Table 3 Data forwarding protocols’ advantages and disadvantages
Protocols | Years | Complexity | Assumptions | Routing Strategy | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
VBF | 2006 | Low Complexity data forwarding protocol | Node in the network knows its location • The packet carries the locations of the source, the sink, and the sender • Sensor nodes can measure the distance and the angle of arrival (AOA) of the signal • All the nodes are deployed in layers For one layer if one node receives a packet, all the normal nodes will receive the packet | Selects only the forwarding nodes within the virtual pipe from the source node to the sink node | VBF is robust against both packet loss and node failure. When the packet loss is as high as 50%, the success rate can still reach 80% The VBF protocol success rate is above 95% |
HH-VBF | 2007 | Low Complexity data forwarding protocol | Node in the network knows its location The packet carries the locations of the source, the sink, and the sender Adjustable distance threshold | Different from VBF that is defining a single routing pipe from the source to the sink node, in HH-VBF every forwarder node defines a separate pipe | HH-VBF has a much better performance in terms of success rate and energy tax than VBF in sparse networks In the case of a sparse network, the energy cost of HH-VBF is greatly lower than that of VBF |
FBR | 2008 | Low Complexity data forwarding protocol | Nodes know their own locations The node knows exactly the location of all other nodes The source node knows the location of final destination The transmitting node decides which power level to use Only the nodes that are within this radius are receiving the signal The receiving node will not escape before the packet is reached | Selects the next forwarder node based on power level within a virtual cone formed from the source to the destination | FBR with an aperture of 30◦ cones reduce the end-to-end delay but increases the energy consumption FBR in a lower network density, on average, reduce the energy per bit consumption |
DBR | 2008 | Low Complexity data forwarding protocol | Nodes know their own depth information Sinks located at the water surface Nodes have a packet history buffer | Selects the forwarder node with the shallower depth from bottom to top to forward packets in a flooding manner | DBR can achieve high packet delivery ratios of 95% for dense networks, with reasonable energy consumption DBR has a packet delivery ratio of around 70%, which is more than four times larger than 15%, the delivery ratio of VBF |
Sidewinder | 2009 | High Complexity data forwarding protocol | Nodes know their own locations All nodes that overhear the forwarded data | The data packets are forwarded to neighbors who lie in the specified 60◦ forwarding zone in the direction to the sink node with growing precision as the data packet approaches the sink node | Sidewinder achieves a 92% packet delivery ratio in 20 m/s node speed, which is 52% higher than Beaconless GF and 42% higher than that of GF Sidewinder achieves an 82% packet delivery ratio in random mobility, which is 20% higher than that of Beaconless GF and 72% than that of GF |
STE | 2010 | High Complexity data forwarding protocol | Nodes know their own locations Nodes know the residual energy of all nodes in the network | Selects the forwarders with dominance in both spatial and time dimensions then select the best forwarder node based on the highest residual energy | The STE has the highest success rate of sending packets than PEBF, EERT and PVBF The STE is a high energy-efficient protocol that outperforms PEBF, EERT and PVBF in terms of the residual energy of the various nodes STE have higher calculation load than that in EERT |
VAPR | 2013 | High Complexity data forwarding protocol | Nodes know their own depth information Sinks located at the water surface Local maximum node has a node with lower depth than itself The sinks (sonobuoys) on the surface are equipped with GPS All the nodes move in the same velocity field All the nodes measure the pairwise distance | Selects the next forwarder node that matches the next-hop data forwarding direction of the previous forwarder node | The packet delivery ratio of VAPR outperforms the HydroCast and DBR The performance of VAPR is far better than that of HBR due to VAPR’s localized opportunistic forwarding VAPR save more energy per packet than does HydroCast VAPR outperform HydroCast with route recovery |
QDTR | 2013 | High Complexity data forwarding protocol | All nodes follow the kinematic model for water currents No underlying node mobility model | Selects to forward to the encountered node with the higher reward function | The performance of QDTR is within 10% difference from that of Ideal, which always has accurate and infinite future information The performance of QDTR is more than 10% better than Second and Average, which do not have accurate next contact time prediction QDTR achieves more than 90% of delivery rate, with all the PROPHET, PASR and Binary Spray and Wait protocols less than 80% QDTR performs better than PROPHET and PASR in terms of average delay |
MPDF | 2014 | Medium Complexity data forwarding protocol | Node in the network knows its initial anchor position and the cable length The Reply packet carries the locations of the forwarder, its uplink transmission reliability and reachability to sink Network knows the four forces values: gravity, buoyancy, water current, and tension of the string to calculate the node displacement from the original position | Selects the forwarder node with the highest coverage probability, the best uplink transmission reliability, and the best link reachability | MPDF has a higher Packet Delivery Ratio than that of the OMFP, especially at a faster data generation rate MPDF requires less routing overhead than OMFP MPDF consumes less energy per successfully received packet than OMFP MPDF is more scalable than OMFP in terms of data delivery, routing overhead and energy consumption MPDF performs better than OMPF by considering node movement during forwarder selection process |
H2-DAB | 2014 | Medium Complexity data forwarding protocol | Nodes know their own depth information Multi-sink architecture Sinks located at the water surface The sinks (sonobuoys) on the surface are equipped with GPS | Selects the forwarders with the least Hop Count to the sink | H2-DAB achieve high delivery ratio of more than 90% in both, dense and spars networks, with the small delays and energy consumptions |
OFAIM | 2015 | High Complexity data forwarding protocol | Nodes know their own locations Sensor nodes are generally heterogeneous | Selects the forwarders with the highest contacting probabilities with the sink node | OFAIM achieves a delivery ratio larger than 67% compared to epidemic forwarding, motion vector forwarding and predict and spread forwarding |
HydroCast | 2016 | Medium Complexity data forwarding protocol | Nodes know their own depth information Sinks located at the water surface Local minimum node has a node with lower depth than itself Node measures the pairwise distance Node computes the NADV of each neighbor nodes | Selects a subset of forwarder nodes with the highest Expected Packet Advance (EPA) that is closer to the water surface to forward packets. In case of the void area situation the local maximum node has a less shallow node as a recovery route | The HydroCast had a lower end-to-end delay than DBR due to its adaptive timer setting at each hop The HydroCast with forwarding set selection and recovery significantly improved its reliability and surpassed the delivery ratio of DBR The HydroCast without recovery exhibited the minimum energy consumption where the DBR consumed significantly more energy for each packet delivery |
MPODF | 2021 | High Complexity data forwarding protocol | Node in the network knows its initial position and the sink position Node in the network knows the four forces values: the node weight, the gravitational force, the buoyant force, and the water resistance to calculate and determine the location and velocity of any sensor at any time The transmitting node decides the path to the sink Nodes know the residual energy of all nodes in the network | Select the path with the highest residual energy to the sink with all nodes that will remain moving within the communication range of a sender node during data transmission | MPODF is achieving 70% higher throughput when the water current velocity equals 5 m/s MPODF protocol is at least 99% more energy efficient than the flooding protocol which is the commonly used protocol for highly mobile networks |