## 5 Simulation and Evaluation
### Impact of Nodes Mobility  
Figure 7 illustrates the evaluation of the routing protocols' performance, measuring the average number of hop-count as a function of the nodes' speed. In AODV, the results offer higher resolution and a clear relation between the average hop-count and nodes' speed. The AODV does not perform well in a highly dynamic wireless environment, thus the average hop-count increases as nodes mobility increases due to the requirement of re-computation of the route when the original route is lost. Furthermore, AODV overlooks the presence of asymmetric link, and it repeatedly performs route discoveries. On the other hand, in DSDV, the hop-count stays constant compared to AODV and GOR. DSDV constructs a path to a destination that relies on the shortest path metric with periodic route maintenance for accurate routing and link stability. GOR routing makes the routing decision on-the-fly based only on candidates' current location to maximize transmission distance. Intuitively, node mobility has no direct impact on GOR. However, candidate node selection without concern for link condition leads to frequent re-transmission due to interference or obstacles, which leads to an increase in the average hop-count relay the transmission. Differently, FQ-AGO performs the best due to its utilization of an asymmetric link wherever and whenever possible. In FQ-AGO, the candidate selection to relay the data packet has a substantial impact on reducing the total number of intermediate nodes. The impact of nodes' speed on network throughput is depicted in Figure 8. Overall, the movement speed of the nodes has a direct effect on the network throughput due to the frequent loss of wireless communication between neighbor nodes, notably in routing schemes that rely on the pre-constructed end-to-end path. Routing protocols such as DSDV and AODV face a severe reduction on throughput as node mobility increases due to frequent path loss to the destination and increased of routing overhead to find a new path to the destination. On the other hand, the GOR achieves better throughput than the AODV due to less path loss since the routing decision does not rely on a single fixed path to the destination. However, FQ-AGO always measures one-hop throughput as a means to elevate routing performance; thus, FQ-AGO shows better achievable throughput than DSDV, AODV, and GOR. This is due to selecting the best wireless communication link that has high throughput along the path to the destination. While the throughput in DSDV and AODV drops when the nodes mobility increase, FQ-AGO exhibits stable throughput under high node mobility. Figure 9 shows the average packet delay as a function of node speed. We observe that, for AODV, the delay grows more significantly as the mobility of nodes increases; node mobility remarkably affects the routing protocol performance. As a consequence, the route to the destination may be lost since theAODV relies on one next-hop candidate only. Therefore, once the relay node moves out of the sender's transmission range, the sender has to initiate a search action by broadcasting a Route Request packet to find a new route to the destination at the cost of additional delay. On the other hand, DSDV performs better than AODV; the rapid wireless link maintenance updates benefit the overall DSDV routing performance at the cost of extensive consumption of network resources. However, as the speed increases, the DSDV gradually starts losing the available routes to the destination; in some situations, a packet travels through a long path to the destination. In the worst case, the current packet custodian drops the packet. The GOR protocol slightly outperforms AODV in terms of average packet delay, and it is not affected directly by increase nodes mobility since it relies on its neighbors' local geographic position for routing decisions. It makes the routing decision on-the-fly when a network node has a packet to send.