Table 1 Comparison of proposed work with related work.
Ref | Strong point | Weak point | Comparison with our approach |
|---|---|---|---|
Co-operative caching strategy, fairness sharing among vehicles | low scalability, No implicit estimation of user-satisfaction | Our proposed design is highly scalable and accurate | |
Partial matching method, considering sojourn time | Poor scalability and dynamic adaptability | We leverage the various dynamic factor to guarantee dynamic adaptability | |
Mobility aware architecture, reduced energy consumption | less considered content and network factors | We considred vehicle speed and content lifespan | |
utilizing cache resources of nearby vehicles | High overhead | We considered moving vehicles on road | |
Mobility prediction based group caching | NA | Our design considered content lifespan and distribution along with content popularity for caching | |
Focusing on content attributes | Lacking the influence of vehicles’ motion | We have a comprehensive utilization of network factors |
