=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-1548/059-Osorio
|storemode=property
|title=Comparative Study of Performance for 804.15.4 ZigBee and 6LoWPAN Protocols
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1548/059-Osorio.pdf
|volume=Vol-1548
|authors=O. A. Gracia Osorio,Brayan S. Reyes Dazai, Octavio J. Salcedo
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/sofsem/OsorioDS16
}}
==Comparative Study of Performance for 804.15.4 ZigBee and 6LoWPAN Protocols==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1548/059-Osorio.pdf
Comparative Study of Performance for 804.15.4
ZigBee and 6LoWPAN Protocols
O.A. Gracia Osorio1 , Brayan S. Reyes Dazai2 , and Octavio J. Salcedo1,2
1
Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá D.C., Colombia
internetinteligente@correo.udistrital.edu.co,osalcedo@udistrital.edu.co
2
Universidad Distrital Francisco José de Caldas, Bogotá D.C., Colombia
bsreyesd@correo.udistrital.edu.co
Abstract. This paper addresses the low power mechanisms provided by
the ZigBee and the 6LoWPAN Protocol, providing comparative assess-
ments based on the results obtained by different researchers and available
in specialized literature, running through experimental measurements on
digital test banks. For a performance comparison, the parameters of each
protocol have been adjusted so that it is able to function properly in low
power mode and make the measurement scenarios equivalent in terms
of traffic and energy efficiency. The comparison focuses on the impact of
the mechanisms of low power in the performance of the network. Expe-
rimental evaluations mentioned, show strengths and weaknesses of both
protocols when working in a low power mode.
Keywords: ZigBee, 6LoWPAN, network protocols, efficiency
1 Introduction
The gravitational nucleus formed by the concepts of Web 2.0 and the Internet of
things (IoT) is moving towards Web applications and concepts of services looking
for greater integration and greater accessibility, in the light of new paradigms of
”at any time” and ”at anywhere”. The future of the Internet is based on these
”bricks” willing to form a dynamic entity, producing new means of interaction
with the services, other users and the environment [3, 5]. Networks of wireless
sensors (WSN) have been recognized as a very important part of the concept of
interconnected network, which aims to monitor the environment or any situation
that you want to control, allowing an interaction with a remote control device in
the same field. Data sampling can be carried out over a large area through the
distribution of sensors. For years, wireless technology has been the new means
of communication of this type of network. However, to meet the current and
the future standards and to ensure the accessibility of all nodes in a network
of sensors, the use of the IP and in particular IPv6 seems inevitable. From the
fact that a node must be economic, the calculation of the power and energy
storage capacity is limited. In order to overcome the fact that the classical IP
are the limiting factor, two new protocols have been developed, they are called
60 O.A. Gracia Osorio, et al.
6LoWPAN (about IPv6), Low - Power Wireless Personal Area Networks, and
Zigbee [11].
The present study aims to compare the performance of the modes of low
consume operation of IEEE 802.15.4 / ZigBee and 6LoWPAN, for a wireless
network of industrial sensors - WSN. Therefore the first part describes the two
protocols with an approach to low power mechanisms that are implemented and
their capabilities. As it follows we cited the results of actual comparisons of both
protocols in a digital test bank, focusing on the impact of the mechanisms of
low power on the performance of the network. Since these mechanisms of low-
work power put some nodes at rest in order to decrease their cycle, the protocol
comparison is made by making them work on the same platform HWSW, un-
der the same workload and using the same cycle. To accomplish this, we need
a preliminary adjustment of the operating parameters of the two protocols. Such
tuning is not simple, just as the mode of low power consumption implemented
by the two protocols, and therefore, the relevant parameters are significantly
different [14].
