# Detection and Mitigation of RPL Rank and Version Number Attacks in the Internet of Things: SRPL-RP
## 4 Simulation and Results Analysis
### Results Analysis
#### 4.2.1 The Network Performance Results and Comparison  
In this sub-section, we present the performance of our proposed SRPL-RP for rank attacks and version number attacks. We compared the results with the standard RPL under rank attacks and version number attacks, as well as SBIDS [13] and RPL+Shield [14].  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Protocol/Time**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**SRPL-RP**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**RPL + Attacks**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**SRPL-RP**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**SBIDS [13]**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**SRPL-RP**} \\  & & & **(Rank)** & & **(Version & RRPL +** \\  & & & **(Rank)** & & **Number** & **Shield [14]** \\ \hline Convergence Time & 92.11\% & 76.32\% & 97.37\% & 94.74\% & 97.37\% & 97.37\% \\ \hline Stability Stage & 81.67\% & 89.47\% & 98.73\% & 95.46 & 98.37\% & 97.28\% \\ \hline Final Stage & 88.12\% & 89.93\% & 98.48\% & 95.99\% & 97.95\% & 96.61\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 5: Packet Delivery Ratio Comparison in Random Topology.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Protocol/Time**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**SRPL-RP**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**RPL + Attacks**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**SRPL-RP**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**SBIDS [13]**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**SRPL-RP**} \\  & & & **(Rank)** & & **(Version & RRPL +** \\  & & & **(Rank)** & & **Number** & **Shield [14]** \\ \hline \hline Convergence Time & 94.74\% & 57.89\% & 94.74\% & 94.74\% & 97.37\% & 92.11\% \\ \hline Stability Stage & 94.74\% & 43.01\% & 97.46\% & 94.74\% & 98.37\% & 96.37\% \\ \hline Final Stage & 94.74\% & 40.82\% & 96.88\% & 94.74\% & 97.95\% & 96.24\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 3: Packet Delivery Ratio Comparison in Grid-Center Topology.  
Figure 3: Packet Delivery Ratio Comparison in Three Topologies.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Protocol/Time**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**SRPL-RP**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**RPL + Attacks**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**SRPL-RP**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**SBIDS [13]**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**SRPL-RP**} \\  & & & **(Rank)** & & **(Version & RRPL +** \\  & & & **(Rank)** & & **Number** & **Shield [14]** \\ \hline Stability Stage & 89.47\% & 89.19\% & 89.47\% & 81.58\% & 89.47\% & 89.47\% \\ \hline Stability Stage & 93.43\% & 89.47\% & 91.83\% & 90.02\% & 92.92\% & 92.74\% \\ \hline Final Stage & 95.99\% & 88.04\% & 94.82\% & 92.69\% & 96.07\% & 92.68\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 4: Packet Delivery Ratio Comparison in Grid-Random Topology.  
Figure 4 shows the Control Message results of SRPL-RP compared with Standard RPL with Attacks, SBIDS [13] and RPL+Shield [14] in the three topologies. The results of the analysis and comparison linked to the chart are presented in Tables 6-8, respectively. These results show that our proposed protocol SRPL-RP in the random topology had the highest performance in reducing the redundant amount of produced control messages compared with Standard RPL with Attacks, SBIDS [13], and RPL+Shield [14], which produced more generated control messages.