
| Loads at (S1, S2)   | Net   | ISPA   | MB COIN   |
|---------------------|-------|--------|-----------|
| 30.35               | 30.35 |        |           |
| 1, 1                | A     |        |           |
| B                   | 20.35 | 20.35  |           |
| 2.2                 | A     | 35.55  | 35.555    |
| B                   | 40.55 | 34.99  |           |
| 4,2                 | A     | 41.07  | 41.07     |
| B                   | 50.47 | 4.13   |           |
| 6, 3                | A     | 44.63  | 44.63     |
| B                   | 51.40 | 44.63  |           |

hurt by the addition of the new link once, and manages to gainfully exploit it seven times. When their behavior is analyzed infinitesimally, the MB COIN either uses the additional link efficiently or chooses to ignore it in those seven cases.  Moreover, the MB COIN's performance with the additional link is always better than the ISPA's.  For example, adding the new link causes a degradation of the performance by as much as 30 % (loads = {2, 1})
for the ISPA, whereas for the same load vector MB_COIN performance improves by 7 %.

## 5.2  Hex Network

In this section we revisit the network first discussed in Section 2.1 (redrawn in Figure 4 to include the dummy agents). In Table 3 we give full results for the load-to-delay functions discussed in that section. We then use load-to-cost functions which are qualitatively similar to those discussed in Section 2.1, but which incorporate non-linearities that better represent real router characteristics. That load-to-cost function and associated results are reported in Table 4.

![0_image_0.png](0_image_0.png)

