# Reduced Overhead Routing in Short-Range Low-Power and Lossy Wireless Networks +
## 5 Performance Evaluation
### ERPL's P2 MP Routing and Data Forwarding Performance Evaluation  
Here, we present simulation results for our P2 MP reduced overhead routing protocol. The idea here is to analyzes the actual impact of the Bloom Filter's false positive rate on the protocol's performance, therefore we did not use any radio propagation model in these set of simulations. We categorize our performance benchmarks as follows: reliability, source routing control overhead, and energy consumption. For reliability, we measure and report PDR. We compared our protocol's  
Figure 10: Protocols’ Performances in FlockLAB Testbed.  
performance against an ideal case, i.e., as we are not using any radio propagation model, hence we assume RPL delivers 100% packets to the destination node. We used a grid network topology with 50 nodes, and one node among those 50 nodes acts as the root node. In our simulations, the root transmits 10,000, 20,000, 30,000, 40,000, and 50,000 packets to different nodes in a network. Before transmitting a packet the root randomly selects a destination node and inserts the source routing information in the form of a BF into the packet header before transmitting the message. To obtain CI around the means, we repeated each set of simulations 30 times with different random seeds. Moreover, we used the following BF configurations: \([m=128,k=4]\).  
Figure 11a shows the comparison of PDR achieved by our P2 MP routing protocol in the ideal case. In different simulation scenarios, our P2 MP routing protocol showed more than 98% PDR. The difference between the two protocols is minor, hence our PDR results demonstrate that the BF-based approach towards source routing can yield an acceptable level of performance. Use of a radio propagation model will reduce the PDR, however in that case the PDR for RPL will also be impacted. Figure 11b shows the mean per-packet source routing control overhead comparison. In order to obtain RPL's source routing overhead we keep track of each data packet's route length in our simulations and accumulate it for each transmitted packet. At the end of each simulation, we divide the accumulated route length value by the total transmissions to obtain the mean per-packet route length. We use IEEE 802.15.4 addresses in the source routing, therefore we multiplied the mean per-packet route length with 6 to obtain the mean number of overhead bytes per packet. For our P2 MP reduced overhead routing, the control overhead is constant, i.e., 128 bits. On average, for each transmitted packet, our P2 MP protocol demonstrated approximately 64% lower source routing control bits overhead than standard RPL. The mean per-packet overhead difference in terms of bits is 232 bits. Hence, using RPL's source routing results in transmitting data packets that are bigger in size compared to our protocol. This can potentially negatively impact the PDR of RPL, and the difference among the protocol in terms of PDR will be further reduced. Moreover, it is a well-known fact that transmitting data packets consumes the highest amount of a node's energy, therefore RPL's energy consumption is likely to be substantially higher compared to our P2 MP routing protocol.  
Simulation results demonstrated that our P2 MP routing protocol improves on RPL in the following aspects: fixed size address header, per-packet lower control overhead, and lower energy consumption. Moreover, the difference among the compared protocols in terms of PDR is very narrow. Furthermore, our simulation results also confirm that our P2 MP reduced overhead routing protocol possesses the  
Figure 11: Performance Comparison.  
much required characteristics for a routing protocol for low-power and short-range wireless networks, such as lower energy consumption, lower overhead, and fixed size IP headers.