## 2. Mobility Models and Related Work
### Related Work
The researchers [PERSON] et al. [26] determine the qualities, weaknesses, and strengths of numerous mobility models that describe mobile nodes whose movements are independent of one another. More information about these models will aid researchers in selecting a mobility model to utilize in the simulation. The authors have compared these models using numerous performance measures such as PDR, E2E, normalized routing load, and missed packets to demonstrate how the mobility models were chosen to affect the performance results of the ad hoc protocols to be simulated. The authors [PERSON] and [PERSON] [27] aim to focus on the performance of two reactive routing protocols, DSR and AODV, by evaluating several random mobility models and utilizing NetSim Simulator to see if the protocol's applicability can be improved. As a result, the authors examine the impact of communication protocols on the changeable topology of MANETs by measuring throughput, E2E delay, PDR, and routing overhead. [PERSON] and [PERSON] [28] investigated a DTN scenario, the performance of replication-based DTN routing protocols such as Epidemic, Probabilistic Routing Protocol using History of Encounters and Transitivity (PRoPHET), MaxProp, Resource Allocation Protocol for Intentional DTN (RAPID), Binary Spray and Wait (B-SNW), and Spray and Focus (SNF) is investigated against varying numbers of mobile nodes for three mobility models: Random Walk (RW), Random Direction (RD Three measures were used to evaluate and analyze performance using the Opportunistic Network Environment (ONE) simulator: delivery probability, average latency, and overhead ratio. The researched DTN routing protocols, on average, perform better in the SPMB movement model than other movement models, according to simulation data. In Delay Tolerant Networks, the authors [PERSON] et al. [29] compare the performance of Epidemic, Spray, and Wait for routing protocols, as well as their counterparts with congestion control and Epidemic with TCP. Random waypoint (RWP), steady-state random waypoint (SSRWP), and Triana city map-based movement has been used for evaluation, which resulted in outperformance of SSRWP over Triana and RWP evaluation scenarios. With ten pause time values, the FCM, SCM, RWM, and HWM mobility models are developed by the researchers [PERSON] et al. [30] to examine the performance of AODV, OLSR, and GRP protocols. These models are based on MANET participants' variable speeds and pause times. In order to compare the performance of mobility models, various node statistics such as data drop rate, average end-to-end delay, media access time, network load, retransmission attempts, and throughput are employed. The simulation findings indicated that in most circumstances, the OLSR protocol outperforms the other two routing protocols and that it is better suited to networks that demand low latency, retransmission attempts, and high throughput. The authors [PERSON] and [PERSON] [31] have discussed the significance of efficiency considerations and looked at how different routing protocols compare in terms of performance. In terms of PDR, Jitter, E2E Delay, and throughput under various circumstances. Along with this, they researched the behavior of these routing protocols in-depth and compared their performance in various scenarios [32]. The summary is described in Table 1.  
It is clear from the above table that various researchers have performed comparisons of different routing protocol's performance, but none of the above have performed the same for WBAN. This work is focused on the performance analysis of routing for WBAN, which will contribute to better assistance in the healthcare sector.