See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/320614944

Internet of Things (IoT) Communication Protocols : Review

Conference Paper · July 2017

DOI: 10.1109/ICITECH.2017.8079928

CITATIONS READS
330 32,652

4 authors:

Shadi Sarawi Mohammed Anbar

Universiti Sains Malaysia Universiti Sains Malaysia
4 PUBLICATIONS   401 CITATIONS    199 PUBLICATIONS   2,398 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Kamal Alieyan Mahmood Saleh Alzubaidi

Amman Arab University Universiti Sains Malaysia
26 PUBLICATIONS   579 CITATIONS    4 PUBLICATIONS   374 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Enhancing Security on IPv6 Neighbor Discovery using Trust-ND View project

Conditional privacy-preserving authentication scheme in VANET View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Kamal Alieyan on 25 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

2017 8th International Conference on Information Technology (ICIT)

Internet of Things (IoT) Communication Protocols :

Review
Shadi Al-Sarawi1, Mohammed Anbar2 , Kamal Alieyan3 , Mahmood Alzubaidi4
1-4
National Advanced IPv6 Centre (NAV6)
Universiti Sains Malaysia, 11800 Gelugor, Penang, Malaysia
Emails :( Shadi, Anbar, Kamal_alian, Mahmood)@nav6.usm.my

Abstract-- Internet of Things (IoT) consists of smart devices implementation requires a communication protocols that can
that communicate with each other. It enables these devices to efficiently manage these conditions [1] [2] [3] [9].
collect and exchange data. Besides, IoT has now a wide range of
life applications such as industry, transportation, logistics,
healthcare, smart environment, as well as personal, social gaming This paper will also review and compare between IoT
robot, and city information. Smart devices can have wired or communication protocol which is realized as a clear insight for
wireless connection. As far as the wireless IoT is the main the readers of different IoT communication protocol vision,
concern, many different wireless communication technologies their pros and cons, and their power speed and range
and protocols can be used to connect the smart device such as consumption.
Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6), over Low power Wireless
Personal Area Networks (6LoWPAN), ZigBee, Bluetooth Low
Energy (BLE), Z-Wave and Near Field Communication (NFC).
The rest of the paper will be organized as following; Section II
They are short range standard network protocols, while SigFox will describe the IoT communication protocols available from
and Cellular are Low Power Wide Area Network previous literature. In section III the Table 1 illustrates the
(LPWAN).standard protocols. different communication technologies for IoT applications and
their properties. Finally, the conclusion of the study is in hand
This paper will be an attempt to review different of the final Section.
communication protocols in IoT. In addition, it will compare
between commonly IoT communication protocols, with an
II. IOT COMMUNICATION PROTOCOLS
emphasis on the main features and behaviors of various metrics
of power consumption security spreading data rate, and other
features. This comparison aims at presenting guidelines for the This section will give a thorough description for each
researchers to be able to select the right protocol for different communication protocol. Commonly, the communication
applications. protocols for IoT can be categorized into: (1) LPWAN and (2)
short range network, as shown in Figure 1
Keywords: 6LoWPAN, AES, ASK, BLE, BPSK, BT, CCK,
COFDM, DBPSK, DSSS, ESP, FHSS, ICT, IoT, IPv6,
MAC, NFC, RC4, WPAN, WSNs, OFDM, O-QPSK, TDMS
and UNB.

I. INTRODUCTION

IoT Information Communication Technology (ICT) is

expected to be a revolution in transferring the information
from human-to-human, human-to-things and things-to-things.
Smart devices can connect, transfer information and make
decisions on behalf of people. This new technology is called
‘connectivity for anything’. It can connect anywhere, anytime
and anything.

The IoT environment consists of an enormous number of Figure 1 : IoT communication protocols
smart devices, but with many constraints. Processing
capability storage volume, short in power life and radio range
are among of these constraints. Therefore, the IoT

978-1-5090-6332-1/17/$31.00 ©2017 IEEE

685
2017 8th International Conference on Information Technology (ICIT)

