## 8 Performance Analysis
### Evaluation Results  
The mean network delay for the four forwarding strategies are shown in Figure 7. For these results, there is a clear difference in making a network naming scheme satisfy Question 2. SF MM (Question 2 = \(\bigtriangleup\)) follows the same trend as SF (Question 2 = \(\bigcirc\)). SF manages better results, making SF MM the overall worst performing forwarding strategy. Although the difference between SF and SF MM (Question 3 = \(\times\)) and SF MM PR and SF MM PR 3N (Question 3 = \(\bigcirc\)) is not large before the nodes start moving above 7 m/s, it becomes more than half afterwards. The maximum tested speed of 14 m/s shows a remarkable difference in delay of more than 400% between these sets of forwarding strategies. SF MM PR 3N (Question 4 = \(\bigcirc\)) obtains the overall lowest mean network delay. The delay for all forwarding strategies is always lower than 0.4 s.  
The mean goodput compared to the ideal goodput of 2500 kbit/s for the four forwarding strategies are shown in Figure 8. Once again, a clear difference in making a network naming scheme satisfy \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline \hline
**Parameter** & **Value** \\ \hline Data PDU payload size & 1024 Bytes \\ Interest PDU generation rate & 306 PDUs/s \\ Interest retransmission timeout & 50 ms \\ Number of Interest retransmission attempts & 4 \\ PIT Entry Timeout & 1 s \\ Content Store size & 10 million Parts \\ Consumer start time & 20 s after producer \\
3N name lease time & 300 s \\ Video bit rate & 2500 kbit/s \\ Link delay (wired) & 5 ms \\ Bandwidth/Link capacity (wired) & 100 Mbps \\ Link properties & Constant Speed Propagation \\ (wireless) & Three Log Distance Propagation \\  & Nakagami Propagation \\ Simulation time & 1000 s \\ Mobile node speed & 1.4, 2.8, 5.6, 7, 8.4, 11.2, 12.6, 14 m/s \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Parameters for the graph of the network. Question 2 is observed, with SF MM obtaining the overall worst performance. A clear difference in making a network scheme satisfy Question 3 is also noticed. SF MM PR 3N, which satisfies Question 4, is always 4% better than the next forwarding strategy, SF MM PR. For SF MM PR 3N and SF MM PR, the goodput is maintained above 85% of the ideal, regardless of the moving speed of the nodes. For SF and SF MM, the goodput starts above 87% at 1.4 m/s, then fluctuates and quickly decreases to below 80% of the ideal goodput when the nodes start moving faster than 7.0 m/s. Figure 8: Mean goodput percentage of ideal for forwarding strategies  
Figure 7: Mean network delay for consumer for forwarding strategies. The ratio of network timed out Interests vs. satisfied consumer Interests for the four forwarding strategies are shown in Figure 9. There is, once again, a large difference in making a network naming scheme satisfy Question 2. SF MM obtains the highest overall ratio. SF, which satisfies this question, obtains better results. A large difference is also seen in making a network naming scheme satisfy Question 3. SF MM PR 3N has the lowest ratio of timed out Interests vs. satisfied consumer Interests which is relatively stable and close to zero, regardless of the node movement speed. A similar pattern is observed for SF MM PR. SF and SF MM both start with a low ratio but rise linearly as the speed of the nodes increase. From the evaluation results, it is clear that SF MM PR 3N, which satisfies Question 2, Question 3 and Question 4, clearly outperforms all the other forwarding strategies. SF MM PR 3N obtains the lowest delay, best goodput and lowest Interest timeout to satisfied consumer Interest ratio regardless of node movement speed. SF MM PR, which does not satisfy Question 4, has a lower performance in goodput and slightly higher average delay than SF MM PR 3N. This forwarding strategy outperforms SF and SF MM, with a clear difference seen in goodput.