## 4 Implementation Details
### Generating Heterogeneous Arrivals
Hence, when the longer packets would be transmitting, there would be more packets which would need to wait for more than 2 s and hence the PDR increase. Secondly, Figure 4 also reveals the difference of PDR for the low and high priority traffic; the trend shows steady increase for the high priority, where the values of PDR is far higher for the CBR. The reason behind this difference in behavior is the present design where it has been assumed that all the CBR packets are generated periodically at the same time; clearly, this would result in higher delay and hence the PDR. In contrast, for the high priority traffic, the packets can be generated at each node at any point in the time, which reduces the waiting time and hence a steady increase for the values of PDR has been observed. Figure 3: Maximum Delay of Low and High Priority Traffic for the FCFS Scheme. ### Prioritization without Fragmentation

In this experiment, priorities were assigned to both traffic types. Low Priority \(P_{1}\) was assigned to Type-1 (\(T_{1}\)) CBR traffic and High Priority \(P_{2}\) was assigned to Type-2 (\(T_{2}\)) Poisson traffic. No fragmentation has been applied for the low priority traffic, and all packets are transmitted as a single unit/fragment. In case a packet of \(P_{2}\) is generated in any node, it is transmitted before the low priority traffic present with all the other nodes (as previously mentioned, global queue is implemented). However, the high priority traffic cannot interrupt the ongoing transmission of low priority traffic and thus, it has to wait until the low priority packet fully gets transmitted. This case represents the prioritization mechanisms developed by majority of previous researchers. The delay comparison for traffic of both priorities for this experiment has been illustrated in Figure 5. The delay for both traffic types is found to be increasing with increasing packet size due to the increased packetization and queuing delays. The maximum delay for low priority traffic is found to be considerably higher than high priority traffic, as per the expectation. The low priority packets wait for all the high priority traffic to transmit first, which is the cause behind the higher delay. In contrast, as the high priority packets are lower in number and also generate at random intervals, they face very less delay. Figure 6 depicts the PDR trends for low and high priority traffic for the prioritization without fragmentation scheme. As described earlier in Section 4.1, the PDR for high priority traffic remain low as compared to the CBR due to the packet generation rate and associated high probability of finding channel engaged. Figure 7 combines the results presented in Figures 3 and 5 to illustrate the effect of prioritization. It has come to light that the maximum delay for \(T_{1}\) traffic has slightly increased whereas there is more significant decrease in the delay of \(T_{2}\) traffic. This trend can be explained further by considering an example case where 4 packets of \(T_{1}\) and one packet of \(T_{2}\) are to be transmitted. Let us assume that first packet of \(T_{1}\) was already transmitting and there were three more packets of \(T_{1}\) in the queue at the instant when a packet of \(T_{2}\) is generated, as shown in Figure 8.

Figure 4: Packet Drop Ratio (PDR) of Low and High Priority Traffic for FCFS Scheme. Figure 5: Comparison of Delay for Prioritization without Fragmentation. For the case of FCFS illustrated in Figure 6a, the packet of \(T_{2}\) has to wait for all the packets of \(T_{1}\) which were generated earlier resulting in a high maximum delay; when the prioritization is applied, \(T_{2}\) packet would just need to wait for the completion of ongoing transmission of the first packet of \(T_{1}\), which results in a significant reduction of maximum delay. On the other hand, the case is opposite for the traffic of \(T_{1}\).