II.I Low Power Wide Area Network (LPWAN) consumption. 6loWPAN supports different types of topologies
like mesh and star topology. 6loWPAN proposes an adaptation
II.I.A SigFox layer in between the MAC layer and the network layer (IPv6)
SigFox is a low power technology for wireless in order to handle interoperability between IEEE 802.15.4 and
communication of a diverse range of low energy objects such IPv6. The most competitive alternative to 6LoWPAN is
as sensors and M2M applications. It allows the transportation ZigBee as it is seen in Figure 2. Both of them use the same
of small amounts of data ranging up to 50 kilometers. SigFox IEEE 802.15.4 protocol at the physical layer [6] [22][35].
uses Ultra Narrow Band (UNB) technology. This technology
is only designed to handle low data transfer speeds of 10 to 1, Figure 2: 6LowPAN and ZigBee protocol stack [35]
000 bits per second, and can run on a small battery. NFC
technology is used in smart meters, patient monitors, II.II.B ZigBee
agriculture, security devices, street lighting and environmental ZigBee protocol has been created by ZigBee Alliance
sensors. SigFox support start network topology [5] [7]. based on low-power wireless IEEE802.15.4 networks
standard. ZigBee is created to be a standard to suite high level
II.I.B Cellular low cost communication protocols creating personal area
Cellular technology is a great fit for applications that need networks from small size, low power digital radios that
high throughput data and have a power source of IoT transmit data over longer distances. at the same time, it will be
application that requires operation over longer distances. It can used in applications that require a low data rate, longer battery
take the advantage of GSM/3G/4G cellular communication life, and secure networking devices. Moreover, ZigBee can
capabilities it can provide reliable high speed connectivity to support different types of topologies like mesh, star and tree
the internet .However, it needs high power consumption. network topology [5] [6].
Therefore, it’s not suitable for M2M or local network
communication. Cellular communication protocol is also used II.II.C BLE
for many applications especially for applications that involve
BLE is also known as Bluetooth smart which is a
mobile devices. Cellular topology depends on various based
significant protocol for IoT application. It’s designed and
technology [5] [24] [21].
enhanced for short-range, low bandwidth, and low latency for
IoT applications. The advantages of BLE classic Bluetooth
II.II Short Range Network
include lower power consumption, lower setup time, and
supporting star network topology with unlimited number of
nodes[5] [6].
II.II.A 6LoWPAN
6loWPAN is the first and most commonly used standard in II.II.D RFID
IoT communication protocols, since it is an IP-based standard
RFID has a variety of standards including (ISO, IEC,
internetworking protocol. It can be connected directly with
ASTM International, the DASH7 Alliance and EPC-global.
another IP network without intermediate entities like
.RFID systems consisting of a reading device called reader,
translation gateways or proxies. This standard has been
and a small radio frequency transponder called RF tag. This
created by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), a
tag is electronically programmed with unique information that
standard Internet Protocol (IP) communication over low power
has a distance reading characteristic. There are two
technologies of RFID tag systems: the first is called active
reader tag system and the other is called passive reader tag
system. Active tags are battery- powered, more expensive, and
use higher frequencies, while the passive tag one uses lower
frequencies and does not have an internal power source.
Because RFID information is static and must be programmed
into the tag, it cannot be used directly for the measurement or
diagnostic data .Some of IoT applications using RFID include
smart shopping, health care, national security and agriculture.
RFID can support P2P network topology [4] [7] [8].

II.II.E NFC
wireless IEEE802.15.4 networks utilizing IPv6. It supports NFC is a very short range wireless communication
2128 IP addresses, so the numbers of addresses are more than technology that enables the data transmission among devices
sufficient. This aims at supporting different length of by touching them together or bringing them together no more
addresses. It is also low cost, low bandwidth power than a few inches. NFC uses similar technology principles in
RFID. However, it is not only used for identification but also

686
2017 8th International Conference on Information Technology (ICIT)

