| | Reference | Design | Motivation/objectives metrics test | Controllers used | Method | Weakness | | HM | HT | Security | Consistency | Interoperability | Capacity/delay |
| | SQHCP [10] | X | √ | √ | √ | NA | √ | NOX, Ryu, Floodlight, ONOS | Knapsack, K-means, GA | It has not been exposed to practical network scenario | | SDNi [12] | √ | X | √ | NA | NA | √ | NA | IETF protocol | Did not describe how messages are stored and exchange | | CIDC [99] | √ | X | NA | NA | √ | √ | NA | | | | mCIDC [100] | √ | | | | | | NOX, Floodlight | NA | No detail available | | EWBridge [101, 102] | X | √ | NA | √ | NA | √ | | | | | FlowBricks [103] | X | √ | NA | √ | NA | √ | Differ versions of Floodlight | FlowBricks | Not tested across different platforms | | Zebra [104] | X | √ | NA | NA | √ | √ | | | | | HCM [105] | X | √ | NA | NA | NA | √ | Floodlight, Ryu, POX | Unified API | | | WECAN [106] | X | √ | NA | NA | NA | √ | Floodlight, Maestro, Pox | NA | It has not been tested with popular DP like OvS but PICA8 | | DSF [107] | X | √ | NA | √ | NA | √ | Floodlight, ONOS | Data-centric RTPS Markov chain | Lack of QoS profiles for C-C polling | | MNOS [108] | X | √ | √ | NA | NA | NA | ODL, ONOS, NOX, POX, and Floodlight | Mimic layer | Cannot protect against DDoS, OpenFlow protocol known vulnerabilities | | Mcad-SA [109] | X | √ | √ | NA | NA | NA | NOX, POX, Floodlight | Theory analysis | | | SINA [110] | X | √ | NA | √ | √ | √ | Faucet, ONOS, ODL | Q-leaning | Excessive use of resources due to the active replication for consistency | | Domino [111] | X | X | NA | NA | √ | √ | Ryu, Floodlight, ONOS | Plugging | Require intensive hardware modification |
|
|