2 Related Work
WSN Internet interconnection has been widely investigated in recent years. At
the beginning of the WSN era, the researchers focused on the development of
dedicated systems, then very specialized, but non-standardized protocols were
designed. Although these systems were generally efficient in specific application
scenarios, they lacked flexibility: the development of new applications required
much time and it was a very cumbersome job. As a remedy to this, the standard
6LoWPAN is proposed as a viable method to carry IPv6 WSNs [4]. This has
obvious advantages, such as the fast connectivity and compatibility with existing
architectures, plug - and - play, rapid development of applications as well as the
possibility of integration with existing web services developed for the IF standard
for networks [3]. Several studies of performance of the IEEE 802.15.4 / ZigBee
exist in the literature, carried out by experimental measurements, simulations
and analytical models. A detailed analytical assessment of the performance of
IEEE 802.15.4 network is provided in [1], they consider both saturated as un-
saturated traffic scenarios. Both models, the analytical and the simulation for
the analysis, are used in [6], to evaluate the performance of the low-power IEEE
802.15.4 Protocol ZigBee. All of these works, however, only provide some pa-
rameters, without any comparison with other protocols. This document aims to
compare the performance of the low consumption operating modes of the ZigBee
and 6LoWPAN protocols.
The 6LoWPAN Protocol is attracting the attention of the market and the
researchers, thanks to the new possibilities with the integration of WSN and
Internet technologies. In [12], it discusses the main decisions in the design of
6LoWPAN, together with the issues and challenges that must be addressed to
achieve further development. In [16], it proposes a method for 6LoWPAN inside
IPv4 networks, so that IPv4 can also take advantage of the WSN integration.
opment. In (Yum, 2007), it proposes a method for 6LoWPAN inside IPv4 networks,
so that IPv4 can also take advantage of the WSN integration. An adaptation of a stage
6LoWPAN routing algorithm is Comparative
presented inStudy of Performance
(Bocchino, 2011)for... 61
and its experimental
validation in a real test bank, in order to allow simple transmissions in real time. A
An adaptation
comparison of a capabilities
of the stage 6LoWPAN routing
provided by algorithm is presented
some protocols whichinare
[2] and its
competing in the
experimental validation in a real test bank, in order to allow simple transmissions
home automation technologies is offered in (Kovatsch, 2010). However, it is a theo-
in real time. A comparison of the capabilities provided by some protocols which
retical approach and not quantitative, without a quantitative assessment of the perfor-
are competing in the home automation technologies is offered in [9]. However, it
mance of protocols.
is a theoretical approach and not quantitative, without a quantitative assessment
of the performance of protocols.
3 Protocols Under Evaluation
3 Protocols Under Evaluation
3.1
3.1 IEEE 802.15.4/ZigBee
IEEE 802.15.4/ZigBee
The IEEE
The IEEE 802.15.4
802.15.4standard
standard[7](IEEE,
defines physical layers and
2006) defines the wireless
physical layersMedium
and the wireless
Access Control (MAC layer) of low power consumption
Medium Access Control (MAC layer) of low power consumption in wireless personal area personal
in wireless
(WPAN) network. It is a protocol for low rate and power of communications,
area (WPAN) network. It is a protocol for low rate and power of communications,
especially suitable for small embedded devices, such as sensors nodes. The Pro-
especially
tocol allowssuitable
varyingfor
thesmall
nodes embedded
work cyclesdevices,
from 100such
up toasa minimum
sensors nodes. The Protocol
of appro-
allows varying the nodes work cycles from 100 up to a minimum
ximately 0.1 [14]. The IEEE 802.15.4 MAC Protocol has two operating systems: of approximately
0.1
one(Toscano
without the& management
Lo Bello, 2012). The IEEE
framework, 802.15.4
in which MACaccess
the channel Protocol
nodeshasusetwo operat-
ing systems:
a classical one without
mechanism the management
(unslotted) framework,
CSMACA (Multiple Accessin which the channel
with listening to access
carrieruse
nodes andacollision
classicalavoidance)
mechanism and(unslotted)
a mode withCSMACA
enabled Administration
(Multiple Access frame,with listen-
which
ing uses a and
to carrier slotted CSMACA
collision mechanism
avoidance) and awhich
modesupports the duty
with enabled cycle to
Administration frame,
save energy. This Protocol is based on a superplot, structure which
which uses a slotted CSMACA mechanism which supports the duty cycle to save is bounded
by guides, which are submitted by a coordinator in order to synchronize the
energy. This Protocol is based on a superplot, structure which is bounded by guides,
associated nodes [7].
which are submitted by a coordinator in order to synchronize the associated nodes
(IEEE, 2006).
