# An Efficient Delay Tolerant Networks Routing Protocol for Information-Centric Networking
## 4 Performance Analysis
considered buffer sizes, since it does not control Data overhead. The proposed protocol has maximum 26% of decrease than OF protocol. Since the proposed protocol generates more Data dissemination than CIDOR protocol, the proposed protocol has higher Data overhead when the buffer size is small. For large values of buffer sizes, however, since the proposed protocol has much higher delivery probability than CIDOR protocol, the Data overhead of the proposed protocol is smaller than the CIDOR protocol. Figure 7 shows delivery probability for varying the number of relay nodes. We note that the number of nodes generating Interest messages does not change and only the number of relay nodes changes for consistent message generation patterns even for the change of total number of nodes. Delivery probability increases as the number of relay nodes increases since more Data can be delivered because of the more contacts between nodes. The proposed protocol has higher delivery probability than both CIDOR and OF protocols for all the considered number of relay nodes because of the effective Data forwarding and overhead control. The proposed protocol has maximum 59% of increase than CIDOR protocol and has maximum 154% of increase than OF protocol. We note that the proposed protocol has much higher delivery probability when the number of relay nodes is small due to more message dissemination, which overcomes the limitation of Data forwarding due to less contacts between nodes. Figure 8 shows Data overhead for varying the number of relay nodes. The result shows that Data overhead increases as the number of relay nodes increases since more contacts between nodes occur  
Figure 6: Data overhead for varying buffer sizes. Figure 7: Data delivery probability for varying the number of relay nodes. and more Data forwarding are generated. The OF protocol has the highest Data overhead, and the proposed protocol has maximum 29% of decrease than OF protocol. The proposed protocol has lower overhead than CIDOR protocol when the number of relay nodes is small due to much higher delivery probability. However, it has higher overhead than CIDOR protocol when the number of relay nodes is largely due to the dominant effect of more message dissemination. Figure 9 shows delivery probability for varying TTL of Data. The result shows that the delivery probability increases as TTL increases since more Data can be alive in the buffer. The delivery probability in both the proposed and CIDOR protocols decreases slightly as the buffer size increases when the TTL value is very high. This is because very high TTL results in message drop due to buffer overflow. The proposed protocol has maximum 42% of increase than CIDOR protocol and has maximum 269% of increase than OF protocol. This is because effective forwarding of Data based on efficient requester ID management and effective overhead control using satisfaction flag achieves efficient Interest and Data forwarding. Figure 10 shows Data overhead for varying TTL of Data. The proposed protocol has the lowest Data overhead, since it has the highest delivery probability. The OF protocol has the highest Data overhead, and the proposed protocol has maximum 24% of decrease than OF protocol. Also, the proposed  
Figure 8: Data overhead for varying the number of relay nodes. Figure 9: Data delivery probability for varying time-to-live (TTL). protocol has maximum 15% of decrease than CIDOR protocol. The result shows that the Data overhead does not change significantly for the change of TTL of Data, compared to the change of buffer sizes and the number of relay nodes. This is because the effect of unnecessary message forwarding due to message drop by buffer overflow is not significant for the change of TTL of Data.