# Enhancing the 3 GPP V2X Architecture with Information-Centric Networking
## 7 Results  
The _total number of Interest packets transmitted in the network_ (both in uplink and downlink) is reported in Table 3. For the non-NDN case, the number of Interest packets transmitted by the consumers is exactly equal to the number of content requests, namely 50 and 300, according to the considered settings. Such a number is kept lower for the proposal when compared to both the baseline and the legacy NDN solutions. The former does not perform requests aggregation in the eNodeB, hence the Interests are all forwarded in the downlink direction, although they are requesting the same content. The eNodeB is agnostic about the traffic to which it grants radio resources. The latter aggregates requests at the eNodeB, thus an Interest for an already requested content is not further forwarded in DL, since there is a pending request in the PIT for the same content. In our proposal, thanks to the proposed name-aware resource allocation performed at the eNodeB, the radio resources are not allocated for the uplink transmission of the Interest, with significant saving of radio resources. This is confirmed by results reported in Figure 4a, which shows the number of RBs required for the Interest transmissions in the UL direction, when varying the Interest packet size, the number of content requests issued by the consumers, and the Zipf's parameter. The metric reasonably increases with the packet size and the number of Interests. Benefits of the proposal get more remarkable as the parameter \(\alpha\) increases, since more Interests by different UEs are issued to request the same content. The eNodeB checks whether the same Interest has been forwarded before and has not been satisfied yet; if it is the case, there is no need to forward it in DL and allocate UL resources to the requesting UE. Under the assumption of multicast dissemination in the DL direction (i.e., a single Interest reaching multiple potential content providers within the cell with a single transmission), the number of Interests forwarded by the eNodeB is equal to the number of content requests for the non-NDN case. It achieves a lower number, which depends on the content popularity settings, for the NDN-based schemes. Gains are particularly significant as both \(\alpha\) and the number of content requests increase. For instance, the total number of transmitted Interests passes from 600 for the baseline solution, when 300 content requests are considered, to around 200 for the proposal, when considering \(\alpha=1.2\). The results in terms of number of RBs per Interest for the DL are plotted in Figure 4b. The same trends already discussed for the UL are observed, with the main difference that a higher number of RBs is required due to the more robust MCS used for the Interest multicasting. Figure 5 reports the average Interest dissemination latency for different values of parameters \(T_{SR}\) and \(T_{edge}\), spanning different cell load and eNodeB-V2X AS distance settings, respectively. The advantage of our proposal is that the eNodeB, augmented with the FIB, can decide about the Interest forwarding with no need to contact the V2X AS and, consequently, the experienced latency is lower. In particular, achieved latency values are bounded by the necessary processing time contributions at UE and eNodeB. Instead, the baseline solution requires to contact the V2X AS, hence, it is particularly sensitive to its deployment, whether close to the eNodeB or not. Latency values can even double compared to the proposed solution (see, e.g., for \(T_{SR}\) = 5 ms and \(T_{edge}\) = 30 ms).