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

net/publication/353607300

A Study on RPL Protocol with Respect to DODAG Formation Using Objective

Function

Chapter · January 2022

DOI: 10.1007/978-981-16-1740-9_52

CITATIONS READS

0 53

3 authors:

Sakshi Garg Deepti Mehrotra

Amity University Amity University
9 PUBLICATIONS 10 CITATIONS 188 PUBLICATIONS 836 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Sujata Pandey
Amity University
146 PUBLICATIONS 614 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

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

Grammatical Inference View project

web analytics View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sakshi Garg on 08 October 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 A Study on RPL protocol with respect to DODAG
formation using Objective Function

Sakshi Garg1[0000-0001-6467-9065], Deepti Mehrotra2[0000-0001-5752-9800] and

Sujata Pandey3[0000-0003-2669-8323]
1,2,3Amity University, Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India
1sakshijyotigarg@gmail.com
2mehdeepti@gmail.com
3spandey@amity.edu

Abstract. The Routing Protocol for Low power and Lossy networks (RPL)
utilizes the Objective Function (OF) to form a Destination Oriented Directed
Acyclic Graph (DODAG) using a set of metrics. The key role of OF is to
determine the best parent and ideal path to reach the destination. Although,
introducing an efficient OF in Low Power and Lossy Networks (LLNs) presents
a considerable test. In this paper, we present a survey of existing DODAG
formation strategies in LLNs. We highlight the advantages and disadvantages of
the listed approaches. Further, we present the classification and justification of
considered metrics. Then, we propose a interesting comparison of the DODAG
forming strategies and the considered reviewed papers. Finally, we summarize
our inputs by emphasizing on the challenges that can be explored by LLN
researchers for future findings. Also, this article will help the researchers in
gaining a better insight of RPL protocol, OF and DODAG formation for future
works.

Keywords: Internet of Things, Low power, Lossy Networks, RPL, DODAG,

Objective Function, Node Metrics, Link Metrics.

1 Introduction
Internet of Things (IoT) 1 is a revolution for the current era, from applications that
connect computing devices, digital and mechanical devices, objects, to people who
possess unique identifiers. IoT has altered trucking, automation, transportation,
healthcare industry entirely with the aid of mobile and internet connectivity
advancements, to make our lives more easy and secure 2. The sensors/motes used in the
deployment have restricted resources, low power and lossy in nature. Perhaps, this
generates the substantial need for a routing protocol for LLNs. Such protocol was
introduced by IETF ROLL working group called RPL 3. RPL facilitates a flexible
working environment to manage the network, induce topology changes and simulate the
real scenario. It also allows code changes, deployment conditions, network traffic,
energy consumption, etc. In this article, we primarily focus on the DODAG formation
strategies using a set of metrics. The idea behind selecting a metric varies from
researcher to researcher. Some aim at reducing energy consumption, others aim at
2

achieving higher network lifetime. But, overall the focus is to establish a network with
low Expected Transmission Count (ETX), fast network convergence and high Packet
Delivery Ratio (PDR). Selection of optimal path to build DODAG has evolved and
attracted many researchers but, the lack of a survey in literature related to DODAG
forming strategies motivated us to frame this article. We aim at providing deep insight
about the RPL protocol, OF and DODAG building approaches to the LLN database and
future seeking researchers in this area.
Section II gives an overview of related literature and scope of this paper. Section III
discusses the standard RPL DODAG formation and its different proposed approaches
and presents the comparative analysis of these approaches. Section IV lists the used
metrics to select optimal path and explains their selection criteria. Section V discusses
the major challenges of RPL. Findings of this study is presented in Section VI. Lastly,
Section VII is the conclusion of this study.

