Thats a unique idea.You should consider the following idea to enhance your idea so that it would impact uniquely: This article presents a performance analysis beten two location-based routing protocols: SIFT (SImple Forwarding over Trajectory), a novel, scalable, spatial-aware, trajectory-based approach, and DREAM (Distance Routing Effect Algorithm for Mobility), a stable, largely tested position-based scheme. The study was accomplished under a realistic urban mobility model for VANETS (Vehicular Ad hoc NETworks), within a highly deployed evaluation network of up to 1000 nodes. Classical ad hoc routing schemes do not perform ll in VANETS because they re not designed to handle efficiently mobility handicaps. Position-based techniques perform better in dynamic scenarios, but in some highly dynamic scenarios, like VANETS, they do not always perform efficiently. Trajectory-based protocols perform more efficiently in VANETS since they are spatial-aware.  demonstrate that SIFT performs better than DREAM in a realistic VANET scenario concerning delivery ratio, control overhead, delivery delay, and route length.
['M.R. García de la Fuente', 'Houda Labiod']
I am writing a research paper on a idea Performance analysis of position-based routing approaches in VANETS
[{"from": "human", "value": "I am writing a research paper on a idea Performance analysis of position-based routing approaches in VANETS"}, {"from": "gpt", "value": "Thats a unique idea.You should consider the following idea to enhance your idea so that it would impact uniquely: This article presents a performance analysis beten two location-based routing protocols: SIFT (SImple Forwarding over Trajectory), a novel, scalable, spatial-aware, trajectory-based approach, and DREAM (Distance Routing Effect Algorithm for Mobility), a stable, largely tested position-based scheme. The study was accomplished under a realistic urban mobility model for VANETS (Vehicular Ad hoc NETworks), within a highly deployed evaluation network of up to 1000 nodes. Classical ad hoc routing schemes do not perform ll in VANETS because they re not designed to handle efficiently mobility handicaps. Position-based techniques perform better in dynamic scenarios, but in some highly dynamic scenarios, like VANETS, they do not always perform efficiently. Trajectory-based protocols perform more efficiently in VANETS since they are spatial-aware.  demonstrate that SIFT performs better than DREAM in a realistic VANET scenario concerning delivery ratio, control overhead, delivery delay, and route length."}]