## 5 Analysis and Results
### Comparison between OLSR:Self-organized and AODV:Self-organized  
Besides the specific analyses of each in accordance protocol seen in the previous sections, the comparison among the protocols OLSR and AODV was also analyzed after applying the capacities of self-configuration and self-optimization. In Figure 19, it is observed that applying the self-optimization technique hears a significant improvement in the network throughput, due to the self-adjustment of the parameters it adjusts to the size of the network, in comparison with the protocol originally proposed. It can also observe that in the small scale the protocol OLSR obtained a better throughput, while in the scales average for large AODV: Self-organized protocol obtained better throughput. This fact can be explained due to the features of each protocol, for instance. The protocol AODV is used by demand to find the routes for the destiny nodes, while the protocol OLSR has a table of broken pre-updated with the routes for the destiny nodes. Figure 17: Comparison of throughput between the OLSR:Self-organized protocol and OLSR:Original versus AODV:Self-organized protocol and AODV:Original. By analyzing scales it is observed that the way scale increases in size, or be amount of devices clients in the network, the protocol OLSR creates a larger overload affecting like this the throughput of the whole network, while the ADOV: Self-optimized protocol obtains the routes according to the demand avoiding like this that overload the throughput and increasing it in consequence. In this case it is concluded that AODV: Self-organized protocol obtains better throughput when the scale of the network goes from the existing average to the large one. The delay of route discovery is measured in Figure 18, it can be observed that the AODV: Self-organized protocol obtained a smaller delay of discovery of broken in the small scales, medium and large. This result is interesting because, due to the protocol AODV the use of technique of demand, in consequence that technique creates a certain delay to find the route for the destiny node. It is concluded here in this experiment the AODV: Self-organized protocol obtained a smaller delay in comparison to OLSR: Self-organized. Figure 19: Relationship of the throughput between OLSR: Self-organized and AODV: Self-organized. Figure 18: Relationship of the overload between OLSR: Self-organized and AODV:Self-organized versus Relationship of the delay of route discovery between OLSR: Self-organized and AODV:Self-organized. The overload of the network is analyzed in Figure 18, in which can be observed that the AODV: Self-organized protocol obtains larger overload to find the routes in the small scale, while the OLSR: Self-organized protocol has a smaller overload in the small scale, but when the scale of the network in mesh changes the average into a large one. It is observed that the overload of packages of the AODV: Self-organized protocol decreases and the one of the OLSR: Self-organized increases. It is concluded here in this experiment that the AODV: Self-organized protocol adapts better in WMN of medium and large load in comparison to OLSR: Self-organized. In this work the results and simulations were presented to validate the proposed architecture. Initially we simulated their capacity of self-optimization and self-configuration applied to the routing protocols OLSR and AODV. As result, a significant improvement was obtained in the acting of those applied protocols in the wireless mesh networks, of small, medium and large load. The metric ones proposed for analysis of that acting showed in first instance that the self-configuration capacities and self-optimization applied to the mentioned protocols, improve the acting of the WMN in comparison to original approach, in which uses the standard parameters of the protocols.