# Enhancing Cache Robustness in Information-Centric Networks: Per-Face Popularity Approaches
## 5 Results
### Varying Attacker Request Frequencies (Single Attacker)
Let us consider the Advanced Topology (AT) test results with a single attacker and varying request frequencies. Again, with the Advanced Topology in Tables 7 and 8, we see that PFP-DA dominates the other two algorithms, especially in terms of hit rate. For routers R0, R2, R3, and R4, the hit rates are quite low, as before. This is largely due to them not being connected directly to any, or in the cases of R2 and R4, not many consumers. From a network design perspective, the routers with very low hit rates in such simulations might be good candidates to be regular non-storage routers since their contributions are mostly negligible for all three algorithms. Figure 4: ST with 100 cache size, single attacker, and varying attacker request frequency—overall hit %. Figure 3: ST with 100 cache size, single attacker, and varying attacker request frequency—pollution %. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & & & **Pollution \%** & & \\ \hline
**Algorithm** & **Attacker Speed** & **R0** & **R1** & **R2** & **R3** & **R4** \\ \hline PFP-DA & 360 & 11.00\% & 8.00\% & 11.00\% & 11.00\% & 3.00\% \\ LFU-DA & 360 & 11.00\% & 12.00\% & 11.00\% & 12.00\% & 11.00\% \\ LRU & 360 & 11.00\% & 14.00\% & 14.00\% & 12.00\% & 10.00\% \\ PFP-DA & 720 & 18.00\% & 8.00\% & 23.00\% & 16.00\% & 8.00\% \\ LFU-DA & 720 & 17.00\% & 22.00\% & 17.00\% & 22.00\% & 14.00\% \\ LRU & 720 & 18.00\% & 18.00\% & 17.00\% & 19.00\% & 17.00\% \\ PFP-DA & 960 & 21.00\% & 8.00\% & 13.00\% & 18.00\% & 7.00\% \\ LFU-DA & 960 & 22.00\% & 27.00\% & 25.00\% & 25.00\% & 19.00\% \\ LRU & 960 & 15.00\% & 28.00\% & 19.00\% & 16.00\% & 16.00\% \\ PFP-DA & 1200 & 26.00\% & 8.00\% & 26.00\% & 24.00\% & 7.00\% \\ LFU-DA & 1200 & 27.00\% & 29.00\% & 25.00\% & 27.00\% & 23.00\% \\ LRU & 1200 & 16.00\% & 11.64\% & 20.00\% & 19.00\% & 14.00\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: AT with size 100 cache, single attacker, varying request frequency—pollution %. Figure 5: ST with 100 cache size, single attacker, and varying attacker request frequency—top 50 items, hit %. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & & & **Hit \%** & & & **R1 Special** \\  & **Attacker Speed** & **R0** & **R1** & **R2** & **R3** & **R4** & **Top 100** & **Top 50** \\ \hline PFP-DA & 360 & 0.63\% & 16.60\% & 5.22\% & 1.58\% & 2.57\% & 66.75\% & 80.49\% \\ LFU-DA & 360 & 0.04\% & 12.58\% & 2.75\% & 0.38\% & 2.18\% & 50.25\% & 62.00\% \\ LRU & 360 & 0.00\% & 7.46\% & 1.23\% & 0.06\% & 1.23\% & 28.18\% & 34.55\% \\ PFP-DA & 720 & 0.55\% & 16.78\% & 4.97\% & 1.56\% & 2.52\% & 67.17\% & 81.07\% \\ LFU-DA & 720 & 0.01\% & 10.78\% & 2.19\% & 0.58\% & 2.35\% & 42.61\% & 53.34\% \\ LRU & 720 & 0.00\% & 6.89\% & 1.20\% & 0.05\% & 1.19\% & 26.05\% & 31.98\% \\ PFP-DA & 960 & 0.58\% & 16.84\% & 4.98\% & 1.51\% & 2.44\% & 67.18\% & 81.02\% \\ LFU-DA & 960 & 0.02\% & 10.80\% & 2.01\% & 0.29\% & 1.82\% & 42.54\% & 52.83\% \\ LRU & 960 & 0.00\% & 6.58\% & 1.20\% & 0.06\% & 1.15\% & 24.94\% & 30.67\% \\ PFP-DA & 1200 & 0.58\% & 16.87\% & 4.88\% & 1.49\% & 2.48\% & 66.98\% & 80.65\% \\ LFU-DA & 1200 & 0.15\% & 11.64\% & 2.45\% & 0.33\% & 2.32\% & 46.22\% & 58.57\% \\ LRU & 1200 & 0.00\% & 6.41\% & 1.18\% & 0.06\% & 1.14\% & 24.36\% & 29.95\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 8: AT with size 100 cache, single attacker, and varying request frequency—hit %. We once again turn our attention to router R1. Running PFP-DA, R1 maintains a 16.6% to 16.9% hit rate throughout all attack frequencies. LFU-DA also appears to be reasonably resistant to attack, even increasing the overall hit rate at 1200 attack frequencies. This seems odd, but it largely stems from natural fluctuations between launch scenarios. There remains no question, however, as to which algorithm performs best. PFP-DA maintains the highest percentage of overall hit rates. Considering the top 50 items, PFP-DA has anywhere from a 20 to 30% better hit rate than LFU-DA.