## 5 Results
### Scenario 2  
The latency results obtained from the differences in time between data transmission at the end devices and data reception at the MQTT broker with two devices in mesh topology mode and one device functioning as a hybrid node are provided in Figure 12. Comparing the latency results and the topology changes (see Figure 13), we can see that all the devices that changed into mesh or hybrid topology mode (devices 2, 4, and 5) increased their latency in comparison to the conventional star mode due to a further added hop or having to handle a higher number of packets in the case of the hybrid end device. The devices that remained in star topology mode presented a slight increase in latency as the test progressed. Figure 11: SNR of the devices in scenario 1. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Metric** & **Device** & **Minimum** & **Maximum** & **Average** & **Variance** \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{Latency (s)} & 1 & 0.6 & 1.8 & 1.5 & 0.03 \\  & 2 & 0.8 & 2.4 & 1.8 & 0.19 \\  & 3 & 0.8 & 2 & 1.7 & 0.06 \\  & 4 & 0.7 & 2.3 & 1.6 & 0.17 \\  & 5 & 0.7 & 2.3 & 1.7 & 0.14 \\  & 6 & 0.7 & 1.8 & 1.5 & 0.04 \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{RSSI (dBm)} & 1 & \(-95\) & \(-77\) & \(-85.4\) & 20.15 \\  & 2 & \(-85\) & \(-77\) & \(-80.7\) & 3.07 \\ \cline{1-1}  & 3 & \(-82\) & \(-75\) & \(-79\) & 1.87 \\ \cline{1-1}  & 4 & \(-85\) & \(-65\) & \(-75.7\) & 28.68 \\ \cline{1-1}  & 5 & \(-85\) & \(-65\) & \(-75.5\) & 27.42 \\ \cline{1-1}  & 6 & \(-81\) & \(-65\) & \(-69.8\) & 6.22 \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{SNR (dB)} & 1 & 3.8 & 11.2 & 8.9 & 1.4 \\ \cline{1-1}  & 2 & 7 & 11 & 9.4 & 0.62 \\ \cline{1-1}  & 3 & 6.2 & 11.8 & 9.3 & 0.87 \\ \cline{1-1}  & 4 & 5.8 & 11.5 & 9.3 & 1.05 \\ \cline{1-1}  & 5 & 6.5 & 11 & 9.3 & 0.95 \\ \cline{1-1}  & 6 & 6.2 & 11.5 & 9.2 & 1.3 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Link quality metrics in scenario 1. We can conclude that, under the conditions of the experiment, multi-hop topologies may result in an increase in latency, but this increase is not severe for the usual performance expected of LoRaWAN networks. The RSSI and SNR results are represented in Figures 14 and 15, respectively. For device 4, the RSSI values remain similar to those prior to the topology mode change, and they even become more stable. For device 5, there is a slight decrease in RSSI when changing topology modes, which makes the following RSSI values very similar to those of device 4. The rest of the devices present similar results throughout the test, with no significant variations after the topology change. Regarding the SNR, all devices exhibit similar results without significant changes after the topology mode update of some of the devices in the network. Although there are variations in SNR, which are expected in experimental tests, they generally remain above 6 dB, except for three instances concerning device 1. Considering the overall results over the entire test duration, Figure 15 shows consistently good SNR values for all devices, indicating minimal interference during the  
Figure 12: Latency in scenario 2. Figure 13: Topology changes of the devices in scenario 2.  
tests. Therefore, the link quality results for this scenario reinforce the conclusion that was reached in scenario 1, where link quality is not significantly disturbed in mesh topologies. The compilation of minimum, maximum, average, and variance of the metrics for each device in scenario 2 is provided in Table 4. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Metric** & **Device** & **Minimum** & **Maximum** & **Average** & **Variance** \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{Latency (s)} & 1 & 1 & 2.1 & 1.8 & 0.02 \\  & 2 & 0.7 & 3.2 & 2.4 & 0.62 \\ \cline{1-1}  & 3 & 1.2 & 2.6 & 2.2 & 0.04 \\ \cline{1-1}  & 4 & 1.2 & 3.1 & 2.6 & 0.3 \\ \cline{1-1}  & 5 & 0.7 & 3.1 & 2.3 & 0.77 \\ \cline{1-1}  & 6 & 0.9 & 2.1 & 1.8 & 0.04 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Link quality metrics in scenario 2. Figure 14: RSSI of the devices in scenario 2. Figure 15: SNR of the devices in scenario 2.