# An Intelligent Fuzzy-Based Routing Protocol for Vehicular Opportunistic Networks
## 4 Evaluation of FCRP
### Simulation in the ONE Simulator  
To evaluate the FCRP, we integrated it into the ONE simulator, a widely used tool for analyzing routing protocols in DTNs and OppNets. The ONE simulator provides a robust platform for evaluating the FCRP in a more dynamic and realistic network environment. By simulating mobility patterns of vehicles, intermittent connectivity, and message exchanges in an OppNets, it enables a thorough comparison of the FCRP with Epidemic and MaxProp protocols. The simulation scenarios involved varying node densities, mobility models, and message generation rates to assess the protocol's performance across diverse conditions. Key performance metrics such as delivery probability, overhead ratio, average latency, and average hop count were analyzed to demonstrate the effectiveness of the FCRP in improving routing efficiency while minimizing resource consumption. For the simulation scenario, we utilized the default configuration in the simulator, modified to include only vehicular nodes as mobile entities and a static destination node as shown in Figure 6. The evaluation was conducted for varying network densities with 25, 50, 75, and 100 vehicles to assess the impact of node density on protocol performance. To ensure reproducibility, control over randomness, and to validate the robustness of the FCRP, we repeated the simulations for each scenario using a different seed each time and calculated the results with a 95% confidence interval. Detailed simulation parameters are provided in Table 4.  
The results, illustrated in Figure 7a, reveal that the FCRP exhibits competitive performance in delivery probability. For scenarios with lower node densities (25 nodes), the FCRP shows slightly better performance than the Epidemic protocol, owing to its ability to manage buffer and connectivity efficiently. As node density increases, MaxProp demonstrates superior delivery results, but as we will see through other metrics, it comes with the cost of utilizing significantly more resources than the FCRP. Overhead results, shown in Figure 7b, highlight the FCRP's efficiency in minimizing resource usage. For higher node densities (100 nodes), the FCRP achieves an overhead of 3.2, significantly lower than 48 for MaxProp and 189 for Epidemic. This improvement stems from the FCRP's targeted message forwarding strategy, which reduces unnecessary transmissions and network congestion. By optimizing resource utilization and maintaining low overhead, the FCRP enhances overall network performance, demonstrating its suitability for dense and dynamic vehicular networks. The balance between delivery probability and overhead reflects the FCRP's capacity to manage trade-offs effectively, making it a robust choice for OppNets scenarios. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l} \hline \hline
**Parameters** & **Values** \\ \hline Number of nodes & 25, 50, 75, 100 \\ Simulation time & 12 h \\ Movement model & Shortest-Path-Map-Based Movement \\ Seed for the movement model & 2, 8372, 98,092, 18,293, 777 \\ Buffer size & 20 M \\ Interface type & Bluetooth \\ Interface Transmission Speed & 250 kbps \\ Interface Transmission Range & 30 \\ Message TTL & 300 min \\ Vehicle speed & 2.7–13.9 m/s \\ Message size & 500 kB–1 MB \\ Event interval & 25–35 s \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: ONE Simulation Parameters and their values. Figure 6: A screenshot of the ONE simulator for the scenario with 100 mobile nodes. The red star points to the location of the destination. The average number of hops is presented in Figure 7c. The FCRP shows better performance than the other two protocols, particularly as the number of nodes increases. For 100 nodes, the average number of hops for the FCRP is less than 1.4, compared to 2.1 for MaxProp and 4.1 for Epidemic. This indicates that the FCRP efficiently finds shorter paths for message delivery, leveraging its fuzzy-logic-based decision-making to select optimal forwarding nodes, thereby reducing the number of intermediate hops required to reach the destination.