## 4 Performance Analysis
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline
**Parameter** & **Value** \\ \hline Area size (m\({}^{2}\)) & 4500 \(\times\) 3400 [25; 29] \\ \hline Number of rngGeeds & 5 \\ \hline Router & PRoPHET Router \\ \hline P\({}_{\text{encounter}}\) & 0.75 [30] \\ \hline \(\gamma\) & 0.98 [30] \\ \hline \(\Delta\) & 0 \\ \hline \(\beta\) & 0.25 [30] \\ \hline NFmax & 5 \\ \hline Pmax (initial value) & 0 \\ \hline Movement model & pedestrian, car: Shortest Path Map Based Movement [25] \\  & tram: Map Route Movement [25] \\ \hline Speed (m/s) & pedestrian: U[0.5, 1.5] [25] \\  & car: U[2.7, 13.9] \\  & tram: U[7, 10] \\ \hline Number of total nodes & 126 (default) \\ \hline Number of pedestrian & 80 (default) \\ \hline Number of cars & 40 (default) \\ \hline Number of trans & 6 (default) \\ \hline Simulation time (s) & 216,000 \\ \hline Transmission range (m) & pedestrian, car: 10 (interface1) (default) [19] \\  & tram: 10 (interface1), 1000 (interface2) (default) [19] \\ \hline Packet transmission speed & 250 Kbyte/s [19] \\ \hline Buffer size (MBytes) & pedestrian, car: 50 (default) \\  & tram: 500 (default) \\ \hline Message interval (s) & U[25 s, 35 s] \\ \hline Message size (Bytes) & U[500 k-1 M] [30] \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: The simulation parameter values. Figure 7: The delivery ratio for different buffer sizes. Figure 9 shows the delivery latency for different buffer sizes. The delivery latencies of all the considered protocols increase as the value of the buffer size increases since more messages are accommodated in the buffer of nodes and, thus, longer latencies are required to deliver messages to the final destination nodes, given a limited contact duration between nodes. The proposed protocol has the smallest delivery latency since the proposed protocol restricts the forwarded messages efficiently and, thus, has a smaller number of messages in the buffer, which results in a faster message delivery to the final destination nodes. Figures 10-12 show the delivery ratio, overhead ratio, and delivery latency for varying the message generation intervals varying from U[5 s, 15 s] to U[45 s, 55 s], when the buffer sizes of the  
Figure 8: The overhead ratio for different buffer sizes. Figure 9: The delivery latency for different buffer sizes. pedestrian and car are 50 Mbytes and the buffer size of tram is 500 Mbytes. In Figure 10, delivery ratios of all the compared protocols increase as the value of message generation interval increases because fewer messages are generated when the message generation interval increases and more messages can be delivered to the destination node successfully without being dropped during delivery due to the overflow of the buffer. The proposed protocol has the highest delivery ratio for all the considered buffer sizes since the proposed protocol efficiently restricts message forwarding by considering preP and, thus, the delivery ratio is the highest. Figure 11: The overhead ratio for different message intervals. Figure 10: The delivery ratio for different message generation intervals. Figure 15 shows the delivery latency. Delivery latencies of all the protocols decrease as the number of nodes increases since messages can be forwarded quickly with the help of more message forwarders, and delivered to destination nodes more quickly. The proposed protocol has the smallest delivery latency since the proposed protocol restricts the forwarded messages efficiently, and thus, has a smaller number of messages in the buffer, which results in a faster message delivery to final destination nodes. Figure 14: The overhead ratio for different numbers of trans. Figure 13: The delivery ratio for different numbers of trans. Figures 16-18 show the delivery ratio, overhead ratio, and delivery latency for varying the number of pedestrians from 40 to 360, where the number of terms is 6 and the number of cars is 40, which are the default values in the ONE simulator.