Mostrar registro simples

dc.creatorLuna, Davi Souza de
dc.date.accessioned2026-05-27T15:52:55Z
dc.date.available2026-05-27T15:52:55Z
dc.date.issued2026-05-06
dc.identifier.urihttps://repositorio.ifpe.edu.br/xmlui/handle/123456789/2199
dc.description.abstractIoT applications require reliable, efficient, and secure communication due to their distributed and resourceconstrained nature. Message Queuing Telemetry Transport (MQTT) is widely adopted in these environments for its lightweight design, requiring minimal resources and optimizing network bandwidth. However, it still faces performance issues due to TCP and Transport Layer Security (TLS) overhead. Quick UDP Internet Connections (QUIC) has emerged as a promising alternative to improve communication performance. However, existing performance studies lack evaluations of MQTT over QUIC under low latency and unstable network conditions. This paper compares the performance of MQTT over QUIC, TCP, and TCP+TLS in a virtualized IoT environment. The performance evaluation follows a well-established approach and analyses latency and connection establishment time as key metrics under stable and unstable conditions. Results highlight the potential of QUIC as an efficient and secure alternative for IoT communication.pt_BR
dc.format.extent6f. : il.pt_BR
dc.languageenpt_BR
dc.relationRana Alharbi and David Aspinall. An iot analysis framework: An investigation of iot smart cameras’ vulnerabilities. In Living in the Internet of Things: Cybersecurity of the IoT - 2018, pages 1–10, March 2018. Andrew Banks, Ed Briggs, Ken Borgendale, and Rahul Gupta. Mqtt version 5.0. https://docs.oasis-open.org/mqtt/mqtt/v5.0/mqtt-v5.0.html, 2019. OASIS Standard. F´atima Fern´andez, Mihail Zverev, Pablo Garrido, Jos´e R. Ju´arez, Josu Bilbao, and Ram´on Ag¨uero. And quic meets iot: performance assessment of mqtt over quic. In 2020 16th International Conference on Wireless and Mobile Computing, Networking and Communications (WiMob), pages 1–6, Oct 2020. Faheem Iqbal, Moneeb Gohar, Hani Alquhayz, Seok-Joo Koh, and Jin- Ghoo Choi. Performance evaluation of amqp over quic in the internetof- thing networks. Journal of King Saud University - Computer and Information Sciences, 35(4):1–9, 2023. Jana Iyengar and Martin Thomson. Rfc 9000: Quic: A udp-based multiplexed and secure transport. Omtermet Emgomeeromg Task Force, 2021. Raj Jain. The Art of Computer Systems Performance Analysis: Techniques For Experimental Design, Measurement, Simulation, and Modeling. John Wiley & Sons, New York, United State of America, 09 1991. Amir Javadpour, Guojun Wang, and Samira Rezaei. Resource management in a peer to peer cloud network for iot. Wirel. Pers. Commun., 115(3):2471–2488, December 2020. William H Kruskal and W Allen Wallis. Use of ranks in one-criterion variance analysis. Journal of the American statistical Association, 47(260):583–621, 1952. Puneet Kumar and Behnam Dezfouli. Implementation and analysis of quic for mqtt. Computer Networks, 150:28–45, 2019. Elizabeth Liri, Prateek Kumar Singh, Abdulrahman BIN Rabiah, Koushik Kar, Kiran Makhijani, and KK Ramakrishnan. Robustness of iot application protocols to network impairments. In 2018 IEEE International Symposium on Local and Metropolitan Area Networks (LANMAN), pages 97–103. IEEE, 2018. Eduardo Magrani. A Internet of Things. FGV Editora, Rio de Janeiro, 2018. Text in Portuguese. Michael Scharf and Sebastian Kiesel. Nxg03-5: Head-of-line blocking in tcp and sctp: Analysis and measurements. In IEEE Globecom 2006, pages 1–5, Nov 2006. Victor Seoane, Carlos Garcia-Rubio, Florina Almenares, and Celeste Campo. Performance evaluation of coap and mqtt with security support for iot environments. Computer Networks, 197:108338, 2021. Wentao Shang, Yingdi Yu, Ralph Droms, and Lixia Zhang. Challenges in iot networking via tcp/ip architecture. Technical Report NDN-0038, NDN Project, February 2016. Emiliano Sisinni, Abusayeed Saifullah, Song Han, Ulf Jennehag, and Mikael Gidlund. Industrial internet of things: Challenges, opportunities, and directions. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, 14(11):4724–4734, Nov 2018. Erik Sy, Christian Burkert, Hannes Federrath, and Mathias Fischer. A quic look at web tracking. Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies, 2019:255–266, 07 2019. M Thomson and S Turner. Rfc 9001: Using tls to secure quic, 2021. Emanuel Vieira, Murilo Cervi, Renato Azevedo, and Tiago Rizzetti. Performance and energy efficiency analysis of mqtt and coap protocols in the iot context. In Extended Proceedings of the XXIV Brazilian Symposium on Information and Computational Systems Security, pages 321–327, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil, 2024. SBC. Text in Portuguese. Mostafa Zaman, Nathan Puryear, Sherif Abdelwahed, and Nasibeh Zohrabi. A review of iot-based smart city development and management. Smart Cities, 7(3):1462–1501, 2024. Xumiao Zhang, Shuowei Jin, Yi He, Ahmad Hassan, Z Morley Mao, Feng Qian, and Zhi-Li Zhang. Quic is not quick enough over fast internet. In Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2024, pages 2713– 2722, 2024.pt_BR
dc.rightsAcesso Abertopt_BR
dc.subjectQUIC ( Quick UDP Internet Connections )pt_BR
dc.subjectMQTT ( Message Queuing Telemetry Transport )pt_BR
dc.subjectTCP (Transmission Control Protocol)pt_BR
dc.subjectIoTpt_BR
dc.subjectAvaliação de desempenhopt_BR
dc.subjectInternet das coisaspt_BR
dc.titleMQTT Over QUIC: Comparison with TCP and TCP+TLS in a Virtualized IoT Environmentpt_BR
dc.typeArticlept_BR
dc.identifier.doiDOI: https://doi.org/10.23919/softcom66362.2025.11197418pt_BR
dc.creator.Latteshttp://lattes.cnpq.br/0991253084102273pt_BR
dc.contributor.advisor1Farias, Ramon Mota de Souza
dc.contributor.advisor1Latteshttp://lattes.cnpq.br/2865254720853016pt_BR
dc.contributor.advisor-co1Cavalcanti, David Junio Mota
dc.contributor.advisor-co1Latteshttp://lattes.cnpq.br/8585426872891843pt_BR
dc.contributor.referee1Farias, Ramon Mota de Souza
dc.contributor.referee2Lima, Allan Diego Silva
dc.contributor.referee3Queiroz, Anderson Apolônio Lira
dc.contributor.referee1Latteshttp://lattes.cnpq.br/2865254720853016pt_BR
dc.contributor.referee2Latteshttp://lattes.cnpq.br/9459314439932852pt_BR
dc.contributor.referee3Latteshttp://lattes.cnpq.br/0652960425058437pt_BR
dc.publisher.departmentIgarassupt_BR
dc.publisher.countryBrasilpt_BR
dc.subject.cnpqCIENCIAS EXATAS E DA TERRA::CIENCIA DA COMPUTACAO::SISTEMAS DE COMPUTACAOpt_BR
dc.description.resumoAplicações de IoT exigem comunicação confiável, eficiente e segura devido à sua natureza distribuída e com recursos limitados. O protocolo MQTT (Message Queuing Telemetry Transport) é amplamente adotado nesses ambientes por seu design leve, que requer recursos mínimos e otimiza a largura de banda da rede. No entanto, ele ainda enfrenta problemas de desempenho devido à sobrecarga do TCP e do TLS (Transport Layer Security). O protocolo QUIC (Quick UDP Internet Connections) surgiu como uma alternativa promissora para melhorar o desempenho da comunicação. Contudo, os estudos de desempenho existentes carecem de avaliações do MQTT sobre QUIC em condições de baixa latência e redes instáveis. Este artigo compara o desempenho do MQTT sobre QUIC, TCP e TCP+TLS em um ambiente virtualizado de IoT. A avaliação de desempenho segue uma abordagem bem estabelecida e analisa a latência e o tempo de estabelecimento da conexão como métricas-chave em condições estáveis e instáveis. Os resultados destacam o potencial do QUIC como uma alternativa eficiente e segura para comunicação em IoT.pt_BR


Arquivos deste item

Thumbnail
Thumbnail

Este item aparece na(s) seguinte(s) coleção(s)

Mostrar registro simples