2 Literature Work

2.1 Related Work

RPL gained popularity in the research community after being introduced by IETF ROLL
working group as a solution to LLN issues. Since then, RPL has been the prime focus of
researchers and so has attracted many researchers to propose and analyze its
optimizations. Although, till date, only few works have focused on the core of RPL
which is Objective Function optimization. Like In survey 4, authors discussed the key
features of RPL. They assessed the performance of RPL and raised concerns for
improvement. Though, the article failed to list ways to overcome the limitations of the
protocol. Another survey 5 primarily discussed the security aspect of RPL. Perhaps,
security is a major concern but the root lies in defining the optimal OF to form DODAG
which is found missing. In 6, authors presented a comparison of standard OF (OF0 and
MRHOF) in different network setting. Their findings are evaluated in low density
network whereas RPL tends to compromise more in high density networks, thus it makes
the work counterproductive.
Surveys like Error! Reference source not found.Error! Reference source not
found., gave an overview and highlighted the need to improve RPL and stated its
limitations but lacked to discuss the efforts made to overcome the shortcomings.
Authors in 7 proposed a new OF using combined metrics to improve RPL performance
based on PDR and overload. However, the four scenarios are not compared with the
existing standard OF of RPL which could have justified the results better. Articles 8
listed ways to overcome the challenges of RPL stated in literature and recommended
the need to improvise OF. Authors in 9, assessed the performance of RPL in dense and
heavy loaded network. They targeted power depletion and packet loss and showed
improvements in network lifetime. Despite this improvement, network stability and
high control messages remains an open issue. Another survey 10 presented an overview
of different techniques used to compute OF. They focused on parent selection based on
metrics and brought out the enhancement schemes in favor of RPL stated in literature
till 2017. The author in his thesis 11 studies RPL enhancements in three different
scenarios and compiled the findings. In 12 authors presented a comprehensive survey
 3

focusing on OF until 2019 but did not emphasize on DODAG formation strategies
which are discussed in this paper. Our survey is primarily focused on discussing the OF
and metrics used. Compared to other existing surveys, this paper gives a deep vision on
DODAG formation techniques for best parent selection. This article is first to present a
comparison between standard DODAG formation techniques with the proposed ones
with the motive to extrapolate the weakness in limitation of RPL. Table 1 summarizes
the survey papers discussed here.

Table 1. Related Literature Study

Studies related to RPL Concerns Objectives Year
• Message update, Control messages
RPL features,
O. Gaddour et al. [4] • Metrics and constraints 2012
RPL challenges
• Traffic flow and Topology
• Denial of Service and spoofing
attacks
P. Pongle et al. [5] • Selective Forwarding Attack RPL Security 2015
• Hello flooding and Blackhole
attacks
• Packet loss
• Packet Delivery Ratio RPL
M. Qasem et al. [6] 2015
• RX performance
• Topology
• Objective Function
• PDR • RPL
H. Lamaazi et al. [7] 2017
• Overhead performance
• Composite Metrics
• Solutions
• Routing maintenance proposed in
• Route optimization literature to
B. Ghaleb et al. [8] 2018
• Downward routing overcome RPL
• RPL modes and memory limitations challenges

• RPL
• Network lifetime
performance in
S. Taghizadeh et al. [9]• Power depletion 2018
high density
• Packet loss network
• OF computation techniques
I. Kechiche et al. [10] • Parent selection • RPL overview 2018
• Single and composite metrics
• Downward routing
• RPL
B. Ghaleb [11] • Route optimization 2019
enhancement
• Topology
• Routing modes
• Objective function assessment
H. lamaazi et al. [12] RPL review 2020
techniques
• Single / Composite metrics
4

2.2 Scope of the Study

This article gives the systematic analysis of the state of art for RPL. It also confines the
field to discussing previous works that focusses on the selection of metrics to present a
more organized survey. We summarize our contributions as: First, this paper presents a
comprehensive survey of the RPL protocol concerning to DODAG approaches
considered. Second, we classify the metrics and discuss the possible set of combinations
explored in literature by the researchers. Third, we further discuss the standard DODAG
formation and the proposed techniques in previous works with a comprehensive
comparative analysis. Last but not least, we bring out the challenges in RPL for future
research and new possibilities.

