Conference Papers

Permanent URI for this collectionhttps://idr.nitk.ac.in/handle/123456789/28506

Browse

Filters

2016 - 20184

Settings

Has files: NoSubject: search.filters.subject.RPL

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    MRPL++: Smarter-HOP for optimizing mobility in RPL
    (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc., 2016) Anand, M.C.R.; Tahiliani, M.P.
    Routing Protocol for Low power and lossy networks (RPL) is a proactive algorithm for Low-power and Lossy Networks (LLNs). Recent growth in Internet of Things (IoT) applications has made proactive handling of mobility apparent. While RPL does not tackle mobility, mRPL addresses it by adopting a proactive Hand-Off strategy. Since this strategy follows a greedy approach to select the next hop, a best route may not be always chosen. This paper proposes mRPL++, an extension of mRPL, to ensure best route selection in mobile scenarios. We have implemented mRPL++ in the Contiki 6LoWPAN/RPL stack and validated it through extensive simulations. © 2016 IEEE.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    TmRPL++: Trust based smarter-HOP for optimized mobility in RPL
    (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc., 2017) Anand, M.C.R.; Tahiliani, M.P.
    Ensuring security in routing protocols designed for Internet of Things (IoT) is more challenging owing to the fact that devices are resource constrained. The need for lightweight security mechanisms is apparent because cryptography based mechanisms have intense computation requirements. Although Routing Protocol for Low power and lossy networks (RPL) inherently comprises a few security mechanisms, it has been shown that those mechanisms are fragile, and additional measures are required to strengthen its security. In this paper, we propose a lightweight trust based security algorithm for RPL, called TmRPL++, to prevent the consequences of routing attacks. TmRPL++ has been implemented and integrated in the Contiki 6LoWPAN/RPL stack, and its functionality has been verified through extensive simulations. © 2016 IEEE.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Survey on routing protocols for Internet of Things
    (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc., 2017) Bhat, A.; Geetha, V.
    As Wireless Sensor Network nodes are ID based network, it would be difficult to monitor the status of the same when it is connected to Internet of Things. So gateway is required to connect the network with Internet. In order to access and manage the network remotely, it is good to have IP based devices connected with each other. As IPv4 is being depleted, IPv6 was a solution for much larger address space. IP connectivity in sensor networks mainly depend on two IETF standards: 6LoWPAN and RPL. Routing protocol in 6LoWPAN is very precise due to limited node's potential. Existing protocol of 6LoWPAN does not satisfy Low power Lossy networks. IETF came up with IPv6 routing protocol for low power Lossy networks called RPL. © 2017 IEEE.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Assessment of objective functions under mobility in RPL
    (Springer Verlag, 2018) Sanshi, S.; Jaidhar, J.
    Due to the technological advancement in Low-power and Lossy Network (LLN), the sensor node mobility has become a basic requirement. Routing protocol designed for LLN must ensure certain requirements in a mobile environment such as reliability, flexibility, scalability to name a few. To meet the needs of LLN, Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) released the standard IPv6 Routing Protocol for LLNs (RPL). RPL depends on Objective Function (OF) to select optimized routes from source to destination. However, the standard did not specify which OF to use. In this study, performance analysis of different OFs such as Objective Function zero (OF0), Energy-based Objective Function (OFE), Delay-Efficient Objective Function (OFDE), and Minimum Rank with Hysteresis Objective Function (MRHOF) is carried out under different mobility models, which makes this study unique. The metrics used to measure the performance are latency, packet delivery ratio (PDR), and power consumption. Simulation results demonstrate that under different mobility models, MRHOF achieved better results in terms of PDR and power consumption, while OFDE shows better results in terms of latency compared to other OFs. © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018.