SIMULATION ANALYSIS FOR QOS IN
INTERNET OF THINGS WIRELESS
NETWORK
Ghaith Mojib
Faculty of Information Science and Technology, National University of Malaysia.
Selangor (Malaysia).
E-mail: ghaith.alkhazraje@gmail.com
Azana Hazah Mohd Aman
Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Information Science and Technology, National University of
Malaysia. Selangor (Malaysia).
E-mail: azana@ukm.edu.my
Mahdi Khalaf
Faculty of Information Science and Technology, National University of Malaysia.
Selangor (Malaysia).
E-mail: m1a2h3d4i5.mh@gmail.com
Rosilah Hassan
Associate Professor, Faculty of Information Science and Technology, National University
of Malaysia. Selangor (Malaysia).
E-mail: rosilah@ukm.edu.my
Recepción: 29/07/2019 Aceptación: 18/09/2019 Publicación: 06/11/2019
Citación sugerida:
Mojib, G., Aman, A.H.M., Khalaf, M. y Hassan, H. (2019). Simulation analysis for QoS
in Internet of Things wireless network. 3C Tecnología. Glosas de innovación aplicadas a la pyme.
Edición Especial, Noviembre 2019, 77-83. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.17993/3ctecno.2019.
specialissue3.77-83
Suggested citation:
Mojib, G., Aman, A.H.M., Khalaf, M. & Hassan, H. (2019). Simulation analysis for QoS
in Internet of Things wireless network. 3C Tecnología. Glosas de innovación aplicadas a la pyme.
Special Issue, November 2019, 77-83. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.17993/3ctecno.2019.
specialissue3.77-83
78
79
3C Tecnología. Glosas de innovación aplicadas a la pyme. ISSN: 2254–4143
ABSTRACT
The Internet of things (IoT) composed of numerous smart devices and communication
technologies. The IoT devices interchange the information through wireless or wired
network connections. Compared to the wired connection, the wireless connection
in IoT is the current primary concern. In general, there are few wireless network
protocols that can be used to connect smart devices such as 6LoWPAN, RPL, CoAP,
MQTT, and AMQP. These protocols are used to transfer messages in the IoT
network. This paper, compared IPv6 protocol wireless network, Low Power Wide
Area Network (6LoWPAN) and Low Power and Lossy Network Routing (RPL) for
IoT communications using Contiki:cooja simulator. The considered QoS parameters
are throughput, end-to-end delay, and jitter. Based on the results, 6LoWPAN achieved
better QoS compared to RPL.
KEYWORDS
6LoWPAN, RPL, Simulation, Throughput, End-to-End Delay, Jitter.
78
79
Edición Especial Special Issue Noviembre 2019
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17993/3ctecno.2019.specialissue3.77-83
1. INTRODUCTION
Internet of Thing (IoT) system uses low power sensors and microcontrollers. The
LoWPAN which known as Low Power Wide Area Network is the rst IoT network
that deploys many sensors and controllers linked into internet network. Since the
network is using IPv6 protocol, thus the name of the IoT network under Internet
Protocol Version 6 (IPv6). Ahmed (2017) and Aman (2016) is called 6LoWPAN (IPv6
over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Networks) (Li, 2018). Another network that
supports IoT system is called RPL (IPv6 Low-Power and Lossy Network Routing
Protocol). RPL divides packet processing and adapt routing optimization objects,
including energy consumption, communication delays and limits minimization
(Parasuram, 2016). Multiple times of RPL can run simultaneously within the network
(Kim et al. 2017).
2. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This research focused on the study of the Quality of Service (QoS) scenarios for
IoT in 6LowPAN and RPL. This work assumes that the infrastructure developed
supports 6LoWPAN and RPL architecture. The evaluation is done using Contiki:
cooja network simulator. The Contiki: cooja is programmed so that the limited node
speed is 200 as in (Xie et al., 2014). Also, the number of nodes varied from 10 to 50
nodes. The research metrics are shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Simulation Parameters General.
Parameter Value
Node transmission range 50 m
Node carrier sensing range 100 m
Distribution of nodes Random
Routing protocol 6LowPAN, RPL
Mote type/startup delay T-mote sky/1000ms
MAC layer CSMA/CA
Bitrate 250 kbps
80
81
3C Tecnología. Glosas de innovación aplicadas a la pyme. ISSN: 2254–4143
Parameter Value
Mote type/startup delay T-mote sky/200ms
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The parameters considered for this paper are throughput (Aman, 2016), end-to-end
delay (Hassan & Jabbar, 2017) and jitter. Graphic 1 shows the results for throughput,
Graphic 2 shows the results for end-to-end delay, nally Graphic 3 shows the results
for jitter.
Graphic 1. Average Throughput Number of Nodes.
Graphic 2. End-to-end Delay Number of Nodes.
80
81
Edición Especial Special Issue Noviembre 2019
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17993/3ctecno.2019.specialissue3.77-83
Graphic 3. Jitter Number of Nodes.
