“…Given the light traffic load (i.e., 20 sessions), when the vehicle's speed is low (i.e., below 40 km/hr), the proposed scheme adopts Level-1 and thus generates lowest packet delivery rate (in Figure 20(a)) and longest end-to-end delay (in Figure 21(a)). Oppositely, when the vehicle's speed gets faster (i.e., above 40 km/hr) or the traffic load becomes heavier (i.e., 40 and 60 sessions), the proposed scheme adopts (1) case (QoS ) (2) if ( < ) (3) set Level-1 Cluster (4) if else ( = ) (5) if ( < V ) (6) set Level-1 Cluster (7) if else ( ≥ V ) (8) set Level-2 Cluster (9) end (10) if else ( < ≤ ) (11) set Level-2 Cluster (12) if else ( < ) (13) set Level-2 Cluster (14) if ( < V ) (15) set communication range as 250 (16) if else ( = V ) (17) set communication range as 200 (18) if else ( V < < ℎV ) (20) set communication range as 150 (21) if else ( ≥ ℎV ) (22) set communication range as 100 (23) end ( Level-2. The performance of the proposed scheme, including packet delivery rate (in Figures 20(b), 20(c), and 20(d)), the end-to-end delay (in Figures 21(b), 21(c), and 21(d)), and the signaling overhead (in Figures 22(b), 22(c), and 22(d)), fall between those of the ADOV+ and MGRP.…”