## 5 Conclusions
The second one is that periodic and non-periodic traffic bring with NR-V2X similar results; this effect, confirming that the packet generation pattern has little impact on all the mitigation methods when NR-V2X is assumed, is different from what was observed on the coexistence of IEEE 802.11p with LTE-V2X; as explained in this document, this is due to the different sensing and reservation mechanism. It is relevant to note that the conclusions derived in this paper can also be applied to the co-channel coexistence of IEEE 802.11 bd and NR-V2X. In fact: (i) IEEE 802.11 bd and IEEE 802.11p share the same channel access scheme and preamble; and (ii) if IEEE 802.11 bd applies a similar coding rate to IEEE 802.11p, they have extremely comparable packet durations, which would not modify the impact on NR-V2X and may only imply a slight improvement of the performance of the IEEE technology. Additional studies may be needed only when specific features are applied, such as the repetitions or the channel bonding. Among the main aspects that may deserve attention in future work are the impact of the variable packet size and the congestion control mechanisms, which may require a redesign to guarantee fair access to the shared medium. Conceptualization, S.B. and A.B. ; Methodology, S.B. V.M. and A.B. ; Software, Z.W. and V.T. ; Validation, Z.W., S.B., V.M. V. T., and A.B. ; Formal analysis, Z.W., V. M., and A.B. ; Investigation, Z.W. and A.B. ; Supervision, V.M. and A.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l} \hline \hline
**Method** & **Transmission Range** & **End-to-End Delay** & **Data Age** \\ \hline eM\({}_{\text{A}}\)-time-split & NR-V2X: \(\uparrow\uparrow,\uparrow\uparrow,\uparrow\) & NR-V2X: \(=\), \(=\), \(=\) & NR-V2X: \(\uparrow\uparrow,\uparrow\uparrow,\uparrow\) \\  & 11p: \(\uparrow\uparrow,\downarrow\)(high dens.), \(\uparrow\uparrow\) & 11p: \(\downarrow\downarrow,\downarrow\downarrow,\downarrow\downarrow\) & 11p: \(\downarrow\downarrow,\downarrow\downarrow,\downarrow\) \\ \hline M\({}_{\text{B}}\)-E-signals & NR-V2X: \(\uparrow,\uparrow,\downarrow\) & NR-V2X: \(=\), \(=\), \(=\) & NR-V2X: \(\uparrow\), \(\uparrow\) \\  & 11p: \(\downarrow\), \(\downarrow\downarrow\), \(\downarrow\) & 11p: \(\downarrow\), \(\downarrow\), \(\downarrow\) & 11p: \(\downarrow\), \(\downarrow\), \(\downarrow\) \\ \hline dM\({}_{\text{C}}\)-preamble \& & & & \\ M\({}_{\text{C}}\)-preamble-no-SF & NR-V2X: \(=\), \(=\), \(=\) & NR-V2X: \(=\), \(=\), \(=\) & NR-V2X: \(=\), \(=\), \(=\) \\  & 11p: \(\uparrow\), \(\uparrow\), \(\uparrow\) & 11p: \(=\), \(=\), \(=\) & 11p: \(=\), \(=\) \\ \hline M\({}_{\text{F}}\)-CTS-to-Self & NR-V2X: \(\uparrow,\uparrow,\downarrow\) & NR-V2X: \(=\), \(=\), \(=\) & NR-V2X: \(\uparrow\), \(\uparrow\) \\  & 11p: \(\downarrow\)(high dens.), \(\downarrow\), \(=\)(high dens.) & 11p: \(\downarrow\), \(\downarrow\), \(\downarrow\) & 11p: \(\downarrow\), \(\downarrow\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* **NOTE:** Each metric contains three arrows corresponding to three scenarios: balanced traffic, more-V\({}_{\text{11p}}\), and more-V\({}_{\text{NR}}\). \(\uparrow\) performance improved (larger TR, lower EED, lower DA), \(=\) similar performance, \(\downarrow\) performance decreased. Two arrows indicate that the improvement or worsening is significant.  
\end{table} 
Table 5: Comparison of the performance between each method and the No-method test. **Funding:** This work was partially supported by the European Union under the Italian National Recovery and Resilience Plan (NRRP) of NextGenerationEU, partnership on \"Telecommunications of the Future\" (PE00000001--program \"RESTART\"). **Institutional Review Board Statement:** Not applicable. **Informed Consent Statement:** Not applicable.