Fig. 1. Superplot of IEEE 802.15.4.
Fig. 1. Superplot of IEEE 802.15.4
The superplots which are shown in Figure 1 are divided into two parts: the active part
and The
the inactive part.
superplots whichTheare
active
shownpart
in is divided
Figure into
1 are 16 connectors
divided of thethe
into two parts: same length,
active part and the inactive part. The active part is divided into 16 connectors
and by the limit of these nodes, the channel can be accessed to transmit information. of
the same length, and by the limit of these nodes, the channel can be accessed
This is divided in turn into two subparts: the Containment Access Period (CAP, for itsto
transmit information.
acronym in English), This is divided
in which the in turn into
media two is
access subparts: the by
regulated Containment
the CSMACA, and
Access Period (CAP, for its acronym in English), in which the media access is
the Proof period of containment (PPC, for its acronym in English), in which you can
regulated by the CSMACA, and the Proof period of containment (PPC, for its
access the channel without dispute. In the inactive part, on the other hand, there is no
62 O.A. Gracia Osorio, et al.
acronym in English), in which you can access the channel without dispute. In
the inactive part, on the other hand, there is no communication and therefore
the nodes can turn their radios out and enter (Suspension) energy saving mode.
The timing of the superplot is governed by two parameters:
– The order between the Bacons (BO) or guidelines, which define the interval
between two guides, which consequently define the duration of the superplot.
This interval is called interval between guides (BI) and is defined as BI= 2BO
– The order of the superplots (SO), which defines the active period of the same
duration. In accordance with the IEEE 802.15.4 standard, must be defined
in the following order: 0≤SO≤BO≤14.
As the nodes sleep in the period of inactivity of the superplot, the duty cycle
(DC) of this only depends on the structure of the superplot, and it can be
specified as:
DC = SD BI = 2
(IO)
(1)
Where IO = SO − BO is called the order of inactivity.
When using IEEE 802.15.4 devices in their low-power protocols with the
Guide element enabled, two data of different transfer protocols are used to
achieve communication between a coordinator and its devices. In the case that
a packet must be sent from a device to which the one that acts as Coordinator,
it is used a direct-drive mechanism. In this Protocol, the device waits for the
plot Guide, sent by the Coordinator, to synchronize with the superplot. Then,
it sends data from one of the slots of the superplot. To run the reception of
the package, the Coordinator sends an acknowledgement of receipt to complete
the transmission. This last point, however, is optional. Two different forwarding
protocols are defined by the ZigBee specification: a protocol for routing based
on the Ad hoc on - demand distance of the Vector (AODV, for its acronym in
English), and a routing protocol tree which forwards the packets to the following
hierarchy of coordinators. Topologies of star and group of trees can take advan-
tage of the feature of low power consumption. However, the star topology can
only be used for small networks, while tree cluster topology is suitable for larger
sensor networks. For this reason, this document focuses on the topologies of the
trees with tree routing cluster [14]. The ZigBee Networks used on its enabled
guide mode, allow deterministic cycles of service nodes, since they depend on
parameters of the superplot, according to equation (1). These parameters can
be set at design time in order to comply with the requirements of the network
in terms of energy consumption. However, the waiting time for the next active
superplot and the increase of the complexity and the overhead expenses of indi-
rect communication can affect the performance of sensitive data transmissions
at the same time, especially in the case of multi-hop networks cluster of trees.
