Next Article in Journal
Design and Development for Capacitive Humidity Sensor Applications of Lead-Free Ca,Mg,Fe,Ti-Oxides-Based Electro-Ceramics with Improved Sensing Properties via Physisorption
Next Article in Special Issue
Bindings and RESTlets: A Novel Set of CoAP-Based Application Enablers to Build IoT Applications
Previous Article in Journal
Incentives for Delay-Constrained Data Query and Feedback in Mobile Opportunistic Crowdsensing
Previous Article in Special Issue
An Efficient Interactive Model for On-Demand Sensing-As-A-Servicesof Sensor-Cloud
Open AccessArticle

Experimental Evaluation of Unicast and Multicast CoAP Group Communication

Said Khoury IT Center of Excellence (SKITCE), Al-Quds University, Abu Deis, Jerusalem 51000, Palestine
Ghent University‚ÄĒiMinds, Department of Information Technology (INTEC), Technologiepark-Zwijnaarde 15, 9052 Ghent, Belgium
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Academic Editor: Leonhard M. Reindl
Sensors 2016, 16(7), 1137;
Received: 20 March 2016 / Revised: 20 June 2016 / Accepted: 9 July 2016 / Published: 21 July 2016
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Intelligent Internet of Things (IoT) Networks)
The Internet of Things (IoT) is expanding rapidly to new domains in which embedded devices play a key role and gradually outnumber traditionally-connected devices. These devices are often constrained in their resources and are thus unable to run standard Internet protocols. The Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) is a new alternative standard protocol that implements the same principals as the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP), but is tailored towards constrained devices. In many IoT application domains, devices need to be addressed in groups in addition to being addressable individually. Two main approaches are currently being proposed in the IoT community for CoAP-based group communication. The main difference between the two approaches lies in the underlying communication type: multicast versus unicast. In this article, we experimentally evaluate those two approaches using two wireless sensor testbeds and under different test conditions. We highlight the pros and cons of each of them and propose combining these approaches in a hybrid solution to better suit certain use case requirements. Additionally, we provide a solution for multicast-based group membership management using CoAP. View Full-Text
Keywords: wireless sensor networks; Internet of Things; CoAP; sensors; group communication; multicast; entities wireless sensor networks; Internet of Things; CoAP; sensors; group communication; multicast; entities
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Ishaq, I.; Hoebeke, J.; Moerman, I.; Demeester, P. Experimental Evaluation of Unicast and Multicast CoAP Group Communication. Sensors 2016, 16, 1137.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

Search more from Scilit
Back to TopTop