## 4 Experiments and Results
### Discussion of Results  
The provided data outlines the key evaluation parameters for various simulation scenarios involving different quantities of nodes (30, 60, and 90) using two distinct routing protocols: PCC-RPL and SLF-RPL. The metrics examined encompass the Packet Loss Ratio (%), Energy Consumption (measured in Joules), and Attack Detection Rate (expressed in minutes). Upon analyzing the data, it becomes apparent that the two routing protocols, PCC-RPL and SLF-RPL, showcase varying performance characteristics across different scenarios. In terms of the Packet Loss Ratio, the SLF-RPL consistently demonstrates marginally superior results compared with the PCC-RPL. The recorded values range from 0.39% to 0.46% for the SLF-RPL and from 0.41% to 0.49% for the PCC-RPL. This indicates that the SLF-RPL tends to maintain a slightly lower packet loss ratio, suggesting potentially more reliable data transmission, as presented in Table 5 below. As for Energy Consumption, both protocols exhibit an overall reduction in energy usage as the number of nodes increases. Notably, the SLF-RPL consistently achieves better energy efficiency across all scenarios. The energy consumption figures fluctuate between 0.0504 J and 0.0728 J for the SLF-RPL, while the PCC-RPL's values range from 0.065 J to 0.0963 J, as presented in Table 5. This indicates that the SLF-RPL is more adept at conserving energy, which is crucial for prolonging the network's operational lifespan. Turning to the Attack Detection Rate, it is observed that the SLF-RPL demonstrates faster attack detection times across all simulation scenarios. The detection times range from 12 to 22 min for the SLF-RPL, while the PCC-RPL achieves detection in a slightly  
Figure 17: Attack Detection Time at the Node Level. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Key Evaluation** & **Simulation Scenario: 30 Nodes** & **Simulation Scenario: 60 Nodes** & **Simulation Scenario: 90 Nodes** \\ \hline  & **PCC-RPL** & **SLF-RPL** & **PCC-RPL** & **SLF-RPL** & **PCC-RPL** & **SLF-RPL** \\ \hline Packet Loss & 0.41 & 0.39 & 0.46 & 0.43 & 0.49 & 0.46 \\ Ratio (\%) & 0.0963 & 0.0728 & 0.0801 & 0.065 & 0.0673 & 0.0504 \\ \hline Attack Detection & & & & & \\ Rate (Time in Mints) & 12 & 14 & 14 & 17 & 20 & 22 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Results Comparison of PCC-RPL vs. SLF-RPL at the Node Level. broader time frame, ranging from 14 to 20 min, as presented in Table 5. This suggests that the SLF-RPL is more responsive in identifying potential attacks within the network. In summary, the data present evaluations of different simulation scenarios involving node quantities of 30, 60, and 90, utilizing two routing protocols, PCC-RPL and SLF-RPL. The analyzed metrics include Packet Loss Ratio, Energy Consumption, and Attack Detection Rate. The SLF-RPL consistently exhibits slightly better Packet Loss Ratio results (0.39% to 0.46%) compared with the PCC-RPL (0.41% to 0.49%), implying more reliable data transmission. In terms of Energy Consumption, the SLF-RPL demonstrates higher efficiency (0.0504 J to 0.0728 J) than the PCC-RPL (0.065 J to 0.0963 J), indicating better energy conservation. Notably, the SLF-RPL also excels in the Attack Detection Rate, achieving faster detection times (12 to 22 min) compared with the PCC-RPL (14 to 20 min), showcasing a heightened responsiveness to potential network attacks, as presented in Table 5.  
Table 6 provides a comprehensive and detailed analysis of key evaluation parameters for the two distinct routing protocols, PCC-RPL and SLF-RPL, across multiple time intervals ranging from 10 to 60 min. These parameters, namely Attack Detection Rate (%), Average Residual Energy (J), and Packet Loss Ratio (%), shed light on the performance and efficiency of the two protocols under different conditions. Starting with the Attack Detection Rate (%), which signifies the protocols' ability to identify and respond to network attacks, the SLF-RPL consistently outperforms the PCC-RPL across all time intervals.