for more elaborate two-way communication. NFC has a tag mechanism, security and power consumption as shown in IoT
that can contain small amount of data. This tag can be read IP coverage in Figure 3 and Table 1.
only (similar to RFID tags for identi¿cation purposes) or can
be rewritable and be altered later by the device .There are Figure 3: IoT IP coverage [34]
three main operating modes for NFC: card emulation mode
(passive mode), reader/writer mode (active mode) and peer-to-
peer mode). NFC technology is extensively used in mobile In terms of security, all the nine communication protocols
phones, industrial applications and contactless payment have the encryption and authentication mechanisms.
systems. Similarly, NFC makes it easier to connect, 6LoWPAN, ZigBee, BLE, NFC, Z-Wave use the Advanced
commission, and control IoT devices in different Encryption Standard (AES) block cipher with counter mode,
environments like home, factory and the work. NFC supports while Cellular and RFID use RC4. However, several serious
P2P network topology [4] [6] [7] [23]. weaknesses were identified. AES is extremely secure while
RC4 is not. RC4 is very fast compared to AES.
II.II.F Z-Wave
Z-Wave Is a low power MAC protocol developed by In terms of power consumption, 6LoWPAN, ZigBee, BLE, Z-
Zensys that uses wireless home automation to connect 30-50 Wave and NFC are designed for portable devices and limited
nodes and has been used for IoT communication, especially battery power. Thus, it offers low power consumption. On the
for smart home and small commercial domains. This other hand, Cellular high power consumption is in the list.
technology is designed for small data packets at relatively low
speeds up to 100 kbps and 30 meter point to point In term of data rate, 6LoWPAN, ZigBee, BLE, NFC, SigFox
communication. Therefore, it is suitable for small messages in and Z-Wave have data rate < = 1 Mbps. However, RFID has
IoT applications, like light control, energy control, healthcare the highest data rate of 4 Mbps
control. Z-Wave depends on two types of devices (controlling
and slave). Slave nodes properties are low cost devices unable In term of range, SigFox and Cellular are range longer than
to initiate messages. It can only reply and execute commands the coverage of several KM. However, 6LoWPAN, ZigBee,
sent by controlling devices that initiate messages within the BLE, NFC, Z-Wave, and RFID are range shorter that cover
network. Z-Wave support mesh network topology [6] [7] [23]. less than KM. Table 1 shows a comparison between the
communication protocols in IoT.

According to the comparison of communication protocol in

IoT, 6LoWPAN will be the future protocol because it is IP-
based WSN. It allows a vast number of smart devices to be
deployed over the internet easily by using the huge address
space of IPv6 for data and information gathering through
features and behaviors of various metrics, including low
bandwidth, different topologies, and star or mesh, power
consumption, low cost, scalable networks.

III. COMMARIZION BETWEEN COMMUNICATION

PROTOCOLS IN IOT
This section aims to provide a guideline for research to
select the right communication protocol by providing a
comparison between the above mentioned communication
protocols. Different criteria are used to benchmark the
differences between the communication protocols. Such
criteria include standard, network, topology, power, range,
cryptography, spreading, modulation type, coexistence

687
2017 8th International Conference on Information Technology (ICIT)

6LoWPAN ZigBee BlueTooth RFID NFC SigFox Cellular Z-Wave

LE
Characteristics

3GPP and
GSMA,
ISO/IEC 14443
IEEE802.15. IEEE SigFox GSM/GPRS/E
IEEE 802.15.4 RFID A&B,JIS X-6319- Z-Wave
Standard 4 802.15.1 [20] DGE (2G),
[18] [18] 4 [18]
[18] [18] UMTS/HSPA
[30]
(3G), LTE (4G)
[7]
868Mhz(EU) 125 kHz, 125Khz
868MHz (EU) Common 868 MHz -
Frequency 915Mhz(USA) 2.4 GHz 2.4 Ghz 13.56 MHz, 13.56Mhz
902MHz(USA) Cellular bands 908 MHz
Bands 2.4Ghz(Global) [19] [15] 902-928 MHz 860Mhz
[20] [31] [12]
[12] [31] [15]
WPAN WPAN WPAN Proximity P2P Network LPWAN WNAN WPAN
Network
[23] [23] [23] [10] [23] [10] [20] [23]
Star Star ,Mesh
Star –Bus Mesh
Mesh Network Cluster P2P Network P2P Network Start Network NA
Topology Network Network
[16] Network [04] [14] [20] [05]
[16] [19]
[19]
(1-2 years
lifetime on 2.5 mA
50 mA
batteries) 30 mA 30 mA 10 mW - High power Low power
Ultra-low power low power
Power Low power Low power Low Power 100 mW consumption consumption
[05] Very Low
consumption [26] [26] [20] [05] [14]
[30]
[14]

106 100 bps(UL),

250 kbps 250 kbps 1Mbps 4 Mbps NA 40kbps
Data Rate 212 or 424 kbps 600 bps(DL)
[15] [16] [15] [18] [05] [17]
[15] [20]

688
2017 8th International Conference on Information Technology (ICIT)

