220 likes | 335 Vues
This study by Ram Keralapura, Chen-Nee Chuah, and Yueyue Fan presents a two-phase framework for minimizing network performance deterioration during upgrades, with numerical examples and results. The framework addresses the challenges of adding new nodes and links to existing networks while maintaining customer satisfaction.
E N D
Optimal Strategy For Graceful Network Upgrade Ram Keralapura, UC-Davis Chen-Nee Chuah, UC-Davis Yueyue Fan, UC-Davis
Outline • Introduction: Graceful Network Upgrade Problem • Two-Phase Framework • Phase-1: Finding Optimal End-State • Phase-2: Multistage Node Addition • Numerical Example and Results • Conclusions and Future Directions University of California, Davis
Introduction • Network Upgrade • Adding new nodes and links into an existing operational network • Does not refer to upgrading individual network components • “Graceful” Network Upgrade • Network performance deterioration from the perspective of existing customers should be minimized during upgrade process University of California, Davis
Introduction (cont’d) • Steps for Graceful Network Upgrade • Identifying set of potential locations where new nodes can be added • Determining a subset of potential locations where nodes should added and how they should be connected to the rest of the network • Determining an ideal sequence for adding nodes and links into the network University of California, Davis
Scenario • Tier-1 ISP backbone networks • Nodes Points of Presence (PoPs) • Links Inter-POP links • Assumptions: • ISPs can reliably determine the future traffic demands when new nodes are added • ISPs can reliably estimate the revenue associated with the addition of every new node • Revenues resulting from different node additions are independent of each other University of California, Davis
Network Performance: Customers’ View • Link failures are the primary reason for performance deterioration in tier-1 ISP backbone networks • Impact of link failures: Service Disruption (SD) Time and Traffic Disruption (TD) • Depends on the operational network conditions like shortest paths between nodes, exit points for prefixes, traffic demands, etc. • Adding new nodes and links can change the above operational network conditions University of California, Davis
Graceful Network Upgrade • Given a budget constraint: • Find where to add new nodes and how they should be connected to the rest of the network • Determine optimal sequence for this upgrade • Two-Phase Framework • Phase-1: Finding Optimal End State • Formulated as an optimization problem • Phase-2: Multistage Node Addition Strategy • Formulated as a multistage dynamic programming (DP) problem University of California, Davis
Phase-1: Finding Optimal End State Revenue • Objective Function: Subject to: • Budget constraint: • Node degree constraint Link installation cost Node installation cost Budget University of California, Davis
Phase-1: Finding Optimal End State (Cont’d) • SD Time constraint • TD constraint • Link utilization constraint • Can be solved by non-linear programming techniques – tabu search, genetic algorithms University of California, Davis
Phase-2: Multistage Node Addition • Assumptions: • Already have the solution from Phase-1 • ISP wants to add one node and its associated links into the network at every stage • Hard to debug if all nodes are added simultaneously • Node/link construction delays • Sequential budget allocation • … • Time period between every stage could range from several months to few years University of California, Davis
Cost instead of constraints to ensure we find feasible solutions Phase-2: Multistage Node Addition • Multistage dynamic programming problem with costs for performance degradation • Maximize (revenue – cost) • Cost considered: • Node degree • Link utilization • SD Time • TD Time University of California, Davis
Potential Node Locations Original Nodes Numerical Example 1 Chicago Seattle C New York D A San Jose B 2 3 Phoenix Atlanta Dallas 4 Miami University of California, Davis
New Links New Nodes Original Nodes Original Links 1 Chicago Seattle C New York D A San Jose B 2 3 Phoenix Atlanta Dallas 4 Miami Solution from Phase-1 Numerical Example – Phase-1 Solution University of California, Davis
Numerical Example – Result University of California, Davis
New Links New Nodes Original Nodes Original Links Numerical Example – Phase-2 Solution 1 Chicago Seattle C New York D A San Jose B 2 3 Phoenix Atlanta Dallas 4 Miami Solution from Phase-1 University of California, Davis
Numerical Example – Phase-2 Solution • Ignoring SD time and TD in Phase-2 results in significant performance deterioration for customers University of California, Davis
Conclusions • We propose a two phase framework for graceful upgrade of operational network • Important to consider performance from users’ perspective (service/traffic disruptions) • We illustrated the feasibility of our approach using a simple numerical example • The framework is flexible and can be easily adapted to include other constraints or scenario-specific requirements University of California, Davis
Future Work • Need to relax simplifying assumptions • Revenue and traffic demands in the network after node additions could dynamically change because of endogenous and exogenous effects • Adaptive and stochastic dynamic programming • Revenue generated by adding one node is usually not independent of other node additions • Uncertainty in predicting traffic demands • Applications of this framework in different environments • Wireless networks (WiFi, WiMax, celllular) University of California, Davis
Questions? • http://www.ece.ucdavis.edu/rubinet/ University of California, Davis
Phase-2: Multistage Node Addition • Multistage dynamic programming problem with costs for performance degradation • Cost of node degree: • Cost of link utilization: University of California, Davis
Phase-2: Multistage Node Addition • Cost of SD Time: • Cost of TD: University of California, Davis
Phase-2: Multistage Node Addition • Functional equation: University of California, Davis