# Performance Analysis of P2P Networks with Light Communication Links: The Static Managed Case
## 7 Numerical Results
### WiFi vs. LiFi Performance Comparison  
In Figures 17 and 18, we present a clear comparison of the LiFi and WiFi technologies used for a fixed number of nodes (16 and 36, respectively). Once the required alignment is assured for the LiFi system, the main differences between these technologies are the upload and download bandwidth. From these results, we see a clear advantage of the higher available bandwidth provided by LiFi communications compared to RF transmissions, highly reducing the average download times.  
Finally, note that centralized networks can show a better or similar performance than P2P (usually in a very low number of nodes); thus, Figure 17 and Table 4 (diagonal values from surface obtained in Figure 17) show the case of 16 nodes where the P2P-WiFi network shares information faster compared to the C-WiFi network. Nevertheless, we can also see that the P2P-LiFi\({}_{NLOS}\) network only presents some low sharing times for some values of \(c\) and \(\mu\) with respect to the times presented by the C-LiFi network for the same number of nodes.  
Figure 16: Impact of the nodes’ variation in data sharing through a P2P-LiFi network in NLOS propagation mode.  
Figure 15: Impact of the nodes variation in data sharing through a centralized LiFi network.  
On the other hand, Figure 18 and Table 5 (diagonal values from Figure 18) present lower average download times in all the proposed P2P networks compared to the centralized ones, as a consequence of the 36 nodes in the network, which confirms the scalability property of P2P networks; this means that the greater the number of nodes, the smaller the average download time in decentralized networks.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Bandwidth**} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{**Average Download Time**} \\  & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**(min)**} \\ \hline _Down_ & _Up_ & \begin{tabular}{c} _P2P_ \\ \(\text{LiFi}_{LOS}\) \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} _P2P_ \\ \(\text{LiFi}_{NLOS}\) \\ \end{tabular} & _C-LiFi_ &
\begin{tabular}{c} _P2P_ \\ \(\text{WiFi}\) \\ \end{tabular} & _C-WiFi_ \\ \hline
1c & 1 \(\mu\) & 1.20 & 1.00 & 0.95 & 29.84 & 30.37 \\
2c & 2 \(\mu\) & 2.39 & 1.99 & 1.93 & 59.96 & 60.97 \\
3c & 3 \(\mu\) & 3.61 & 2.97 & 2.90 & 91.45 & 93.70 \\
4c & 4 \(\mu\) & 4.79 & 3.99 & 3.87 & 120.70 & 121.22 \\
5c & 5 \(\mu\) & 6.02 & 5.04 & 4.80 & 150.13 & 150.57 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 4: Average download time comparison between centralized and decentralized wireless technologies (16 nodes).  
Figure 17: Comparison of average download times in the proposed networks through the interpretation of their respective bandwidths (16-node network).  
Figure 18: Comparison of average download times in the proposed networks through the interpretation of their respective bandwidths (36-node network).  
For the tests performed, we can observe that depending of the applications or scenarios, we can obtain different average download times depending of the technology used (advantages and limitations), number of nodes, bandwidth availability, and network structures.