# Enhanced Routing Algorithm Based on Reinforcement Machine Learning--A Case of VoIP Service
## 5 Results and Discussions  
In order to evaluate the e-RLRP performance in relation to BATMAN, OLSR and RLRP protocols, different network scenarios were emulated. Each simulation scenario runs 50 times, and the average value for each scenario is computed. The simulation of each scenario takes 600 s.  
In the test scenarios, the AMR-WB operation modes 2 and 8 were considered. Thus, the transmission bit-rates considered were those presented in Table 7. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline \hline
**AMR-WB Bit-Rate (kpbs)** & **Bit-Rate Considering RTP/UDP/IP Headers (kpbs)** \\ \hline
12.65 & 28.65 \\
23.85 & 39.85 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: Bit-rate After Adding RTP, UDP and IP headers. Firstly, an ideal scenario without drops is tested to assess the overhead reduction obtained by the e-RLRP in relation to RLRP. The Table 8 shows the overhead in the network scenario without drops, these results represent the average overhead of the nodes, considering AMR-WB Modes 8 and 2. As expected, the results obtained in the ideal scenario without drops demonstrate that e-RLRP obtained an overhead approximately 16% lower than RLRP. This result is due to the fact that the e-RLRP in a scenario without falls keeps the frequency of sending messages lower than the RLRP. In a real ad-hoc network environment, nodes move or may fail, degrading the network performance. Therefore, the e-RLRP, RLRP, BATMAN and OLSR protocols are testing in scenario where mobility occurs. The throughput and _Ppl_ results, in the so-called scenario P, are illustrated in Tables 9 and 10, respectively. Results presented in Tables 9 and 10 demonstrate that e-RLRP and RLRP have a better performance than BATMAN and OSLR. The e-RLRP and RLRP have a _Ppl_ value close to zero because they avoid the route containing node B that presents recurring drops. The value does not reach zero because when the routing starts, both protocols choose the route of node B which has the lowest number of hops, but after successive drops of node B, both protocols no longer consider the use of this route. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline \hline
**AMR-WB Mode-8** & **AMR-WB Mode-2** \\ \hline \hline
**T1** & **T1** \\ \hline
**(\%)** & **(\%)** \\ \hline e-RLRP & **0.04** & **0.03** \\ RLRP & 0.05 & 0.05 \\ Batman & 1.3 & 1.23 \\ OLSR & 8.08 & 8.02 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 10: _Ppl_ (%) obtained in Scenario P considering AMR-WB Modes 2 and 8. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Routing Protocol** & **Mode 8 (kbps)** & **Mode 2 (kbps)** \\ \hline e-RLRP & **2.29** & **2.24** \\ RLRP & 2.71 & 2.65 \\ Batman & 6.60 & 6.30 \\ OLSR & 2.63 & 2.58 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 8: Overhead (kbps) obtained in Scenario without drops considering AMR-WB Modes 8 and 2. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Routing Protocol** & **Mode 8 (kbps)** & **Mode 2 (kbps)** \\ \hline e-RLRP & **2.29** & **2.24** \\ RLRP & 2.71 & 2.65 \\ Batman & 6.60 & 6.30 \\ OLSR & 2.63 & 2.58 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 8: Overhead (kbps) obtained in Scenario without drops considering AMR-WB Modes 8 and 2. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline \hline
**AMR-WB Mode-8** & **AMR-WB Mode-2** \\ \hline \hline
**T1** & **T1** \\ \hline
**(\%)** & **(\%)** \\ \hline e-RLRP & **0.04** & **0.03** \\ RLRP & 0.05 & 0.05 \\ Batman & 1.3 & 1.23 \\ OLSR & 8.08 & 8.02 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 10: _Ppl_ (%) obtained in Scenario P considering AMR-WB Modes 2 and 8. Differently, the OLSR protocol chooses the route which contains node B, because this is the path with the least number of hops. Despite the BATMAN protocol having obtained a higher Ppl than e-RLRP and RLRP, it presented a performance better than OLSR. This is due to the OGM messaging mechanism.