Choice of effective messaging protocols for IoT systems: MQTT, CoAP, AMQP and HTTP

By Nitin A. Naik. Information Security Solutions Europe, 2017

574 citations recorded by the source corpus.

The standard and real-time communication technology is an unalloyed inevitability for the development of Internet of Things (IoT) applications. However, the selection of a standard and effective messaging protocol is a challenging and daunting task for any organisation because it depends on the nature of the IoT system and its messaging requirements. Copious messaging protocols have been developed and employed by various organisations based on their requirements in the last two decades. Though, none of them is able to support all messaging requirements of all types of IoT systems. Messaging protocol is an ongoing dilemma for the IoT industry; consequently, it is important to understand the pros and cons of the widely accepted and emerging messaging protocols for IoT systems to determine their best-fit scenarios. Therefore, this paper presents an evaluation of the four established messaging protocols MQTT, CoAP, AMQP and HTTP for IoT systems. Firstly, it presents the broad comparison among these messaging protocols to introduce their characteristics comparatively. Afterwards, it performs a further in-depth and relative analysis based on some interrelated criteria to gain insight into their strengths and limitations. Thus, based on this detailed evaluation, the user can decide their appropriate usage in various IoT systems according to their requirements and suitability.

Subfields: Computer Networks and Communications, Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/353b9dca01110738b38ce7aa00fed57df969540d

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Computer Networks and Communications

In Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

Citations in the corpus

A Review of Machine Learning and IoT in Smart Transportation (2019, methodology): “It has become a common practice in IoT infrastructures, to use an IoT platform such as Kaa, Thingsboard, DeviceHive, Thingspeak, or Mainflux in order to support the M2M communication, using protocols like MQTT, AMQP, STOMP, CoAP, XMPP, and HTTP [4].”
A Survey of Communication Protocols for Internet of Things and Related Challenges of Fog and Cloud Computing Integration (2018, background): “sons related to application layer protocols Bandwidth Energy Developer’s Protocol Latency utilization consumption Security choice and throughput REST HTTP [95,96,101,102] [103,107] [96,110] [52,53] ✓ [16,95,103,105] [96–98] MQTT [88,99,100] [87,97,104,107] [96,108,109,111] [77] ✓ [16,49,104] [97–100”
The Use of MQTT in M2M and IoT Systems: A Survey (2020, methodology): “Naik [11] provided an in-detail evaluation of the four widely used messaging protocols MQTT, CoAP, AMQP, and HTTP for IoT systems.”
A Survey on the Role of IoT in Agriculture for the Implementation of Smart Farming (2019, background): “Most of the IoT applications usually follow the four layer architecture (Network Layer, Application layer, Physical and Mac Layer and Transport Layer) due to the popularity and interoperability of IP as suggested by Naik [32].”