3 DODAG Approaches and Comparative Analysis

RPL is a Distance Vector Routing Protocol (DVRP) which can support different
topologies. Compared to other ad-hoc protocols, RPL is the only protocol that supports
LLNs due to its flexible OF. Routing is based on Destination Oriented Directed Acyclic
Graphs (DODAGs). In DODAG, all the nodes are directed towards a single destination
i.e. the root node. DODAG uses ICMPv6 control messages to form the spanning tree:
DODAG Information Object (DIO), DODAG Information Solicitation (DIS), DODAG
Advertisement Object (DAO) and (DAO-Acknowledgement) DAO-ACK. DIO is a
multicast message sent to all nodes informing about the existence of DODAG, while
preserving the current rank of the node. Then, DAO is a request message sent by the
child to parent/child to root to allow to join DODAG. Finally, DAO-ACK is the response
from parent to root/root to child to allow/disallow the request made by the child node
13. Figure 1 shows the DODAG control message structure.

New DODAG Old DODAG

DIO

DAO

DIS

D
DAO-ACK
IS

Fig. 1. DODAG Control Message Structure

3.1 Standard DODAG_OF Approaches:

Objective Function Zero (OFO). The concept of OF was first standardized in 2012
stated in RFC (Request for Comment) 6552 14. This OF makes use of single node
metric Hop Count (HC) to select shortest path to the root. Since, hop count is the only
deciding factor in selection of the route, some failed routes get selected repeatedly due
to shortest path which increases the network latency.
 5

Minimum Rank Hysteresis Objective Function (MRHOF). This OF got

conceptualized in 2012 stated in RFC 6719 15. Since, poor link quality is an issue with
OF0, MRHOF was introduced to use dynamic link metric like ETX. MRHOF evaluates
the cost of the paths to the root using hysteresis mechanism and selects the path with
the lowest cost. The advantage of MRHOF is that it can support additive metrics.
MRHOF is further utilized the most with two parameters namely, ETX and Energy.
Although, MRHOF with ETX/Energy are enhancements to MRHOF but computes
more delay and high packet loss in the network.

3.2 Some proposed DODAG_OF approaches:

In paper 16, authors used a static single node metric with random topology. They
considered 40, 80, 100 and 200 senders with 1 sink. They chose PDR, Overhead and
Power Consumption as parameters. They made use of the OF0 and MRHOF objective
function for their study. Their results showed MRHOF better in all test cases. In paper
17, authors used random topology in both static and mobile environments with 25, 49
and 51 nodes. They considered PDR, Hop count, Power Consumption, and ETX as
parameters. Their results showed MRHOF is more reliable. OF0 has better PDR and
Power Consumption. Likewise, authors in 18 performed the same experiment and found
same results. The only difference is they considered 50, 65, 75 and 85 nodes. Paper 19,
measured PDR, Latency, Power consumption as metric and MRHOF_ETX and
MRHOF_Energy and OF0 as objective functions. 20, 40, 60, 80, 100, 120, 40 nodes are
considered. Their results stated OF0 better in high density network while MRHOF_ETX
and MRHOF_Energy showed bad performances. In 20, with same static and random
topology setup, same parameters PDR and power consumption with 11, 16, 21, 26, 31,
36, 41 and 46 nodes found similar results. The objective functions used are OF0 and
MRHOF_ETX. OF0 better in energy consumption and independent of network size
while MRHOF_ETX better in PDR.
Paper 21, made use of multiple sinks (1, 5, 10) and 35 senders in static environment
and random topology. They considered PDR, Energy consumption, Throughput as
metrics. They took ETX and HC as objective functions and found ETX to be better than
HC in all three parameters. Authors in 22, used 26, 50, 82 nodes in both static and mobile
environment with PDR, Hop Count, Power consumption as parameters. They compared
MRHOF and OF0 and found similar results that OF0 used less power and had high PDR.
They also considered same PDR and power consumption as metrics and found MRHOF
better in static setup while OF0 better in mobile environment. Paper 23 considered PDR,
Hop Count, Energy consumption as parameters and OF-EC as objective function which
is compared with OF-Fuzzy, ENTOT and ETX. They showed OF-EC better in PDR and
Power consumption. While the comparison with OF0 is found missing which is actually
not affected by the network size. Likewise, authors in 24, used same parameters and also
added delay. They compared their proposed objective function OF_ECF to OF0,
MRHOF, and OF-FUZZY. Their results showed MRHOF is better in convergence time,
OF-ECF in stability and network lifetime, while OF0 consumed less energy.
6

