**6. Conclusions**

**Figure 13.** Result of frame 100 for the four routing protocols

80 Selected Topics in WiMAX

**Figure 14.** Delay average over time

The Figure 14 shows the delay average over time for the four routing protocols, showing their

If a routing protocol takes longer time to find the best route and took and thus decide to use your communication path, in normal situations, present a lower performance as measures of

network for those with a behavior in choosing the fastest route.

results in this network metric. AODV and HWMP reactive had the lowest delay.

This chapter showed an initial study on wireless mesh networks, pointing out the main goals of interest, challenges and issues encountered, highlighting the advantages and disadvantages of this mode of operation. During the work, focused on the IEEE 802.16 popularly known as WiMAX, a technology standardized by the WiMAX Forum as an alternative wireless com‐ munication with wide area coverage and bandwidth, providing high speed and mobility, important peculiarities in the context of next-generation networks in Future Internet.

The chapter provides a more detailed study of the WiMAX mesh mode, pointing to two very important points for this type of network the next generation of wireless communications: algorithms / routing protocols and QoS, mainly to meet the demands for new multimedia applications as VoIP, telemedicine, videoconferencing and other real-time applications that require a large bandwidth with constant to meet the constant flow needs, providing quality network metrics such as throughput and delay and qualitative results regarding the perception of the end user when evaluated on the QoE metrics, with valid results on human perception of quality in real end user.

The studies and validated through simulation showing what the main advantages of routing protocols when incidents of random scenario presented here, however, it is noteworthy that these results are specific to this scenario, not ensuring that the protocols achieve similar results in any type of scenario. It is important to mention that the protocols have different results as there is a variability of scenarios or data flow, increasing them or decreased them and so, some protocols may have better results in some scenarios and worse in others, there is certain variability.

Conclusively, routing protocols have advantages and disadvantages and present very particular results, and there is a protocol that presents the best results ever, nor how to choose the best route, nor as to the best results of QoS and QoE.

Simulation results shown that the AODV protocol provides the best results when analyzed on the scenario shown to video traffic, however, the hybrid routing protocol that operates in a reactive mode, gives good results and operates in hybrid form, could be better than AODV depending on some parameter variations. This makes us believe that the hybrid reactive would be a protocol that can be relatively good in all cases, although not an optimal model, can be efficiently and effectively providing a good alternative routes and relative quality to the end user about the prospect of QoS and QoE. The hybrid reactive and AODV protocol gave good results as the data flow rate and video quality, but could have different results in other settings and with other simulation parameters.

In some future work, the authors intend to make optimizations in routing protocols and mechanisms include your choice between a more complete analysis taking into account other important points beyond the amount of jumps as energy consumption and output communi‐ cations to the Internet outside the backbone of the mesh network with algorithms that also take into consideration the proximity.
