# Future Wireless Networking Experiments Escaping Simulations
## 6 Result Analysis
### W-iLab2.t  
The setup for W-iLab2.t is similar to W-iLab1.t. The difference in results is due to different hardware and the placement and distance of nodes from each other. The channels used for W-iLab2.t are slightly different from W-iLab1.t as not all nodes support all channels.  
1. **UDP Bandwidth:** In W-iLab2.t, maximum UDP bandwidth is observed in ring topology around 25 Mb/s for hop 0 because of the presence of the 5 GHz upper channel connecting node 9 to node 0. The plot shows a decrease in the bandwidth with an increase in hops for all topologies, i.e., linear, ring, grid. We can see a sharp drop in the bandwidth for hop 7 because of the use of the 2.4 GHz channel after the 5 GHz lower channel as zotac and APU, which was node at hop 7, did not support upper the 5 GHz channel (Figure 24).  
Figure 23: W-iLab1.t TCP and UDP latency.  
Figure 24: W-iLab2.t UDP bandwidth.  
2. **UDP Loss:** There is no almost loss except for hop 4 and hop 7, but for hop 8 it is slighty increased, i.e., around 2 percent in linear topology (Figure 25). For ring topology, there is loss of around 3 percent which is almost constant for all four hops. For grid topology, the loss increases from hop 0 until hop 4, i.e., from 1 to 7 percent, while it decreases to 2 percent for hop 5 and then increases to 7 percent for hop 6 with 2.4 GHz channel usage after the 5 GHz channel (Figure 11).
3. **UDP Jitter:** The jitter is increased as hops are increased and this is the same for linear, ring, and grid topology (Figure 26).
4. **TCP and SCTP Bandwidth:** TCP and SCTP bandwidth decrease as hops increase for linear, ring, and grid topology (Figure 27). For hop 2, bandwidth is slightly increased  
Figure 26: W-iLab2.t UDP jitter.  
compared to hop 1 because of the use of the 5 GHz lower channel. See Figure 11 for understanding of the setup and relation to the results.  
5. **TCP and UDP Latency:** TCP and UDP latency are increased in linear, ring, and grid topology, i.e., from 0.0004s to 0.006 s for linear topology, in ring topology the latency is from 0.0005 s to 0.003s, and in grid topology latency is from 0.0004 s to 0.002 s (Figure 28).  
2. **UDP Loss:** The UDP loss for CityLab shows that the percentage loss is much more in linear topology than in ring topology (Figure 30). In linear topology and ring topology, for hop 0 there is no loss whereas for hop 1 in linear topology the loss is increased to around 18 percent and for hop 2 it is around 58 percent. In ring topology, for hop 1 loss is increased to around 26 percent. There is no hop 2 in ring topology as it has only two hops in both paths.
3. **UDP Jitter:** The UDP jitter is much greater in ring topology than in linear topology (Figure 31). In linear topology and ring topology, for hop 0 the jitter is around 1 ms and around 5 ms, respectively, whereas for hop 1 in linear and ring topology the jitter is increased to around 4.9 ms and 5.5 ms, respectively. For hop 2 it is around 25 percent. In ring topology, for hop 1 loss is increased to around 8 percent.  
Figure 30: CityLab UDP loss.  
4. **TCP and SCTP Bandwidth:** TCP and SCTP bandwidth are more for hop 0 in both linear and ring topology, at around 21 Mb/s for TCP and 20 Mb/s in SCTP for ring topology whereas it is 21.5 Mb/s for TCP and 20 Mb/s for SCTP in linear topology. For hop 1, TCP and SCTP in linear and ring topology are around 11 Mb/s. Hop 2 exists in linear topology only and it is 7.1 Mb/s for TCP and SCTP (Figure 32).
5. **TCP and UDP Latency:** TCP and UDP latency are from 0.0004 to 0.0019 s for hop 0 and hop 1 in both linear and ring topology, whereas for hop 2 TCP and UDP latency increased to 0.0011 s (Figure 33).
6. **TCP and SCTP bandwidth:** TCP and SCTP bandwidth are more for hop 0 in both linear and ring topology, at around 21 Mb/s for TCP and 20 Mb/s in SCTP for ring topology whereas it is 21.5