## 5 Analysis and Results  
Next are presented the results obtained through the comparison among protocols OLSR and AODV default jointly OLSR and AODV Self-organized, according to the above described metric. \[Overhead=\frac{Total\_Mensages\_HELLO\_or\_Mensages\_TC}{Total\_of\_packets\_in \_Network}*100 \tag{3}\]  
In Figure 6 is presented a comparison between OLSR: Self-Organized and OLSR: Original in terms of traffic and total of HELLO messages sent. We can see that when the number of nodes increases into network, all differences between the two protocols that begins to be stronger. For this reason we can conclude that when the network grows in number of nodes clients the OLSR: Self-organized protocol inject less messages of HELLO into the network. Figure 7 shows the comparison of routing traffic sent and received between OLSR:Self-Organized and OLSR:Original. Thus, it is observed that the OLSR:Self-Organized obtained better performance due to the fact that it received more packages and sent less maintenance and control messages in the network. In addition, the OLSR:Self-Organized receive more packages because it has less dropped packages according to Figure 9.  
It can still be observed that in the small scale the same behavior of both comparisons, but already in the scales average for big the OLSR: Self-organized received more packages than OLSR: Original. While the most specific analysis of the total number of HELLO messages sent as having shown in the Figure 6, it can be observed that in the small medium and large scales injected a smaller number of messages HELLO in the network. It is also observed for the medium scale a very slight curve of packages for the protocol OLSR:Self-organized, this happened due to the adjustment of the parameter of  
Figure 6: Traffic of HELLO messages sent between OLSR:Self-Organized and OLSR:Original versus Total of HELLO messages sent between OLSR:Self-Organized and OLSR:Original. Figure 7: shows the comparison of routing traffic sent and received between OLSR:Self-Organized and OLSR:Original. Thus, it is observed that the OLSR:Self-Organized obtained better performance due to the fact that it received more packages and sent less maintenance and control messages in the network. In addition, the OLSR:Self-Organized receive more packages because it has less dropped packages according to Figure 9.  
TC_Interval for 0.0588 in the medium scale as observed in the Table 2. This value was originated from the specific analysis of the parameter using the optimization function. Figure 8 shows that the comparison among TC (topology Control) messages and the number of MPR messages between the protocol OLSR: Self-Organized and the OLSR: Original. In this point of view the OLSR: Self-organized injected less control and maintenance of routes messages. Consequently, injecting less messages in the network avoids overload and excessive accumulation of messages, because it is a feature of the protocol OLSR to have a high overload due to technique used to change messages in the network. Finally the OLSR: Self-organized protocol obtained better performance than OLSR: Original in almost all metrics analyzed. In Figure 9 it is possible to see the amount of discarded packages for the protocols during the simulation. In this point of view it is observed that the OLSR: Self-organized protocol obtained a smaller discard of packages in relation to the protocol OLSR: Original in all the scales of network and it is also observed that when the networks grow in amount of devices we can see that discard for the protocol OLSR:Original tends to be larger. It can observed that in 10, 40 and 80 nodes the discard was zero in relation to packages in bits/second. We can see too the end-to-end delay among OLSR: Self-organized and OLSR: Original and the OLSR: Self-Organized obtained smaller delay in comparison with OLSR:Original.