## 7 Results  
Table 3 shows how the standard RPL networks performed well under no attack considering all the setups. It can be seen that a high QoS performance and network stability were achieved in addition to maintaining low traffic overhead and energy consumption. The network was able to keep PDR and throughput to high levels in addition to maintaining low delay and ETX even in large-scale scenarios. The network also limited the DIO and DAO transmissions to only 74 packets per minute at most as well as the PPC rate to only a single change/node on average. The total energy consumption was also maintained at a relatively low value of 5800 joules in the relatively large-scale setup of S3. However, the presented results in Tables 4-6 and Figures 4-8 show how adverse the impact of the different routing attacks is on the overall performance and stability of RPL networks. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Attack** & & **PDR** & **Throughput** & **Delay** & **ETX** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{S1} & Rank & 89.54 & 205.67 & 209.91 & 256.03 \\  & VN & 87.07 & 200.26 & 217.62 & 269.42 \\  & WP & 90.82 & 209.01 & 201.68 & 248.17 \\  & Replay & 91.31 & 217.26 & 198.32 & 240.92 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{S2} & Rank & 84.39 & 301.81 & 223.17 & 402.26 \\  & VN & 82.02 & 290.76 & 234.96 & 421.47 \\  & WP & 86.11 & 316.62 & 210.84 & 388.41 \\  & Replay & 86.97 & 327.45 & 207.71 & 373.46 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{S3} & Rank & 76.25 & 454.19 & 250.93 & 579.34 \\  & VN & 74.03 & 439.07 & 263.36 & 598.62 \\ \cline{1-1}  & WP & 78.42 & 473.86 & 231.05 & 463.41 \\ \cline{1-1}  & Replay & 79.09 & 491.22 & 224.98 & 452.38 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: QoS Performance Results: Single-Attack Scenario. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Setup** & **PDR** & **Throughput** & **Delay** & **ETX** & **Beacon** & **DIO** & **DAO** & **Energy** & **PPC** \\  & & & & **Interval** & **Rate** & **Rate** & **Cons. ** & **Rate** \\ \hline S1 & 98.62 & 230.98 & 131.04 & 199.5 & 996 & 6 & 6 & 1800 & 0.5 \\ S2 & 94.28 & 341.75 & 136.35 & 248.05 & 703 & 20 & 20 & 3200 & 0.5 \\ S3 & 91.6 & 546.35 & 142.7 & 345.4 & 678 & 38 & 35 & 5800 & 0.7 \\ \hline \hline \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Attack** & & **PDR** & **Throughput** & **Delay** & **ETX** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{S1} & Rank–WP & 84.54 & 195.12 & 222.94 & 273.43 \\  & Rank–VN & 79.50 & 184.17 & 232.87 & 294.73 \\  & Rank–Replay & 87.18 & 202.77 & 210.82 & 258.01 \\  & VN–WP & 82.48 & 187.72 & 228.61 & 289.48 \\  & WP–Replay & 87.46 & 205.60 & 209.22 & 255.98 \\  & VN–Replay & 86.02 & 198.00 & 214.02 & 266.47 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{S2} & Rank–WP & 77.65 & 278.04 & 242.32 & 429.08 \\  & Rank–VN & 70.76 & 250.12 & 253.50 & 472.93 \\  & Rank–Replay & 81.90 & 301.07 & 228.95 & 399.12 \\  & VN–WP & 72.71 & 255.60 & 251.92 & 465.36 \\  & WP–Replay & 81.95 & 307.51 & 227.81 & 397.97 \\  & VN–Replay & 78.97 & 282.64 & 236.46 & 410.95 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{S3} & Rank–WP & 66.79 & 410.06 & 271.04 & 621.11 \\  & Rank–VN & 61.82 & 369.00 & 300.28 & 667.80 \\ \cline{1-1}  & Rank–Replay & 72.06 & 428.23 & 245.29 & 481.78 \\ \cline{1-1}  & VN–WP & 63.22 & 370.89 & 294.24 & 664.76 \\ \cline{1-1}  & WP–Replay & 71.51 & 436.71 & 249.56 & 477.97 \\ \cline{1-1}  & VN–Replay & 70.16 & 425.27 & 266.48 & 504.06 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: QoS Performance Results: Hybrid-Attack Scenario. Figure 4: PPC Rate Results: (**a**) Single-Attack Scenario; (**b**) Composite-Attack Scenario; (**c**) Hybrid-Attack Scenario. Figure 5: Average Beacon Interval Results: (**a**) Single-Attack Scenario; (**b**) Composite-Attack Scenario; (**c**) Hybrid-Attack Scenario. Figure 6: DIO Transmission Rate Results: (**a**) Single-Attack Scenario; (**b**) Composite-Attack Scenario; (**c**) Hybrid-Attack Scenario. Figure 7: DAO Transmission Rate Results: (**a**) Single-Attack Scenario; (**b**) Composite-Attack Scenario; (**c**) Hybrid-Attack Scenario.