The average throughput from Graphic 1 shown at a data rate of 250 kbps,
6LoWPAN, RPL, and is slightly dierent from the selected number of nodes because
the topology has changed during simulation. The average overall capacity of the
two is mainly 3907 Kbps or 3907 Mbps. Note that for both routing protocols, the
number of nodes aected. Dierent routing tables over several nodes result from the
random movement of nodes, which results in the uctuation of the received average
throughput. For RPL 2.57 % and 6LoWPAN, 2.14% is the dierence between the
highest throughput and the average throughput of the other Nodes, which indicates
a dierent number of nodes impact signicantly the average throughput, the
6LoWPAN has better throughput compared with RPL.
Graphic 2 shows the end-to-end delay of 6LoWPAN and RPL routing protocols. A
distinct amount of nodes have no signicant eects since each RPL node can keep a
routing table that saved all data regarding current paths but 6LoWPAN sets the road
on demand. That means the average end-to-end RPL is not much more eective
compared to 6LoWPAN for some nodes chosen than for some.
Graphic 3 represents the variation in jitter. Jitter signies a dierence in delay with
which packets reach the destination. Although the variety is almost same but on
average 6LoWPAN performs well in terms of jitter compared to RPL. It shows that,
if the nodes are higher, the RPL is less than 6LoWPAN.
82
83
3C Tecnología. Glosas de innovación aplicadas a la pyme. ISSN: 2254–4143
4. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors are grateful to Faculty of Information Science and Technology, National
University of Malaysia. This research is also funded by research grant DIP-2018-
040.
5. CONCLUSIONS
The Internet of Things considered as one of the most signicant changes to the
current innovation these days. By analyzing the QoS of IoT in 6LoWPAN and RPL,
many features revealed to prove its suitability for IoT. Link layer of 6LoWPAN and
RPL could support tiny things to participate. Protocol stack for both is appropriate
for IoT. Nevertheless, 6LoWPAN yield marginally better results than RPL.
REFERENCES
Ahmed, A. S, Hassan, R., & Nor, E. O. (2017). Securing IPv6 Link Local
Communication Using IPSec. Obstacles and Challenges. Advanced Science Letters,
23(11), 11124-11128. doi: https://doi.org/10.1166/asl.2017.10234
Aman, A. H. M., Hashim, A. H. A, Abdullah, A., Ramli, H. A. M, & Islam,
S. (2016). Multicast Support in Network Based Mobility Management: Current
Challenges and Solutions. Advanced Science Letters, 22(10), 2794-2798. doi: https://
doi.org/10.1166/asl.2016.7123
Aman, A. H. M., Hashim, A. H. A, Abdullah, A., Ramli, H. A. M, & Islam,
S. (2016). Evaluation of an Enhanced Multicast Data Flow Technique in Network
Mobility. International Journal of Future Generation Communication and Networking, 9(7),
153-164. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.14257/ijfgcn.2016.9.7.15
Aman, A. H. M., Hashim, A. H. A, Abdullah, A., Ramli, H. A. M., &
Islam, S. (2016). Parametric Comparison of Multicast Support for Network
Mobility Management: A Qualitative Analysis. International Journal of Multimedia
and Ubiquitous Engineering, 11(9), 203-210. doi: https://doi.org/10.14257/
ijmue.2016.11.9.21
82
83
Edición Especial Special Issue Noviembre 2019
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17993/3ctecno.2019.specialissue3.77-83
Hassan, R., & Jabbar, R. (2017). End-to-end (e2e) Quality of Service (QoS)
for IPv6 Video Streaming. 19th International Conference on Advanced Communication
Technology (ICACT), 1-4, South Korea. doi: https://doi.org/10.23919/
ICACT.2017.7890045
Kim, H. S., Kim, H., Paek, J. & Bahk, S. (2017). Load Balancing under Heavy Trac
in RPL Routing Protocol for Low Power and Lossy Networks. IEEE Transactions on
Mobile Computing. doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/TMC.2016.2585107
Li, S., Xu, L. Da & Zhao, S. (2018). 5G Internet of Things: A survey. Journal
of Industrial Information Integration, 10, 1-9. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jii.2018.01.005
Österlind, F., Dunkels, A., Eriksson, J., Finne, N. & Voigt, T. (2006). Cross-
level sensor network simulation with COOJA. Proceedings-Conference on Local Computer
Networks, LCN 641-648. doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/LCN.2006.322172
Parasuram, A., Culler, D. & Katz, R. (2016). An Analysis of the RPL Routing Standard
for Low Power and Lossy Networks. Retrieved from: http://digitalassets.lib.berkeley.
edu/techreports/ucb/text/EECS-2016-106.pdf
Xie, H., Zhang, G., Su, D., Wang, P. & Zeng, F. (2014). Performance evaluation
of RPL routing protocol in 6lowpan. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference
on Software Engineering and Service Sciences, ICSESS, 625-628. doi: https://doi.
org/10.1109/ICSESS.2014.6933646