Long Range
Short Range 30m
10km(URBAN
Short Range Short Range Short Range Short Range 0-10cm (indoors)
) Several km
Range 10-100 m 10-100 m ~15-30 m Up to 200 m 0-1m 100(outdoors
50km [31]
[12] [12] [15] [18] 10cm-1m )
(RURAL)
[15] [12]
[20]
E0
RC4 RSA Partially RC4
AES AES Stream AES-128
Security [32] AES addressed [27]
[13] [13] AES-128 [13]
[25] [29]
[13]
DSSS
DSSS DSSS FHSS DSSS GSMA DSSS No
Spreading [27]
[17] [17] [17] [33] [23] [11] [17]
FSK UNB DBPSK BPSK
BPSK BPSK/BPSK
Modulation TDMA PSK ASK (UL), OFDM BFSK
O-QPSK O-QPSK
Type [17] [32] [23] GFSK(DL) [27] [28]
[12] [12]
[20]
Long Battery
Commonly Low power
Mesh life (up to 20 Simple
Used version Low Cost Security Longer Range
Features Network years) Protocol
Internal Access available [31] [31] [31]
[31] Low Cost [31]
[31] [31]
[10]
Home
Wireless
Monitor and industry Tracking, Home
headsets, Street Lighting
Common Control via monitoring Inventory, Payment, Access M2M Monitoring
Audio Energy meters
Applications internet and Access [31] [31] and Control
Applications [24]
[31] controlling [31] [31]
[31]
[31]

Table 1: IoT communication protocols

689
 2017 8th International Conference on Information Technology (ICIT)

