Selection of protocols for data transmission from internet of things devices to cloud providers

: pp. 149 - 159
Lviv Polytechnic National University, Department of Computerized Automatic Systems
Lviv Politechnic National University

The Internet of Things (IoT) enables the creation of networks between devices, people, applications, and the Internet, creating new ecosystems with higher productivity, better energy efficiency, and higher profitability. Nodes in these networks must have the ability to communicate and exchange data, which requires the use of data transfer protocols. However, choosing the right protocol for a specific use case is not always straightforward. This paper provides an overview of two existing data transfer protocols, MQTT and HTTP, compares the amount of tariffed traffic generated by each protocol, and evaluates the efficiency of protocol costs. The research showed that in comparison to AWS IoT Core, GCP IoT Core is more expensive for all evaluated scenarios and is not recommended for use. For scenarios with frequent data transfer, the best solution is to use the MQTT bridge provided by AWS IoT Core. If the number of connected devices exceeds 10 million with a high frequency of data transmission every 1 minute, it is advisable to consider using a standalone MQTT broker or another TCP-based protocol such as CoAP. In the case of less frequent data transmission (every 10 minutes or less), an HTTP bridge may be a solution for up to 100 million devices. As a result of the research, a decision tree was created to select the best protocol for specific use cases.

  1. P. Pierleoni, R. Concetti, A. Belli and L. Palma, "Amazon, Google and Microsoft Solutions for IoT: Architectures and a Performance Comparison," in IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 5455-5470, 2020, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2961511.
  2. B. Wukkadada, K. Wankhede, R. Nambiar and A. Nair, "Comparison with HTTP and MQTT In Internet of Things (IoT)," 2018 International Conference on Inventive Research in Computing Applications (ICIRCA), Coimbatore, India, 2018, pp. 249-253, doi: 10.1109/ICIRCA.2018.8597401.
  3. Yokotani, Tetsuya & Sasaki, Yuya. (2016). Comparison with HTTP and MQTT on required network resources for IoT. pp. 1-6. doi: 10.1109/ICCEREC.2016.7814989.
  4. 4 Ahmed, Muneeb & Akhtar, Mohd. (2021). Smart Home: Application using HTTP and MQTT as Communication Protocols. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2112.10339
  5. Canek, Rodrigo & Borges, Pedro & Taconet, Chantal. (2022). Analysis of the Impact of Interaction Patterns and IoT Protocols on Energy Consumption of IoT Consumer Applications. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-16092- 9_9.
  6. S. Misra, A. Mukherjee, A. Roy. “Introduction to IoT”. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021, pp.1-424, doi: 10.1017/9781108913560
  7. N.M. Shaikh, Y. Ingle. “Application of Restful APIs in IOT”: A Review. Haryana: iJRASET, 2021, pp. 145- 151, doi: 10.22214/ijraset.2021.33013
  8. Atmoko, Rachmad & Riantini, Rona & Hasin, M. (2017). IoT real time data acquisition using MQTT protocol. Journal of Physics: Conference Series. 853.pp. 1-7, doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/853/1/012003.
  9. M. Amadeo, C. Campolo, A. Iera and A. Molinaro, "Information Centric Networking in IoT scenarios: The case of a smart home," 2015 IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC), London, UK, 2015, pp. 648- 653, doi: 10.1109/ICC.2015.7248395.
  10. E. Longo, A. E. C. Redondi, M. Cesana, A. Arcia-Moret and P. Manzoni, "MQTT-ST: a Spanning Tree Protocol for Distributed MQTT Brokers," ICC 2020 - 2020 IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC), Dublin, Ireland, 2020, pp. 1-6, doi: 10.1109/ICC40277.2020.9149046.
  11. labbas Alhaj, “Constraint application protocol (CoAP) for the IoT”. – Frankf. Univ. Appl. Sci., 2018, pp. 1-5, doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33265.17766