## 3 Principals of Routing Protocols and Their Breakdowns
### Geographical Information-Based Routing Protocols
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{p{56.9 pt} p{56.9 pt} p{113.8 pt} p{113.8 pt} p{113.8 pt}} \hline \hline
**Classification** & **Protocols** & **Key Idea** & **Advantage** & **Disadvantage** \\ \hline Reactive Protocols & CTP-SEEC & Incorputes transmit power control, mobile sink and clustering to extend the network lifetime, better throughput and maximize packet distribution. & Can be deployed in sparse and dense network & Clustering in sparse network creates unnecessary complexity and adds cost \\  & \(((U-ACH))^{2}\) & Evaluate terrestrial based routing protocol performance in UWSN environment & Enhance the network performance measure & High deployment cost \\ \hline Proactive Protocol & SPRINT & Achieve trade-off between consumption and throughput & High reliability & Computational complexity \\  & PA-EPS-CASE & Find the shortest distance between source and sink using proactive routing & Void hole avoidance & Overheating and greater overhead \\ \hline Hybrid Protocol & EH-ARCUNA & Extend the lifetime of the system & Reduced packet forwarding load on the source, improved packet delivery ratio & Varying and high aggregate energy consumption by relay nodes, lack of local relay selection process for transmitting data & Avoids void region using stop and wait protocol & Varying and high aggregate energy consumption by relay nodes, lack of local relay selection process \\ \hline Clustering Protocol & EERU-CA & Monitoring application & CH have high energy & High End-to-End Delay \\  & CUWSN & Better throughput & Provides a Better Throughput & Early Death of sensor \\ \hline Depth-Based Protocol & EEDBR & Application based on packet suppression scheme & Reduced data transfer rate & Low lifetime \\  & EEEDBR & Ideal nodes at medium depth & Lifetime increases & Low Throughput \\  & EECRR & Uses Multi-hop to perform routing & Less complexity & High latency \\ \hline RL-Based Protocol & QLEAR & Increase lifetime of nodes & Lifetime increases & Energy consumption \\  & QDTR & Reduce energy consumption & Reduces overhead & Not suitable for dense network \\  & EDORQ & Combines Q-learning and opportunistic routing to improve energy conversion & Reduced delay & High Computational Cost \\  & QI-EEBDG & Balance energy consumption of aggregation nodes & Use of RL to learn about energy consumption & Not suitable for sparse network \\  & QI-EEBDG-ADN & Void avoidance using adjacent nodes & Ensures packet delivery & Adds extra delay \\ \hline Bio-inspired Protocol & FFRP & Reliable routing route & High packet delivery ratio & High computational cost \\  & MFPR & Energy-Efficient and reliable data transmission & Improves link quality & Network Dynamic issue \\ \hline Cooperative- & ReR & Increase reliability and efficiency & Minimum transmission delay & Control Overhead \\ protocol & EECOR & Find best path using less energy & Find shortest path & High delay \\  & LEER & Efficient delivery rate using layered network & No localization needed & Unbalanced energy consumption \\  & SEECR & Minimize the computation cost & Less end-to-end delay & Low movement not accounted for \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 10: Comparison of Energy-based Routing Protocols. * Depth-Based Routing Protocol:  
Depth-based routing methods only require the configuration of a depth sensor to obtain node depth information and do not require the nodes' complete geographical position information. Meanwhile, depth-based routing protocols make it easy for the source node to choose the right next-hop node and path based on node depth information, reducing network transmission delay and energy usage. The following is a detailed description of these depth-based procedures.