## 4 PDF and TDP Measurements:  
* **Regular Traffic:** In Figures 27 and 28, both DSR and AODV protocols demonstrate a comparable and reliable performance under different node speeds. On the other hand, DSDV showed the worst behavior, because of the problem of handling broken links. Figure 26: NRL vs. node speed (irregular traffic). Figure 25: NRL vs. node speed (regular traffic). **Irregular Traffic:** In Figures 29 and 30, DSR provided a superior performance in terms of PDF and TDP metrics under high node speeds, and this adequate behavior is mainly related to its efficient route caching and reduced control packets. AODV showed a consistent performance, while DSDV struggled under higher node speeds, because of its broken links. **Scenario III discussion and analysis:**  
**Energy Consumption:** DSDV is efficient and reliable in low mobility environments due to its consistent energy consumption. DSR and AODV are more efficient at higher node speeds and in irregular traffic. **Throughput:** DSR maintains high throughput in dynamic environments with varying node speeds. **NRL:** DSR has the lowest routing overhead at higher speeds, which makes it a good selection for high-mobility networks. DSDV has a consistent NRL, which is beneficial in lower node speeds and stable environments. **Efficiency and Reliability:** DSR and AODV protocols prove reliable performance with high PDF and low TDP and verify that these protocols can be a good candidate for applications demanding robust communication at different node speeds. 4. **Simulation Scenario IV**  
Simulation Setup:  
* **Simulation Tool:** NS3 network simulator
* **Area:** 1000 m \(\times\) 1000 m
* **Nodes:** 50 nodes
* **Traffic Pattern:** Joint traffic with 80% irregular and 20% regular traffic
* **Packet Rates:** different packet rates
* **Metrics:** average energy consumption, throughput, NRL, PDF and TDP  
**Use Case:** The experiment simulates a practical MANET environment that incorporates different data streams, such as voice, video and data, by generating a mixture of irregular and irregular traffic loads. In this scenario, the joint traffic is implemented and mainly consists of 80% irregular traffic and 20% regular traffic. The main goal in this simulation scenario is to assess the performance of the routing protocols DSDV, DSR and AODV when different traffic loads are applied. **Scenario Goals:**  
1. Determine the energy consumption under joint traffic conditions
2. Assessing throughput under joint traffic conditions
3. Analyze routing overhead induced by each protocol
4. Evaluate the reliability and efficiency of the data delivery  
**Results and Findings:**  
1. **Energy Consumption:**  
* As seen in Figure 31, DSDV outperformed other protocols due to routing tables at low packet rates, while at high packets rate, AODV demonstrated the lowest energy profile as a result of its on-demand routing mechanism, which eliminates unnecessary routing activity. Figure 30: TDP vs. node speed (irregular traffic). 2. **Throughput Evaluation:** * In Figure 32, where joint traffic load is implemented, DSR protocol shows the highest throughput, while AODV and DSDV protocols provide comparable performance. 3. **NRL Analysis:** * In Figure 33, DSR is mainly showing a reasonable lower NRL under joint traffic conditions, while DSDV proves the minimum NRL at packet rates higher than 24 p/s, indicating stable table routing updates. Figure 31: Energy consumption vs. packet rate (joint traffic). Figure 32: Throughput vs. packet rate (joint traffic). * AODV exhibited a higher NRL at low packet rates due to frequent RREQ packets, and then it started showing improvement at higher packet rates and fewer RREQ packets. * **PDF and TDP Measurements:**
* In Figures 34 and 35, both DSR and AODV protocols maintained efficient and consistent performance in terms of PDF and TDP under joint traffic conditions.