Challenging the IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPL): A Survey

被引:186
作者
Kim, Hyung-Sin [1 ]
Ko, Jeonggil [2 ]
Culler, David E. [1 ]
Paek, Jeongyeup [3 ]
机构
[1] Univ Calif Berkeley, Dept Elect Engn & Comp Sci, Berkeley, CA 94720 USA
[2] Ajou Univ, Dept Software & Comp Engn, Suwon 16499, South Korea
[3] Chung Ang Univ, Sch Comp Sci & Engn, Seoul 06974, South Korea
基金
新加坡国家研究基金会;
关键词
RPL; IPv6; routing protocol; Internet of Things (IoT); low-power and lossy networks (LLN); WIRELESS SENSOR NETWORKS; PERFORMANCE; MOBILITY; DELIVERY; PLC;
D O I
10.1109/COMST.2017.2751617
中图分类号
TP [自动化技术、计算机技术];
学科分类号
0812 ;
摘要
RPL is the IPv6 routing protocol for low-power and lossy networks, standardized by IETF in 2012 as RFC6550. Specifically, RPL is designed to be a simple and inter-operable networking protocol for resource-constrained devices in industrial, home, and urban environments, intended to support the vision of the Internet of Things with thousands of devices interconnected through multihop mesh networks. More than four-years have passed since the standardization of RPL, and we believe that it is time to examine and understand its current state. In this paper, we review the history of research efforts in RPL; what aspects have been (and have not been) investigated and evaluated, how they have been studied, what was (and was not) implemented, and what remains for future investigation. We reviewed over 97 RPL-related academic research papers published by major academic publishers and present a topic-oriented survey for these research efforts. Our survey shows that only 40.2% of the papers evaluate RPL through experiments using implementations on real embedded devices, ContikiOS and TinyOS are the two most popular implementations (92.3%), and TelosB was the most frequently used hardware platform (69%) on testbeds that have average and median size of 49.4 and 30.5 nodes, respectively. Furthermore, unfortunately, despite it being approximately four years since its initial standardization, we are yet to see wide adoption of RPL as part of real-world systems and applications. We present our observations on the reasons behind this and suggest directions on which RPL should evolve.
引用
收藏
页码:2502 / 2525
页数:24
相关论文
共 161 条
[1]   Reliable Data Delivery With the IETF Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks [J].
Ancillotti, Emilio ;
Bruno, Raffaele ;
Conti, Marco .
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUSTRIAL INFORMATICS, 2014, 10 (03) :1864-1877
[2]   The Role of the RPL Routing Protocol for Smart Grid Communications [J].
Ancillotti, Emilio ;
Bruno, Raffaele ;
Conti, Marco .
IEEE COMMUNICATIONS MAGAZINE, 2013, 51 (01) :75-83
[3]   Enabling Synergy in IoT: Platform to Service and Beyond [J].
Andersen, Michael P. ;
Fierro, Gabe ;
Culler, David E. .
PROCEEDINGS 2016 IEEE FIRST INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON INTERNET-OF-THINGS DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION IOTDI 2016, 2016, :1-12
[4]   Design and Evaluation of an RPL-based Multi-Sink Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks [J].
Andrea, Kevin ;
Simon, Robert .
MSWIM'15: PROCEEDINGS OF THE 18TH ACM INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MODELING, ANALYSIS AND SIMULATION OF WIRELESS AND MOBILE SYSTEMS, 2015, :141-150
[5]   The Impact of Rank Attack on Network Topology of Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks [J].
Anhtuan Le ;
Loo, Jonathan ;
Lasebae, Aboubaker ;
Vinel, Alexey ;
Chen, Yue ;
Chai, Michael .
IEEE SENSORS JOURNAL, 2013, 13 (10) :3685-3692
[6]  
[Anonymous], 2014, J. Adv. Comput. Sci. Technol., DOI DOI 10.14419/JACST.V3I2.3321
[7]  
[Anonymous], 2007, RFC 4728: the dynamic source routing protocol (DSR) for mobile ad hoc networks for IPv4
[8]  
[Anonymous], P AIMS C BRNO CZECH
[9]  
[Anonymous], 2013 47 ANN C INF SC
[10]  
[Anonymous], 2011, P INT C SENS TECHN A