## 7 Results  
In the network we have implemented, the most severe aspects to be analyzed under coexistence are presented among the BLE, WiFi, Lora, and ZigBee devices, because LoRa can be configured for other frequencies. ZigBee allows the dynamic selection of channels, a scanning function goes through a list of compatible channels in search of beacon, receiver energy detection, indication of link quality. A feature called frequency agility is specified in the ZigBee standard to improve the robustness of ZigBee networks. According to this function, if an interference is detected in the current channel, a ZigBee network can move to a clear channel depending on some mechanisms. The ZigBee operation in the 2.4 GHz band is favored by the choice of the 16 available channels. The frequency agility feature facilitates the use of these additional channels. When a network is integrated for the first time, the node looks for a channel with the least noise or traffic. If additional overtime traffic appears or if there is noise, the host application looks for a better channel and moves the entire network to the new channel, allowing the network to adapt to changes in Radio Frequency RF environments. Table 1 shows the specifications of the studied wireless technologies. Tables 2 and 3 show the results of the different protocols under the cooperative and collaborative schemes. The metrics used together with the results should be analyzed together as they affect each other. When a node connects to the network the route discovery stage starts, in the case of ZigBee the gateway must assign an ID to the connected node. On the other hand, some protocols send control messages so that other nodes respond them, and in this way, the new node creates its neighbor tables and depending of the configuration also creates its routing tables. Hence, the more percentage of disconnected nodes the discovery process will occur more times. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Methodology** & **Standard** & **Frequency** & **Range** & **Typical Transfer Ratio** \\ \hline ZigBee & IEEE 802.15.4 & 2.4 GHz & 10–100 m & 250 kbps \\ LoRaWAN & LoRaWAN & 433 MHz, 868 MHz and 915 MHz & 2–15 km & 0.3–50 kbps \\ WiFi & 802.11n & 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz & 50 m & 150–200 Mbps \\ BLE & IEEE 802.15.1 & 2.4 GHz (ISM) & 50–150 m (Smart/LE) & 1 Mbps (Smart/LE) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Specifications of the studied wireless technologies. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Metric SD (\%)** & **Zigbee** & **SD (\%)** & **LoRaWAN** & & **SD (\%) WiFi** & **SD (\%)** & **BLE** & **SD (\%)** \\ \hline Transmission rate (Kbps) & 250 & NA & 27 & NA & 165,000 & NA & 25,000 & NA \\ Delay end-to-end (s) & 2.52 & 1.12 & 3.44 & 1.13 & 2.87 & 1.08 & 3.09 & 1.23 \\ Retransmissions & 1.67 & 1.02 & 2.33 & 1.13 & 2.40 & 1.2 & 1.93 & 1.15 \\ Channel retries & 1.93 & 1.12 & 2.60 & 1.21 & 3.11 & 1.04 & 2.44 & 1.22 \\ Disconnection nodes (\%) & 1.00 & 1.03 & 2.30 & 1.18 & 3.00 & 1.21 & 1.20 & 1.09 \\ Packet loss (\%) & 6.00 & 1.01 & 4.00 & 1.06 & 6.0 & 1.10 & 5.00 & 1.02 \\ Available routes (\%) & 70 & 1.12 & 80 & 1.13 & 75 & 1.18 & 90 & 1.02 \\ Overhead (\%) & 30 & 1.14 & 35 & 1.08 & 40 & 1.13 & 30 & 1.21 \\ Resilience (s) & 3.00 & 1.24 & 2.50 & 1.12 & 3.00 & 1.26 & 2.20 & 1.22 \\ Energy consumption (J) & 2.96 & 1.29 & 3.50 & 1.21 & 5.00 & 1.02 & 4.50 & 1.20 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Nodes under the cooperative scheme. Moreover, when a node tries to connect to the network, control messages are sent, therefore, the higher the percentage of disconnection of nodes, the greater the overhead. In the same way, having a greater number of packets in the network will result in more collisions and as a consequence in a greater number of retransmissions, the channel will be busier and will increase the channel retries. It is important to note that the channel retries occur when a node access the channel to verify if it is free, and if so transmit the packet.