WAN Network Design III

Telcom 2110 Network Design

University of Pittsburgh
Slides 13
 Basic WAN Network Design

• Minimize total cost

• Subject to Constraints … for example
– Link capacity must exceed some min, and be less
than some max
– Average Packet Delay must be < maximum
– Reliability requirements
– Throughput, etc.
• General goals
– Short path between all sources and destinations.
– Well-utilized components with high speed lines to
achieve economy of scale.
– These are somewhat contradictory goals
TELCOM 2110 Spring 06 2
 WAN Network Design
• WAN typically have a backbone/edge structure
• Backbone is almost always a mesh or ring design
• Mesh topologies introduce the problem of routing
traffic
• Many optimization formulations and design tools for
WAN network design
– Optimization Techniques usually form the initial basis of the
formulation
– Often use a heuristic or meta-heuristic solution technique
• Formulation depends
– Network layer (e.g., WDM, SONET, MPLS, etc.),
– Technology,
– QoS requirements
– Reliability goals
– Other constraints

TELCOM 2110 Spring 06 3

 Optimization Based Design
• Good Reference is M. Pioro and D. Medhi, Routing, Flow and Capacity
Design in Communication and Computer Networks, Morgan Kauffman 2004

Maximize (or minimize): f ( x1 , x2 K xn ) Objective

Subject to: g1 ( x1 , x2 K xn ) {≤, ≥, =} b1

g 2 ( x1 , x2 K xn ) {≤, ≥, =} b2
Constraints
…
g m ( x1 , x2 K xn ) {≤, ≥, =} bm

… where x1 , x2 K xn are the decision variables

Formulations usually either
• Linear Programming problems (objective and constraints
linear)
• Integer Programming problems (linear objective and
constraints but integer design variables)
• Mixed Integer Programming problems
• Nonlinear MIPs, etc.
Telcom2110
TELCOM 2110 Spring
Spring 06 2006 7 4
 Simple Design Problem

• indices
– d=1,2,…,D set of demands (source-destination pairs)
– p=1,2,…,Pd possible paths for flows of demand d
– e=1,2,…,E links
• Input parameters (constants)
– hd offered traffic load of demand d
– ce upper bound on capacity of link e
– ξe unit (marginal) cost of link e
– δedp = 1 if e belongs to path p realizing demand d; 0,
otherwise
• variables
– xdp flow of demand d on path p
– ye capacity of each link
TELCOM 2110 Spring 06 6
 Capacitated flow allocation problem
LP formulation

• Objective:
minimize F(y) = Σe ξeye
• constraints
Σp xdp = hd d=1,2,…,D
Σd Σp δedpxdp ≤ ye e=1,2,…,E
ye ≤ ce e=1,2,…,E
– flow and capacity variables are continuous and
non-negative
xdp ≥ 0, ye ≥ 0

LP problem solve using Simplex method

Many variations to tailor to network design
TELCOM 2110 Spring 06 7
 Modular Link Capacity Flow Allocation

• Modular Link capacity

• Additional Input Parameter
• M – size of link capacity module (T1, DS3, etc.)
• Objective:
minimize F(y) = Σe ξeye
• constraints
Σp xdp = hd d=1,2,…,D
Σd Σp δedpxdp ≤ Mye e=1,2,…,E
Mye ≤ ce e=1,2,…,E
– flow variables are continuous and non-negative
xdp ≥ 0,
capacity variables are non-negative integers ye ≥ 0

MIP problem solve using Branch and Bound

TELCOM 2110 Spring 06 8
 Single path for traffic Flows
• Many variations possible based on
adding/modifying constraints for example
• Force traffic to a single path so the traffic is not
bifurcated
• Additional variables
udp binary flow variable corresponding to demand d and path p
• Constraints (1) and (2) become
Σp udp = 1 d=1,2,…,D
Σd Σp δedphdudp ≤ Mye e=1,2,…,E
– u binary, ye integers

TELCOM 2110 Spring 06 9

 Circuit Switched Design Problem

• indices
– d=1,2,…,D set of demands (source-destination pairs)
– p=1,2,…,Pd possible paths for flows of demand d
– e=1,2,…,E links
• Input parameters (constants)
– hd offered traffic load of demand d in Erlangs
– M modular capacity of link e
– ξe unit modular capacity cost on link e
– be call blocking requirement on link e
– δedp = 1 if e belongs to path p realizing demand d; 0, otherwise
• variables
– xdp flow of demand d on path p
– ye capacity of each link in terms of number of modules M

