## 4 PDF and TDP Measurements:
DSDV showed improvement in reducing dropped packets when joint traffic type is considered, due to the \"ON/OFF\" feature of irregular traffic, which allows for some time for buffer management and also allows for some time for routing table updates. 5. **Simulation Scenario V** 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 * **Node speed:** different node speeds are applied * **Metrics:** average energy consumption, throughput, NRL, PDF and TDP **Use Case:** In this scenario, the joint traffic pattern is implemented and mainly consists of 80% irregular traffic and 20% regular traffic. The main goal in this simulation scenario is to evaluate the performance of the routing protocols DSDV, DSR and AODV when different node speeds are considered as key parameters in the environment. **Scenario Goals:** 1. Determine energy consumption under different node speeds and joint traffic load 2. Analyze data delivery capability of each protocol 3. Analyze the routing overhead induced by each protocol 4. Evaluate the reliability and efficiency of data delivery when both the joint traffic pattern and different node speeds are implemented in the simulation environment **Results and Findings**: 1. **Energy Consumption:** * In Figure 36, it can be noticed that at lower node speeds, DSDV outperformed other protocols because of its efficient routing table updates, while DSR protocol demonstrated the lowest energy consumption at higher node speeds. 2. **Throughput Evaluation:** * In Figure 37, DSR demonstrated the highest throughput under joint traffic conditions, while AODV and DSDV showed comparable performance at different node speeds. 3. **NRL Analysis:** * In Figure 38, DSR provides the best performance regarding the NRL metric, especially at node speeds above 15 m/s. Similarly, DSDV shows improvement in reducing the NRL metric at node speeds around 10 m/s, which indicates stable routing table updates. On the other side, AODV shows high NRL values for higher node speeds due to frequent RREQ packet. Figure 36: Energy consumption vs. node speed (joint traffic). * **PDF and TDP Measurements:*
* The simulation outcomes in Figures 39 and 40 indicate that both DSR and AODV provide reliable performance in terms of both PDF and TDP metrics at different node speeds. On the other side, the simulation results also imply that DSDV is not a good candidate protocol when joint traffic patterns and different node speeds are implemented simultaneously in the MANET environment. Figure 37: Throughput vs. node speed (joint traffic). Figure 38: NRL vs. node speed (joint traffic). Figure 39: PDF vs. node speed (joint traffic). **Scenario V discussion and analysis:**  
**Energy Consumption:** overall, DSDV protocol is energy efficient at low node speeds, while DSR protocol demonstrated lowest energy consumption at higher node speeds. **Throughput:** DSR protocol verifies its efficiency in delivering data packets compared to other protocols when joint traffic pattern is considered. **NRL:** DSR protocol proves its superiority in providing lower NRL values, while AODV outcomes shows high NRL values especially at higher node speeds due to frequent RREQ packet. **Efficiency and Reliability:** DSR and AODV verify high reliability in terms of PDF and TDP when joint traffic conditions are applied. In contrast, DSDV outcomes clarify that DSDV is not a good candidate protocol for joint traffic pattern when different node speeds are implemented in the MANET environment. **Routing Protocols: major differences and characteristics:**  
1. The nature of DSDV guarantees consistent routing table updates, leading to low energy consumption at lower traffic loads. The performance of DSDV is inversely proportional to the node mobility, based on the fact that it would need frequent routes updates. 2. DSR offers high throughput and low NRL in stable networks.