3.3 Comparative Analysis:

From the above section, it could be analyzed that more than 60% of the researchers
used random topology while around 28% of the researchers used grid topology. It can
also be viewed that static environment is most commonly used for setup by the scholars
than mobile. It is also so, because figuring clear simulations in dynamic environment is
difficult. Number of considered nodes varied from study to study. While, we found in
our analysis that most researchers have claimed that best results are obtained with nodes
between 40-60 whereas, after 70 nodes, packet loss, delay, low ETX occurred at a great
level due to delayed network convergence. This is also interesting to note that only 1%
of the papers considered multi-sink whereas rest of the simulations are run by
considering single sink.
Apart, it can further be analyzed from the comparison studied that OF0 consumed
less power than MRHOF and is independent of network size. This is a major reason as
to why people may prefer to use OF0 as OF. But on contrary, since OF0 uses single link
metric, it gave poor PDR. While, 60% of studies claim high PDR in MRHOF and 40%
of studies in OF0. Also, it should be noted that MRHOF performed better in static and
low-density setup whereas, the results degraded in mobile and high-density frame.
Efficient Energy Consumption in OF0 is supported by 60% in literature than MRHOF,
MRHOF_ETX and MRHOF_Energy and high PDR in MRHOF, which instantly
generates the need to bring an effective OF that can provide both at a time and optimize
the results. This can highly improve the rate of convergence in the network providing
high QoS (Quality of Service). The performance comparative analysis of the above
studies is discussed in Table 2. The table indicates the comparison made by the
researchers based on objective functions PDR and ETX. Only, these two parameters are
considered because they both are most considered metric by the researchers. Figure 2
gives the idea of highly considered parameters by the researchers in the past in
comparison with other parameters.

Table 2. Comparative Performance Analysis of DODAG_OF based on PDR and Energy

Consumption.
Paper Considered MRHOF MRHOF
Parameters OF0 MRHOF
/DODAG_OF _ETX _Energy
PDR Bad Good
R. Sharma et al. [16]
EC Bad Good

N. Pradeksa et al. [17] PDR Good Bad

EC Good Bad
PDR Bad Good
Q. Q. Abuein et al. [18]
EC Bad Good
PDR Same Same Bad
I. Kechiche et al. [19]
EC Same Same Bad
PDR Bad Good
W. Alayed et al. [20]
EC Good Bad
PDR Good
I. Zaatouri et al. [21]
EC Good
PDR Same Same
W. Mardini et al.[22]
EC Good Bad
 7

PDR Bad Good

H. Lamaazi et al. [23]
EC Good Bad
PDR Bad Good
H. Lamaazi et al. [24]
EC Good Bad

80%
Received Packet
70%
considered in percentage

Lost Packet
No. of research papers

60%
Hop Count
50%
ETX
40%
PDR
30%
Throughut
20%
Latency
10%
Network Convergence
0%
Used Metric parameters Energy Consumption

Fig. 2. Representation of usually considered parameters by researchers

4 Classification of Metrics
The process of building a DODAG requires assigning of rank to the nodes based on
OF. The OF is decided based on the metric. This metric can be broadly classified into
two types: Link metrics and Node metrics. Table 3 shows the classification of metric
into link and node used by researchers as composite metrics in literature and presents
the assessment related to OF. Single metric is when one parameter is selected as an OF.
Whereas, when more than 2 parameters are selected at a time for OF forms a composite
metric. From table it can be made that almost 40% of papers used single metric while
60% made use of composite metric.

