## 5 Analysis of the Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l} \hline \hline
**Configuration** & **WiFi** & **Zigbee** \\ \hline Land & Geographical coordinates & Geographical coordinates \\ \hline Simulation time & 00:00:30 & 00:01:15 \\ \hline Channel & 2400 MHz & 915 MHz \\ \hline Propagation model & Two-Ray & Okumura-Hata \\ \hline Routing Protocol & AODV & AODV \\ \hline Radio Type & 802.11b & 802.15.4 \\ \hline Potency of transmission & 15 dBm & 3 dBm \\ \hline Package reception model & PHY802.11b & PHY 802.15.4 \\ \hline Modulation scheme & - & O-QPSK \\ \hline Antenna model & Omnidirectional & Omnidirectional \\ \hline MAC protocol & 802.11 & 802.15.4 \\ \hline Network protocol & IPV4 & IPV4 \\ \hline Device type & Generic & Full function devices \\ \hline Number of nodes & 174 & 181 \\ \hline Access points & 13 & - \\ \hline Number of networks & 19 & 1 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Configuration summary of the scenarios to simulate. As shown in Figure 8, the simulation shows the sending of data as programmed and visually verifies the communication paths and the radiation patterns or lobes that are generated as the simulation ends so that the results of the network performance can be visualized. In the case of WiFi, the metric shown in Figure 9 is obtained, which shows the data measured in bytes sent by each independent node, according to the programming defined in Table 5. In contrast, as shown in Figure 10 which indicates the data received by each node, it can be verified that of the 18 sets of data sent, 15 are received; which means that within the communication process, three packets were lost, therefore, it is necessary to mention that this result varies according to the amount of traffic and number of packets sent simultaneously between nodes. Figure 8: Scenario simulation with 100-m range WiFi technology. Figure 7: Zigbee network topology for simulation. Figure 9: Total data (bytes) sent per node—WiFi. Figure 11 shows that from the nodes that are sent constant scheduled information, data generated by the interaction and communication hops of the network are also queued, here node 170 stands out, which corresponds to the base station in the southern region of the scenario, which has a more significant amount of data to receive and send. Therefore, it is clear that nodes that receive more than one packet will generate data queuing according to the order in which they have arrived. Consequently, it is also confirmed that during the establishment time for sending and receiving packets, there is information that will wait the necessary time to reach its destination; however, there are other packets that, having completed the waiting time, will be lost and will not be able to reach their destination. On the other hand, through the Figure 12, it is confirmed that the devices search for a suitable communication route using the reactive AODV (Ad hoc On-Demand Distance Vector Routing) protocol, considering that they can make more than one hop to reach their destination and that the necessary multi hops have been established to meet the information transfer needs. In this Zigbee scenario, Figure 13 shows the number of times in which links have been broken in each link. The data rate of the technology limits the time and capacity of packet queuing. In addition, to the saturation of the routes. Figure 11: Total packets queued—WiFi. Figure 12: Total hop count for all routes—WiFi. Figure 10: Total data (bytes) received per node—WiFi. In the case of Zigbee, a different result has been obtained concerning WiFi, while Figure 14 shows the data sent, in Figure 15 shows the data received. From these graphs, it is evident that a large amount of information is lost in the transfer since this could not be kept in a queue or otherwise found saturated paths to their destination.