LwM2M 1.0 Versus Ultralight 2.0 Services in FIWARE: A testbed

Citation Author(s):
Ngombo
Armando
ESPU / Universidade Kimpa Vita
Ngombo
Armando
DEI/CISUC/University of Combra
Submitted by:
Ngombo Armando
Last updated:
Tue, 05/17/2022 - 22:17
DOI:
10.21227/n4ye-0183
Data Format:
Link to Paper:
License:
300 Views
Categories:
Keywords:
0
0 ratings - Please login to submit your rating.

Abstract 

We compared the performances of an LwM2M device management protocol implementation and FIWARE’s Ultralight 2.0. In addition to demonstrating the viability of the proposed approach, the obtained results point to mixed advantages/disadvantages of one protocol over the other.

Instructions: 

The dataset comprises a .xlsx file, where we put the registerer downtimes for the LwM2M clients in both mobile and stationary scenarios.

The dataset also has two folders, namely .../mob and /statio for mobile and stationary scenarios, respectively. Each of these folders contains .cap documents and the corresponding .csv formats. .cap files are registries of the sensor data from the clients towards the server. Finally, these two forlders comprise the absolute values of the computed mean, median and mode delays in both Network and End-to-End segments.