Table 1 The comparison of previous schemes
From: ICN routing selecting scheme based on link quality for the urban vehicles’ communication
Strategy name | Packet transmission mode | Features | Comparison with RSBLQ |
|---|---|---|---|
DMND | Broadcast | (1) Base stations broadcast all information. (2) Application names act as forwarding destination, which eliminates the need for any mapping system. (3) Intermediate caching nodes can reply to the Interest directly. | (1) The broadcast in DMND causes too much useless network traffic than RSBLQ. (2) The security cannot be ensured when DMND uses application names in the data communication process. (3) The two methods both allow intermediate caching nodes to reply the Interest, which efficiently decreases the network delay. |
CCVN | Counter-based broadcast | (1) Appling a counter-based broadcast to limit the network traffic. (2) Separating the Interest into A-Int and B-Int, dividing the request process into locating content nodes and real data transmission. | (1) CCVN uses a hop counter to decrease the traffic, which has a same goal with RSBLQ, but the two schemes accomplish at a different degree. |
V-NDN | Broadcast | (1) Broadcasting all information by greedy strategy. (2) Nodes cache all received content. (3) Every node can act as a data mule to carry the packets. | (1) The broadcast in V-NDN causes too much useless network traffic than RSBLQ. (2) All-cached scheme can improve the cache hit ratio, but it enlarges the nodes’ workload in V-NDN. |
HBFR | Broadcast | (1) Using Bloom filter in CS. (2) Nodes cache the content advertisement by a proactive method. | (1) HBFR applies a proactive routing and focuses on the content caching, but our RSBLQ aims at improving the mobile ICN routing process. |