# mDARAL: A Multi-Radio Version for the DARAL Routing Algorithm
## 5 Results  
The following section is focused on the performance analysis of _mDARAL_ compared to _DARAL_ under the simulation scenarios showed in Table 2. In these scenarios, several parameters, as in previous works [5], were taken into account. Thus, convergence time, number of messages and consumed battery during set-up time are the parameters used for comparison purposes between the mentioned protocols. Attending to the obtained results in terms of number of messages (see Table 3 and Figure 6), _mDARAL_ gets a larger amount of them except in small networks, during network set-up compared to _DARAL_, which is completely reasonable taking into account how _mDARAL_ manages the connection messages. Analyzing the scenario formed by a large number of nodes with a node density of 15, it is noticed that _DARAL_ needs 3.09 messages per node during the set-up compared to the 3.38 messages used by _mDARAL_ for the Freespace propagation configuration. On the contrary, when the Log-Normal Shadowing configuration is used, both approaches reduce the average number of messages during the set-up with 3.91 and 2.91 for _mDARAL_ and _DARAL_, respectively. Despite the number of messages being larger for _mDARAL_, during network set-up, the energy consumption is not penalized by this circumstance, as _mDARAL_ optimizes the use of batteries under all testbed scenarios, especially when a Log-Normal Shadowing with a large number of nodes and node density equal to 15 is deployed. The explanation of why _mDARAL_ has a better energy consumption (see Table 4 and Figure 7) has to be focused while attending to how the radios are managed. As it was explained previously, _mDARAL_ maintains one of the radios switched off as much time as possible, and, for the set-up time, the second radio is only used in order to acknowledge the connection of ENs through the LC, resulting in a minimum time usage of the second radio, considering that the first radio switches off at the same time that the second is switched on. Probably, the use of LCs, instead of the CC for the whole communication in the network, reduces the number of collisions, increasing the rate of packets successfully delivered. Therefore, the convergence time is also reduced, even though the number of control messages sent is increased. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**PM** & **ND** & **Algorithm** & **Avg \(\pm\) Dev Small-** & **Avg \(\pm\) Dev Medium-** & **Avg \(\pm\) Dev Large-Scenario** \\ \hline FS & 5 & _DARAL_ & 672.96 \(\pm\) 79.57 & 763.34 \(\pm\) 84.91 & 661.26 \(\pm\) 94.36 \\ FS & 5 & _mDARAL_ & 574.87 \(\pm\) 72.71 & 636.53 \(\pm\) 120.27 & 614.51 \(\pm\) 95.19 \\ FS & 10 & _DARAL_ & 1292.5 \(\pm\) 77.82 & 1358.6 \(\pm\) 159.1 & 1321.0 \(\pm\) 118.45 \\ FS & 10 & _mDARAL_ & 1208.6 \(\pm\) 93.44 & 1258.3 \(\pm\) 122.65 & 1227.1 \(\pm\) 100.27 \\ FS & 15 & _DARAL_ & 1990.5 \(\pm\) 232.65 & 2183.9 \(\pm\) 330.03 & 2084.7 \(\pm\) 155.53 \\ FS & 15 & _mDARAL_ & 1893.7 \(\pm\) 314.9 & 1763.9 \(\pm\) 105.63 & 1823.3 \(\pm\) 139.14 \\ \hline LNS & 5 & _DARAL_ & 695.29 \(\pm\) 70.03 & 766.69 \(\pm\) 103.34 & 742.48 \(\pm\) 103.03 \\ LNS & 5 & _mDARAL_ & 544.92 \(\pm\) 81.41 & 645.17 \(\pm\) 96.48 & 635.82 \(\pm\) 129.86 \\ LNS & 10 & _DARAL_ & 1380.0 \(\pm\) 153.53 & 1504.6 \(\pm\) 192.83 & 1486.6 \(\pm\) 127.98 \\ LNS & 10 & _mDARAL_ & 1201.0 \(\pm\) 81.34 & 1312.9 \(\pm\) 141.33 & 1305.5 \(\pm\) 125.45 \\ LNS & 15 & _DARAL_ & 2165.8 \(\pm\) 220.82 & 2152.9 \(\pm\) 202.68 & 2457.3 \(\pm\) 326.75 \\ LNS & 15 & _mDARAL_ & 1794.9 \(\pm\) 179.81 & 1941.1 \(\pm\) 149.93 & 2032.9 \(\pm\) 316.07 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Average battery consumed during the network set-up for small-, medium- and large-size scenarios under different propagation conditions. ND and PM stand for Node Density and Propagation Model respectively.