# FuGeF: A Resource Bound Secure Forwarding Protocol for Wireless Sensor Networks
## 5 Performance Evaluation
### Performance in Attack-Free Network (Base Performance)  
In this scenario, we test the many-to-many CBR flows to show protocol performance in an attack-free network to illustrate the base performance. In the experiments, 6 nodes from the left side of the terrain representing the locations of events of interest were randomly selected, The nodes were tasked with sending 6 CBR flows to 2 nodes on the right hand side of the terrain representing the base station such that each node receives 3 CBR flows from the sending nodes. Results shown in the graphs are the average of 100 simulation runs for each traffic load/CBR flow. Figures 9-11, show packet delivery ratio, energy consumption and end-to-end delay for DWSIGF-P, DWSIGF-R, and the proposed FuGeF. Figure 9 illustrates that the proposed FuGeF at lower traffic (1-4 pkt/s) achieved a higher PDR, while maintaining lower energy consumption and end-to-end delay as shown in Figures 10 and 11. This was due to the ability of the FLS to determine nodes with good enough links (among the forwarding candidates), that have made significant progress towards the destination. The good links ensured that substantial packet loss was mitigated and the significant progress enabled utilization of few hops to reach the destination, resulting in reduced energy consumption and delay. As the traffic increased from 5-10 pkt/s, congestion and interference also increased. FuGeF tries to maintain optimal performance by resorting to choosing optimal nodes that are less prone to interference in order to mitigate packet loss. This, however, increased the number of hops needed to reach the destination, which in turn causes the increase in energy consumption and end-to-end delay as shown in Figures 10 and 11, respectively. Figure 10: Energy consumption. Figure 9: Packet Delivery Ratio (PDR). DWSIGF-P, unlike FuGeF, employs the greedy forwarding which selects nodes that made the highest progress towards the destination, disregarding their connectivity cost. Although the DWSIGF-P is vulnerable to interference, its selection utilizes few hops which maintained lower energy consumption and end-to-end delay as shown in Figures 10 and 11, respectively. However, it endures substantial packet loss all through from lower to higher traffic as illustrated in Figure 9.  
DWSIGF-R chooses nodes randomly from the forwarding area. The random selection may result to significant progress or lesser progress made towards the destination. Lesser progress incurs increased number of hops, which causes overlap of vicinities (range-distance transversed overlap). Nodes which fall between this overlap are exposed to multiple overhear of transmissions. This increases the amount of energy consumed and end-to-end delay as shown in Figures 10 and 11, respectively. However, it maintained a higher packet delivery when compared to DWSIGF-P, due to shorter distance utilized which are less vulnerable to interference. Overall, it can be inferred that despite the average performance displayed by FuGeF in an attack-free network, its trade-off in security and normal routing operation (base performance) still outperforms DWSIGF-P and DWSIGF-R according to the concept of the resource bound security solution. The concept, which states that pertinent mechanism installed in the protocols that are kept active to provide security, should not degrade the base performance to an unacceptable level. On this note, it can be observed that DWSIGF-P base performance was able to utilize minimum energy and time(end to end delay) required for routing. However, it endured substantial packet losses and provided minimal security that was inadequate. DWSIGF-R security performance and packet delivery (base performance) were achieved at a heightened cost of energy and time. FuGeF made optimal utilization of energy and time for its normal routing operation. It further provided an unrivaled performance in security which prevented substantial packet losses to the network.