Architecture:Protocols:Main Page

AOWIS needs to have an LPWAN (Low-Power Wide-Area Network) as its main Backbone to communicate between Sensors, Controllers, Actuators. Here is an overview about the most common technologies available:

AI-Generated Content Notice: The following content (comparison table) was generated using ChatGPT on 2026-04-07.
[Included in accordance with the AOWIS AI Usage Guide (REQ-AI-007, REQ-AI-008) and MAY require verification and/or post-editing.]

ISO/OSI Layer	LoRa	LoRaWAN	MQTT	AMQP	Zigbee	Z-Wave	EnOcean	Sigfox	NB-IoT
7. Application			✔	✔	✔	✔	✔		✔
6. Presentation
5. Session
4. Transport			✔	✔					✔
3. Network		✔			✔	✔	✔	✔	✔
2. Data Link		✔			✔	✔	✔	✔	✔
1. Physical	✔	✔			✔	✔	✔	✔	✔

---

For AOWIS, the most interesting is LoRaWAN for Layers 1 - 3 and MQTT above

LoRaWAN provides a cost efficient, self-managed infrastructure, and MQTT is a lightweight protocol on top to manage the data transmission with minimal overhead and therefore hardware costs and energy usage.

• LoRa/LoRaWAN: Low-Power, Long-Range Radio Transmission up to 15 km.
• MQTT: Developed to be a suitable Transport and Application Layer for LPWANs.
• NB-IoT: Narrowband IoT: Cellular-based; SIM/eSIM required. This might be a fallback option if LoRa is not permitted in a country, however the cellular operators need to have it implemented.
  • LTE-M: Not as Low-Power as NB-IoT, but often more widely supported by network operators.

---

MQTT vs AMQP

AI-Generated Content Notice: The following content (comparison table) was generated using ChatGPT on 2026-04-07.
[Included in accordance with the AOWIS AI Usage Guide (REQ-AI-007, REQ-AI-008) and MAY require verification and/or post-editing.]

Feature	MQTT	AMQP
Full Name	Message Queuing Telemetry Transport	Advanced Message Queuing Protocol
Purpose	Lightweight pub/sub messaging for constrained devices	Enterprise-grade messaging with queues, routing, and transactions
Typical Use	IoT sensors, mobile devices, low-bandwidth systems	Backend systems, enterprise integration, cloud services
Transport	TCP/IP (often with TLS)	TCP/IP (often with TLS)
Complexity	Simple, minimal implementation	Complex, feature-rich
Messaging Pattern	Publish / Subscribe	Publish/Subscribe, Queues, Request/Reply
Broker	Required	Required
Routing	Topic-based	Exchanges, routing keys, queues (flexible routing)
Delivery Guarantees	QoS 0, 1, 2	Acknowledgments, durable queues, transactions
Bandwidth Usage	Very low	Higher overhead
Device Suitability	Excellent for constrained devices	Typically server-side, not for small devices
Scalability	High (many devices, simple topics)	High (complex distributed systems)
Best Fit	IoT, telemetry, real-time updates	Enterprise workflows, reliable processing, integration

Sigfox vs LoRaWAN

Sigfox went insolvent 2022

AI-Generated Content Notice: The following content (comparison table) was generated using ChatGPT on 2026-04-07.
[Included in accordance with the AOWIS AI Usage Guide (REQ-AI-007, REQ-AI-008) and MAY require verification and/or post-editing.]

Feature	Sigfox	LoRaWAN
Type	LPWAN (proprietary)	LPWAN (open standard)
Frequency	Sub-GHz ISM bands (868 MHz EU, 902 MHz US)	Sub-GHz ISM bands (868 MHz EU, 915 MHz US)
Network Topology	Star (device → base station → cloud)	Star-of-stars (device → gateway → network server → cloud)
Ownership	Operator-managed (public network)	Public or private gateways
Protocol	Ultra-narrowband	LoRa modulation + LoRaWAN MAC
Typical Range	3–10 km urban, 10–50 km rural	0.5–2 km urban, 2–15 km rural
Indoor Coverage	Moderate	Good, depends on gateway placement
Infrastructure Needed	Base stations operated by Sigfox	1–2 gateways per farm/field usually sufficient
Max Payload per Message	12 bytes	51–242 bytes (depends on settings)
Max Messages per Day	~140	Hundreds (depends on duty cycle & spreading factor)
Latency	High / asynchronous	Low to moderate (depends on class: A/B/C)
Device Battery Life	5–10 years (ultra-low power)	5–10 years (ultra-low power)
Duty Cycle	Very low	Flexible, can handle more frequent messages
Network Cost	Subscription fee per device	One-time gateway cost + optional server
Flexibility	Limited to Sigfox network	Can deploy private networks; mix public/private
Scalability	Limited by network policies	Scales well for thousands of devices per gateway
Best Fit	Very low-frequency sensor updates, minimal infrastructure	Large-scale farms or water networks, more frequent updates, private control

ZigBee vs Z-Wave vs EnOcean

AI-Generated Content Notice: The following content (comparison table) was generated using ChatGPT on 2026-04-07.
[Included in accordance with the AOWIS AI Usage Guide (REQ-AI-007, REQ-AI-008) and MAY require verification and/or post-editing.]

Feature	Zigbee	Z-Wave	EnOcean
Type	Short-range wireless mesh	Short-range wireless mesh	Ultra-low-power / energy harvesting
Frequency	2.4 GHz worldwide (also 868/915 MHz regional)	900 MHz regional (868 MHz EU, 908 MHz US)	868 MHz EU, 315 MHz US, 2.4 GHz worldwide
Network Topology	Mesh	Mesh	Star or small mesh
Typical Range	10–100 m indoor, up to 300 m outdoor	30–100 m indoor, 100 m outdoor	30–300 m, depends on environment
Device Density	High (many nodes in mesh)	Medium (mesh limited to ~232 nodes)	Medium (fewer nodes, simpler network)
Power Source	Battery, mains	Battery, mains	Energy harvesting (kinetic, solar, thermal) or battery
Battery Life	1–5 years depending on device	1–5 years depending on device	Essentially unlimited with energy harvesting
Data Rate	20–250 kbps	9.6–100 kbps	125–1,000 bps
Latency	Low to moderate (mesh hops add delay)	Low to moderate	Low (small messages)
Max Payload per Message	127 bytes	100 bytes	14–30 bytes (small sensor messages)
Security	AES-128 encryption	AES-128 encryption	Lightweight encryption, optional
Best Fit	Home/building automation, sensors, lighting, HVAC	Home/building automation, locks, sensors	Battery-free sensors, building automation, energy-harvesting devices