## 4 Evaluation
This graph shows that the \(w_{B,D,PL}\) (weighted sum) and \(PL\) (packet loss) paths have a larger standard deviation in their performance than the other paths. The selected path using the minimum delay algorithm (\(D\)) leads to a higher median without considering the paths of the MOCell and MOEA/D methods. From the results, it can be concluded that both packet loss and delay are related to not only the available bandwidth but also the low speed of the network, as is usually considered when assigning paths and QoS for the data streams. Retransmissions of packets in transit lead to poor or slow network performance, and low throughput indicates problems such as increased latency and possible congestion. Figure 11: TCP performance of paths. Time interval 200 s. STDEV: \(H\) = 0.01847, \(B\) = 0.04224, \(D\) = 0.02953, \(PL\) = 0.09682, \(w_{B,D,PL}\) = 0.13832, \(Minf_{1}\), \(f_{2}\), \(f_{3}\) = 0.03777, and MOEA/D = 0.04104. Figure 10: TCP throughput (\(t_{h}\)) comparison of routing paths. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline \hline
**Algorithm** & **Median Area** \\ \hline \(H\) (Hops) & 0.1511 \\ \(B\) (Bandwidth) & 0.3622 \\ \(D\) (Delay) & 0.5924 \\ \(PL\) (Packet Loss) & 0.4825 \\ \(w_{B,D,PL}\) (Weighted sum) & 0.5872 \\ \(Minf_{1}\),\(f_{2}\),\(f_{3}\) (MOCell) & 0.7174 \\ MOEA/D & 0.7046 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Routing Paths Throughput Areas. As mentioned earlier, minimizing all of the factors that affect end-to-end link performance is essential to improve the speed and efficiency of data transfer. It is critical to leverage the various parameters in the network to improve network performance and provide a better quality of service. Our proposal can improve the routing-related aspects by evaluating multiple available paths to set up routing flows and evaluate their QoS requirements. The second experiment was performed with UDP traffic between nodes at the ends of topology H1 to H14. As mentioned above, the performance of the paths selected by the different algorithms presented is evaluated in this experiment. In this case, the data transmission consisted of a constant flow of UDP traffic with a bandwidth of 45 Mbps for 200 s and the standard configuration of the IPERF tool. The network state corresponded to the first experiment's conditions, and the initial conditions were restarted for each evaluated case in the Mininet simulator. Table 4 shows that the capacities of the paths selected by each of the evaluated algorithms perfectly covered the required bandwidth per UDP flow; however, the performance of each path varied due to the other network parameters involved. Table 6 shows the average values for the performance of the paths, and Figure 12 presents a graph of the lost packets. The most critical path is chosen by the widest path, \(B\), although it has the highest bandwidth capacity to diver flows, followed by the path \(PL\). However, this path consists \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Algorithm** &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Data Rate** \\ **(Mbps)** \\ \end{tabular} & **Jitter (ms)** & **Packet Loss (\%)** & **Throughput** \\ \hline \(H\) & 43.83 & 1.081 & 0.025 & 0.9749 \\ \hline \(B\) & 40.56 & 1.958 & 0.1067 & 0.8932 \\ \hline \(D\) & 43.10 & 0.952 & 0.0410 & 0.9589 \\ \hline \(PL\) & 42.58 & 1.71 & 0.0550 & 0.9449 \\ \hline \(w_{B,D,p_{L}}\) & 43.6 & 1.325 & 0.4519 & 0.9548 \\ \hline \(Minf_{1}\),\(f_{2}\),\(f_{3}\) & 44.56 & 0.986 & 0.0090 & 0.9909 \\ \hline MOEA/D & 44.48 & 0.994 & 0.0097 & 0.9902 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Performance summary of UDP flow between H1 and H14. of the links with the lowest losses. This severe drawback is a result of this path selecting connections with high jitter values. It should be remembered that a packet that takes longer than the time specified by the waiting window is usually considered to be a lost packet, as well as packets that arrive out of order. The weighted sum method has the same effect.