## 2 Related Work  
An analysis of the impact of mobility models on the performance of MANET is provided in [15]. The main conclusion is that even when setting the same parameters, different mobility models have different impacts on the performance evaluation of protocols. Although they focus on entity mobility models as we do, the speed range is limited in the range of 2-10 m/s, which is way below the range of 50-60 m/s that we are considering for UAANET. Therefore, the work in [15] is for relatively low mobility MANET, and their analysis is limited to the impact of speed and pause time on the performance of MANET. Moreover, they provide no clear comparison between the chosen mobility models _per se_. Such a comparison would need to be carried out by means of protocol-independent metrics, for instance. The same problem of non-applicability to UAANET is found in [16]. Here, the authors compare the performance of different routing protocols, namely RWP, reference point group mobility (RPGM) and file-based models. One of the main conclusions is that the performance ranking of the routing protocols changes depending on whether the nodes are moving according to a group mobility model. However, the analysis is done over a hybrid network, where four groups of nodes have different mobility, ranging from static to high UAANET-like mobility. Therefore, the conclusions drawn do not necessarily apply to pure UAANET, which are our main focus. [PERSON] and [PERSON] [17] also carried out experiments to evaluate the impact of entity and group mobility models on the performance of MANET using the AODV routing protocol. Once again, the conclusion is that the MANET performance is affected by the mobility of the nodes; therefore, the mobility model has to be chosen in accordance with the scenario in consideration. Unfortunately, only a single routing protocol (AODV), a reactive one, is considered in the analysis. Moreover, the variation of the nodes' speed from 5-80 m/s in the scenarios often falls within the range of slow mobility; which is not interesting for UAANET. Similar to [17], yet specifically for vehicular _ad hoc_ networks (VANET), [PERSON] _et al._[18] analyzed the performance of a routing protocol over different mobility models, including the RWP, the Simulation of Urban Mobility (SUMO) [19] and the Shanghai Urban Vehicular Network (SUVnet) model. SUMO is an open source, microscopic, space-continuous traffic simulator designed to handle large road networks, whereas SUVnet is a realistic mobility model obtained from the actual GPS data collected from more than 4000 taxis in Shanghai, China. The considered routing protocol is the distance-aware epidemic routing (DAER) protocol, which is also introduced in [18]. The results show that the selection of mobility models heavily influences the routing performance. Moreover, the performance under the SUVnet reality-based mobility model is worse than under the other two models. The conclusion is that even by means of a complex map-based microscopic traffic simulator, care should be taken, as the results obtained with these models might not be as close to reality as expected. This further points out the crucial role of mobility models, as poorly choosing one of them can actually yield misleading conclusions on an actual routing protocol's performance. However, the analysis in [18] focuses on VANET with speeds of the order of 7 m/s, which is very low compared to our average of 55 m/s for UAANET. The analysis of [PERSON] _et al._ in [20] with respect to our concern is even more simplistic. They proposed an optimized version of AODV and then compared its performance under RWP and RPGM. The results showed higher performance with RWP. In [21], [PERSON] _et al._ investigate how the AODV protocol behaves when the number of nodes increases with different mobility models, including RWP, RD and Mobgen steady state.