## 3 System Model Overview
Moreover, if the interested content is not available in the network, then \(HV\) forwards the interest packet to RSU. The equation to calculate \(IDF\) is given below. \[d_{i}=\sqrt{\left(d_{x2}-d_{x1}\right)^{2}+\left(d_{y2}-d_{y1}\right)^{2}} \tag{1}\]2 (6)
4. Cache Success Ratio (CSR)

\[d_{i}=\sqrt{\left(d_{x2}-d_{x1}\right)^{2}+\left(d_{y2}-d_{y1}\right)^{2}} \tag{1}\]3 New Head Vehicle Selection in Proposed Scheme. The CSR is the number of requests satisfied by the head vehicle. The cache miss ratio (CM) is the number of dropped requests or unsatisfied requests. CH is the number of requests satisfied by the vehicles. Equation (7) to calculate CSR is given below. \[d_{i}=\sqrt{\left(d_{x2}-d_{x1}\right)^{2}+\left(d_{y2}-d_{y1}\right)^{2}} \tag{1}\]4

### Experimental Results Analysis

The proposed scheme is evaluated in two different scenarios. The first scenario is to evaluate the performance of the proposed scheme in a stable topology. In the second scenario, the performance is evaluated in dynamic topology. A detailed discussion is given in the section below. 1. Packet Delivery Ratio (PDR %) According to Figure 7, the results show that with the increasing size of vehicles, the PDR of the proposed scheme increases compared to COMP. This enables satisfying the interest of vehicles through the head vehicle. If the content is not available in the cluster, then it forwards to the RSU. The RSU sends the data packet in response. Only \(HV\) can send interest packets and receive the data packets from RSU. In the case of disruptive communication links, it eliminates the broadcasting, and RSU uses \(CIT\) entries to select the new \(HV\). This minimizes the packet collision probability. Moreover, if the content is not available in the network, then it is satisfied by the RSU. Therefore the interest satisfaction rate also increases with the increasing number of vehicles. However, in the case of COMP, the Markov model is used to predict the mobility of the vehicle. However, if the vehicle moves out of the communication range, then the communication process starts again. Therefore, the PDR of COMP decreases with an increasing number of vehicles. IBFS and MCRP2 do not handle disruptive communication links. 2. Communication Delay (s) As shown in Figure 8, the communication delay in the proposed scheme decreases with the increasing number of vehicles because the interest is satisfied from the \(HV\). Initially, the delay is high because the requested content is not available in the network. However, once the content is available in the CS of vehicles, then with an increasing number of vehicles, the communication delay decreases. Moreover, if the content is not available in the network, then the RSU satisfies the interest packet. On disruptive communication links, the nominates the new \(HV\), so it eliminates the \(HV\) nomination process in V2V communication. It provides efficient communication within the minimum delay. In the case of COMP, with disruptive communication links in the cluster, the head vehicle selection process starts again in V2V communication. IBFS has the highest communication delay because it uses selective interest packet forwarding, which increases the communication delay. The communication delay of \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l} \hline \hline
**Parameters** & **Specifications** \\ \hline Simulator & NS2 \\ Area Of Simulation & 10,000 m \(\times\) 10,000 m \\ RSU Range & 500 m–1000 m \\ Vehicle Range & 300–600 m \\ No of Vehicles & 50, 100, 150, 200, 250 \\ No of RSUs & Varies \\ MAC Layer & 802.11 p \\ Packet Size & 1024 Bytes \\ Data Size & 1 KB \\ Query Size & 5 per s \\ Cache Update & 13 s \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Simulation Parameters. COMP decreases upon increasing number of vehicles, because the PDR is also low compared to the proposed scheme. In the case of disruptive communication links, the link establishment process starts again. 3.