Skip to main content

Using Multiple RPL Instances to Enhance the Performance of New 6G and Internet of Everything (6G/IoE)-Based Healthcare Monitoring Systems

Abstract

In healthcare organizations such as hospitals, it is important to have an efficient healthcare monitoring system in which the patients’ vital signs are collected from multiple sensors and transformed into the decisions makers to be analyzed and take the appropriate actions. The IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and Lossy Networks (RPL) was developed to act as an appropriate routing protocol in new 6G and Internet of Everything (6G/IoE)-based networks with the underlying Wireless Sensor Networks (WSNs). In the RPL, a set of nodes, which are connected and have a common objective, are grouped to represent an instance. This paper investigates the use of multiple RPL instances in healthcare monitoring systems to enhance the performance of such systems. The authors evaluate the performance of their proposed approach using Cooja simulator in terms of two key routing performance metrics: average Packet Delivery Ratio (PDR) and average latency. The results of the simulation showed that, by using the proposed approach, the performance of healthcare monitoring systems is enhanced in all cases, in terms of latency, from tens of seconds to less than one second.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12

References

  1. 1.

    Faulds DJ, Raju PS (2019) An interview with chuck Martin on the internet of things. Bus Horizons 62(1):27–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Kushalnagar N, Montenegro G, Schumacher C (2007) IPv6 over low-power wireless personal area networks (6LoWPANs): overview, assumptions, problem statement, and goals

  3. 3.

    Thubert P, Hui JW (2011) Compression format for IPv6 datagrams over IEEE 802.15. 4-based networks

  4. 4.

    Kumar V, Tiwari S (2012) Routing in IPv6 over low-power wireless personal area networks (6LoWPAN): a survey. J Comput Netw Comm

  5. 5.

    Clausen T, Herberg U, Philipp M (2011) A critical evaluation of the IPv6 routing protocol for low power and lossy networks (RPL). In: proceedings of IEEE WiMob’11, 2011, pp 365–372

  6. 6.

    Winter T (2012) RPL: IPv6 routing protocol for low-power and lossy networks

  7. 7.

    Witwit AJ, Idrees AK (2018) A comprehensive review for RPL routing protocol in low power and lossy networks. In: proceedings of NTICT’18, 2018, pp 50–66

  8. 8.

    Kumar N, Motia S, Jain AK (2018) Performance analysis of routing protocol for low power and lossy links (RPL) in military hierarchical networks. In: proceedings of IEEE IAC3T’18, 2018, pp 28–33

  9. 9.

    Sundmaeker H, Guillemin P, Friess P, Woelfflé S (2010) Vision and challenges for realising the internet of things. Cluster Eur Res Proj Internet Things Eur Comm 3(3):34–36

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Bélissent J (2010) Getting clever about smart cities: new opportunities require new business models. , Cambridge

  11. 11.

    Gubbi J, Buyya R, Marusic S, Palaniswami M (2013) Internet of things (IoT): a vision, architectural elements, and future directions. Futur Gener Comput Syst 29(7):1645–1660

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Lee I, Lee K (2015) The internet of things (IoT): applications, investments, and challenges for enterprises. Bus Horizons 58(4):431–440

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Al-Turjman F, Malekloo A (2019) Smart parking in IoT-enabled cities: a survey Sustainable Cities and Society 101608

  14. 14.

    Kharrufa H, Al-Kashoash HA, Kemp AH (2019) RPL-based routing protocols in IoT applications: a review. IEEE Sensor 19(15):5952–5967

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Al-Turjman F, Ever E, Zahmatkesh H (2018) Small cells in the forthcoming 5G/IoT: traffic modelling and deployment overview. IEEE Commun Surv Tut 21(1):28–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Perera C, Liu CH, Jayawardena S (2015) The emerging internet of things marketplace from an industrial perspective: a survey. IEEE T Em T Comp 3(4):585–598

    Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Tyagi S, Agarwal A, Maheshwari P (2016) A conceptual framework for IoT-based healthcare system using cloud computing. In: proceedings of IEEE Confluence’16, 2016, pp 503–507

  18. 18.

    Chowdhury MZ, Shahjalal M, Ahmed S, Jang YM (2019) 6G wireless communication systems: applications, requirements, technologies, challenges, and research directions. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.11315

  19. 19.

    Al-Turjman F, Alturjman S (2018) Context-sensitive access in industrial internet of things (IIoT) healthcare applications. IEEE Trans Ind Informatics 14(6):2736–2744

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Satija U, Ramkumar B, Manikandan MS (2017) Real-time signal quality-aware ECG telemetry system for IoT-based health care monitoring. IEEE Internet Things 4(3):815–823

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Brandt A, Porcu G (2010) Home automation routing requirements in low-power and lossy networks

  22. 22.

    Martocci J, Vermeylen W, Riou N, Mil PD (2010) Building automation routing requirements in low-power and lossy networks

  23. 23.

    Pister K, Thubert P, Dwars S, Phinney T (2009) Industrial routing requirements in low-power and lossy networks

  24. 24.

    Dohler M, Barthel D, Watteyne T, Winter T (2009) Routing requirements for urban low-power and lossy networks

  25. 25.

    Katz D, Ward D (2010) Bidirectional forwarding detection (BFD) for IPv4 and IPv6 (single hop). https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc5881/. Accessed 30 Deceember 2019

  26. 26.

    Singh P, Chen YC (2019) RPL enhancement for a parent selection mechanism and an efficient objective function. IEEE Sensor 19(21):10054–10066

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Thubert P (2012) Objective function zero for the routing protocol for low-power and lossy networks (RPL)

  29. 29.

    Gnawali O (2012) The minimum rank with hysteresis objective function

  30. 30.

