# MANET Routing Protocols' Performance Assessment Under Dynamic Network Conditions
## 5 Results and Comparative Analysis
### Overall Results  
The comparison of the homogeneous and heterogeneous networks with 20 nodes shows distinct effects on proactive, reactive, and hybrid protocols, as shown in Table 16. In proactive protocols, such as OLSR and DSDV, the network's heterogeneity seems to slightly increase the network load and energy consumption, likely due to the continuous exchange of routing information between mobile and fixed nodes. Reactive protocols, such as AODV and DSR, have similar throughput and packet delivery rates in both types of networks. However, simulation times are shorter in the homogeneous network, which suggests that routes can be found more quickly in an environment where everyone moves around the \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Metric** & **10 Mobile, 10 Fixed** & **40 Mobile, 40 Fixed** & **100 Mobile, 100 Fixed** & **250 Mobile, 250 Fixed** \\ \hline Network Load (\%) & 10 & 15 & 25 & 35 \\ Throughput (kbps) & 85 & 80 & 75 & 70 \\ Average Delay (ms) & 20 & 30 & 60 & 50 \\ Energy Consumption (J) & 5 & 7 & 9 & 12 \\ Jitter (ms) & 2 & 4 & 8 & 6 \\ Packet Loss Rate (\%) & 5 & 10 & 15 & 8 \\ Packet Delivery Ratio (\%) & 95 & 90 & 85 & 92 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 15: Performance Metrics Across Different Heterogeneous Scenarios. same amount. Hybrid protocols, such as ZRP and GRP, maintain consistent performance across both scenarios, though the heterogeneous network might experience a slight increase in delay due to the interaction between mobile and fixed nodes. Overall, while proactive protocols might be more affected by the network's heterogeneity, reactive and hybrid protocols appear to adapt well to both network types, with only minor variations in performance metrics. Figure 14: Performance Metrics for All Categories in 40 Mobile and 40 Fixed Nodes. Figure 13: Performance Metrics for All Categories in 10 Mobile and 10 Fixed Nodes. In the 80-node scenario, the effect of homogeneous versus heterogeneous networks on the three categories of protocols reveals key differences. Proactive protocols, such as OLSR and DSDV, experience a higher network load and energy consumption in the heterogeneous network due to the continuous need to update routes between mobile and fixed nodes. Reactive protocols, like AODV and DSR, show consistent performance across both network types, with slightly lower simulation times in the homogeneous network, likely due to simpler routing paths. Hybrid protocols, including ZRP and GRP, maintain  
Figure 16: Performance Metrics for All Categories in 250 Mobile and 250 Fixed Nodes. Figure 15: Performance Metrics for All Categories in 100 Mobile and 100 Fixed Nodes. stable performance across both scenarios, demonstrating their flexibility, with only minor variations in metrics like delay and jitter. Overall, the presence of fixed nodes in the heterogeneous network introduces more complexity for proactive protocols, while reactive and hybrid protocols adapt well to both network types. In the 200-node scenario, the impact of homogeneous and heterogeneous networks on proactive, reactive, and hybrid protocols demonstrates notable differences. Proactive protocols experience higher network load and energy consumption in the heterogeneous network due to the added complexity of managing routes between a mix of mobile and fixed nodes. Reactive protocols show similar throughput and delay across both network types, but the homogeneous network exhibits slightly lower simulation times, likely because of the uniform mobility, which simplifies routing processes. Hybrid protocols maintain consistent performance in both network types, but the heterogeneous network shows a slight increase in packet loss rate and energy consumption, likely due to the interaction between different node types. Overall, while proactive protocols are more affected by network heterogeneity; reactive and hybrid protocols exhibit more stable behavior across both homogeneous and heterogeneous network scenarios.