# Performance Analysis of P2P Networks with Light Communication Links: The Static Managed Case
## 8 Conclusions  
This work proposes a Markovian analysis that models WiFi 7 and LiFi 2.0 technologies in centralized and decentralized environments based on the average download times in different scenarios and system variables, including different transmission rates, numbers of nodes, and different architectures. A mathematical model was developed to capture the main dynamics of these systems using transitory continuous-time Markov chains. The analytical results were validated through system simulations.  
The numerical results prove that P2P networks with LiFi capabilities can drastically reduce the average download times of files in the order of terabits, sharing the file in a matter of minutes, which proves to be a viable solution for IoT environments, video streaming, real-time applications, social distancing environments, or event venues such as museums, movie theaters, sporting and cultural events, etc., considering applications where a certain degree of alignment is required to allow for light communications.  
In future work, we intend to introduce quantum-based communications, considering that photons are used as the basis of the information-sharing procedure, which facilitates the use of particles in different quantum states, possibly increasing the system bandwidth and security level. We believe that light-based communications may facilitate the use of these quantum technologies compared to communications based on RF technologies.  
The activities of this article were accomplished as follows: Conceptualization, G.H.-O. and M.E.R.-A.; methodology, G.H.-O. and M.E.R.-A.; software, G.H.-O.; validation, M.E.R.-A., J.C.C.-E. and J.E.C.-T.; formal analysis, M.E.R.-A.; investigation, G.H.-O.; resources, M.E.R.-A. and J.C.C.-E.; data curation, G.H.-O.; writing--original draft preparation, G.H.-O.; writing--review and editing, G.H.-O., M.E.R.-A., J.C.C.-E. and J.E.C.-T.; visualization, G.H.-O. and M.E.R.-A.; supervision, M.E.R.-A. and J.C.C.-E.; project administration, G.H.-O. and M.E.R.-A.; funding acquisition, M.E.R.-A. and J.C.C.-E. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.  
This research was funded by Instituto Politecnico Nacional grant number SIP 20231239.  
Not applicable.  
This work has been supported by Instituto Politecnico Nacional and Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologia (CONACYT).  
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Bandwidth**} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{**Average Download Time**} \\  & & & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**(min)**} \\ \hline _Down_ & _Up_ & \begin{tabular}{c} _P2P-_ \\ _LiFi\({}_{\text{LOS}}\)_ \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} _P2P-_ \\ _LiFi\({}_{\text{LOS}}\)_ \\ \end{tabular} & _C-LiFi_ &
\begin{tabular}{c} _P2P-_ \\ _WiFi_ \\ \end{tabular} & _C-WiFi_ \\ \hline
1c & 1 \(\mu\) & 1.69 & 1.31 & 2.01 & 37.02 & 64.75 \\
2c & 2 \(\mu\) & 3.36 & 2.62 & 4.14 & 74.56 & 129.66 \\
3c & 3 \(\mu\) & 5.05 & 3.98 & 6.24 & 114.02 & 196.12 \\
4c & 4 \(\mu\) & 6.76 & 5.28 & 8.26 & 148.54 & 257.31 \\
5c & 5 \(\mu\) & 8.44 & 6.61 & 10.32 & 184.76 & 325.89 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 5: Average download time comparison between centralized and decentralized wireless technologies (36 nodes).