## 1 Introduction
A summary of the performance features of the existing and proposed protocols is shown in Table 1.  
The main contributions of this paper can be outlined as follows, (1) to propose two new routing protocols which employ a two-level phantom routing strategy with two adversary confusion phases, (2) to conduct a sequence of experiments to evaluate and compare the privacy performance of the \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{p{113.8 pt} p{113.8 pt} p{113.8 pt} p{113.8 pt} p{113.8 pt}} \hline \hline
**Protocol** & **Routing Strategy** & **Features** & & **Influence** \\ \hline \hline \multirow{8}{*}{Tree-based diversion routing (TreeR) [4].} & \multirow{8}{*}{\begin{tabular}{} \end{tabular} } & \multirow{8}{*}{\begin{tabular}{} \end{tabular} } & \(\bullet\) & \begin{tabular}{} \end{tabular} & \(\bullet\) & Positive effect on SLP protection. \\  & & & \(\bullet\) & Negative effect on energy consumption in near network border regions. \\  & & & \(\bullet\) & Negative effect on PDR, and EED performance. \\ \cline{2-5}  & & & & \(\bullet\) & Negative effect on SLP protection. \\  & & & & \(\bullet\) & Negative effect on energy consumption, PDR, and EED performance. \\ \cline{2-5}  & & & \(\bullet\) & Distributes fake packets near phantom node route. & \(\bullet\) & Positive effect on SLP protection. \\ \hline \hline \multirow{8}{*}{Probabilistic source location privacy protection protocol (ProR) [20].} & \multirow{8}{*}{\begin{tabular}{} \end{tabular} } & \multirow{8}{*}{\begin{tabular}{} \end{tabular} } & \(\bullet\) & \
\begin{tabular}{} \end{tabular} & \(\bullet\) &
\begin{tabular}{} \end{tabular} \\  & & & \(\bullet\) & Negative effect on energy consumption performance in near-sink regions. \\ \cline{2-5}  & & & \(\bullet\) & \(\bullet\) & Negative effect on SLP protection. \\ \cline{2-5}  & & & \(\bullet\) & \(\bullet\) & Negative effect on energy consumption performance in near-sink regions. \\ \cline{2-5}  & & & \(\bullet\) & \(\bullet\) & Negative effect on SLP protection. \\ \cline{2-5}  & & & \(\bullet\) & \(\bullet\) & Negative effect on SLP protection. \\ \cline{2-5}  & & & \(\bullet\) & \(\bullet\) & Negative effect on SLP protection. \\ \cline{2-5}  & & & \(\bullet\) & \(\bullet\) & Negative effect on SLP protection. \\ \cline{2-5}  & & & \(\bullet\) & \(\bullet\) & Negative effect on SLP protection. \\ \cline{2-5}  & & & \(\bullet\) & \(\bullet\) & Negative effect on SLP protection. \\ \cline{2-5}  & & & \(\bullet\) & \(\bullet\) & Stronger SLP protection than ProbR \\ \cline{2-5}  & & & \(\bullet\) & \(\bullet\) & Lower energy consumption than ProbR for near-sink regions. \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Summary of the performance features of the existing and proposed routing protocols. proposed protocols with the existing TreeR and ProbR, (3) to demonstrate that the proposed protocols provide strong SLP protection with controlled communication overhead, and (4) to conduct a range of experiments to investigate the SLP protection, energy consumption, PDR, and EED performance of the protocols under varied network configurations. The remainder of this paper is structured as follows: Section 2 provides a review of the literature on source location privacy routing protocols. Section 3 highlights the details of the network and adversary models. The proposed routing protocols are described in detail in Section 4. Performance analysis with the simulation results and discussions are presented in Section 5. In Section 6, the paper is concluded.