3.2 6LoWPAN
The 6LoWPAN [10] protocol specification allows IPv6 communications over low-
power wireless devices. In particular, the RFC 6LoWPAN standard defines the
Comparative Study of Performance for... 63
network layer of WPAN based on IP, using the IEEE 802.15.4 standard in layers
of physical access. The main reason for developing 6LoWPAN was that common
IPv6 standard is too bulky for small embedded devices, such as sensors nodes.
The standard IP protocol could not fit for WSN for several reasons. For example,
the standard IPv6 header is 40 bytes, which is comparable to (or even larger),
the data from the sensor that is transmitted through a WSN. An additional
overload of 20 bytes is introduced by the TCP Protocol respectively.
Taking into account that the maximum size of plot in the MAC layer is 102
bytes, or even smaller when the link layer security is enabled, just a few bytes
would be available for data transmissions. On the other hand, IPv6 minimum
maximum transfer unit is 1280 bytes (RFC 2460), which is much larger than
the maximum for the IEEE 802.15.4. Therefore, it needs a little fragmentation.
Another of the problems raised by the support of IP over IEEE 802.15.4 MAC
and physical are the scheme of addressing and the routing mechanism. In fact, IP
and IEEE 802.15.4 have different protocols for address and routing that cannot
handle nodes in sleep mode. Therefore, 6LoWPAN introduces an adaptation
layer between the MAC and the network layer, which compresses the header to
a few bytes, keeping the main features of IPv6. The guarantee of adaptation of
6LoWPAN layer, introduces support mechanisms to the fragmentation and to
the reassembly, when compressing the headers, and carries out the assignment
of addresses between IPv6 and IEEE 802.15.4. The details of these mechanisms,
however, are outside the scope of this work.
Fig. 2. Low Power Listening
The 6LoWPAN specification does not provide any specific mechanism to
achieve low-power communication, but it depends on the bottom layer approaches.
64 O.A. Gracia Osorio, et al.
The simplest solution to achieve energy efficiency in 6LoWPAN networks could
be the exploitation of the low-power capabilities of the IEEE 802.15.4 protocol
with enabled Guide. However, while the MAC layer could theoretically work
both in enabled mode as in not enabled, all 6LoWPAN current implementations
only support the Protocol not enabled. The main reason for not applying the
communication without a guide in 6LoWPAN is that IP protocols assume that
the link is always active. This is for the sake of simplicity, so that IP protocols
do not need to program transmissions of datagrams. Therefore, 6LoWPAN uses
techniques that give the illusion that the upper layers in the receiver are always
active, although actually it only happens part of the time. Most of 6LoWPAN
implementations use low powers of listening to power (LPL), a technique that
allows the nodes to access channel asynchronously in a fully distributed network.
The Operation behind LPL is as follows. A node periodically wakes, lights
and so do the activity controls. If no activity is detected, the node turns off
the receiver and returns to its state of rest, or otherwise, the rooms stay turned
on until the packet is received or, in the case of a false positive, until a timer
expires. A graphical representation of the LPL operations is shown in Figure 2.
4 Performance Evaluation
Benchmarking is done in two different test scenarios, in which the nodes have
the same configuration, but the sending node transmission period (and therefore
workload) is different. The first scenario emulates an application of detection
of low power where the monitored phenomenon has slow dynamics, and where
the sensor node sends packets of data with a period of 20s. The second scenario
emulates a WSN application with a faster dynamics, where the shipping period is
400ms. It should be noted that the difference in shipping period also changes for
the 6LoWPAN‘s working cycles. The topology of the network, as in the scenarios
is the same as shown in Figure 3. All nodes in the IEEE 802.15.4 ZigBee network
share the same superplot settings and, therefore, the same working cycle. Four
different settings of superplot have been used for the net IEEE 802.15.4 ZigBee,
with different working cycles and, therefore, different energy saving capabilities.
