Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 2 A comparative analysis between several mobility protocols in terms of various characteristics

From: Mobility management for IoT: a survey

Characteristics MIPv4 MIPv6 FMIPv6 HMIPv6 NEMO PMIPv6 SMIPv6 CSMIPv6 Ovelab-MAG OMAG
Author [16, 17] [18] [22] [21] [19] [23] [2628] [24] [87] [88]
Packet reordering No No Yes No No No No Yes No Yes
Handover category Reactive Reactive Reactive / Proactive Reactive Reactive Reactive Reactive Reactive Reactive Reactive
Support of QoS No Yes (partial) Yes (partial) Yes (partial) NO Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Additional infrastructure HA,FA NO Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Scope of Mobility Global Global Global/Local Local Local Local Local Local Global/Local Global/Local
handover Latency Long Long Moderate Moderate Long Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate
Scalability No Yes Limited Limited Yes limited limited limited limited limited
Router optimization support Not-support Support N/A support Not-support Not-support Not-support Intra-domain support Not-support Not-support
Mobility class Host-based Host-based Host-based Host-based Host-based Network-based Network-based Network-based Network-based Network-based
Mobile node modification Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No
Power consumption High High High High Low Low Low Low Low Low
overhead on MN High High High Medium Non Non Non Non Non Non
DAD Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No
Multi-homing Not-support Not-support Not-support Not-support Not-support Support Support Support Support Support