TELCOM 2110 Spring 06 10

 Digital Circuit Switched Design with Modular Capacity

• Objective:
minimize F(y) = Σe ξeye
• constraints
Σp xdp = hd d=1,2,…,D
Fe(Σd Σp δedpxdp) ≤ Mye e=1,2,…,E
– flow variables are continuous and non-negative
xdp ≥ 0,
capacity variables are non-negative integers ye ≥ 0
Where Fe(a) is the inverse of the Erlang Blocking formula
for offered load a and blocking be
Many more technology based formulations given in M. Pioro and D.
Medhi book - posted sample formulations on class web page
Thus far talked about Mesh networks
TELCOM 2110 Spring 06 11
 Ring vs Mesh Architectures
Advantages of Rings:
• More cost efficient at low traffic
volumes
• Fast protection switching, some
capacity sharing
Advantages of Mesh:
• More cost efficient at high traffic
volumes
• Facilitates capacity and cost
efficient mesh restoration
• More flexible channel re-
configuration

TELCOM 2110 Spring 06 12

 Self-healing Rings (SHRs)

• SHR is a topology connecting a set of

nodes by one (or more) rings.
• Two types of SHRs :
– Uni-directional ring (USHR)
• Nodes are connected to two rings forwarding traffic
in opposite direction.
– Bi-directional ring (BSHR)
• Four rings are used as two working and two standby
routes.
• An extension of 1:1 Automatic Protection Switching

TELCOM 2110 Spring 06 13

 USHR
USHR also called Unidirectional Path-switched Ring ...

Unidirectional - because in normal

operation all working demand flows in one direction only.
i.e., A sends to B clockwise,
B also sends to A clockwise

Path-switched - because in restoration each receiver

selects an alternate end-to-end path
through ring, regardless of where actual break occurred.

Source: W. D. Grover, ECE 681, UofA, Fall 2004

TELCOM 2110 Spring 06 15

 USHR Animation

Working fibre 1

Tail-end Switch
5 2

Protection fibre
3

4 λ1

Source: W. D. Grover, ECE 681, UofA, Fall 2004

TELCOM 2110 Spring 06 16

 USHR Capacity Requirement

A A -> B
• Consider a bi-directional demand
E B
quantity between nodes A, B: dA,B.
- A to B may go on the short route
- then B to A must go around the longer route
B -> A
• Thus, every (bi-directional) demand pair
D C circumnavigates the entire ring.
• Hence in any cross section of the ring,
we would find one unidirectional instance
of every demand flow between nodes
of the ring.
“ The UPSR must have a line rate
(capacity) greater (or equal to) • Therefore, the line capacity of the UPSR

cUPSR ≥ ∑ d ij
the sum of all the (bi-directional) must be:
demand quantities between nodes of
the ring. “ i> j

Source: W. D. Grover, ECE 681, UofA, Fall 2004

TELCOM 2110 Spring 06 17

 BSHR

Loop Back

Cable cut

(a) Normal Operation (before failure) (b) Protection Operation (after failure)

TELCOM 2110 Spring 06 18

 BSHR

Bi-directional - because in normal

operation working demand flows travel in
opposite directions over the same
Loop Back route through the ring
Cable cut
Also called Bi-directional Line-switched Ring (BLSR)

(a) Normal Operation (before failure) (b) Protection Operation (after failure)

Line-switched - because in restoration the composite

optical line transmission signal is switched to
“ The BLSR must have a line rate the other direction around the ring (on the other fibre pair)
(capacity) greater (or equal to) specifically around the failed section.
the largest sum of demands routed
over any one span of Note implication: Protection fibre capacity must equal
the ring. “ the largest-working capacity
cross-section of any span on the ring.

TELCOM 2110 Spring 06 19

 BSHR

1
Working fibres

Loop-back

5 2

Protection fibres
3
4

λ1
Loop-back

Source: W. D. Grover, ECE 681, UofA, Fall 2004

TELCOM 2110 Spring 06 20

 SHRs Restoration Capability

• USHR
– 100% restoration for a single link failure but no
protection against a node failure.
• BSHR
– 100% restoration for a single link or ADM failure.
– Fully automatic for a fast restoration.
– Spare capacity of each link can be shared between
two working paths.
– Expensive.