The first setting uses a BO of 3, which is a smaller guide, which offers sufficient
security of transmission, with this BO we use an OS, which in turn is the smallest
SO that provides sufficient reliability of transmission. We get a cycle of 0.25. To
further reduce the duty cycle, the superplot is set using a Guide order of 5. In
Table 1. Superplot Settings for the IEEE 802.15.4 / ZigBee Networks
Name of the Setting BO SO DC
ZigBee 1 3 1 0,25
ZigBee 2 5 1 0,06
ZigBee 3 5 2 0,12
ZigBee 4 5 3 0,25
Comparative Study of Performance for... 65
this way, we have been able to work down to 0.06 cycles. The details of these
configurations are shown in Table 1.
The 6LoWPAN settings (BI and SI) have been selected to provide the emitter
node with the same working cycle as the IEEE 802.15.4 / ZigBee network. It
also depends on the shipping period, so we use different configurations in the
two scenarios.
4.1 Scenario 1 - Tsend = 20s
By solving the following equation:
AI SI + Tpkt + Dtx
DC = + (1)
SI + AI Tsend
With SI (interval of inactivity) as unknown and the value specified for the other
parameters, according to [14], achieves a SI of 162 and 492ms allows a cycle of
work of 0.12 and 0.25, respectively, with a period of shipment of 20s and the
AI (activity interval) of 51.2ms standard. However, with the use of these LPL
parameters is not possible to achieve a work of 0.06 cycle such as the stage 2
with ZigBee. For this reason, after tried to reduce the AI parameter to half the
value of the MAX LPL, the CCA executes permanent control. In this way, by
designing an AI of 25.6ms, we are able to achieve a duty cycle of 0.06, through
the use of a SI of 606ms. The settings that were used in the LPL for this scenario
are summarized in Table 2.
Table 2. LPL Settings for 6LoWPAN IEEE 802.15.4 Networks
Config Name AI (ms) SI (ms) DC
6LoWPAN-1 25.6 606 0.06
6LoWPAN-2 51.2 492 0.12
6LoWPAN-3 51.2 162 0.25
The experiment consisted of sending 1300 packages and record the times of
transmission and reception of each packet. The log files are then used to calculate
three performance metrics:
• The delay from end to end, calculated as the difference between the date
and time of an event of reception and the date and time of the event of
corresponding transmission.
• The time of update is the time interval between two consecutive events for
the reception of packages.
• The relationship of delivery, which is the percentage of received packets over
the total number of sent packets successfully.
66 O.A. Gracia Osorio, et al.
4.2 End-to-end Delay
The cumulative distribution function (CDF) of the experiments in delays from
end to end for all measurement activities are represented in Figure 3, while the
average delay and standard deviation are shown in Table 4. Here it is possible
to see that the delay from end to end of the 802.15.4 / ZigBee IEEE network is
strongly influenced by the beacon interval. In fact, the ZigBee configuration - 1
with a Guide order of 3 has less delay than in the ZigBee - 4 configuration that
has the same working cycle but with a Guide order of 5. The delay from end
to end of the 6LoWPAN configurations are also very influenced by the cycle of
work regarding the network configurations with 0.25 and 0.12 duty cycle, we can
see that 6LoWPAN has a smaller average delay, but with a considerably larger
standard deviation than IEEE 802.15.4 ZigBee.
In Figure 3 you can see that, taking into account the ZigBee - 1 and 6LoW-
PAN - 3 scenarios with a duty cycle of 0.25, although the average delay is smaller,
in this last protocol is larger, the ZigBee delay - 1 is approximately of 200 MS,
which is much smaller than the 6LoWPAN - 3. However, when considering the
scenarios that have a cycle of 0,12 (ZigBee - 3 y 6LoWPAN-2), the 6LoWPAN
Protocol provides a smaller delay than IEEE 802.15.4 / ZigBee most of the time.
