# Comparative Analysis of Producer Mobility Management Approaches in Named Data Networking
## 2 Related Work
### Rendezvous Point
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c l l} \hline \hline
**Approach** & **Advantages** & **Disadvantages** & **References** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Rendezvous point} & Low signaling overhead & RV is a single point of failure and congestion & \\  & Low signaling overhead & points & \\  & Transparent to the consumer & Overhead imposed on the RV & [18; 19; 20; 21; 22; 23; 24; 25; 26; 27] & \\  & & Transparent to the consumer & Optimizing prefix lookup operation required & \\  & & Possible path stretch depending on RV placement & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Proxy} & Low signaling overhead & Producer nodes are accessed only through a & \\  & Transparent to the consumer & gateway or home agent & \\  & & Gateway Interest packets are modified in the gateway to & [28; 29; 30; 31] \\ \cline{1-1}  & & include location prefix & \\ \cline{1-1}  & & Paths are not optimized & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Data plane} & Does not require dedicated & Higher signaling overhead in comparison with RV & \\  & nodes to have special roles & and indirection point & \\ \cline{1-1}  & & Path stretch determined by relative locations of & [32; 33; 34; 35; 36; 37; 38; 39] \\ \cline{1-1}  & & & producer, consumer, and previous producer’s PoA & \\ \cline{1-1}  & & More nodes involved in MM & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Routing} & Does not require added FIB or & Great signaling overhead under high-mobility & \\ \cline{1-1}  & PIT structure & environments & \\ \cline{1-1}  & Does not require dedicated & A mobile producer remains inaccessible during & [40; 41; 42] \\ \cline{1-1}  & nodes to have special roles & handoff & \\ \cline{1-1}  & Paths are optimal & High handoff delay & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Advantages and disadvantages of producer MM approaches. mobility. Therefore, when the mobile producer changes its location, it can update the new locator information to all associated consumers without going through the RV. Additionally, in [22], an improvement to the RV approach was suggested by means of broadcasting the interest between the producer and RV in search of the required data. In [21], two types of mobility schemes were presented to support seamless producer handoff. The first scheme follows the RV approach, where an additional network entity exists between a mobile producer and a consumer. A new routable prefix is provided after handoff, or packets may be relayed between a mobile producer and a consumer without renaming. This approach suggests that producers do not have constant prefixes; rather, they acquire an available content name by accessing the RV. In [23], the authors encouraged learning lessons from IP MM, in which a Domain Name Server (DNS) is a practical solution for handling producer mobility efficiently. The authors suggest that a DNS server stores the binding information between a mobile producer and its location. The prefix announced by the mobile producers contains both the content name and the domain in which it is currently located. Consumer interests are forwarded to the DNS to inform about a specific prefix. The DNS replies with the domain prefix through which the mobile producer is found. In addition, inspired by IP MM, the authors of [24] proposed using a \"forwarding hint\" to direct interest packets to the mobile producer. Forwarding hints are maintained by an RV which binds hints to prefixes. Furthermore, forwarding hints are only used in case of a cache miss in the CS and the PIT not having an entry for the prefix already. In [25; 26], producer mobility was handled by specified nodes in the network which announce the prefixes of the mobile producer. However, the scheme proposes a namespace design to avoid path stretch when a consumer interest packet reaches the path between the mobile producer and the gateway node. In this situation, consumer interest packets are forwarded toward the mobile producer instead of the gateway node, thus reducing unnecessary path stretch. The authors in [27] proposed a scenario-aware handoff technique for the mobile producer.