## 5 Analysis and Results
### Capacities of Self-optimization and Self-configuration Applied into AODV protocol  
In Figure 11 the relationship of the number of hops is observed by route of the AODV: Self-organized protocol, in which it is possible to verify that the same needed a smaller number of hops to find the node destination in large scale. Otherwise, in small scale the number of hops was practically the same as the protocol AODV: Original. The number of packages received by the AODV: Self-organized protocol was larger in relation to the protocol AODV:Original. That improvement was provided because of the less packet loss or collisions in the network and also for the adjustment of the packages that they were in _buffer_, waiting for a route answer for a route request. Now in Figure 12 the relationship of sent packages can be observed, in which the AODV: Self-organized protocol obtained a smaller amount of packages sent in all the scales. It is valid to stand out in this case that the amount of sent packages is a metric one that it counts all the packages, besides the control packages and maintenance of routes, it is observ  
Figure 11: Comparison of the number of hops for route between the AODV: Self-organized and AODV: Original versus Comparison of the traffic of packages received among AODV: Self-organized and AODV: Original. Figure 12: Comparison of the traffic of packages sent among AODV: Self-organized and AODV: Original versus Comparison of the number of dropped packages of the AODV: Self-organized protocol and AODV: Original. Self-organized protocol sent a smaller number of control packages and maintenance of routes in this experiment. It is observed that the AODV: Self-organized protocol obtained smaller loss of packages in all the scales. But it is interesting to point out that the way the network grows in size, or be amount of devices clients, and it reaches the scales average and big, the loss of packages of AODV:Original is larger in comparison to the AODV: Self-organized. That reinforces that the way network grows in size there is a smaller proportionate loss of packages for the AODV: Self-organized protocol. Already in Figure 13 the total number of replicas can be visualized sent to the destiny nodes and also the routes replies, which the AODV: Self-organized protocol needed to send a smaller number of routing replies. In Figure 14 the total of requests of routes can be visualized sent together with the total of mistakes of routes. It can be observed that the AODV: Self-organized protocol needed to send a smaller number of requests of routes, compared to the protocol AODV: Original. With what the network wins in stability, or be the AODV: Self-organized protocol needed of a smaller number of requests of routes for each neighboring node. Finally, it is noticed a smaller number of error routes of the AODV: Self-organized protocol in all the scales of the wireless mesh network (small to large).The Figure 15 presents the delay among the Protocols AODV: Self-organized and AODV: Original. It is observed that the AODV: Self-organized protocol obtained a smaller delay of discovery of broken in all the scales. In this sense, is also observed the access delay to the middle, that once again the AODV: Self-organized protocol obtained better performance in all the scales in comparison with AODV Originally proposed. The Figure 16 exhibit the load of the network and the time of route discovery. In this case it is observed that the load of the network of the AODV: Self-organized protocol is smaller than AODV:Original in the scales average for large. While in the small scale the protocol AODV:Original has a better performance.