Skip to main content

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]

[26–28]

[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