Table 3. Classification of Metrics and Assessment of Objective Function

No Link Node Achievemen Simulato Yea
OFs Gaps
. Metrics Metrics t r r
Packet Loss
increased
with RSSI,
RSSI- RSSI, High Contiki
Not 201
1. based Payload transmission OS
compared 4
IPv6 25 Length rate
with
standard
solutions.
8

Compared
High PDR Contiki
Hop only with 201
2. OF0 26 End-to-end OS,
Count standard 4
Delay. Cooja
ETX
Less packet
Hop loss and Not
OF-
Count, Delay, Compared Contiki 201
3. ENERG
Remainin Increase in to the OS 5
Y 27
g energy network standard OF
lifetime
Low latency Only ETX
Contiki,
and less is taken as a
BF-ETX Cooja
4. ETX Power parameter 201
28 Simulato
Consumptio for 8
r
n. evaluation.
High
Tested only
reliability,
SCAOF Reliabilit in Low Contiki 201
5. Energy Increase in
29 y density OS 5
network
network
lifetime
High PDR Compared Contiki
FMOF ETX, Hop 201
6. and Less only to OS,
30 RSSI Count 7
delay standard OF Cooja
Better QoS,
Hop Increase in Tested only
Contiki
DQCA- Count, network in low 201
7. ETX OS,
OF 31 Consumed lifetime and density 8
Cooja
Energy less end-to- network
end delay
High PDR,
Less
Traffic Increase in
efficient in Contiki
FLEA- Load, network 201
8. ETX terms of OS,
RPL 32 Residual lifetime and 8
load Cooja
Energy less end-to-
balancing
end delay
High PDR,
Frequent
Energy
Hop change in Contiki
OF-EC efficiency 201
9. ETX Count, parent OS,
23 irrespective 8
Energy makes the Cooja
of network
link instable
topology
Hop
Count, Increase in
Takes more Contiki
OF-ECF Consumed network 201
10. ETX Convergenc OS,
24 Energy, lifetime and 9
e time Cooja
Forwardin reliability
g Delay
 9

5 Challenges
This section gives future directions to the researchers who aim at improving and
optimizing RPL. All the issues faced during the simulation and testing of RPL
optimizations account to be the challenges for now. We found that throughout our
study, there have been a lot of approaches in history that tend to improvise RPL-PDR
or delay but under restricted environment. For instance, high PDR and less delay is
attainable with optimizations in low density network, while poor results are observed
in high density networks. Now in real scenarios, we aim at achieving high PDR, less
delay and increased network lifetime in low as well as high density environment.
Likewise, power consumption in high density environment is still a major concern. This
fact can be supported by our study as well. RPL performance evaluation is also
controversial because the actual data is never available due to security reasons and the
simulated data is more like the real scenario but not the actual one. So, the results
obtained may slightly vary in real scenarios. Network topology and stabilizing network
links to increase network stability is of paramount importance to ensure flawless
deployment of the protocol for LLNs. RPL implementation in mobile environment is a
tedious task in terms of securing the network. Thus, RPL security and privacy is all
together a new domain to be taken up as future work.

6 Results and Discussions

We present a statistical assessment of the papers reviewed above. Our analysis showed
that maximum researchers prefers the use of composite metrics (more than 60%) than
single metrics. The reason being, in single metrics optimization, the parameter chosen
as OF gets optimized while the other parameters degrade, eventually resulting in
unbalanced parameter distribution. We saw the rise of RPL till date. Almost 12% of
the researchers were discussing RPL back in 2012-2014. Since, then it has increased to
42% in 2015-2017. Researchers also emphasized on OF and not just overviews. From
2018 to till date and counting, RPL research has gone manifold. It can be marked that
power consumption (30%) and PDR (23%) have been the most targeted areas for
majority of the researchers. In our analysis, we also found that more than 95% of the
reviewed papers made use of Contiki OS for their simulation and assessment of RPL.
Remaining, 3-5% researchers worked on MATLAB, OMNeT++, NS2/3, etc. This is a
major rise in the use of Cooja simulator since 2013 due to its flexibility. Although, long
delay, dynamic topology, links instability, network size, network density, load
balancing and RPL security for LLN still remains some open challenges.

