# Retracted: W-GPCR Routing Method for Vehicular Ad Hoc Networks
## 2 Materials and Methods
### Greedy Forwarding Strategy Based on Weight Selection
#### 2.1.1 Influence of Node Movement Direction on Routing Performance
In networks with different numbers of nodes and different CBRs, the average end-to-end delay of W-GPCR is lower than that of GPCR and GPSR. In addition, in the case of the same CBR, the average end-to-end delay of W-GPCR in the network scenario with a differing number of nodes is almost the same. On the contrary, the jitter of GPCR and GPSR is very large. As the number of nodes increases, the average end-to-end delay gradually decreases, and the stability of W-GPCR is stronger than that of GPCR and GPSR. The greedy forwarding strategy selected by the weight of W-GPCR is more global than the greedy forwarding strategy of GPCR and GPSR, which simply considers the distance to the target node. By considering the movement direction and node density of the node, the node with the largest weight among the neighbor nodes is selected as the next-hop node to avoid the packet delivery falling into a local optimum, thus greatly improving the performance of W-GPCR. Figure 8: _Cont._

Figure 7: Packet delivery rate for varying the number of nodes and constant bit rate (CBR) connections: (**a**) 5 CBR connections; (**b**) 10 CBR connections; (**c**) 15 CBR connections; (**d**) 20 CBR connections. ### Average Hop

Figure 9 shows the average number of hops for different nodes and CBR connections. In networks with a different number of nodes and different CBRs, the average hop count of W-GPCR is less than that of GPCR and GPSR. Because W-GPCR's restricted forwarding strategy for routing holes in a sparse network provides more routing possibilities, the possibility of successfully delivering data packets to the target node is also greater. W-GPCR can reduce the number of redundant routing hops in the global path of packet delivery, reducing the network overhead of the system. Figure 8: Average end-to-end delay for varying the number of nodes and CBR connections: (a) 5 CBR connections; (b) 10 CBR connections; (c) 15 CBR connections; (d) 20 CBR connections. Figure 9: Average hop for varying the number of nodes and CBR connections: (a) 5 CBR connections; (b) 10 CBR connections; (c) 15 CBR connections; (d) 20 CBR connections. ## 4 Conclusions

The high-speed mobile nodes of the Internet of Vehicles and rapid changes in topology represent significant challenges in designing a routing protocol suitable for VANETs. The W-GPCR routing method proposed in this paper considers the distance from the target node and combines the node's movement direction and density to design a weight calculation algorithm. In different scenarios of the Internet of Vehicles, the weight parameter ratio is adaptively selected to obtain the optimal next-hop node. The packet delivery rate is used to measure the reliability of routing protocols. The packet delivery rate of the W-GPCR protocol in different networks is higher than that of GPCR and GPSR. By judging whether the delivery direction of the data packet converges toward the target node, the problem caused by the right-hand rule of routing loops traversing the node and being far from the target node is avoided. The end-to-end delay is used to measure the real-time nature of the routing protocol. The end-to-end delay of the W-GPCR routing protocol in different networks is lower than that of GPCR and GPSR. By introducing other reference quantities, such as node movement direction and node density, to select the optimal next-hop node, the delivery of data packets is prevented from falling into a local optimal. The average hop count is used to measure the network bandwidth and time consumed during the packet delivery process. The average hop count of the W-GPCR routing protocol in different networks is less than that of GPCR and GPSR. By judging whether the delivery direction of the rerouted data packet tends to be the direction of the street trapped in the routing hole, the packet delivery is prevented from falling into the routing hole again. In summary, the W-GPCR routing protocol shows better performance than that of GPCR and GPSR in packet delivery rate, average end-to-end delay, and average hops.