# MANET Routing Protocols' Performance Assessment Under Dynamic Network Conditions
## 5 Results and Comparative Analysis
### Overall Results
In the 500-node scenario, the effects of homogeneous and heterogeneous networks on the three protocol categories become more pronounced. Proactive protocols, such as OLSR and DSDV, continue to show increased network load and energy consumption in the heterogeneous network, which is expected due to the overhead of maintaining \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Number of** & **Metrics** & **Homogeneous** & **Heterogeneous** \\
**Nodes** & & & \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{20} & Network Load & Higher & Lower \\  & Throughput & Higher & Lower \\  & Simulation Time & Higher & Lower \\  & Average Delay & Lower & Higher \\  & Energy Consumption & Lower & Higher \\  & Jitter & Higher & Lower \\  & Packet Loss Rate & Lower & Higher \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{80} & Network Load & Higher & Lower \\  & Throughput & Higher & Lower \\  & Simulation Time & Higher & Lower \\  & Average Delay & Higher & Lower \\  & Energy Consumption & Higher & Lower \\  & Jitter & Higher & Lower \\  & Packet Loss Rate & Higher & Lower \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{200} & Network Load & Lower & Higher \\  & Throughput & Higher & Lower \\  & Simulation Time & Higher & Lower \\  & Average Delay & Higher & Lower \\  & Energy Consumption & Higher & Lower \\  & Jitter & Higher & Lower \\  & Packet Loss Rate & Higher & Lower \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 16: Comparison of All Performance Metrics for Homogeneous and Heterogeneous Nodes. routes in a larger and more complex network with both mobile and fixed nodes. Reactive protocols, including AODV and DSR, maintain consistent performance across both network types, but the homogeneous network shows slightly lower simulation times, likely due to the uniformity in node mobility. Hybrid protocols demonstrate stable behavior in both scenarios, with only minor differences in delay and jitter, although the heterogeneous network exhibits a slightly higher packet loss rate. Overall, the introduction of fixed nodes in the heterogeneous network tends to increase the complexity and overhead for proactive protocols, while reactive and hybrid protocols remain adaptable and efficient across both network types, even at larger scales. Based on the results of the four scenarios with 20, 80, 200, and 500 nodes, it is evident that the type of network--whether homogeneous or heterogeneous--significantly affects the performance of different protocol categories. Proactive protocols, such as OLSR and DSDV, consistently show higher network load and energy consumption in heterogeneous networks due to the continuous need to maintain up-to-date routing information across both mobile and fixed nodes. As the network size increases, this effect becomes more pronounced, particularly in larger networks like the 500-node scenario. Reactive protocols, including AODV and DSR, demonstrate stable performance across both network types, with a slight advantage in simulation time within homogeneous networks where routing paths are more straightforward due to the uniform mobility of nodes. Hybrid protocols, such as ZRP and GRP, exhibit consistent and adaptable performance across all scenarios, with minimal impact from network heterogeneity, though they do show slight increases in delay and packet loss in larger heterogeneous networks. Overall, as the network size scales, homogeneous networks offer simplicity and efficiency, particularly for reactive protocols, while heterogeneous networks introduce more complexity, particularly affecting proactive protocols, but can still maintain robust performance with hybrid protocols. By aligning protocol selection with network size, network administrators and system designers can optimize performance to suit specific application requirements and operating conditions. In smaller networks, proactive protocols are advantageous due to their low overhead and immediate route availability, making them suitable for scenarios requiring minimal latency and stable topology.