## 4 Mobility Model of the MS
### Optimization Method
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{5}{c}{**The Velocity of the MS in m/s.**} \\ \hline
**Protocol** & 5 & 10 & 15 & 20 & 25 \\
**CLR-MSPH 2 hops** & 0\% & 4.15\% & 4.95\% & 14.21\% & 10.10\% \\
**CLR-MSPH 3 hops** & 0\% & 20.85\% & 19.45\% & 28.22\% & 24.59\% \\
**BMAC-H 2 hops** & 68.68\% & 54.35\% & 54.11\% & 61.78\% & 39.77\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Handover packets in each protocol varying the speed of MS.

### Scenario 2

In this scenario, we study the scalability of both protocols CLR-MSPH and BMAC-H with different random topologies to see the efficiency of our proposed CLR-MSPH protocol. We test both protocols on topologies with 30, 60, 90, 120 sensor nodes and when the average number of clusters in each topology is 5, 10, 15, 20, respectively, in addition to the sink in a random deployment of nodes with a 15 m/s default speed of the MS.

We study the scalability of the proposed CLR-MSPH protocol and BMAC-H protocol in terms of packet reception rate (PRR), latency, and energy consumption. Figures 11 and 12 and Tables 5 and 6, present the total PRR and the percentage of data delivered using the handover mechanisms of both CLR-MSPH and BMAC-H when the number of nodes in the network is varying. The latency of data delivered at the MS is presented in Table 7, and Figure 13 illustrates the energy consumed in each topology using both the CLR-MSPH and BMAC-H protocols. Figure 11: Scalability and Packets Reception Rate in each protocol. Figure 10: Energy consumed in each protocol with varying the speed of the MS. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{5}{c}{**Number of Nodes in the Topology**} \\ \hline
**Protocol** & 30 nodes & 60 nodes & 90 nodes & 120 nodes \\
**CLR-MSPH 2 hops** & 13.15\% & 4.95\% & 7.87\% & 2.60\% \\
**CLR-MSPH 3 hops** & 0\% & 19.45\% & 12.83\% & 5.44\% \\
**BMAC-H 2 hops** & 45.38\% & 54.11\% & 53.33\% & 37.65\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Scalability and handover packets in each protocol. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{5}{c}{**Number of Nodes in the Topology**} \\ \hline
**Protocol** & 30 nodes & 60 nodes & 90 nodes & 120 nodes \\
**CLR-MSPH 2 hops** & 14.61 s & 35.33 s & 41.83 s & 60.78 s \\
**BMAC-H** & 18.34 s & 35.61 s & 42.38 s & 66.11 s \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: The latency of delivered packets in each topology. Figure 12: Scalability and percentage of handover data in each protocol. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{5}{c}{**Number of Nodes in the Topology**} \\ \hline
**Protocol** & 30 nodes & 60 nodes & 90 nodes & 120 nodes \\
**CLR-MSPH** & 98.29\% & 98.05\% & 96.73\% & 94.95\% \\
**BMAC-H** & 87.25\% & 94.40\% & 94.23\% & 91.99\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Scalability and Packets Reception Rate. We notice that our proposed CLR-MSPH protocol performs better than the BMAC-H protocol in all cases in terms of PRR, latency, and energy. In terms of latency (end-to-end delay), we notice that CLR-MSPH performs better than BMAC-H, where our proposed protocol delivers packets with the shortest end-to-end delay. In the case of 30 nodes in the network, we notice that CLR-MSPH performs handover in two hops with a 13.15% success rate compared to BMAC-H, which delivers 45.38% of packets received at the MS. In the other cases (90 and 120 nodes), the MS receives data packets in a shortest end-to-end delay using CLR-MSPH compared to BMAC-H. The CLR-MSPH performs the handover in two and three hops with 20.70% and 8.04% of the total packets sent in 90 node and 120 node topologies, respectively, while BMAC-H hands over 53.33% and 37.65% of the total packets sent in 90 nodes and 120 nodes topologies, respectively.