Finally, from Table 4, it is possible to observe that the decrease in the length
of the AI in the 6LoWPAN - 1 configuration, has a serious negative impact on
the performance of the network, since both, the delay and the increase in the
standard deviation of some of them will mean an order of magnitude. As a re-
sult, the ZigBee - 2 configurations with the same cycle of 0.06 clearly exceeds
6LoWPAN - 1.
Fig. 3. CDF Delay from End to End
Comparative Study of Performance for... 67
4.3 Time Update and Distribution Relationship.
In terms of the CDF of the times of update, in Figure 4, we see that IEEE
802.15.4 / ZigBee achieves smaller time intervals between consecutive packets
receptions. Due to the fact that TelosB nodes have a slightly shorter symbol
time than the expected by the standard, the actual shipping period is shorter
than 20s, and in particular is about 19, 07s. Therefore, the smaller update times
of the IEEE 802.15.4 / ZigBee configuration are closer to the 6LoWPAN. Once
again, the 6LoWPAN - 1 configuration shows much better performance than the
other configurations. Finally, we see in the ZigBee – 1 configuration, that there
are some sporadic cases where the update time is twice the theoretical value.
A closer look at Figure 4 reveals that this also occurs for the other configuration
of IEEE 802.15.4 / ZigBee, but with a lesser probability.
This result is due to packet loss, if a packet is lost, the update time is recorded
in the next reception of packets, and therefore doubled the time of update.
Regarding the relationship of distribution, in Figure 5, we see that the 802.15.4
/ ZigBee IEEE network experiences some loss of packets, which increases when
the order guide decreases. One possible explanation for this behavior is that this
packet loss is due to some problems of synchronization due to the variability of
real beacon intervals. In the figure we see also that 6LoWPAN with the default
value of IA (51.2ms) has the best performance in terms of packets received (but
the ZigBee with BO = 5 configuration is just marginally less). On the Opposite,
the 6LoWPAN -1 with the smaller AI settings has better performance in all
aspects.
Fig. 4. Update Times CDF
4.4 Scenario 2 – Tsend = 400ms
The smaller shipping period of this scenario makes the 6LoWPAN- 1 confi-
gurations and 6LoWPAN - 2 to be unusable, because their sleep intervals are
68 O.A. Gracia Osorio, et al.
comparable to the shipment times, and this would lead to congestion in the
network. Configuration 6LoWPAN - 3 is still usable, but the comparison with
the other networks would be unfair, since the cycle of this configuration is 0.7
considering the 400ms of shipping in each period. It is possible to see that 0.25
or smaller working cycles are not reachable at all with this period of shipping
and with the IA by default. On the other hand, it was seen that the decrease
in the duration of active intervals causes a degradation of performance, for this
reason, it was decided to compare the performance of the same configuration of
802.15.4 / ZigBee IEEE stage 1 against the 6LoWPAN settings that provides
the smallest work cycle for the shipping, it is possible to see that the optimum
is a SI of 92ms which provides a 0.64 duty cycle with the default value of AI
51.2ms. We refer to this network configuration such as 6LoWPAN - 4. The same
performance data observed for stage - 1 were also calculated for the stage - 2.
In the CDF of end-to-end delay in packets, we see basically the same trends
that were observed for the stage - 1 the delays of the IEEE 802.15.4 / ZigBee
are almost identical to those shown in Figure 3.
5 Discussion of Results
Several authors have examined the performance of 6LoWPAN and ZigBee proto-
cols independently. A project os IETF 15 assesses the ZigBee Protocol whereas
several routing scenarios of real-life. Malisa Vucinic, Bernard Tourancheau and
Andrzej Duda, made a comparison of the performance of the RPL and LOADng
protocols proposed by the IETF for low-power and high-complexity based net-
works on the IPv6/6LoWPAN.
ZigBee is a network layer built on the IEEE MAC 802.15.4 standard, designed
to provide a protocol based on the standards for the interoperability of the
sensors networks. 6LoWPAN, the new buzz word, seems to be competing heavily
with ZigBee.
