Cited by 53IoT Networks and ProtocolsIoT and Edge/Fog ComputingDigital Transformation in Industry

Towards a lightweight protocol for Industry 4.0: An implementation based benchmark

Iglesias-Urkia, Markel, Orive, Adrian, Barcelo, Marc, Moran, Adrian, Bilbao, Josu, Urbieta, Aitor·2017·2017 IEEE International Workshop of Electronics, Control, Measurement, Signals and their Application to Mechatronics (ECMSM)

Abstract

The next industrial revolution, generally referred to as Industry 4.0, is already here. This envisions a rapid transformation in the design, operation and service of manufacturing systems, where machines, sensors and actuators are interconnected in the factories in order to enable spontaneous collaboration, monitoring and control. Currently, Cyber-Physical-Systems (CPS) use regular Internet protocols (e.g. SOAP or HTTP) to communicate with each other. However, these protocols inherently present certain drawbacks or disadvantages: large footprint, CPU usage, high memory and energy consumption, etc. In recent years, new Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) protocols have emerged to solve this issue, such as the Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) and MQ Telemetry Transport (MQTT). These are lightweight protocols designed to face the challenges of industrial environments with a small footprint and overhead. These protocols have different features in terms of communication model and Quality of Service (QoS), that make them more suitable to an specific domain. Thus, it is important to identify the right metrics to adopt the most appropriate. This paper presents a theoretical and empirical comparison of MQTT and CoAP in terms of network overhead and latency, to assist system designers with this decision. Furthermore we describe the quantitative comparison conducted with their implementation in hardware platforms with high constraints. The achieved results provide useful metrics and guidelines to help designers to choose the appropriate schemes for their implementations.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/ecmsm.2017.7945894

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Iglesias-Urkia, M., Orive, A., Barcelo, M., Moran, A., Bilbao, J., & Urbieta, A.
Affiliations
Ikerlan (ES)
Venue
2017 IEEE International Workshop of Electronics, Control, Measurement, Signals and their Application to Mechatronics (ECMSM)
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2017-05
Pages
1-6
OpenAlex
W2624855314
Cited by
53
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 1
FWCI
10.83
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
IEEE International Workshop of Electronics, Control, Measurement, Signals and their Application to Mechatronics (ECMSM) (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Electrical and Electronic Engineering › IoT Networks and Protocols
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › IoT and Edge/Fog Computing
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering › Digital Transformation in Industry
Keywords
Industry 4.0, Industrial Internet of Things, lightweight protocols, MQTT, CoAP, network overhead, latency, protocol comparison, cyber-physical systems, resource-constrained devices, quality of service

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review