## 3 Results and Discussion
### Average Delay Comparison
This outcome reflects the advantages of reactive routing protocols like CM-QOS-AODV in dynamically changing environments such as highways. In reactive protocols, routes are discovered only when needed, which allows for greater flexibility in high-mobility scenarios where network topology frequently changes. In such environments, CM-QOS-AODV can adapt more efficiently, establishing new routes quickly after route breaks, thereby keeping delays lower compared to other protocols. However, CM-QOS-AODV has the highest delay in traffic generation scenarios, which suggests that the protocol struggles when the network experiences heavy traffic loads. The reason could be the overhead associated with route discovery in reactive protocols, which causes delays when the demand for route establishment increases. CM-GPSR's delay behavior exhibits  
the highest delay for varying packet sizes and pause times, indicating that its performance is less efficient when dealing with changes in these network parameters. The GPSR protocol relies on the geographic location of nodes for routing decisions. While this approach can be efficient in many cases, it may not handle packet size variations well, leading to higher delays when the network conditions change significantly. For example, when the packet size increases or nodes experience extended pauses, CM-GPSR struggles to maintain optimal performance, resulting in higher delays compared to other protocols. In contrast, CM-GPSR performs better in mobility scenarios, maintaining delay variations within a small range between city and highway environments. This outcome suggests that the location-based nature of GPSR makes it more resilient to changes in node mobility, allowing it to maintain stable performance across varying mobility conditions. CM-QOS-AODV's balanced delay performance maintains its delay observations between 0.03 and 0.04 s across all scenarios, indicating a balanced and consistent performance. This time-optimized version of QOS-AODV performs well across different network conditions, balancing the need for route discovery with minimizing delay. The uniformity in its performance suggests that CM-QOS-AODV handles dynamic and static network conditions similarly, making it a reliable choice for environments that experience a mix of traffic patterns, packet sizes, and mobility levels. Traffic Generation and Delay: One of the key observations is that the average delay for all compared protocols varies below 0.01 s against different traffic generation scenarios. This outcome indicates that traffic generation does not significantly impact the delay performance of the protocols. It suggests that all protocols, regardless of their reactive or proactive nature, are well-equipped to handle varying amounts of network traffic without introducing significant delays. The efficiency in handling traffic generation can be a result of optimized packet queuing and routing mechanisms, which prevent excessive delays even when the network is experiencing heavy traffic. Mobility and Delay: The mobility comparison in Figure 10a highlights the significant effect of mobility on network delay. Based on the current results, in the worst case, when mobility increases, the network topology changes more frequently, leading to higher chances of route failures and the need for repeated route rediscovery. CM-QOS-AODV, being a reactive protocol, is better equipped to handle these dynamic changes, as it initiates route discovery only when necessary. IOLSR, despite its proactive nature, also performs relatively well but exhibits slight increases in delay under high-mobility conditions, as maintaining up-to-date routes becomes more challenging with frequent topology changes. The analysis of Figure 10 highlights the distinct delay characteristics of the evaluated routing protocols under various network conditions. IOLSR, leveraging its proactive routing mechanism, consistently achieves the lowest delay, making it well-suited for low-mobility environments with stable topologies.