International Journal of Engineering Trends and Technology Volume 69 Issue 2, 102-106, February 2021

ISSN: 2231 – 5381 /doi:10.14445/22315381/IJETT-V69I2P214 © 2021 Seventh Sense Research Group®

Performance Analysis of IoT Routing Protocol: A

Study
Srinivasa A H#1, Siddaraju*2
#
Research Scholar, Department of Computer Science & Engineering, JJT University, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan, India,
*
Professor, Department of Computer Science & Engineering, Dr. Ambedkar Institute of Technology, Bangalore, Karnataka,
India
1
srinivasaah.cs@drait.edu.in, 2siddaraju.cs@drait.edu.in

Abstract - A standardized and flexible routing protocol amount of $6 billion was invested into IoT solutions which
enhances the performance of networks. IETF (International includes device hardware, data storage, system integration,
Engineering Task Force) standardized an RPL (Routing connectivity, application development, and security. It is
Protocol for Low Power and Lossy Networks) for low power estimated that the profit for the invested amount will be
and lossy networks. In this protocol, the ideal route is around $13 trillion by 2025.
selected from source to destination. The paper evaluated the The major stakeholders for IoT systems are consumers,
RPL performance in terms of average power and radio duty governments, and businesses. IoT affects every industry in
cycle. We simulate RPL with Cooja based on Contiki many ways. IoT contributes major benefits to three groups as
Operating System. This paper compares the average power consumers, governments, and ecosystems with several
and average duty cycle for nodes with a varying number of environments. The major benefits are connected homes and
sinks. The proposed method decreases the consumption of smart buildings, agriculture, manufacturing, defense,
power, listen (Rx), and transmit (Tx) duty cycle by increasing infrastructure, banks, transportation, smart cities, hospitality
the number of sinks in the network. and health care, logistics, etc.
In IoT, system routing plays a major role. Routing is
Keywords — IETF, RPL, Cooja, Contiki, IoT. nothing but transferring data from one node to another node
through some intermediate node across inter-network.
Basically, it is the selection of a path from source to
I. INTRODUCTION destination and occurs at the network layer.
The Internet of Things (IoT) refers to a network of Implementation of appropriate Routing techniques in IoT
interconnected objects capable of acquiring physical world based networks can be very challenging because of the below
data and making this data accessible on the Internet [1]. reasons
Group of infrastructures interconnecting linked items and
enabling their management, data mining, and information  Variation in the sensor types
generation access [2].
 Variation in the implementation of network stacks
"An IoT is a network connecting" stuff "uniquely
 Connectivity problems because of vast
recognizable to the Internet. The "things" have capacities for
heterogeneity
sensing or actuating and potential programmability. By
exploiting unique identification and sensing, it is possible to  Change in the topology because of mobility
collect information about the "thing" and the state of the  There can be multiple hops in the end to end
"thing" can be changed from anywhere, anytime, by anything connectivity
[3].  The device should have a unique address for
An IoT device is any inter-connected stand-alone device connectivity
that can be monitored or controlled remotely. Nowadays IoT  The problem of energy because the mobile device
device is smaller with more powerful chips which can be may drain the battery quickly
used in almost all products. All the components that enable
consumers, governments, and businesses to connect to their II. RELATED WORK
IoT devices, including dashboards, remotes, gateways, In [4], an optimized ND protocol has been used for the
gateways, data storage, analytics, and security, are part of performance evaluation of routing protocol. The protocol
the IoT system. was implemented on Contiki OS v2.6, and the Cooja
According to a survey of BI (Business Intelligence) simulator is considered for results evaluation. The method
premium research service, there will be over 24 billion IoT increases the energy efficiency in 6LoWPAN networks and
devices on earth by 2020. That means for every human, and allows host nodes to start direct communication with routers.
there will be approximately four devices on the planet. An The node reachability affects the ND protocol behavior. In

