## 6 Results, Analysis and Discussion
### Statistical Analysis of Performance Metrics
#### 6.1.2 CSMA Retries with Box and Whiskers Representation  
The CSMA retries metric is presented in Figure 5. When there is no jamming, we can notice that the MPH protocol has an average of 2.3 of CSMA retries, while AODV has a mean of 2.86 and DSR 2.76. In addition, the MPH box shows that more than 50% of the nodes have average values between 1.38  
Figure 4: Average retransmissions when the jammer node is in the middle of the topology.  
and 2.7 (interquartile value), while AODV keeps 50% of the nodes between 2.2 and 3.3 average CSMA retries and DSR between two and 3.21. With these values, we can realize that MPH has fewer average CSMA retries and a better performance compared to the other two protocols.  
Figure 5 exposes the types of jamming when the jammer node is in the middle of the topology. This jammer node location may affect many nodes, but its impact in the total delivery packet ratio should not be as strong as it is when the attacker node is closest to the destination node. With respect to the random jamming (\(\rho=50\) packets/s), AODV and DSR have an interquartile data distribution between 3.3 and 3.5 of the CSMA retry average values. This means that the nodes next to the coordinator deal with a more busy wireless medium due to the higher traffic load compared to distant nodes; therefore, the values in the CSMA retry parameter is greater than in other network nodes. Besides, if we consider that the central part of the topology is being affected by an attacker node, then almost all nodes in the network will have similar values regarding the evaluated variable. This also reveals that AODV and DSR have more affected nodes than MPH. This is because, for MPH, the box is slightly elongated, with an interquartile between 2.4 and 2.9. Furthermore, these values are significantly lower than in the case of AODV and DSR. For cases of random (\(\rho=80\) packets/s) and reactive jamming, the behavior is similar to the described jamming above, where MPH has lower values for the evaluated variable, and elongated boxes show that the affected nodes by the jammer are fewer than in the AODV and DSR cases.  
Regarding the case when the jammer node is close to the coordinator and considering conditions of random jamming with \(\rho=50\) packets/s, MPH has 18.4% lower average CSMA retries compared to DSR and AODV. For a random jamming with \(\rho=80\) packets/s, MPH has 7.8% lower average CSMA retries. Finally, for reactive jamming, MPH is better by 8.8% than DSR and by 16.4% than AODV.  
For the case when the jammer node is far from the coordinator node, we note that for random jamming with \(\rho=50\) packets/s, MPH has 40% less average CSMA retries with respect to the results for AODV  
Figure 5: Average CSMA retries when the jammer node is in the middle of the topology.  
and DSR. For a random jamming with \(\rho=80\) packets/s, MPH has 50% less average CSMA retries with respect to AODV and DSR. Finally, in the reactive jamming, MPH has 61% less average CSMA retries than the values obtained for AODV and DSR. This can be explained considering that the MPH protocol is not strongly affected when the attacker node is away from the destination. Although the average values of CSMA retries increase, MPH is able to encapsulate the attack, affecting only a few nodes. AODV and DSR tend to affect more nodes, and these values represent an increment in the average of CSMA retries in the nodes nearby the coordinator.