## 4 Energy Aware Software Defined Network (EASDN) Routing Algorithm
\[ECPB=\sum(Initial\ node\ energy)/Total\ received\ bits. \tag{5}\]

#### 5.3.5 Average Delay (AD)

The summation of delay which is faced by all packets to reach up to the destination divided by total transmitted packets. PD is the packet delay which is faced by the packet and TTP is total number of transmitted packets. \[AD=\sum PD(ttp)/TPP. \tag{6}\]

\[ttp\in TTP\]

### Results and Discussion

We performed our experiment in two different areas: Firstly, the nodes were deployed on the fourth floor of IRIT-1 in a 30 m \(\times\) 38 m area and then the nodes were deployed in room that has an area dimension of 3 m \(\times\) 10 m. We took different metrics and compared the EASDN proposed algorithm results with the traditional source routing algorithm based on SDN (traditioanl SDN) and AODV as shown in Figures 11-15.

the area is 30 m \(\times\) 38 m, which is higher than both a traditional SDN and AODV lifetime, which are 8509 s and 4522 s respectively. If we follow the second definition of a network lifetime, the network lifetime of EASDN is 14,574 s, which is also higher than a SDN network lifetime and AODV lifetime, which are 12,193 s and 4922 s respectively as shown in Figure 10(a). The experimental results show that an EASDN enhances the network lifetime 18% to 20% when compared to a traditional SDN. In the second scenario, we changed the area dimension in order to see the effect on network lifetime. The results are similar to those in the 30 m \(\times\) 38 m dimension area, but in the current scenario, the experimental area is smaller, which means the distance between nodes is also smaller. Therefore, the nodes consume less energy which leads to higher network lifetime. We can observe from Figure 10(b) that the network lifetime is higher in a 3 m \(\times\) 10 m dimension than a 30 m \(\times\) 38 m dimension. As shown by the results, an EASDN increases network lifetime 20% to 22% when compared to a traditional SDN. Figure 11: Network lifetime. From Figure 12, we can observe the packet delivery ratio (PDR). An EASDN has a higher PDR thana traditional SDN and AODV. In a traditional SDN, some packets were lost due to network congestion. It continues the same path until any node dies and in an AODV, the packets were lost due to its broadcasting nature. It uses broadcasting to establish the network path whenever any node needs new path. Therefore, if any forwarder node dies then it establishes a path through broadcasting. During the broadcasting time period, the number of data packets cannot reach up to the destination path during the establishing period, and as a result the underlying network packets (e.g., the underlying network goes to disconnect when the relay node dies) become lost. Furthermore, an AODV could not establish a stable path when compared to the SDN based network because it does not have a global view to manage the network efficiently. Therefore, the AODV has the lowest PDR performance. However, the performance of the EASDN is higher than both a traditional SDN and AODV. As shown in Figure 12a, the PDR of an EASDN is 99.9916%. However, the PDR of a traditional SDN is 99.9694% and an AODV is 99.1271%. So in terms of PDR, the EASDN is also performing better than a traditional SDN and AODV. In the second scenario, the PDR of the EASDN is also better than a traditional SDN and AODV as shown in Figure 12b. Figure 12: Packet delivery ratio. Figure 13 shows the average energy consumption per bit. In the first experimental scenario, the EASDN has lower energy consumption per bit than a traditional SDN and AODV, because the EASDN balances the energy consumption of each network node. Therefore, in an EASDN each node is able to send more numbers of packets when compared to a traditional SDN and AODV. In an AODV, each time node needs to broadcast to establish the path, which leads to more energy consumption.