7 Conclusion
Through this article we tried to give a deep insight of RPL protocol. We mainly focused
on the DODAG formation techniques. In the beginning we, talked about the related study
in this area. Then, we classified the metrics that are used to decide OF and to build
DODAG. Specifically, we presented a comparative analysis of the standard approaches
with the proposed ones to analyze network performance. During this study, we also
 10

found that only 18% of researchers are using the standard metric to determine OF, while
82% of researchers are improvising the metric to achieve better results. In particular, we
found that improvising on the DODAG formation approach, we can improve network
paradigm. Though this statement holds more valid based on simulation results rather
than experimental observations. We also noticed that the Contiki OS/ Cooja simulator is
widely used for simulation of RPL work environment. Despite the available research
work, we could conclude that various other combinations of metrics to build DODAG
and different implementation modifications can also be exploited to achieve better
network performance and energy efficiency. However, this article will be of interest to
researchers working in favor of RPL or LLNs and can further provide future directions.

References

1. Minerva, Roberto, Abyi Biru, and Domenico Rotondi. "Towards a definition of the Internet
of Things (IoT)." IEEE Internet Initiative 1 (2015): 1-86.
2. body area networks: a survey, IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. 16 (3) (2014) 1658–1686.
3. for low-power and lossy networks in IoT real time applications, Procedia Comput. Sci. 87
(2016) 270–274.
4. O. Gaddour, A. Koubâa, RPL in a nutshell : a survey, Comput. Netw. 56 (14) (2012) 3163–
3178.
5. P. Pongle, G. Chavan, A survey : attacks on RPL and 6LoWPAN in IoT, Int. Conf. Pervas.
Comput. (2015).
6. M. Qasem, H. Altawssi, M.B. Yassien, A. Al-Dubai, Performance evaluation of RPL
objective functions, IEEE International Conference on Computer and In- formation
Technology; Ubiquitous Computing and Communications; Depend- able, Autonomic and
Secure Computing; Pervasive Intelligence and Comput- ing, 2015.
7. Lamaazi, H., & Benamar, N. (2017, June). Rpl enhancement using a new objective function
based on combined metrics. In 2017 13th International Wireless Communications and Mobile
Computing Conference (IWCMC) (pp. 1459-1464). IEEE.
8. B. Ghaleb, A. Al-dubai, E. Ekonomou, A. Alsarhan, Y. Nasser, L. Mackenzie, A survey
of limitations and enhancements of the IPv6 routing protocol for low-power and lossy
networks : a focus on core operations, IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. (2018).
9. Taghizadeh, S., Bobarshad, H., & Elbiaze, H. (2018). CLRPL: context-aware and load
balancing RPL for IoT networks under heavy and highly dynamic load. IEEE Access, 6,
23277-23291.
10. Kechiche, I., Bousnina, I., & Samet, A. (2018, November). An overview on rpl objective
function enhancement approaches. In 2018 Seventh International Conference on
Communications and Networking (ComNet) (pp. 1-4). IEEE.
11. Ghaleb, B. (2019). Efficient Routing Primitives for Low-power and Lossy Networks in
Internet of Things (Doctoral dissertation, Edinburgh Napier University).
12. Lamaazi, H., & Benamar, N. (2020). A comprehensive survey on enhancements and
limitations of the RPL protocol: A focus on the objective function. Ad Hoc Networks, 96,
102001.
13. Al-fuqaha, M. Guizani, M. Mohammadi, M. Aledhari, M. Ayyash, Internet of things: a survey
on enabling technologies, protocols and applications, IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. Internet 17
(4) (2015).
14. P. Thubert, Objective function zero for the routing protocol for low-power and lossy networks
(RPL), RFC 6552 (2012) 1–14.
 11