[14] Aragues, A., Mart’\inez, I., Del Valle, P., Muñoz, P., Escayola, J. &
IV. CONCLUSION Trigo, J. D. 2012. Trends in entertainment, home automation and e-health:
Toward cross-domain integration. IEEE Communications Magazine, 50(6).
As there are many wireless technologies in the IoT network, [15] López, P., Fernández, D., Jara, A. J. & Skarmeta, A. F. 2013. Survey of
each one has certain specifications and bene¿ts. However, it is internet of things technologies for clinical environments. Advanced
quite hard to conclude which one is perfect. Therefore, the Information Networking and Applications Workshops (WAINA), 2013 27th
International Conference on: 1349–1354.
question that someone needs to answer is “which technology [16] Tabish, R., Mnaouer, A. B., Touati, F. & Ghaleb, A. M. 2013. A
is the best one for my application. From this point of view, the comparative analysis of BLE and 6LoWPAN for U-HealthCare applications.
current study reviews and compares between the common GCC Conference and Exhibition (GCC), 2013 7th IEEE: 286–291.
communication protocols in IoT. Different criteria used to [17] Al-Fuqaha, A., Guizani, M., Mohammadi, M., Aledhari, M. & Ayyash,
M. 2015. Internet of things: A survey on enabling technologies, protocols, and
compare between the communication protocols. Such criteria applications. IEEE Communications Surveys \& Tutorials, 17(4): 2347–2376.
include network, topology, power, range, cryptography, [18] Kuzlu, M., Pipattanasomporn, M. & Rahman, S. 2015. Review of
spreading, modulation type, coexistence with mechanism and communication technologies for smart homes/building applications.
power consumption. In Future work, this work will be Innovative Smart Grid Technologies-Asia (ISGT ASIA), 2015 IEEE: 1–6.
[19] Samuel, S. S. I. 2016. A review of connectivity challenges in IoT-smart
extended to review IoT applications and IoT security home. Big Data and Smart City (ICBDSC), 2016 3rd MEC International
mechanisms to dynamically detect the attacks in IoT, even Conference on: 1–4.
new IoT attacks and raise an alarm in case of any anomaly. [20] Raza, U., Kulkarni, P. & Sooriyabandara, M. 2017. Low Power Wide
Area Networks: An Overview. IEEE Communications Surveys \& Tutorials.
[21] Frantz, T. L. & Carley, K. M. 2005. A formal characterization of cellular
REFERENCES networks.
[22] Hossen, M., Kabir, A., Khan, R. H., Azfar, A. & others. 2010.
[1] Tan, L. & Wang, N. 2010. Future internet: The internet of things. Interconnection between 802.15. 4 devices and IPv6: implications and
Advanced Computer Theory and Engineering (ICACTE), 2010 3rd existing approaches. arXiv preprint arXiv:1002.1146.
International Conference on: V5–376. [23] Azamuddin Bin Ab Rahman, R. J. 2015. Comparison of Internet of
[2] Strategy, I. & Unit, P. 2005. ITU Internet Reports 2005: The internet of Things (IoT) Data Link Protocols.
things. Geneva: International Telecommunication Union (ITU). [24] Alliance, L. 2015. A technical overview of LoRa and LoRaWAN. White
[3] Li, X., Xuan, Z. & Wen, L. 2011. Research on the architecture of trusted Paper, November.
security system based on the internet of things. Intelligent Computation [25] Shreya Shah, T. M. n.d. Security of NFC Data. International Journal of
Technology and Automation (ICICTA), 2011 International Conference on: Advanced Research in Computer Science and Software Engineering, Volume
1172–1175. 6,(ISSN: 2277 128X).
[4]Porkodi, R. & Bhuvaneswari, V. 2014. The Internet of Things (IoT) [26] Hughes, J., Yan, J. & Soga, K. 2015. Development of wireless sensor
applications and communication enabling technology standards: An overview. network using bluetooth low energy (BLE) for construction noise monitoring.
Intelligent Computing Applications (ICICA), 2014 International Conference International Journal on Smart Sensing and Intelligent Systems, 8(2): 1379–
on: 324–329. 1405.
[5]Samie, F., Bauer, L. & Henkel, J. 2016. IoT technologies for embedded [27] Ahmad, A. 2005. Wireless and mobile data networks. John Wiley \&
computing: A survey. Hardware/Software Codesign and System Synthesis Sons. [28] Gomez, C., Oller, J. & Paradells, J. 2012. Overview and evaluation
(CODES+ ISSS), 2016 International Conference on: 1–10. of bluetooth low energy: An emerging low-power wireless technology.
[6] Salman, T. 2015. Internet of Things Protocols and Standards. Sensors, 12(9): 11734–11753.
[7] Affairs, M. of E. n.d. 2015.Internet of Things in the Netherlands [29] Sanchez-Iborra, R. & Cano, M.-D. 2016. State of the art in LP-Wan
Applications trends and potential impact on radio spectrum.Startix solutions for industrial IoT services. Sensors, 16(5): 708.
[8]Paavola, M. 2007. Wireless technologies in process automation-review and [30] Cerruela Garc’\ia, G., Luque Ruiz, I. & Gómez-Nieto, M. Á. 2016. State
an application example. Control Engineering Laboratory, University of Oulu. of the Art, Trends and Future of Bluetooth Low Energy, Near Field
[9] Le, A., Loo, J., Lasebae, A., Aiash, M. & Luo, Y. 2012. 6LoWPAN: a Communication and Visible Light Communication in the Development of
study on QoS security threats and countermeasures using intrusion detection Smart Cities. Sensors, 16(11): 1968.
system approach. International Journal of Communication Systems, 25(9): [31] Frenzel, L. 2012. The Fundamentals of Short-Range Wireless
1189–1212. Technology. ELECTRONIC DESIGN, Oct, 11.
[10] Martha Zemede, K. T. 2015. Explosion of the Internet of Things:What [32] Alarcon-Aquino, V., Dominguez-Jimenez, M. & Ohms, C. 2008. Desing
does it mean for wireless devices?. Keysight Technologies and Implementation of a Security Layer for RFID Systems. Journal of applied
[11] Goursaud, C. & Gorce, J.-M. 2015. Dedicated networks for IoT: research and technology, 6(2): 69–82.
PHY/MAC state of the art and challenges. EAI endorsed transactions on [33] Amin, M., Reaz, M., Jalil, J. & Rahman, L. 2012. Digital modulator and
Internet of Things. demodulator IC for RFID tag employing DSSS and Barker code. Journal of
[12] Gomez, C. & Paradells, J. 2010. Wireless home automation networks: A applied research and technology, 10(6): 819–825.
survey of architectures and technologies. IEEE Communications Magazine, [34] Friess, P. 2013. Internet of things: converging technologies for smart
48(6). environments and integrated ecosystems. River Publishers.
[13] Rathnayaka, A. D., Potdar, V. M. & Kuruppu, S. J. 2011. Evaluation of [35] Lu, C.-W., Li, S.-C. & Wu, Q. 2011. Interconnecting ZigBee and
wireless home automation technologies. Digital Ecosystems and Technologies 6LoWPAN wireless sensor networks for smart grid applications. Sensing
Conference (DEST), 2011 Proceedings of the 5th IEEE International Technology (ICST), 2011 Fifth International Conference on: 267–272.
Conference on: 76–81.

690

View publication stats