    Pradeska N, Najib W, Kusumawardani SS (2016) Performance analysis of objective function MRHOF and OF0 in routing protocol RPL IPV6 over low power wireless personal area networks (6LoWPAN). In: proceedings OF IEEE ICITEE’16, 2016, pp 1–6

  31. 31.

    Lim C (2019) A survey on congestion control for RPL-based wireless sensor networks. Sensors 19(11):2567

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Kharrufa H, Al-Kashoash HA, Kemp AH (2019) RPL-based routing protocols in IoT applications: a review. IEEE Sensor 19(15):5952–5967

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Nandhini PS, Mehtre BM (2019) Directed acyclic graph inherited attacks and mitigation methods in RPL: a review. In: proceedings of ICSCNA’19, 2019, pp 242–252

  34. 34.

    da Costa CA, Pasluosta CF, Eskofier B, da Silva DB, da Rosa RR (2018) Internet of health things: toward intelligent vital signs monitoring in hospital wards. Artif Intell Med 89:61–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Elliott M, Coventry A (2012) Critical care: the eight vital signs of patient monitoring. Brit J Nurs 21(10):621–625

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Schloeffel P (2002) Electronic health record definition, scope, and context. ISO TC, 215

  37. 37.

    Al Ameen M, Liu J, Kwak K (2012) Security and privacy issues in wireless sensor networks for healthcare applications. J Med Syst 36(1):93–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Shaikh S, Chitre V (2017) Healthcare monitoring system using IoT. In: Proceedings of IEEE ICEI’17, 2017, pp 374–377

  39. 39.

    Kim HS, Ko J, Culler DE, Paek J (2017) Challenging the IPv6 routing protocol for low-power and lossy networks (RPL): a survey. IEEE Commun Surv Tut 19(4):2502–2525

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Long NT, Uwase MP, Tiberghien J, Steenhaut K (2013) QoS-aware cross-layer mechanism for multiple instances RPL. In: Proceedings of IEEE ATC’13, 2013, pp 44–49

  41. 41.

    Rajalingham G, Gao Y, Ho QD, Le-Ngoc T (2014) Quality of service differentiation for smart grid neighbor area networks through multiple RPL instances. In: Proceedings of Q2SWinet'14, 2014, pp 17–24

  42. 42.

    Banh M, Mac H, Nguyen N, Phung KH, Thanh NH, Steenhaut K (2015) Performance evaluation of multiple RPL routing tree instances for internet of things applications. In: Proceedings of IEEE ATC’15, 2015, pp 206–211

  43. 43.

    Barcelo M, Correa A, Vicario JL, Morell A (2016) Cooperative interaction among multiple RPL instances in wireless sensor networks. Comput Commun 81:61–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Mayzaud A, Sehgal A, Badonnel R, Chrisment I, Schönwälder J (2016) Using the RPL protocol for supporting passive monitoring in the internet of things. In: Proceedings of IEEE NOMS’16, 2016, pp 366–374

  45. 45.

    Nassar J, Gouvy N, Mitton N (2017) Towards multi-instances QoS efficient RPL for smart grids. In: Proceedings of the ACM PE-WASUN’17, 2017, pp 85–92

  46. 46.

    Nassar J, Berthomé M, Dubrulle J, Gouvy N, Mitton N, Quoitin B (2018) Multiple instances QoS routing in RPL: application to smart grids. Sensors 18(8):2472

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Agustin JPC, Jacinto JH, Limjoco WJR, Pedrasa JRI (2017) IPv6 routing protocol for low-power and lossy networks implementation in network simulator—3. In: Proceedings of IEEE TENCON’17, 2017, pp 3129–3134

  48. 48.

    King Abdullah University Hospital (2019) Home page. http://www.kauh.jo. Accessed 2 July 2019

  49. 49.

    Jeremydubrulle.com. (2019) https://jeremydubrulle.com/master_thesis.pdf. Accessed 2 July 2019

  50. 50.

    Al-Abdi A, Mardini W, Aljawarneh S, Mohammed T (2019) Using of multiple RPL instances for enhancing the performance of IoT-based systems. In: Proceedings of ACM DATA’19, 2019, p 27

  51. 51.

    Jordan University of Science and Technology (2019) Home page. http://www.just.edu.jo. Accessed 2 July 2019

  52. 52.

    Mardini W, Aljawarneh S, Al-Abdi A, Taamneh H (2018) Performance evaluation of RPL objective functions for different sending intervals. In 2018 6th international symposium on digital forensic and security (ISDFS) (pp 1-6). IEEE

  53. 53.

    Zikria YB, Afzal MK, Ishmanov F, Kim SW, Yu H (2018) A survey on routing protocols supported by the Contiki internet of things operating system. Futur Gener Comput Syst 82:200–219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Dunkels A, Gronvall B, Voigt T (2004) Contiki-a lightweight and flexible operating system for tiny networked sensors. In: Proceedings of IEEE LCN’04, 2004, pp 455–462

  55. 55.

    GitHub (2019) jeremydub/contiki. https://github.com/jeremydub/contiki. Accessed 2 July 2019

  56. 56.

    Ali H (2012) A performance evaluation of rpl in contiki: a Cooja simulation-based study. School of Computing, Blekinge Institute of Technology

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shadi Aljawarneh.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mardini, W., Aljawarneh, S. & Al-Abdi, A. Using Multiple RPL Instances to Enhance the Performance of New 6G and Internet of Everything (6G/IoE)-Based Healthcare Monitoring Systems. Mobile Netw Appl 26, 952–968 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11036-020-01662-9

Download citation

Keywords

  • RPL
  • Healthcare
  • PDR
  • Average latency
  • New 6G and internet of everything (6G/IoE)
  • Sensors