# Cooperative Admission Control with Network Coding in 5G Underlying D2D-Satellite Communication
## 4 Simulation Results
### Cooperative Admission Control with Network Coding (JAMANC)
JAMANC batch has overall less packet completion time as compared to JAMANC-stream and MANC. Moreover, as the number of the devices increases, the MANC algorithm's packet completion time increases, but in the JAMANC algorithm, the packet completion almost remains the same. It is because JAMANC caters to the channel conditions while transmitting the RLNC packets, but MANC transmits randomly without considering the channel conditions. Our algorithm's main advantage is that the number of active devices in the network increases without compromising performance. The subfigures in Figure 12 show that our algorithms remain below the upper bound even in adverse conditions. Figure 11: Packet Completion time vs. no. of packets (lossy second stage). Figure 12: \(Cont\). We will now discuss the mode analysis of the different techniques with a number of packets and the number of devices. Figure 13 shows that the JAMANC hybrid has better performance and mostly independent upon the number of devices in the network in case of a batch algorithm. The simulation shows that utilizing all the three modes effectively and taking the strength of admission control with network coding increases overall performance. Similarly, Figure 13a,b shows that with an increase in packets, JAMANC with hybrid mode, i.e., cellular supported by D2D-Satellite, has lesser packet completion time. Besides, our algorithm JAMANC selects satellite when deemed essential, reducing the link budget cost overall. Figure 12: Packet Completion vs. no. of devices (lossy second stage). The probability of packet loss plays a vital role in performance for network coding. Now we consider the loss factor and analyze our algorithms based on packet drops. Figure 14 shows the comparison of the packet completion time with the probability loss factor. The difference in performance between JAMANC and MANC is negligible at lesser loss factor values because of high SINR values. However, as the probability loss increases, the MANC packet completion time increases, but JAMANC packet completion time increases slowly because of effective admission control to cater to the interference (refer to zoom version of Figure 14). The strength of cooperative admission control is shown by comparing the performance of the MANC with ATPSPN-NoNC. ATPSPN-NoNC outperforms the MANC algorithm at a higher probability loss factor because the joint channel condition plays a significant role at adverse interference. The multiple interfaces provide better performance than a single interface at a higher loss factor when JAMANC hybrid mode is selected compared to standalone modes. In short, cooperative admission control with network coding underlying multiple interfaces jointly optimized lead to better performance even at worse channel conditions or higher packet loss factor. Figure 13: Mode analysis: Versus no. of packets/no. of devices. (**a**) Batch (versus no. of packets), (**b**) Stream (versus no. of packets), (**c**) Batch (versus no. of devices), (**d**) Stream (versus no. of devices).