# Data Security-Based Routing in MANETs Using Key Management Mechanism
## 5 Experimental Results and Comparative Analysis
### Performance Analysis  
Figure 7 shows the end-to-end delay (in microseconds) analysis among the proposed and the existing Energy Efficient Partial Permutation Encryption (EEPPM) protocol [15]. It is found that the proposed model achieves lesser end-to-end delay values compared to EEPPM. The main reason behind this difference is that the proposed model can detect and remove the malicious nodes more efficiently than EEPPM.  
Figure 8 depicts the packet transformation ratio analysis between the proposed and existing EEPPM protocols. It is found that the proposed protocol achieves significantly bet  
Figure 7: End-to-end delay analysis.  
ter packet-delivery ratio values than EEPPM. The proposed protocol outperforms EEPPM, in terms of packet-delivery ratio, by 2.8392%.  
Figure 9 shows the throughput (unit packets/second) analysis between the proposed and EEPPM models. It is found that the proposed protocol achieves significantly better throughput performance values than EEPPM. The proposed protocol achieves 1.9258% better average throughputs than EEPPM.  
Figure 10 depicts the percentage of communication overheads (the unit is communication overhead, and is shown in number of bits) analysis between the proposed and EEPPM protocols. The proposed model has a lesser percentage of communication overhead, whereas the EEPPM model has a higher percentage of communication overheads. In the proposed model, if any node is compromised, it will create security breaches. Here, if any node other than the CK and DK is compromised, there will be no effect on the security of the entire network. This will reduce overheads, but the existing model does not consider these factors. The proposed protocol achieves 3.1585% lesser communication overheads than EEPPM.  
Figure 11 depicts the key (the unit is microseconds) computation time analysis between the proposed and EEPPM models. Key computation time refers to the time taken to perform the computation process. The proposed model takes less time for key computation, whereas the EEPPM model takes significantly more time for key computation. In the proposed model, all nodes need not compute their keys, as only the CK and DK nodes are responsible for it. This will reduce the key computation time, whereas, in case of the EEPPM model,  
Figure 8: Packet-delivery analysis.  
Figure 9: Throughput analysis.  
every node needs to compute its own keys. Due to the low computation capabilities of wireless nodes, the key computation time increases whenever the nodes are scaled to a higher value. The proposed protocol achieves a 2.6276% shorter key computation time than EEPPM.  
Figure 12 shows the energy consumption (watt-hour) analysis. The proposed model uses significantly less energy than the EEPPM model. In the proposed model, all nodes need not compute their keys; only the CK and DK nodes handle them. Thus, only two selected nodes consume energy during the key generation and distribution time, and this will improve the energy efficiency. Conversely, in the EEPPM model, every node needs to compute their own keys, resulting in more energy consumption. The proposed protocol outperforms EEPPM in terms of energy conservation by 1.3549%.  
Figure 11: Key computation time analysis.  
Figure 10: Percentage of communication overhead analysis.