# Routing Protocols for Mobile Internet of Things (IoT): A Survey on Challenges and Solutions
## 5 Future Work
### Exhaustive List of Experimental Parameters
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Parameters Continued...**} \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Categorical Solutions**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Characteristics**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**System Parameters**} \\ \hline
**Categories** & **Proposal** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Power Consumption**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Packet Loss**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**PDR**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Latency**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Operating System**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Tx**} \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Tickle-Timer Based} & Co-RPL [43] & X & 20\% & X & 2.5 s & Contiki & 50 m \\ \cline{2-7}  & Enhanced Trickle Algorithm [57] & 7.10\% & X & X & X & MATLAB & 20 m \\ \cline{2-7}  & Mobility Enhanced RPL [44] & X & 10\% & X & X & Contiti & X \\ \cline{2-7}  & Elastic Trickle Timer [59] & 1.5 m & X & 87\% & X & Cooja 2.7 & 30 m \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{ETX Based} & FLEA-RPL [60] & X & 1-7\% & X & X & Contiki 2.7 & X \\ \cline{2-7}  & MI-PL [61] & 8\% & 4\% & 90\% & X & Windows 7 & 200 m \\ \cline{2-7}  & CA-RPL [63] & X & 20\% & X & 5 s & Contiki 2.6 & 40 m \\ \cline{2-7}  & Modified RPL [45] & X & X & 90\% & 1.3 ms & Quainet 4.5 & 250 m \\ \cline{2-7}  & Multiple Sinks [55] & X & X & X & X & Office Tested & 25 m \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{RSSI Based} & ME-RPL [42] & 1.2 MJ & X & 92\% & X & Contiki & 50 m \\ \cline{2-7}  & GTM-RPL [38] & 55 mJ/pkt & X & 88\% & 5 s & Contiki & 20 m \\ \cline{2-7}  & MoMoRo [64] & X & X & 84.65\% & X & Indoor Testbed & X \\ \cline{2-7}  & Enhanced Hand-Off [65] & X & X & 85\% & 60 ms & Instant Contiki 2.6 & X \\ \cline{2-7}  & mRPL [46] & X & X & 99.77\% & 92.7 ms & Contiki 2.6 & 10 m \\ \cline{2-7}  & EMA-RPL [66] & 1 mW & X & 100\% & 156.25 ms & Contiki IPv6 & 50 m \\ \cline{2-7}  & DMR [41] & X & X & 97\% & X & NS2.34 & X \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Position Based} & KF-RPL [54] & 0.056 W & X & 65\% & X & MATLAB & X \\ \cline{2-7}  & MP-RPL [67] & X & 28.7\% & X & 750 ms & Contiki 2.6 & 50 m \\ \cline{2-7}  & SSCF [56] & 20\% & X & X & 600 s & Contiki & X \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Miscellaneous} & Downward Path & \multirow{2}{*}{X} & \multirow{2}{*}{60–78\%} & \multirow{2}{*}{50–100 ms} & \multirow{2}{*}{Contiki 2.7} & \multirow{2}{*}{100 m} \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{3-5}  & Construction Mechanism [68] & & & & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: _Cont._Moreover, we note that the majority of the RPL extensions were evaluated in smaller transmission ranges, ranging from 10 m to 50 m; e.g., mRPL [46] considers only 10 m of transmission range in order to achieve better network performance. However, it is important to consider bigger transmission ranges, which will have an impact on transmission and communication range specifically during communication broadcast. In addition, it will have an impact on the selection of parent nodes, path construction, detached nodes, handoff delay, loop within the network, and the mobility of the nodes themselves. In combination with the transmission ranges, it is also important to consider wider simulation areas so as to simulate a real environment. Likewise, an important parameter is the speed of sensor nodes, as indicated in Table 6, we note that the majority of the RPL extensions did not mention the 'node speed' parameter, such as Mobility Enhanced RPL [44], Elastic Trickle Timer [59], FLEA-RPL [60], MI-FL [61], Multiple Sinks [55], GTM-RPL [38], MoMoRo [64], Enhanced Hand-Off Mechanism [65], and SSCF [56]. The other extensions, except Modified RPL [45] that takes 25, 45, and 65 mph, consider very low node speed. Hence, it is vital to evaluate the performance of these protocol extensions in a mobile environment with various node speeds (e.g., from nomadic (e.g., a patient move with the hospital premises) to high speed (e.g., an ambulance moving in a metropolitan area)) before it is used in an actual environment.