## 5 Model Evaluation  
Finally, the results obtained from the experimentation are presented in this section. At the time of simulation, we created three different scenarios for the fog and cloud servers. In the first scenario for fog, we applied a high load to the fog nodes to test the communication delay. In this scenario, we sent 50 high-priority requests to the fog nodes and processed them. Here, we set node burden to 80% to test the performance of the fog at high load. Table 1 describes the first fog scenario. Figure 4: General flow of the request transmission process within the network. In the second scenario for the fog, we applied a medium load to the fog nodes to test the communication delay. In this scenario, we sent 35 high priority requests and 15 low priority requests to the fog nodes and processed them. We also diverted 5 low priority requests to the cloud. Here, we set the node burden to 60% to test the performance of fog at medium load. Table 2 describes the second fog scenario. In the third scenario for the fog, we applied a minimum load on the fog nodes to test the communication delay. In this scenario, we sent 25 high priority requests and 25 low priority requests to the fog nodes and processed them. We also diverted 5 low priority requests to the cloud. Here, we set node burden to 30% to test the performance of fog at a minimum load. Table 3 describes the third fog scenario. The graphical representation of Figure 5 displays the communication delays in all three scenarios. Scenario 1 represents high load, delayed by 86 milliseconds; scenario 2 was delayed by 80 milliseconds, and scenario 3, the minimum load, was delayed by 79 milliseconds. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline \hline
**Parameters** & **Values** \\ \hline Total Number of Requests & 50 \\ High Priority & 50 \\ Low Priority & 0 \\ Diverted to Cloud & 0 \\ Diverted to Cloud & 5G \\ Communication Mode & 10 \\ Overall Nodes Load & 80\% \\ Overloaded Nodes & 4 \\ Simulation Time & 30 s \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Fog scenario 1. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline \hline
**Parameters** & **Values** \\ \hline Total Number of Requests & 50 \\ High Priority & 25 \\ Low Priority & 25 \\ Diverted to Cloud & 5 \\ Communication Mode & 5G \\ Number of Nodes & 5 \\ Overall Nodes Load & 30\% \\ Overloaded Nodes & 0 \\ Simulation Time & 30 s \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Fog scenario 3. To compare this result with the cloud, we created the same scenarios for the cloud, as described in Tables 4-6. In the first scenario for the cloud, we applied a minimum load on the cloud server. In this scenario, we sent 25 high priority requests and 25 low priority requests to the cloud and executed them. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline \hline
**Parameters** & **Values** \\ \hline Total Number of Requests & 50 \\ High Priority & 50 \\ Low Priority & 0 \\ Diverted to Cloud & 50 \\ Communication Mode & 5G \\ Simulation Time & 30 s \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Cloud scenario 3. Figure 5: Graph for communication delay. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline \hline
**Parameters** & **Values** \\ \hline Total Number of Requests & 50 \\ High Priority & 25 \\ Low Priority & 25 \\ Diverted to Cloud & 50 \\ Communication Mode & 5G \\ Simulation Time & 30 s \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Cloud scenario 1. In the second scenario for the cloud, we applied a medium load on the cloud server. In this scenario, we sent 35 high-priority requests and 15 low-priority requests to the cloud and executed them. In the third scenario for the cloud, we applied a high load on the cloud server. In this scenario, we sent 50 high-priority requests to the cloud and executed them. The graphical representation of Figure 6 symbolizes the vast difference in latency between the fog and the cloud.