1), 1–20. http://doi.org/10.1109/JIOT.2016.2615180
  30. Nóbrega, L., Gonçalves, P., Pedreiras, P., Pereira, J., Nóbrega, L., Gonçalves, P., … Pereira, J., 2019. An IoT-Based Solution for Intelligent Farming. Sensors, 19(3), 603. http://doi.org/10.3390/s19030603
  31. Pathania, N., 2017. Traffic Prioritization in an MQTT Gateway. In International Journal of Computer Applications (Vol. 164, s. 32–38).
  32. Sasaki, Y., Yokotani, T., & Mukai, H., 2018. Proposals on IoT Communication through MQTT over L2 Network and their Performance Evaluation. In 2018 International Conference on Innovations in Information Technology (IIT) (s. 30–35).
  33. Sch, B., Bauer, J., & Aschenbruck, N., 2017. Improving Energy Efficiency of MQTT-SN in Lossy Environments using Seed-based Network Coding. 42nd Annual IEEE Conference on Local Computer Networks. http://doi.org/10.1109/LCN.2017.87
  34. Schmitt, A., Carlier, F., & Renault, V., 2018. Dynamic bridge generation for IoT data exchange via the MQTT protocol. Procedia Computer Science, 130, 90–97. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2018.04.016
  35. Shelby, Z., Hartke, K., & Bormann, C., 2014. The Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP). Online: http://doi.org/10.17487/rfc7252, Son Erişim: 20.02.2019
  36. Shin, I.-J., Song, B.-K., & Eom, D.-S., 2017. International Electronical Committee (IEC) 61850 Mapping with Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) in Smart Grids Based European Telecommunications Standard Institute Machine-to-Machine (M2M) Environment. Energies, 10(3), 393. http://doi.org/10.3390/en10030393
  37. Su, P. H., Shih, C., Hsu, J. Y., Lin, K., & Wang, Y., 2014. Decentralized Fault Tolerance Mechanism for Intelligent IoT / M2M Middleware. In 2014 IEEE World Forum on Internet of Things (WF-IoT) (s. 45–50).
  38. Talaminos-Barroso, A., Estudillo-Valderrama, M. A., Roa, L. M., Reina-Tosina, J., & Ortega-Ruiz, F., 2016. A Machine-to-Machine protocol benchmark for eHealth applications - Use case: Respiratory rehabilitation. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine, 129, 1–11. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmpb.2016.03.004
  39. Tantitharanukul, N., Osathanunkul, K., Hantrakul, K., Pramokchon, P., & Khoenkaw, P., 2016. MQTT-Topics Management System for sharing of Open Data, 1–6.
  40. Thangavel, D., Ma, X., Valera, A., Tan, H. X., & Tan, C. K. Y., 2014. Performance evaluation of MQTT and CoAP via a common middleware. In IEEE ISSNIP 2014 - 2014 IEEE 9th International Conference on Intelligent Sensors, Sensor Networks and Information Processing, Conference Proceedings. http://doi.org/10.1109/ISSNIP.2014.6827678
  41. Thota, P., & Kim, Y., 2016. Implementation and Comparison of M2M Protocols for Internet of Things. In 2016 4th Intl Conf on Applied Computing and Information Technology/3rd Intl Conf on Computational Science/Intelligence and Applied Informatics/1st Intl Conf on Big Data, Cloud Computing, Data Science Engineering (ACIT-CSII-BCD) (s. 43–48). http://doi.org/10.1109/ACIT-CSII-BCD.2016.021
  42. Kim, H., 2017. Securing the Internet of Things via Locally Centralized, Globally Distributed Authentication and Authorization.
  43. Naik, N., 2017. Choice of Effective Messaging Protocols for IoT Systems: MQTT, CoAP, AMQP and HTTP.
  44. Ngu, A. H., Gutierrez, M., Metsis, V., & Sheng, Q. Z. (2017). IoT Middleware: A Survey on Issues and Enabling Technologies. IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 4(1), 1–20. http://doi.org/10.1109/JIOT.2016.2615180