In CLSR, the transmission power is considered to avoid interference to the PU and attain on-going communication.
CLSR has PU-aware procedure schemes based on the geometric distance between a CN and PU.
In CLSR, a CN creates the ACL from sensing information based on local radio observations.
When no PU is sensed, CLSR runs in OLSR mode and proactively maintains paths by broadcasting control messages on the CCC that is free from the PU.
A comparison of MPR selection under OLSR and CLSR is given in Table 2.
When a CN receives a P-TC for channel switching in CLSR, however, Neighbor_hold_time is initialized to maintain neighbor information without re-association.
In this section, we evaluate the performance improvement attained by CLSR in comparison with OLSR and PARS .
PARS gives a lower PDR than CLSR because while it should re-discover the routing path during waiting for SOP between source and destination.
To investigate the effect of CN mobility on performance, we evaluate CLSR by comparing the PDR and delay with that of OLSR as CN mobility increases at random way points.
Thus, CLSR manages nearly 85% of its transmitted packets with slightly higher delay than OLSR because of the CCC switching delay.
In contrast, CLSR provides a higher PDR, even under conditions of high congestion, because new routes are selected using the proposed PU-aware procedures.
In contrast, CLSR has PU-aware functions that can adapt power and switch the CCC to a spectrum hole that the PU does not use.