This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

 Srinivasa A H & Siddaraju / IJETT, 69(2), 102-106, 2021

this node, retransmission of RS messages is required for profiles and communication technologies. To support a broad
finding a new default router. range of efficiency features required for application, a
By using the IEEE 802.15.4 radios, Routing Protocol for standard framework has to be used. The framework should
Low power and Lossy Networks (RPL) can be analyzed by provide the interoperable capability, which is an alternative
simulating sensor devices [5]. For simulation, ContikiOS and for the composing network stack.
Cooja were used. This RPL reduces the energy consumption
of the network and increases the network lifetime. It also III. RPL (ROUTING PROTOCOL FOR LOW POWER
reduces the transmission and reception of multicast packets AND LOSSY NETWORKS)
and delays. A distance vector routing protocol has been
RPL focuses on energy balancing by prolonging network developed to meet the requirements of Low-power and Loss
lifetime. It uses a new metric to load the balance of the Networks (LLNs) by the ROLL working group and named it
network and its lifetime [6]. RPL. For several reasons, including the specification and
The RPL routing protocol behavior simulated and complexity of execution, RPL has been commonly criticized.
compared its performance with other routing protocols. In It reduces the implementation complexity and makes it more
[7], it is concluded that RPL is better in its performance than suitable for resource-constrained node deployment. The
other protocols for small networks. It is better because of its design of RPL should operate on top of several mechanisms,
fast establishment. The work can be enhanced by considering including the MAC layer and IEEE 802.15.4 PHY layers.
a large number of nodes. The primary target of RPL is collection-based networks
The packet overhead, throughput, and average end-to-end where nodes send readings to a collection point regularly.
delay of IoT routing protocol were compared subjected to RPL represents the alternative for low power and
change in mobile nodes. The work has to be extended to loss network routing. The main purpose of this design is to
consider location information and the variable speed of nodes provide alternative routes when routes are inaccessible by
in the network. So, the appropriate IoT routing protocol has default for highly adaptive network conditions. To
to be selected for better improvement in network disseminate information, RPL provides a mechanism to form
performance [8]. network topology dynamically.
The RPL routing protocol performance can be increased
for dense networks. The comparison has been made for A. RPL Topology
different metrics [9]. The performance metrics were RPL topology organizes into Destination-Oriented-Directed-
increased proportionally with an increase in the number of Acyclic Graphs (DODAG) for destinations. DODAG is a
nodes. It also considers the power consumption of the single destination rooted in DAG. There are no outgoing
network related to the availability of the number of sink edges of the DODAG root [14]. The DODAG graph of RPL
nodes. The mobility affects directly on received packets. If is uniquely identified by combining the RPL instance and
the number of sinks was increased, then the power DODAG id. Figure 1 shows the construction of RPL
consumption is less in the network. DODAG using DODAG ID and RPL instance.
The two multipath ELB and FLR protocol has a minimal
end-to-end delay, packet delivery rate, overhead, and faster
local repair mechanism compared with RPL [10]. The
combination of ELB and FLR also maintains a well-balanced
network and improves performance.
The metrics such as sent, received, lost packets, duplicate
packets received, and throughput was used to compare
different routing protocols. Based on the number of nodes,
these metrics can be increased. The type of mobility model
directly affects the data transmission. Compared to entity
mobility models, the group models have the lowest Figure 1: RPL DODAG Construction [14]
throughput [11].
The protocol used in WSN and ad hoc networks for Each RPL instance has one or more DODAG and is
energy-efficient is not enough for IoT. [12]A special protocol identified by a DODAG ID. Every node in the DODAG has
designed by IETF is named RPL for various application a rank value. The rank value reflects the position of the node
requirements in LLNs to provide IPv6 communication. For in relation to the DODAG root node. Rank values increase
RPL, metrics such as link reliability, hop count have been strictly downward and decrease upward as it approaches the
proposed to capture a link-level characteristic performance. root node. DODAG Root is liable for aggregating paths and
RPL adopted larger in IoT because of today’s IoT market, building DODAG.
heterogeneity, application requirements, and hardware
constraints. [13] RPL could be a standard framework for
interrelated standards, which focus on specific application

