# MANET Routing Protocols' Performance Assessment Under Dynamic Network Conditions
## 5 Results and Comparative Analysis
### Scenarios with Homogeneous Nodes
#### 5.1.2 Throughput  
Eight network protocols are thoroughly compared in Figure 2 below with respect to throughput across various network sizes (20, 80, 200, and 500 nodes). Significant patterns in throughput performance as network size increases are revealed by the investigation. To create a baseline for comparison, all protocols show different throughput values at the beginning, at 20 nodes. Due to their continuous route maintenance, proactive protocols exhibit stable but low throughput, which makes them more practical for smaller networks. However, the maintenance overhead makes them less effective for very large networks. Under moderate traffic levels, the overhead of route discovery causes reactive protocols to noticeably lose throughput as the network size grows to 80 nodes. The on-demand route-finding of these protocols reduces overhead in less dense networks while demonstrating scalability with more nodes, making them appropriate for situations with moderate to high node densities (80 to 200 nodes).  
Throughput decreases when the number of nodes rises from 20 to 80 due to increased MAC layer contention and congestion, which causes more packet collisions, retransmissions, and delays. At 200 nodes, however, the network becomes more interconnected, increasing throughput by decreasing packet drops and enhancing route stability. Because their routing techniques function identically under high mobility and huge network sizes, throughput is consistent across all MANET protocols despite common congestion, interference, and MAC-layer restrictions.  
At 200 nodes, the throughput increases to the maximum, demonstrating how all protocols can be scaled and adjusted to larger node densities. Hybrid protocols are best suited for very high-density networks (500 nodes), where they efficiently balance the load and maintain high throughput by fusing the advantages of proactive and reactive tactics. All protocols' throughput stabilizes around 500 nodes with just slight changes, demonstrating their effectiveness at high network densities. Interestingly, whereas OLSR continues to rise steadily, the GRP protocol first exhibits a higher throughput before lining  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Network Size** & **Proactive Protocols (OLSR,** & **Reactive Protocols (AODV,** & **Hybrid Protocols (ZRP, GRP)** \\ (Nodes) & **DSDV)** & **DSM, AOMDV, TORA)** & **Hybrid Protocols (ZRP, GRP)** \\ \hline
20 Nodes & Low network load, efficient for smaller networks & Varying network load, generally higher than proactive protocols & Moderate network load, balanced performance \\
80 Nodes & OLSR increases just slightly with steady performance & Route discovery overhead causes a notable increase in DSR and TORA & Restricted decrease, but efficient handling of the decreased load \\
200 Nodes & Sharp rise, high network load & Sharp rise, demonstrating scalability and adaptability & Sharp rise, balanced performance, effective integration of strategies \\
500 Nodes & Stabilizes with slight variations, less optimal due to maintenance overhead & Stabilizes with similar high values, indicating efficiency & Stabilizes, maintains high network load, most suitable for high-density networks \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 5: Protocol Suitability for Different Scenarios Considering Network Load.  
up with other protocols at increasing node counts. The effectiveness and scalability of each protocol category are highlighted in this analysis, which also offers important insights into their ideal operating environments and possible performance limitations in a range of network scenarios. The protocol's suitability for each of the four scenarios, taking throughput into account, is summarized in Table 6 below.