## 7 Conclusion and Future Work  
Most of the SG devices are nowadays microcontrollers with limited storage and computing capabilities. Communication frontend is moreover realized by low bandwidth and low power technologies. Therefore, the design of communication network solutions which satisfy the requirements of these lossy and constrained devices is considered as a great challenge. In this paper, \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**RPL implementations** & **[PERSON] et al.** & **[PERSON] et al.** & **[PERSON] et al.** & **[PERSON] et al** & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Our Proposed** \\ **Evaluation** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline RPL & WSN & ✓ & ✓ & ✓ & ✓ & ✓ \\ environment & PLC & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) \\ Simulation & ✓ & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & ✓ \\ Experimental & \(\times\) & ✓ & ✓ & ✓ & ✓ \\ Network scale &
\begin{tabular}{c} Simulation \\ Experimental \\ \end{tabular} & 100 & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & 1000 \\ \multirow{2}{*}{RPL OF metric} & ETX & ✓ & ✓ & \(\times\) & \(\times\) \\  & Hop Count & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & ✓ & ✓ \\ The measured & Latency & ✓ & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) \\ RPL & Overhead & ✓ & ✓ & ✓ & ✓ \\ performance & PDR & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & ✓ & \(\times\) \\ metrics & Power & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) \\  & consumption & & & & \\ Network & Uniform & ✓ & ✓ & ✓ & ✓ \\ Topology & Random & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) & \(\times\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Summary of the comparison of different RPL evaluation environments. we have explored the relevance and changes of RPL protocol during a typical AMI preparation. Experiments are conducted using two different hardware platforms with a uniform and random network topology. RPL is tested under different configuration parameters and different network environments using practical and simulated implementation. RPL performance is depending on the network topology and the number of nodes. This is contrasted with the results of this article [7] as their results introduced that RPL doesn't depend on the distribution of nodes. AMI networks as part of SG communication infrastructure need reliability and low latency communication. RPL protocol satisfies application necessities through an appropriate Objective Function definition. In this paper, we investigated the control overhead, latency, packet delivery ratio, and power consumption while optimizing two OFs (OF0 and ETX); we intend to outline a simple hop count based version of OF0 to satisfy AMI network necessities and compare it with ETX. Practical implementation using (uniform & random) IoT-LAB topology outlines that routes using ETX outperform hop count as the network size affects the transmissions and calculated the best path using hop count consume more network resources. To measure the RPL performance within a large scale network, a random simulated Cooja scenario is implemented to evaluate RPL performance in terms of some defined metrics while applying ETX and OF0. Results show that the proposed ETX outperform OF0 in packet delivery ratio and power consumption. OF0 experience higher latency than using ETX: As the network size increase, the number of hop count increases. In the future, we intend to study the RPL performance in PLC environments under a new configuration and modification of the RPL basic parameters to participate in the standardization process of RPL as IPv6 in SG applications. S.A.A.H. did the experiments, data collection, the real testing, conceptualization, software implementation and writing of the original draft. A.A.H. conceptualization, paper editing and review. H.K. project administrator, editing, reviewing and funding.