## 5 Performance Evaluation
### Comprehensive Evaluation
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c} \hline \hline
**Bandwidth Distribution (Mbps)** & **E3 Buffer Capacity (MB)** & **E4 Buffer Capacity (MB)** \\ \hline
25–35 & 2.486 & 2.543 \\
25–45 & 2.549 & 2.632 \\
25–55 & 2.649 & 2.722 \\
25–65 & 2.723 & 2.808 \\
25–75 & 2.807 & 2.900 \\
25–85 & 2.870 & 2.913 \\
25–95 & 2.966 & 3.000 \\
25–105 & 3.061 & 3.110 \\
25–115 & 3.134 & 3.167 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Buffer capacity settings in different bandwidth distribution scenarios. buffer caused by greater disparities in path parameters, which leads to a surge in network overhead under the RCBRB method, negatively impacting its performance. Additionally, the resource consumption of RCBRB and RBMM across various bandwidth distribution scenarios is shown in Figure 12. It can be observed that the resource overhead of RCBRB, caused by maintaining independent reordering buffers for each flow, becomes increasingly significant as the disparity in path parameters grows. Finally, we deploy a buffer at the egress gateway node using only Red-Black Trees for reordering, without any additional management mechanisms (i.e., using CS). Under varying bandwidth distribution conditions, the buffer capacity set by RBMM serves as the starting point, and the size of the buffer is gradually increased to observe its impact on throughput and transmission completion time. The experimental results are shown in Figure 13 (with RBMM performance from Figure 11 used for comparison, as indicated by the dashed line). In bandwidth distributions ranging from 25-35 Mbps to 25-55 Mbps, throughput increases with bandwidth and transmission completion time decreases, as the level of out-of-order is relatively low. At this stage, a small buffer size expansion (within the range of 0.5 MB to 1 MB) is sufficient to achieve performance comparable to or better than RBMM. However, as bandwidth increases and the disparity between node bandwidths widens in distributions of 25-65 Mbps and above, the default buffer size \(B\) becomes insufficient to effectively support reordering services. This is reflected in declining throughput and increasing transmission completion time, despite the overall bandwidth in  
Figure 11: Performance comparison with and without reordering enabled under varying bandwidth distributions: (**a**) throughput; (**b**) transmission completion time. Figure 12: Buffer resource overhead comparison. crease. To maintain optimal performance, the buffer size must be continually increased. As bandwidth reaches 25-105 Mbps and 25-115 Mbps, experimental data show that expanding the buffer size to approximately 260% of \(B\) is required to match RBMM performance. This illustrates that while increasing sub-path bandwidth in a multipath transmission scenario can improve overall system performance, greater disparities in path parameters exacerbate out of order. Without an effective buffer management method, relying solely on basic reordering operations necessitates a substantial increase in buffer resources to maintain the performance gains of ICN multipath transmission. In contrast, RBMM significantly reduces the buffer requirements, and the resource-saving effect becomes even more pronounced as the disparities in path parameters increases.