## 4 Result and Discussion
### Evaluation Parameters  
Delay  
Table 2 and Figure 3 describes the delay analysis of the DEELB methodology using known methods. The data clearly show that the DEELB method outperformed the other techniques in all aspects. For example, with a large number of operations, the DEELB method has only 10.352 s of delay, while the other existing techniques like EEFO, DEERA, ELBS, and DEBTS have a delay of 26.832 s, 22.851 s, 17.877 s, and 13.453 s, respectively. Similarly, for 50 operations, the DEELB method has a delay of 12.852 s, while the other existing techniques such as EEFO, DEERA, ELBS, and DEBTS have 30.781 s, 25.762 s, 21.654 s, and 16.132 s of delay, respectively. Table 3 and Figure 4 evaluate the DEELB technique's response time compared to that of already-existing approaches. According to the results, the DEELB method is head and shoulders above the rest of the approaches. For example, with a large number of operations, the DEELB method took only 3.675 s to respond, while the other existing techniques like EEFO, DEERA, ELBS, and DEBTS had a response time of 8.872 s, 8.165 s, 6.256 s, and 5.111 s, respectively. Similarly, for 50 operations, the DEELB method had a response time of 4.732 s, while the other existing techniques like EEFO, DEERA, ELBS, and DEBTS had 9.652 s, 8.653 s, 7.656 s, and 6.132 s of response time, respectively. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l l} \hline \hline
**No. of Operations** & **EEFO** & **DEERA** & **ELBS** & **DEBTS** & **DEELB** \\ \hline
10 & 26.832 & 22.851 & 17.877 & 13.453 & 10.352 \\ \hline
20 & 27.356 & 23.762 & 18.965 & 13.211 & 11.467 \\ \hline
30 & 27.931 & 22.565 & 19.453 & 14.671 & 11.132 \\ \hline
40 & 29.652 & 24.683 & 20.732 & 15.872 & 11.763 \\ \hline
50 & 28.781 & 25.762 & 19.954 & 16.132 & 12.852 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Delay analysis of the DEELB method with existing systems. Figure 4: DEELB technique response time analysis with existing systems. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c} \hline
**No. of Operations** & **EFO** & **DEERA** & **ELBS** & **DESTS** & **DEELB** \\ \hline
10 & 8.872 & 8.165 & 6.256 & 5.111 & 3.675 \\ \hline
20 & 9.165 & 8.675 & 6.326 & 5.675 & 3.436 \\ \hline
30 & 9.321 & 8.132 & 6.123 & 5.732 & 4.723 \\ \hline
40 & 9.956 & 8.756 & 7.145 & 5.832 & 4.263 \\ \hline
50 & 9.652 & 8.653 & 7.656 & 6.132 & 4.732 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Response-time analysis of the DEELB method with existing systems. Figure 3: Delay analysis of the DEELB method with existing systems. * Packet Loss Ratio  
Table 4 and Figure 5 explain the packet loss ratio analysis of the DEELB approach in comparison to other existing techniques. The data clearly demonstrate that the proposed method had the lowest PLR in all aspects when compared to the other methods. For example, with 10 operations, the proposed method had a PLR of 30.17%, 49.67%, 44.93%, 39.45%, and 34.78% for EEFO, DEERA, ELBS, and DEBTS, respectively. The DEELB method had greater performance with less PLR. Similarly, with 50 operations, the proposed method had 33.45% PLR, whereas the methods like EEFO, DEERA, ELBS, and DEBTS had PLR of 52.85%, 48.65%, 43.72%, and 38.65%, respectively. (e) Throughput  
The throughput study of the DEELB methodology with existing methods is described in Table 6 and Figure 7. The data clearly show that the proposed method outperforms the other techniques in all aspects. For example, with operations, the DEELB method has a throughput of 1373.98 kbps, while the other existing methods such as EEFO, DEERA, ELBS, and DEBITS have a throughput of 850.18 kbps, 935.86 kbps, 1083.36 kbps, and 1195.75 kbps, respectively. Similarly, with 50 operations, the proposed method had 1500.65 kbps of throughput while the other existing methods, EEFO, DEERA, ELBS, and DEBITS, had a throughput of 913.87 kbps, 1070.65 kbps, 1152.85 kbps, and 1346.29 kbps, respectively. This proves that the DEELB technique has higher performance with greater throughput.