103
 Srinivasa A H & Siddaraju / IJETT, 69(2), 102-106, 2021

B. FEATURES OF RPL dispersed randomly over an area of 100x100 m2. Each node
Loop avoidance and detection: The rank of any in the network sends a data packet of size 140 bytes every 30
node in RPL is higher than its parent node. In RPL, a seconds towards the sink node. The simulation was repeated
node rank value to be greater than its parent node, which for 20 to 50 nodes with 1 to 3 sinks for 5 minutes.
results in the acyclic nature of the DODAG. Furthermore,
RPL provides recovery mechanisms in local and global to A. CONTIKI OPERATING SYSTEM
detect the loop and recover the topology. The operating system plays a major role in the
simulation of the experiments. So, Contiki Operating System
Self-configuration - Dynamically discovers the is used for simulating applications of IoT. It is an open-
network paths with the help of IPv6 neighbor source operating system generally designed for wireless
discovery mechanisms. sensor networks but can be used for IoT. It is implemented
Communication paradigms - supports Point-to-point using the C programming language and supports
(P2P); Point-to-multipoint (P2MP) and Multipoint-to-point multitasking operations. It is a UNIX-based operating
(MP2P) system. It consists of a set of lightweight networking
Target networks - used for Low-Power and Lossy protocols known as Rime stack, the IPv4 networking
Networks (LLNs), 6LowPAN networks, and other IPv6 protocols µIP TCP/IP stack, and µIPv6 stack for tiny and
networks. embedded sensor devices, which offers Contiki MAC layer
Identifiers - It can use RPL Instance ID, DODAG which packages radio packets into IEEE 802.15.4 frames.
ID. DODAG Version, Rank.
Security mode - Supports different security B. COOJA SIMULATOR
mechanisms Cooja simulator is a Java-based simulator supported by
Mode of operation (MOP) - It can operate in MOP (0) Contiki operating system. Using this simulator, the RPL
for no downward routes, MOP (1) for Non-storing, protocol is simulated. Nodes are programmed using C
MOP (2) for Storing, and MOP (3) for Storing with language, even though the simulator is Java-based. The
multicast. sensor hardware is emulated using the Cooja emulator. Using
external plugins such as simulation visualizer, timeline, and
C. TYPES OF RPL radio logger, it interacts with the simulated nodes. It can
There are many types of RPL. Table 1 gives the protocol simulate independent networks based on some defined
classification and their characteristics. parameters and run real data files from testbeds.
In this paper, the RPL metrics that are considered to
Table 1: Protocol classification measure the performance of the RPL protocol are:
Sl Protocols Energy Data Load Multip Average power: It is the amount of energy or work done per
. Classificat Efficien Aggregat Balan ath unit of time. To measure the average power of a continuous
N ion cy ion ce light beam, fiber optic power meters are used. These are used
o to test signal power in fiber-optic networks.
1 RPL No Yes No No Radio Duty Cycle: Contiki provides three types of duty
standard cycling mechanisms. X-MAC mechanism is generally used
2 RPL- No No Yes No for low power listening. ContikiMAC is similar to X-MAC
BMARK but enhanced to power consumption reduction. Contiki’s
3 P2P RPL Yes Yes No No LPP mechanism is Low Power Probing (LPP) protocol but
4 CO-RPL No Yes Yes No enhanced to reduce the power consumption and to provide
5 Qu-RPL Yes Yes No Yes the mechanism for sending broadcast data.
6 Ec-RPL Yes Yes No Yes In the radio duty cycle, we can discuss the radio on,
7 ENHANC Yes Yes No Yes radio Transmit (Tx), radio Listen (Rx). It's the time when the
ED-RPL radio chip hardware is turned on, i.e., it is in a ready-to-
8 ER-RPL No No Yes Yes receive state, Receiving (Rx) or Transmitting (Tx).
9 C-RPL Yes No No No Transmit (Tx) Duty Cycle: It is the percentage of the duty
10 ME-RPL No Yes Yes No cycle used to transmit to the radio in-network as shown in
11 GI-RPL Yes No No Yes equation (1)
12 MoMoRo No No No Yes Listen to (Rx) Duty Cycle: the percentage of the duty cycle
used to listen to the radio in-network as shown in equation
IV. SIMULATION ENVIRONMENT (2)
To measure the performance of the RPL protocol in a
large-scale network, a Cooja simulation environment has to 𝑅𝑥_𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒
𝑅𝑥 = (1)
be used. It is used to emulate the Sky motes. Nodes are 𝐶𝑃𝑈_𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 + 𝐿𝑃𝑀_𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒

104
 Srinivasa A H & Siddaraju / IJETT, 69(2), 102-106, 2021

𝑇𝑥_𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 B. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

