# MANET Routing Protocols' Performance Assessment Under Dynamic Network Conditions
## 5 Results and Comparative Analysis
### Comparative Analysis of Routing Protocols with Homogeneous Nodes  
The comparative analysis examines and shows the performance of proactive, reactive, and hybrid routing protocols in various contexts, as shown in Table 13. Using metrics \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline
**Network Size** & **Proactive Protocols (OLSR,** & **Reactive Protocols (ADDV,** & **Hybrid Protocols (ZRP, GRP)** \\ (Nodes) & **DSDV)** & **DSM, AOMDV, TORA)** & **Hybrid Protocols (ZRP, GRP)** \\ \hline
20 Nodes & High PDR, efficient for smaller networks & Varying PDR, generally lower than proactive protocols & Moderate PDR, balanced performance \\
80 Nodes & Noticeable decrease, consistent performance & Significant decrease due to route discovery overhead & Balanced decrease, effective management of increased PDR \\
200 Nodes & Sharp improvement, high PDR & Peak improvement, highlighting scalability benefits & Peak improvement, balanced performance, effective integration of strategies \\
500 Nodes & Stabilizes or increases, more optimal due to efficiency & Significant increase, indicating return to efficiency & Stabilizes, maintains high PDR, most suitable for high-density networks \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 12: Protocol Suitability for Different Scenarios Considering Packet Delivery Ratio. Figure 8: Packet Delivery Ratio across the Four Scenarios. including network load, throughput, average delay, energy consumption, jitter, packet loss rate, and PDR, this research illustrates the trade-offs and applicability of each protocol type for different network situations. The applicability of proactive, reactive, and hybrid routing protocols under various network conditions and performance trade-offs has been clarified by this comparative investigation. Network load, throughput, average latency, energy consumption, jitter, packet loss rate, and packet delivery ratio are performance indicators that offer valuable insights into the strengths and shortcomings of each protocol. Figures 9-12 display the outcomes of various homogenous node scenarios. Table 14 also shows the protocol suitability across the four scenarios. * Proactive Protocols: With constant route maintenance, proactive protocols excel in scenarios requiring low average delay, jitter, and energy consumption. They are most effective for smaller networks where stability and immediate route availability are crucial. * Reactive Protocols: Reactive protocols, characterized by higher delay and jitter due to on-demand route discoveries, demonstrate effective scalability in moderately dense networks. Their ability to dynamically manage overhead makes them suitable for networks with moderate to high node densities. * Hybrid Protocols: Combining the strengths of proactive and reactive approaches, hybrid protocols offer balanced performance across all metrics. They are particularly effective in highly dense network environments, maintaining high throughput, moderate delay, and energy efficiency while ensuring low packet loss rates and high packet delivery ratios. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline
**Metric** & **Proactive** & **Reactive** & **Hybrid** \\ \hline Network Load & Low (10\%) & High (20\%) & Moderate (15\%) \\ Throughput & High (90\%) & Lower (70\%) & High (85\%) \\ Average Delay & Low (20 ms) & High (80 ms) & Moderate (40 ms) \\ Energy Consumption & Low (5 joules) & High (10 joules) & Moderate (7 joules) \\ Jitter & Low (2 ms) & High (10 ms) & Moderate (5 ms) \\ Packet Loss Rate & Low (5\%) & High (15\%) & Moderate (10\%) \\ Packet Delivery Ratio & High (95\%) & Lower (85\%) & High (90\%) \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 13: Comparative Analysis of Routing Protocols Considering All Metrics. Figure 10: Performance Metrics for All Categories in 80 Mobile Nodes. Figure 9: Performance Metrics for All Categories in 20 Mobile Nodes. Figure 11: Performance Metrics for All Categories in 200 Mobile Nodes. Figure 12: Performance Metrics for All Categories in 500 Mobile Nodes.