2015
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-25067-0_8
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Probabilistic Interest Forwarding Protocol for Named Data Delay Tolerant Networks

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In our study, DIRESC was compared against three well-known routing protocols, namely: CCN broadcasting [4], Probabilistic Interest Forwarding Protocol (PIFP) [39] and Social-Tie based Content Retrieval (STCR) [23]. Our rationale for choosing these protocols for our comparative performance study of DIRESC is as follows.…”
Section: Evaluation Methodologymentioning
confidence: 99%
See 4 more Smart Citations
“…In our study, DIRESC was compared against three well-known routing protocols, namely: CCN broadcasting [4], Probabilistic Interest Forwarding Protocol (PIFP) [39] and Social-Tie based Content Retrieval (STCR) [23]. Our rationale for choosing these protocols for our comparative performance study of DIRESC is as follows.…”
Section: Evaluation Methodologymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…STCR and PIFP were selected as representatives of the class of social-assisted schemes that exploit the relationship between nodes to perform data forwarding in DTNs in our comparative analysis. PIFP presents better results for satisfied interest, average delay and total number of interest packets in dense scenarios, while STCR is better on the total number of data packets transmitted in the network [39]. DIRESC also follows in this category and was intended to overcome these limitations.…”
Section: Evaluation Methodologymentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations