Fig 1.
Industry 4.0 Technologies.
Fig 2.
Applications of IoT.
Fig 3.
IoT Protocol Stack.
Fig 4.
Key Research Issues in IoT Systems.
Table 1.
Comparison of parent selection strategies in RPL-based IoT routing.
Table 2.
Impact of energy-efficient and stable IoT routing on real-world applications.
Fig 5.
Conceptual evolution of RPL objective functions from static single-metric routing to adaptive, application-aware routing enabled by EDCC-RPL.
Table 3.
Systematic literature review on RPL objective function enhancements.
Table 4.
Research evolution in RPL objective functions.
Table 5.
Comparative analysis of RPL objective function enhancements.
Table 6.
RPL objective function feature comparison.
Table 7.
Summary of research gaps in existing RPL objective functions and how EDCC-RPL addresses them.
Table 8.
Comparison of routing metric combinations in RPL-based IoT routing.
Fig 6.
Research methodology for EDCC-RPL.
Fig 7.
Metric for objective function in RPL.
Fig 8.
Node energy metrics.
Fig 9.
Parent selection process.
Fig 10.
Flow chart of the proposed methodology.
Table 9.
Practical criteria for dynamic weight adjustment in EDCC-RPL.
Table 10.
Computational and communication overhead comparison between RPL variants.
Table 11.
Impact of EDCC-RPL metrics on common routing-related security attacks.
Fig 11.
Flow chart of the proposed methodology.
Table 12.
Simulation parameters.
Table 13.
Application traffic and Energy consumption parameters (Sky mote).
Table 14.
Representativeness of evaluated network sizes and expected scalability.
Table 15.
Topology characteristics of simulated IoT networks.
Table 16.
Comparison of representative IoT hardware platforms.
Fig 12.
Cooja simulator implementation.
Fig 13.
Random network topologies for EDCC-RPL experiment.
Fig 14.
PLR comparison among OF0, MRHOF, EA-EPL, and EDCC-RPL (Proposed).
Fig 15.
PRR comparison among OF0, MRHOF, EA-EPL, and EDCC-RPL (Proposed).
Fig 16.
CPU power comparison among OF0, MRHOF, EA-EPL, and EDCC-RPL (Proposed).
Fig 17.
Average churn comparison among OF0, MRHOF, EA-EPL, and EDCC-RPL (Proposed).
Fig 18.
Average hop count comparison among OF0, MRHOF, EA-EPL, and EDCC-RPL (Proposed).
Fig 19.
Critical trade-off between network stability and performance.
Fig 20.
Critical trade-off between energy efficiency and reliability.
Fig 21.
Percentage improvement of EDCC-RPL over OF0 across five critical network metrics.
Fig 22.
Synthesized “Efficiency Index” comparing the holistic performance of the four routing protocols.
Fig 23.
Performance comparison under varying network sizes: (a) packet loss ratio (PLR), (b) packet reception ratio (PRR), (c) energy consumption, and (d) churn for the evaluated routing schemes.
Fig 24.
Comprehensive radar chart comparing the overall performance of the four routing protocols.
Table 17.
Processing and memory overhead comparison of RPL objective functions.
Table 18.
Expected impact of traffic load on routing performance.
Fig 25.
EDCC-RPL (Proposed) protocol efficiency deep dive.
Fig 26.
EDynamic network performance analysis of EDCC-RPL (Proposed).
Fig 27.
Multi-Metric correlation analysis of EDCC-RPL (Proposed).
Table 19.
Mean performance with 95% confidence intervals across network densities.
Fig 28.
Variance and 95% confidence interval analysis of routing performance across different network densities.
Table 20.
Comparative summary of EDCC-RPL and related works.