# A Modular IoT Hardware Platform for Distributed and Secured Extreme Edge Computing
## 4 The Extreme-LT Routing Protocol
### Extreme-LT Experimental Evaluation and Results
#### 4.2.2 Test results and discussion
It is expected that bigger packet sizes will put a heavier load on the nodes and cause an increment in the time the nodes are busy processing the data, thus reducing the idle time they have left to relay messages from downstream nodes. A decrease in PDR is therefore expected, more noticeable as the number of hops increases. As it can be seen when comparing results obtained from rounds 1 and 4, or rounds 2 and 5, a bigger packet size for the same sending interval results in a worse PDR for nodes of the same rank. Also, it is important to highlight that the created traffic is a very extreme case of a normal application context, so it allowed to analyze experimentally the performance of the multi-hop communication strategy and the designed Cookie node under adverse traffic conditions. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l l l l l} \hline \hline
**Round 1** & **Node A** & **Node C** & **Node B** & **Node D** & **Node F** & **Node E** & **Node H** & **Node G** & **Node I** \\ \hline Received & 1316 & 1366 & 1368 & 1365 & 1365 & 1367 & 1240 & 1362 & 1243 \\ Total & 1367 & 1369 & 1369 & 1369 & 1370 & 1368 & 1301 & 1370 & 1300 \\ \% & 96.269\% & 99.781\% & 99.927\% & 99.708\% & 99.635\% & 99.927\% & 95.311\% & 99.416\% & 95.615\% \\ Rank & 1 & 1 & 1 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 3 \\ \hline
**Round 2** & **Node A** & **Node C** & **Node E** & **Node B** & **Node F** & **Node G** & **Node D** & **Node I** & **Node H** \\ \hline Received & 1144 & 1137 & 1140 & 1132 & 1135 & 1132 & 1136 & 1136 & 1137 \\ Total & 1149 & 1179 & 1146 & 1135 & 1178 & 1149 & 1148 & 1179 & 1149 \\ \% & 99.565\% & 96.438\% & 99.476\% & 99.736\% & 96.350\% & 98.520\% & 98.955\% & 96.353\% & 98.956\% \\ Rank & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 3 & 3 \\ \hline
**Round 3** & **Node A** & **Node B** & **Node G** & **Node D** & **Node C** & **Node E** & **Node I** & **Node F** & **Node H** \\ \hline Received & 1324 & 1339 & 1299 & 1172 & 1325 & 1280 & 1219 & 1189 & 915 \\ Total & 1342 & 1345 & 1341 & 1349 & 1345 & 1334 & 1333 & 1334 & 1088 \\ \% & 98.659\% & 99.554\% & 96.868\% & 86.879\% & 98.513\% & 95.952\% & 91.448\% & 89.130\% & 84.099\% \\ Rank & 1 & 1 & 1 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 3 & 3 & 4 \\ \hline
**Round 4** & **Node A** & **Node C** & **Node B** & **Node E** & **Node F** & **Node G** & **Node D** & **Node I** & **Node H** \\ \hline Received & 1184 & 1148 & 1169 & 1082 & 1120 & 1062 & 1105 & 1026 & 1035 \\ Total & 1203 & 1201 & 1201 & 1195 & 1190 & 1201 & 1189 & 1190 & 1191 \\ \% & 98.421\% & 95.587\% & 97.336\% & 90.544\% & 94.118\% & 88.426\% & 92.935\% & 86.218\% & 86.902\% \\ Rank & 1 & 1 & 1 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 3 & 3 & 3 \\ \hline
**Round 5** & **Node A** & **Node C** & **Node B** & **Node E** & **Node G** & **Node F** & **Node H** & **Node D** & **Node I** \\ \hline Received & 1322 & 1209 & 1369 & 1096 & 1044 & 994 & 918 & 930 & 823 \\ Total & 1382 & 1267 & 1380 & 1264 & 1266 & 1199 & 1267 & 1267 & 1197 \\ \% & 95.658\% & 95.422\% & 99.203\% & 86.709\% & 82.464\% & 82.902\% & 72.455\% & 73.402\% & 68.755\% \\ Rank & 1 & 1 & 1 & 2 & 2 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 4 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: Individual node results for each test round.