# Collision Avoidance Geographic P2P-RPL in Multi-Hop Indoor Wireless Networks
## 4 Performance Evaluation
On the other hand, the average node degree greatly affected the localization accuracy in the cases without mobile nodes. With the increase of the average node degree, the location error greatly increased from 1 to 10 m or more. When the average node degree was set to 12, a simple comparison between with and without mobile nodes is shown in Figure 7. When mobile nodes existed, 90% of the nodes were located within an error of 2.5 m or less; otherwise, only 20% of the nodes were localized with similar accuracy. The comparison shows that the introduction of mobile nodes with a smartphone-based inertial navigation system significantly improved the overall localization performance of the IR-UWB-based multi-hop network. Figures 8-12 show the routing performance results with the increase of the average node degree. In this simulation study, each traffic flow started randomly at 1 s between arbitrarily selected source-destination pairs. The general simulation parameters are stated in Table 3. For each simulation, a different random topology was generated, and the result is the average value from all simulation runs. The performance metrics to be observed are: \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**With Mobile Nodes**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Without Mobile Nodes**} \\ \cline{2-7}
**CDF** & **6** & **9** & **12** & **6** & **9** & **12** \\ \hline
0.1 & 23.75 & 21.12 & 19.76 & 114.48 & 10.71 & 105.99 \\
0.2 & 60.61 & 56.49 & 54.76 & 706.87 & 280.24 & 240.60 \\
0.3 & 87.17 & 81.69 & 80.03 & 1134.93 & 478.05 & 337.36 \\
0.4 & 109.67 & 103.49 & 101.79 & 1500.69 & 647.07 & 420.16 \\
0.5 & 130.92 & 123.71 & 122.02 & 1842.73 & 804.99 & 497.64 \\
0.6 & 152.26 & 143.84 & 142.22 & 2183.95 & 963.78 & 575.20 \\
0.7 & 174.65 & 165.70 & 163.33 & 2549.84 & 1131.92 & 657.70 \\
0.8 & 201.19 & 190.96 & 189.03 & 2978.23 & 1326.42 & 754.51 \\
0.9 & 237.60 & 225.92 & 224.00 & 3570.22 & 1604.24 & 888.80 \\
1.0 & 505.65 & 569.89 & 479.80 & 8748.82 & 4353.20 & 2488.74 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: The CDF of the average estimated errors for the proposed cooperative self localization algorithm. Figure 7: The CDF comparison at the average node degree of 12. 1. The average control packet overhead refers to the average number of control packets generated for a route discovery. 2. The average energy consumption is the average amount of energy consumption that is consumed for a route discovery. The first order radio model was used in this study as we considered only the energy consumption in the transmitting and receiving states [45]. The parameters used in the first order radio model are shown in Table 1.
3. The average hop count refers to the average hop length of the discovered P2P path between the source node and destination node. 4. The Packet Delivery Ratio (PDR) refers to the ratio of the successfully received packet number on the destination node to the total generated packet number by the source node. 5. The route discovery success ratio refers to the ratio of the total number of successful route discoveries to the total number of route discovery attempts. 6. The network convergence time refers to the latency from the instant in which the source node starts its first trickle interval until the instant at which the destination node has joined the temporary DODAG rooted at the source node.