15. O. Gnawali, P. Levis, The minimum rank with hysteresis objective function, RFC 6719 (2012)
1–13.
16. R. Sharma, T. Jayavignesh, Quantitative analysis and evaluation of RPL with various
objective functions for 6LoWPAN, Indian J. Sci. Technol. 8 (August) (2015).
17. N. Pradeska, W. Najib, S.S. Kusumawardani, Performance analysis of objective function
MRHOF and OF0 in routing protocol RPL IPV6 over low power wire- less personal area
networks (6LoWPAN), in: 8th International Conference on Information Technology and
Electrical Engineering (ICITEE), Yogyakarta, In- donesia, 2016, pp. 0–5.
18. Q.Q. Abuein, M.B. Yassein, M.Q. Shatnawi, L. Bani-yaseen, O. Al-omari, Perfor- mance
evaluation of routing protocol (RPL) for internet of things, Int. J. Adv. Comput. Sci. Appl. 7
(7) (2016) 17–20.
19. Kechiche, I. Bousnina, A. Samet, A comparative study of RPL objective func- tions, Sixth
International Conference on Communications and Networking (ComNet), 2017.
20. W. Alayed, L. Mackenzie, D. Pezaros, Evaluation of RPL’ s single metric objec- tive
functions, IEEE International Conference on Internet of Things (iThings) and IEEE Green
Computing and Communications (GreenCom) and IEEE Cyber, Physical and Social
Computing (CPSCom) and IEEE Smart Data (SmartData), 2017.
21. Zaatouri, N. Alyaoui, A.B. Guiloufi, A. Kachouri, Performance evaluation of RPL objective
functions for multi-Sink, in: 18th international conference on Sciences and Techniques of
Automatic control & computer engineering, 2017, pp. 1–5.
22. W. Mardini, M. Ebrahim, M. Al-rudaini, Comprehensive performance analy- sis of RPL
objective functions in IoT networks, Int. J. Commun. Networks Inf. Secur. 9 (3) (2017) 323–
332.
23. Lamaazi, H., & Benamar, N. (2018). OF-EC: A novel energy consumption aware objective
function for RPL based on fuzzy logic. Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 117,
42-58.
24. Lamaazi, H., El Ahmadi, A., Benamar, N., & Jara, A. J. (2019, October). OF-ECF: A New
Optimization of the Objective Function for Parent Selection in RPL. In 2019 International
Conference on Wireless and Mobile Computing, Networking and Communications
(WiMob) (pp. 27-32). IEEE.
25. T.-. H. Lee, X.-. S. Xie, L.-. H. Chang, RSSI-based IPv6 routing metrics for RPL in low-
power and lossy networks, in: 2014 IEEE Int. Conf. Syst. Man, Cybern., 2014, pp. 1714–
1719.
26. A.R. Parnian, M.R. Kharazmi, R. Javidan, RPL routing protocol in smart grid communication,
ARPN J. Syst. Softw. 4 (5) (2014) 128–132.
27. D. Todoli-Ferrandis, S. Santonja-Climent, V. Sempere-Paya, J. Silvestre-Blanes, RPL routing
in a real-life scenario with an energy efficient objective function, in: 2015 23rd Telecommun.
Forum, TELFOR, 2015, pp. 285–288.
28. P. Sanmartin, R. Sierra, E. Martinez, D. Jabba, Objective function BF-ETX for RPL routing
protocol, IEEE Lat. Am. Trans. 16 (8) (2018) 2275–2281.
29. Y. Chen, J.P. Chanet, K.M. Hou, H. Shi, G. de Sousa, A scalable context-aware objective
function (SCAOF) of routing protocol for agricultural low-power and lossy networks
(RPAL), Sensors (Switzerland) 15 (8) (2015) 19507– 19540.
30. I.H. Urama, H. Fotouhi, M.M. Abdellatif, Optimizing RPL objective function for mobile low-
power wireless networks, IEEE 41st Annu. Comput. Softw. Appl. Conf. Optim., 2017.
31. da, S. Araujo, et al., A proposal for IoT dynamic routes selection based on contextual
information, Sensors 18 (2018) 353. pp. 1–16, 2018.
32. S. Sankar, P. Srinivasan, Fuzzy logic-based energy aware routing protocol for internet of
things, Int. J. Intell. Syst. Appl. 10 (10) (2018) 11–19 no. October, pp. 10–19, 2018.

View publication stats