# FuGeF: A Resource Bound Secure Forwarding Protocol for Wireless Sensor Networks
## 2 Related Works  
An ideal protocol, despite node's constraints (energy, processing power, bandwidth, and storage) is expected to coordinate communication activities to achieve high delivery ratio, and low latency using the least energy possible [6]. Thus, to fulfil these requirements, there is the need for a protocol to have an efficient forwarding strategy. This strategy is known to dominate the node selection process that influences network performance. In this section, we review some forwarding or node selection strategies that were employed in several routing protocols. One of the earliest works on node selection employs the Most Forward within Range (MFR) or greedy forwarding strategy [7] to select next hop nodes. The strategy selects a node that makes the highest advances (distance) towards a destination within its range, during the routing process. It minimizes the number of hops and energy consumption. Due to these advantages, several protocols such as CBF [8], GeRAF [9], BLR [10], SBGR [11], IGF [12] and BOSS [13] have adopted the MFR's selection strategy. However, this strategy is affected by interference and holes which lead to packet losses due to longer hop distance between nodes or failed hop. In [14], a Nearest with Forward Progress (NFP) was proposed to mitigate the interference and hole problem. NFP selects immediate neighbors' nodes to the sending nodes. In other words, it selects nodes within its range which made shorter advances away from the sending node towards a destination. Similarly, Random Progress (RP) forwarding strategy was also proposed in [15] to mitigate interference. RP selects nodes randomly within its range as long as they posses a distance value which shows progress towards the destination. Both strategies increased packet delivery due to shorter hops chosen, which were invulnerable to interference as seen in GPER [16], SIGF [2] and DWSIGF [3]. However, these protocols suffer an increase in latency and energy consumption due to the shorter hops utilized for routing. In [17], Compass routing was proposed to efficiently select the next hop node considering an angle criterion in addition to the distance criterion. The forwarding strategy selects a next hop node using MFR or NFP, as well as the angle of deviation of each node within the forwarding range from the sending node. The node with minimum deviation angle from the sending node is chosen as the next hop node. Protocols such as HGR [18] and PFR [19] utilized this form of node selection to improve packet delivery and reduce energy consumption. This was because minimum deviation angle provides a slightly direct line of contact to the sending node, since such nodes (that are on a direct line of contact with each other) are less prone to interference and path dilatation. However, the use of MFR and NFP forwarding strategies in its selection leads to interference, increase energy consumption and delay, respectively. In [20], Energy Efficient Geographic Forwarding Strategy (EEGFS) was proposed to select the next hop node with consideration to Packet Reception Rate (PRR) and distance transversed towards the destination. The EEGFS first computes the product of PRR and distance transversed towards the destination. The protocol then selects the node with maximum product value as the next hop node. The strategy achieved higher delivery rate with a relatively lower value of energy and delay. This was because the highest values used for the node selection were mostly dominated by nodes which achieved optimal forwarding distance. However, this distance as described by [PERSON] and [PERSON] in [21], falls within a translational region where link quality has high variance (including good and weak links), which if not intelligently chosen, may lead to poor network performance. Similarly [22] proposed a Geographic Routing with Environmental Energy Supply (GREES) to improve energy efficiency and packet delivery.