𝑇𝑥 = (2)
𝐶𝑃𝑈_𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 + 𝐿𝑃𝑀_𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 This section explains the experimental evaluation study
of RPL using the data collected from the Cooja simulator. In
Radio Tx Time: It is the time taken to transmit PHY-layer this RPL, average power consumption, average listen, and
packets duty cycle has to be measured using the Cooja simulator. The
Radio Rx Time: It is the time taken to receive PHY-layer average power has to be measured for 20, 30, 40, and 50
packets. nodes with 1 sink, 2 sinks, and 3 sinks. Figure 3 shows the
comparison of average power consumption for 20, 30, 40,
The energy consumption of the radio chip is almost the same and 50 nodes with 1 sink, 2 sinks, and 3 sinks.
as in the receive mode when the node is neither transmitting
nor receiving even the radio chip is on. Some amount of
energy is consumed to keep the receive machinery active, Average Power using 3 sinks
and sampling the medium continues to detect the start of a
2

Average Power (mW)

packet.
1.5
V. SIMULATION RESULT AND DISCUSSION 1
0.5
A. SIMULATION
0
In this paper, we have considered a maximum of 50
20 30 40 50
nodes and a maximum of 3 sinks for simulation purposes and
to measure the performance of RPL. Figure 2 shows the Number of Nodes
Radio Environment view for 50 nodes. We use radio
Environment view for node sink. 1 sink 2 sink 3 sink

Figure 3: Average power comparison of nodes with sinks

Figure 3 shows average power for 20 nodes with 1

sink, 2 sink, and 3 sinks, 30 nodes with 1 sink, 2 sinks, and 3
sinks, and similarly for 40 and 50 nodes. In all the cases, the
average power is decreased if the number of sinks increased,
so to reduce power consumption, sinks are used optimally.
The average duty cycle has to be calculated by
measuring the average listen and transmit duty cycle. Figure
4 shows the average listen to the duty cycle for nodes 20, 30,
40, and 50 with 1 sink, 2 sinks, and 3 sinks.

Figure 2: Radio-environment for 50 nodes Average Listen (Rx) Duty Cycle

1.5
Duty Cycle (%)

In this paper, the network has stimulated for 20, 30, 1

40, and 50 nodes with 1, 2, and 3 sinks. The nodes and sinks
are distributed using the random topology in a squared area. 0.5
In this work, RPL average power and average listen and 0
transmit duty cycle has to be measured for 20, 30, 40, and 50 20 30 40 50
nodes with 1, 2, and 3 sinks. The main RPL parameters used
in the simulation are listed in table 2.
Number of Nodes
Table 2: RPL Simulation parameters 1 sink 2 sink 3 sink
Parameter Value
No. of nodes 20, 30, 40, 50 Figure 4: Comparison of average listen to (Rx) duty cycle
No. of sink nodes 1, 2, 3 for different nodes
Topology Random Figure 4 shows the average listen to the duty cycle
Tx range 50 m for nodes 20 with 1 sink, 2sink, and 3 sinks, nodes 30 with 1
Tx Ratio 100% sink, 2 sinks, and 3 sinks similarly for nodes 40 and 50. In all
Rx Ratio 100% the cases average listen duty cycle decreased as nodes and
Square area 1000 m sank increased. Similarly, the transmit duty cycle also
Simulation time 05 inutes decreased as nodes and sank increased.

105
 Srinivasa A H & Siddaraju / IJETT, 69(2), 102-106, 2021

[3] Xing Liu and O. Baiocchi, A comparison of the definitions for smart
sensors, smart objects and Things in IoT, IEEE 7th Annual
Average Transmit (Tx) Duty Information Technology, Electronics and Mobile Communication
cycle Conference (IEMCON), Vancouver, BC, (2016) 1-4.
Duty Cycle (%)

