## 6 Results, Analysis and Discussion
### Analysis Spatial Distribution of Performance Metrics
#### 6.2.7 Impacts of Different Attack Strategies on the Routing Performance  
Table 10 reflects the impact of different attack strategies on the routing performance. The metrics studied throughout this work show the performance of each routing protocol (AODV, DSR and MPH). This table summarizes the positive (\(\uparrow\)) or negative (\(\downarrow\)) impact of better or worse performance on MPH against AODV and DSR. Here, we observe the types of studied jamming and their influence on each of performance metrics. This gives us an idea of what type of jamming is more aggressive in a network  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Impact of the Types of Jamming of the MPH Protocol**} \\ \hline \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Random \(\rho=50\)**} & **Random \(\rho=80\)**} & **Reactive** \\ \hline \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Retransmissions**} \\ \hline
**Against AODV** & 1.6\% \(\uparrow\) & 2.0\% \(\downarrow\) & 2.2\% \(\downarrow\) \\
**Against DSR** & 1.2\% \(\uparrow\) & 9.4\% \(\uparrow\) & 12.8\% \(\uparrow\) \\ \hline \multicolumn{4}{c}{**CSMA retries**} \\ \hline
**Against AODV** & 5.6\% \(\uparrow\) & 25.3\% \(\uparrow\) & 41.4\% \(\uparrow\) \\
**Against DSR** & 4.8\% \(\uparrow\) & 22.6\% \(\uparrow\) & 35.9\% \(\uparrow\) \\ \hline \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Tries**} \\ \hline
**Against AODV** & 3.1\% \(\uparrow\) & 9.9\% \(\uparrow\) & 12.8\% \(\uparrow\) \\
**Against DSR** & 2.7\% \(\uparrow\) & 9.5\% \(\uparrow\) & 20.9\% \(\uparrow\) \\ \hline \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Achievable nodes by the coordinator**} \\ \hline
**Against AODV** & 11.1\% \(\uparrow\) & 11.4\% \(\uparrow\) & 13.8\% \(\uparrow\) \\
**Against DSR** & 11.1\% \(\uparrow\) & 13.6\% \(\uparrow\) & 13.8\% \(\uparrow\) \\ \hline \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Energy**} \\ \hline
**Against AODV** & 26.3\% \(\uparrow\) & 33.7\% \(\uparrow\) & 40.7\% \(\uparrow\) \\
**Against DSR** & 23.2\% \(\uparrow\) & 30.1\% \(\uparrow\) & 37.7\% \(\uparrow\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 10: Impact of the types of jamming when the jammer node is in the middle.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Voltage (mV)**} & **Current (mA)** & **Time (ms)** & **Energy (mJ)** \\ \hline Start-up mode & 120 & 12 & 0.2 & 0.288 \\ MCUrunning on 32-MHz clock & 75 & 7.5 & 1.7 & 0.956 \\ CSMA/CA algorithm & 270 & 27 & 1.068 & 7.78 \\ Switch from RX to TX & 140 & 14 & 0.2 & 0.392 \\ Switch from TX to RX & 250 & 25 & 0.2 & 1.25 \\ Radio in RX mode (processing and waiting) & 250 & 25 & 4.1915 & 26.2 \\ Radio in TX mode & 320 & 23 & 0.58 & 4.26 \\ Shut down mode & 75 & 7.5 & 2.5 & 1.41 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 8: Energy model [17].  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Energy (J) for Reactive Jamming**} \\ \hline \multicolumn{4}{c}{**No Jamming**} & **Near** & **Middle** & **Far** \\ \hline
**AODV** & 149.1372 & 160.8547 & 209.6946 & 191.1689 \\
**DSR** & 136.8437 & 151.0130 & 199.6251 & 188.6629 \\
**MPH** & 86.4993 & 89.4854 & 124.3036 & 109.1902 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 9: Sum of values of the total energy for Figure 11.  
when the jammer is located around the center of the topology and the coordinator node (final destination) is at the corner.