In essence, 6LoWPAN products have entered the market as the ZigBee direct
competition, since they can use the mentioned standard (802.15.4), and even
better, they can work with other PHY and allows seamless integration with other
IP-based systems. 6LoWPAN is an acronym of IPv6 via Low-Power Wireless
Personal Area Networks; the name originated in the Working Group in the IETF.
– 6LoWPAN vs. ZigBee: Wireless Protocol Interoperability
ZigBee defines communication between 802.15.4 nodes (Layer2 in the IP World),
and then defines new upper layers for all the way to the application. This means
that ZigBee devices can interoperate with other ZigBee devices, assuming that
they use the same profile (similar to Bluetooth). Besides the 6LoWPAN Protocol
provides interoperability with other wireless 802.15.4 devices as well as devices in
any other IP network link (for example, Ethernet or Wi-Fi), with a simple bridge
device. To build a bridge between non-ZigBee and ZigBee networks requires
a more complex gateway at the application layer.
Comparative Study of Performance for... 69
The key requirement for IPv6 on 802.15.4 is that the Maximum Transmission
Unit (MTU), must be at least 1280 bytes packages (by RFC 2460). Since the
IEEE 802.15.4 standard packet size is 127 bytes, an adaptation layer must be
implemented to allow the transmission of IPv6 datagrams.
– 6LoWPAN vs. ZigBee: Size of Stack / Overload of Packages
When comparing ZigBee and 6LoWPAN over 802.15.4, the professional should be
familiar with the package format and general costs, since this is directly related
to the ease of scaling the network and the available space for payload data.
Although there are alternative ways, typical configurations are shown below.
The IP routing over 6LoWPAN links, does not necessarily require additional
header information in the 6LoWPAN. Layer. This reduces the overload of packets
and allows more room for the payload data. Moreover, the size of the typical
code of a pile with all the functions is 90 KB for ZigBee and only 30 KB for
6LoWPAN.
Fig. 5. Diagram of Archrock Supply
Fctrl: Frame control bit fields; Dep: Destination endpoint; Clst: Cluster iden-
tifier; Prof: Profile identifier; Sep: Source endpoint and APS: APT counter (for
the prevention of duplicate sequence).
– 6LoWPAN vs. ZigBee: Availability and Cost
The major players in the industry of semiconductors, such as Texas Instruments,
Freescale and Atmel, promote, and provide 802.15.4 tabs that can be used, either
for ZigBee or 6LoWPAN. These same companies even offer free ZigBee stacks.
The Support for 6LoWPAN stacks seems to be behind ZigBee. There is at least
one available open source stack, and some companies such as Archrock and
Sensinode licensed their own 6LoWPAN stacks. In summary, 6LoWPAN is quite
attractive, since it is based on IP - the standard work of Internet Protocol.
However, ZigBee seems to be more popular and has been adopted by the main
actors in multiple industries.
70 O.A. Gracia Osorio, et al.
6 Conclusions
This work was directed to an evaluation of the comparative performance of the
IEEE 802.15.4 / ZigBee and 6LoWPAN protocols for industrial WSNs. The do-
cument offers several contributions. First, a theoretical analysis of the low-power
characteristics of the two protocols, which are used as the basis of a metho-
dology to tune the configuration parameters of low-power of the two protocols (it
means., the BO and SO for 802.15.4 / ZigBee, and the AI and SI for 6LoWPAN)
in order to achieve a working cycle in a realistic test bank built with COTS
Hardware and open source software. And seconds, the experimental comparative
evaluation in a digital test bank, that allow to highlight the strengths and the
weaknesses of both protocols when working in the mode of low consumption.
From these assessments arise tips for the designer of the network, allowing him
to select the technology that best suits the purpose of performance, to properly
achieve a given duty cycle, or a maximum delay.
The 802.15.4 IEEE protocol allows a network designer to carry out energy
planning by adjusting the cycle nodes work, but the implementation has to be
carefully done because of the possible problems superimposed on the superplot.
