**5.2.4 TCP windows**

This is also supported by the behavior of the TCP congestion window presented in the figure 38 as it can be seen, the instants near t = 11s and t = 20s show the drop in the TCP congestion window which indicates the loss of packets, as was mentioned above.

Fig. 37. Illustrate throughput vs. time

28 Mobile Networks

The figure 37 shows the same trend that is reflected in the previous metrics, related to the fact that while the AMN is located in the AHA zone the metric performs better than in the rest of the simulation. In this occasion the throughput obtains values close to the 800Kbps before the 10s after the start of the simulation. Subsequently when the AMN moves to the PAR/LER1 zone performance drops to 0Kbps which is due to the absence of traffic at that moment and the loss of some packets while the displacement occurs. Then when the AMN reaches the area in question an irregular behavior of the performance is registered, which sometimes comes close to the 800Kbps which is close to the maximum possible limit of 1Mbps due to the LSR2 – PAR/LER1 link, while on the other hand also reaches values of about 50Kbps. Moments later, after the AMN moves towards the ANAR/LER2 the performance drops once again to 0Kbps due to decreasing traffic and the lost of some packets during the transfer. Finally, once the AMN arrives to the above-mentioned area, throughput shows a behavior similar to that reported in the PAR/LER1 zone. The average

This is also supported by the behavior of the TCP congestion window presented in the figure 38 as it can be seen, the instants near t = 11s and t = 20s show the drop in the TCP

congestion window which indicates the loss of packets, as was mentioned above.

Fig. 36. Jitter vs. time

**5.2.4 TCP windows** 

**5.2.3 Analysis of throughput** 

throughput of the simulation was 343.649Kbps.

Fig. 38. TCP congestion window vs. time
