We additionally assume that an end-to-end propagation time delay is specified for each channel.
The end-to-end propagation delay can be represented and calculated by Eq. (17).
However, the proposed ORPHSN outperforms the end-to-end propagation delay in the BHSCCS environment, while FAR and RAR suffer in more propagation delay.
However, the shortest single hop delay does not mean the shortest end-to-end propagation delay from a sender to the destination.
The impact of traffic load rates on the hybrid network system for the proposed ORPHSN, FAR, and RAR algorithms are increasing the end-to-end propagation delay.
The end-to-end propagation delay for the proposed ORPHSN is 81.66 ms for 10 hops, whereas it is 86.66 and 91.66 for FAR and RAR, respectively.
However, as explained in the second simulation, a shorter single hop propagation delay cannot give us a good end-to-end propagation delay because the end-to-end propagation delay is the product of the single hop delay and the average number of hops from a sender to a destination.
If we refer to Fig. 2 again, the performance in terms of the end-to-end propagation delays and collisions is in the order of GD, SB-1024, RSS, and SB-64.
Although this is achieved with an occasional terminal bitrate increasing, with a rate of 10%% during intervals, these algorithms reduce end-to-end propagation delay by handling the statistical fluctuations more effectively.
The highest number of the end-to-end propagation delay is triple-play services in the proposed ORPHSN, 81.66 ms in the triple-play services, whereas it is 72.02 and 64.46 for bulk transfer and reliable messaging, respectively.
Therefore, the problem of selecting a path with the shortest end-to-end propagation delay or minimum hop count is that the performance is significantly affected by packet loss rates of links.