[4] M. A. M. Seliem, K. M. F. Elsayed and A. Khattab, Performance

1 evaluation and optimization of neighbor discovery implementation
over Contiki OS, 2014 IEEE World Forum on the Internet of Things
0.5 (WF-IoT), Seoul, (2014) 119-123.
0 [5] B. F. Marques and M. P. Ricardo, Improving the energy efficiency of
20 30 40 50 WSN by using application-layer topologies to constrain RPL-defined
routing trees,13th Annual Mediterranean Ad Hoc Networking
Workshop (MED-HOC-NET), Piran, (2014) 126-133.
Number of Nodes [6] O. Iova, F. Theoleyre, and T. Noel Improving the network lifetime
with energy-balancing routing: Application to RPL, 7th IFIP Wireless,
1 sink 2 sink 3 sink and Mobile Networking Conference (WMNC), Vilamoura, (2014) 1-8.
[7] H. Xie, G. Zhang, D. Su, P. Wang and F. Zeng, Performance
Figure 5: Shows the transmit duty cycle for nodes 20, 30, evaluation of RPL routing protocol in 6lowpan, IEEE 5th International
Conference on Software Engineering and Service Science, Beijing,
40, and 50 with 1 sink, 2 sinks, and 3 sinks. (2014) 625-628.
[8] H. Xin and K. Yang, Routing Protocols Analysis for the Internet of
VI. CONCLUSIONS Things, 2015 2nd International Conference on Information Science and
Internet of Things is a highly scalable environment Control Engineering, Shanghai, (2015) 447-450.
[9] H. Lamaazi, N. Benamar, M. I. Imaduddin, and A. J. Jara, Performance
which finds its applications in almost every aspect of our life. assessment of the routing protocol for low power and lossy networks,
RPL is a robust networking technology, and we have International Conference on Wireless Networks and Mobile
investigated the behavior of the RPL routing protocol by Communications (WINCOM), Marrakech, (2015) 1-8.
varying the number of nodes and the number of sinks. This [10] Q. Le, T. Ngo-Quynh and T. Magedanz, RPL-based multipath Routing
Protocols for Internet of Things on Wireless Sensor Networks,
study provides insight into the applicability of the RPL International Conference on Advanced Technologies for
routing protocol for the Internet of Things. In the scalability Communications (ATC 2014), Hanoi, (2014) 424-429.
architecture of the Internet of Things, Routing has a [11] S. Jeong, E. Park, D. Woo, H. Kim, J. Paek, and S. Bahk, MAPLE:
prominent role. The low power and lossy network is the Mobility support using asymmetric transmit power in low-power and
lossy networks in Journal of Communications and Networks,
basic requirement for routing data in real-time for IoT 20(4)(2018) 414-424.
networks. We have studied the RPL under different [12] A. Hassan, S. Alshomrani, A. Altalhi, and S. Ahsan, Improved routing
parameters using the Cooja simulator. The parameters metrics for energy-constrained interconnected devices in low-power
evaluated are duty cycle and power consumption. The power and lossy networks, in Journal of Communications and Networks,
18(3)(2016) 327-332.
consumption is studied by varying the number of nodes for 1, [13] O. Iova, P. Picco, T. Istomin, and C. Kiraly, RPL: The Routing
2, and 3 sink nodes. Our simulated study indicates that RPL Standard for the Internet of Things... Or Is It?, in IEEE
is suitable for Internet of Things devices as it is reliable and Communications Magazine, 54(12)(2016) 16-22.
reduces the overall energy consumption of the network [14] Abdel Hakeem, S.A.; Hady, A.A.; Kim, H. RPL Routing Protocol
Performance in Smart Grid Applications Based Wireless Sensors:
efficiently. This study serves as the foundation to apply RPL Experimental and Simulated Analysis. Electronics, 8(2)(2019) 186.
for industrial IoT applications. [15] Sakshi Aneja, Sumit Mittal, Dhirendra Sharma. Mobility Management
Routing Protocol for Optimized QoS: A Review Study International
Journal of Engineering Trends and Technology 68(12) (2020)146-152.
REFERENCES [16] M. Qasem, H. Altawssi, M. B. Yassien, and A. Al-Dubai, Performance
[1] Floris and L. Atzori, Quality of Experience in the Multimedia Internet
Evaluation of RPL Objective Functions, IEEE International
of Things: Definition and practical use-cases, IEEE International
Conference on Computer and Information Technology; Ubiquitous
Conference on Communication Workshop (ICCW), London, (2015)
Computing and Communications; Dependable, Autonomic and Secure
1747-1752.
Computing; Pervasive Intelligence and Computing, Liverpool, (2015)
[2] B. Dorsemaine, J. Gaulier, J. Wary, N. Kheir and P. Urien, Internet of
1606-1613.
Things: A Definition & Taxonomy, 9th International Conference
on Next Generation Mobile Applications, Services and Technologies,
Cambridge, (2015) 72-77.

106