## 4 Proposed Scheme
### Identity, Route, and Location Privacy (IRL)
Energy is computed based on the communication overhead (including transmission and reception cost, path length) introduced by our proposed routing protocols and compared it with other existing schemes. We have implemented our IRL and r-IRL routing schemes on Sensor Network Simulator and Emulator (SENSE) [41]. At the application layer we used constant bit rate component (CBR) that generate \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|} \hline Network & Number of nodes & 300 \\ \cline{2-3} specific & Distance b/w nodes & 50 units \\ \cline{2-3}  & Mobility of nodes & zero \\ \hline  & Sensor node’s Initial battery & \(1\times 10^{6}\)J \\ \cline{2-3}  & Power consumption for trans. & 1.6W \\ \cline{2-3} Node & Power consumption for recv. & 1.2 W \\ \cline{2-3} specific & Idle power consumption & 1.15W \\ \cline{2-3}  & Carrier sense threshold & 3.65\(e^{-10}\)W \\ \cline{2-3}  & Receive power threshold & 1.55\(e^{-11}\)W \\ \cline{2-3}  & Frequency & 9.14\(e^{8}\) \\ \cline{2-3}  & Trans. \& Recv. antenna gain & 1.0 \\ \hline Protocol \& Application & CBR \\ \cline{2-3} Application & Reliability param. \(r\) for r-IRL & 3 \\ \cline{2-3} specific & \(h_{walk}\) param. for PFR \& PSR & 10 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Simulation parameters. constant traffic during simulation between randomly selected source node(s) and the base station. For the simplicity, we assumed that both sensor nodes and the base station are static. Network consists of 300 sensor nodes that are organized into 15 by 20 grid manner. Other simulation parameters are given in Table 4.

We have compared our proposed IRL and r-IRL algorithms with the four variations of phantom routing schemes [3, 4] that are:

1. Phantom single path routing scheme with hop-based approach (PSR-hop). 2. Phantom single path routing scheme with sector-based approach (PSR-sec). 3. Phantom flood routing scheme with hop-based approach (PFR-hop). 4. Phantom flood routing scheme with sector-based approach (PFR-sec). We did not compared our schemes with the SAS and CAS [5] schemes because the authors did not propose any routing strategy. The energy consumption analysis with different scenarios are shown in Figure 6. For the r-IRL scheme we select \(r=3\), which means a single packet will reach the destination via three different routes simultaneously. For phantom routing schemes, we select parameter \(h_{walk}\)=10 (as recommended

Figure 6: Energy consumption analysis: simulation time: 5,000.

in [3]). Figure 6 clearly indicates that, the IRL and r-IRL schemes consume less energy as compared to the PSR-sec, PFR-hop and PFR-sec schemes but slightly consume higher energy as compared to the PSR-hop scheme. This is due to the fact that the IRL and r-IRL algorithms provides more path diversity and packets sometimes took longer paths. ### Path Diversity Analysis

Strength of route privacy is dependent on path diversity. High path diversity provides strong route privacy and low path diversity provides weak rout privacy. Path diversity can be categorized into two types. 1. Length variation: Path could be long or short and mainly dependent on routing scheme. For example, packets always reach to the destination via shortest path. In this scheme, packets may reach to the destination via longer path if any node is not working properly within the shortest available path. With respect to the route privacy, length variation provides minimum route privacy. If we have longer paths, then it will increase time for an adversary to find out actual source node or vice versa. So, the longer path increases safety time. 2. Path variation: Each packet may follow different route. It is also dependent on routing strategy. For example, routing scheme make decision about next hop based on the energy level of neighboring nodes. With this approach, one can achieve limited path variation. With respect to the route privacy, if we have more path variation, then it will become clueless for an adversary to guess from where next packet will come. Our proposed routing strategies (IRL and r-IRL) have both features.