On the other hand, 6LoWPAN does not require any synchronization between
nodes, but their cycle should depend on the general effectiveness of the load, and
this makes it more difficult to plan the working cycle and therefore the power
consumption. The results of experimental evaluations show that the 802.15.4
/ ZigBee IEEE network is able to support smaller working cycles and provide
minor final delays with updating times that are a little closer to the theoretical
value than the 6LoWPAN. On the other hand, the 6LoWPAN network shows
that average delays are minor from end to end and thus, provides greater relia-
bility; this is a lower percentage of packet loss.
References
1. Al., P. S.: Performance Analysis of Slotted Carrier Sense IEEE 802.15.4
Medium Access Layer. IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 7(9),
pp. 3359–3371 (2008)
2. Bocchino, S., et al.: SPEED routing protocol in 6LoWPAN networks. IEEE Conf.
on Emerging Technologies & Factury Automation (2011)
3. Castellani, A.P., Buit, N., Casari, P., et al.: Architecture and Protocols for the
Internet of Things: A Case Study. IEEE, vol. 3(10), pp. 678–684 (2010)
4. Dunkels, A., Vasseur, J.P.: IP for Smart Objects. Recuperado el 02 de 11 de 2014,
http://www.ipso-alliance.org/white-papers (2008)
5. GmbH, 2.-2. E.: Future Internet Assembly. European Future Internet Portal (2008)
http://www.future-internet.eu
6. Huang, Y., Pang, A.Y.: A comprehensive analysis of low-power operation for
beacon-enabled IEEE 802.15.4 wireless networks. IEEE Transactions Wireless
Communications, vol. 8(11), pp. 5601–5611 (2009)
7. IEEE: IEEE Estandar para Tecnologı́as de la Información, Telecomunicaciones e
Intercambio de Información Entre Sistemas, para redes Locales y Metropolitanas,
Parte 15,4: Wireless Medium Access Control (MAC) y Physical Layer (PHY).
IEEE Standards (2006)
Comparative Study of Performance for... 71
8. Iyer, G., Agrawal, P., Cardozo, R.: Performance comparison of Routing Protocols
over Smart Utility Networks: A Simulation Study. 5th IEEE International Work-
shop on Management of Emerging Networks and Services, Atlanta, Georgia (2013)
9. Kovatsch, M. W.: Embedding internet technology for home automation. IEEE
Conference on Emerging Technology and Factory Automation, Bilbao (2010)
10. Kushalnagar, N., Montenegro, G., Culler, D.E., Hui, J.W.: Transmission of IPv6
Packets over IEEE 802.15.4 Networks. Online (2007) http://tools.ietf.org/
html/rfc4944
11. Mazzer, Y., Tourancheau, B.: Third International Conference on Sensor Technolo-
gies and Applications. Comparisons of 6LoWPAN Implementations on Wireless
Sensor Networks, Atenas, Grecia (2009)
12. Mulligan, G.: The 6LoWPAN architecture. In: Proccedings of 4th workshop on
Embedded networked sensors, Cork, Irlanda (2007)
13. Sha, M.H.: Energy-Efficient Low Power Listening for Wireless Sensor Networks in
Noisy Environments. Technical Report (2011)
14. Toscano, E., Lo Bello, L.: Comparative assessments of IEEE 802.15.4/ZigBee and
6LoWPAN for low-power industrial WSNs in realistic scenarios. In: IEEE, vol.
8(12), pp. 115–125 (2012)
15. Vucinic, M., Tourancheau, B., Duda, A.: Performance Comparison of the RPL
and LOADng Routing Protocols in a Home Automation Scenario. IEEE Wireless
Communications and Networking Conference, Shanghai, China (2013)
16. Yum, C.Y.: Methods to use 6LoWPAN in IPv4 network. The 9th International
Conference on Advanced Communication Technology, New York, USA (2007)