**2.3 Conclusions**

12 Mobile Networks

The figure 16 shows the results of the following metrics obtained of the table 2. In this manner can visualize the behaviour of Jitter and Lost Packets with different number nodes.

**Jitter and Lost Packets Vs Nodes**

In order to extend the different results obtained in the simulations, the function (figure17) shows the behaviour for different scenarios of simulation. With this functions (Jitter, Lost

**Jitter and Lost Packets Vs Nodes**

**y = 23.898ln(x) - 51.198**

Jitter(ms)

Lost Packets (%)

9 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Jitter(ms) Lost Packets (%)

Fig. 17. The functions show the scalability of Jitter and Lost Packets vs. Number nodes

**y = 2.5821ln(x) - 5.1811**

0 10 20 30 40 50 **Nodes**

Fig. 16. Jitter and Lost Packets vs. Number nodes

In this case, we performed the HMIPv6/MPLS scenario simulation using CBR as test traffic. Various QoS metrics were analysed, such as delay, which on average was 66,82 ms; the jitter, which was rather variable, and throughput, which reached 446,0 Kbps on average. On the other hand, in the course of the simulation, 3,74 packets were sent and 207 were lost; that represents 5,54% of all packets. Therefore, we conclude that the simulation scenario showed very good values of delay and throughput, acceptable packet loss and very irregular jitter figures, so that, in order to achieve good levels of QoS, the performance of jitter has to be improved. A similar scenario with FHMIPv6 instead of HMIPv6 could solve this point.
