# Comparative Analysis of Producer Mobility Management Approaches in Named Data Networking
## 5 Results
If the path between the consumer and the mobile producer's new location does not cross with the path leading to the mobile producer's old location, then no sub-prefix exists in the FIB that may guide the forwarding process. Therefore, the recovery1 packet may require more propagation to update the FIBs to the producer's new PoA in order to make the producer reachable again. R-Kite resulted in the highest loss rate because, upon every producer handoff, a producer was inaccessible until the mobility notification reached the central anchor. Figure 10 portrays the required signaling overhead for each producer handoff, which is shown for each node class (as explained in the simulation topology). This means that the shown overhead was calculated as the ratio of the number of messages over the number of routers in each class. Certainly, this was averaged for all handoff events during the simulation. Figure 9: Data loss rates. Indeed, the signaling overhead for the Map-Me variations was lower than AFIRM in the access, edge, and backhaul classes. Map-Me-IU only requires IU packets to traverse between the producer's new PoA and its old PoA. In addition, no Map-Me-IU signaling overhead propagates to the core router because the scheme works on edge routers. However, although it was foreseen that Map-Me-IN would generate a higher overhead than Map-Me-IU, due to the use of IN packets, this did not hold in the shown figure. The reason for this was that IN packets were excluded from counting, as they did not propagate further than the access routers and thus it did not generate overhead in the network. Additionally, the scope discovery interest broadcasting was performed in a specific situation where the consumer interest reached the old PoA before the IU packets. Therefore, only a few instances of the scope discovery process were performed during the simulation duration, and thus the amount of signaling overhead caused by scope discovery was negligible. AFIRM noticeably generated the highest overhead. The high overhead seen here was a result of the naming scheme applied in our simulation, which drastically degraded AFIRM's performance in the signaling overhead metric. The AFIRM scheme was proposed for IoT sensors, where the name prefixes have many common sub-prefixes (to indicate a common site of the IoT sensors for example). This naming scheme was not applied in our simulation, and the name prefixes of the producer are of one syllabus (_/prefix0_ for instance). Therefore, the flooding process in the \"FIB construction phase\" would not generate any sub-prefixes. Thus, no additional hints about the producer would exist in the FIBs other than the original one-syllabus prefix. Furthermore, upon recovery0 propagation, the only hint associated with the producer was deleted from the path. Thus, recovery1 was broadcasted in most routers due to lack of any matching prefix in the FIB. As for R-Kite, the overhead seen in the figure was in the core router only. Although a mobility notification packet must propagate from the producer's new PoA all the way to the anchor, the number of messages (=1) averaged over the the number routers in each class yielded a negligible value. This held for all node classes except for the core class, where there existed only one core router, resulting in a signaling overhead value of exactly one. Figure 10: Signaling overheads.