TELCOM 2110 Spring 06 21

 SHRs Interconnection Architecture

• Due to geographical/bandwidth limitation,

multiple, interconnected rings are
deployed.
• Multi-Ring network design
• Capacity assignment at all links on the
ring can needs to be minimum.
• For traffic restoration, a larger logical self-
healing ring can be formed from an
interconnection of two or more rings.
TELCOM 2110 Spring 06 22
 Two possible Ring Interconnections

TELCOM 2110 Spring 06 23

 DCS Backbone Network

ADM

ADM ADM

DCS

DCS DCS Ring DCS

DCS

ADM ADM

ADM

TELCOM 2110 Spring 06 24

 Dual-ring Interconnect
When connecting two rings at a transit node want to have redundancy – several methods
Below is drop-and-continue method for BSHRs

C5

C1 (primary) C3 the primary gateway

node has a 1+1 receive
1A 3A
r1 selection setup here.
r2
C2 C4
(secondary)
2A 4A

protected by protected by protected by

BLSR line-loopback 1+1 APS inter-ring BLSR line-loopback
reaction in r1 setup reaction in r2

TELCOM 2110 Spring 06 25

 Rings
• SONET rings operate at OC-n line rates and the STS-1 tributaries are the “channels”
• The nodes of a ring are equipment called “Add-Drop Multiplexers” (ADMs)
• SONET rings may have a maximum of 16 active nodes, plus “glass-through” sites
• “Glass-throughs” are just nodes transited by the ring, but where no ADM is present
• “Glass-throughs” may be simply fiber splices or a regenerator point (“pass throughs”)
• Demand splitting refers to whether or not the total demand exchanged between two
nodes has to be kept together on the same route of a ring or can be ‘split’
• Time slot interchange (TSI) refers to whether the ADMs have the ability to cross-
connect timeslot contents (assign a new time slot to a demand on the next span)
• More recent Optical rings have a DWDM optical line signal and add / drop single
wavelengths or wave-bands
- the logical “channel” is a wavelength (λ) or waveband
- UPSR < - > OPPR (Optical Path Protection Ring)
- BLSR < - > OSPR (Optical Shared Protection Ring)
- ADM < - > OADM
- TSI (Time slot interchange) < - > λ conversion

TELCOM 2110 Spring 06 26

 Multi-ring Design Problem
• Given:
- a two-connected (or bi-connected) graph
- a set of “ring technologies” and costs.
e.g OC-192 4/BLSR, OC-48 UPSR, etc...including 1+1 APS
- a set of demands to be served.
- a subset of node locations where demands may transit from ring-to-ring

• Determine:
- the number, size, type and placement of all rings
- the location of glass-throughs (and ADM terminals) on all rings
- the end-to-end routing of each demand

That results in minimal cost of all rings placed, including costs

associated with demands transiting from ring to ring.

Source: W. D. Grover, ECE 681, UofA, Fall 2004

TELCOM 2110 Spring 06 27

 On the complexity of multi-ring design
• Upper bound on number of ring candidates to consider:
logic: Every combination of 2, 3, 4....up to N nodes defines a prospective collection
of active ADM nodes that could be grouped together to define one ring.
N
⎛N⎞
Q ≈ ∑ ⎜ ⎟ ≤ 2N − N − 1
i =2 ⎝ i ⎠

• Upper bound on the number of different multi-ring designs that exist:

logic: Now, every combination of 1, 2, 3, 4....up to some pre-determined maximum
number of rings can be considered for feasibility and cost as a multi-ring
design solution.
- in ideal case of rings with no capacity limit,
can show that more than N-1 rings not needed.

⎛Q⎞
N −1
→ Θ ≥ ∑⎜ ⎟ and ... also multiply by the number of “ring technologies”
j =1 ⎝ j ⎠ being considered.

TELCOM 2110 Spring 06 28

 Question: How big is Θ?

70
10

60
10
No. of Possible Designs

50
10

40
10

30
10

20
10

10
10

0
10
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
No . o f No d e s

illustration: a 10 node network: 1013 possible rings, 1021 possible multi-ring networks
(over 100 million years to evaluate all designs at 10 6 design evaluations / sec.) !

TELCOM 2110 Spring 06 29

 Key concepts in multi-ring design
Concept
• graph coverage: ....a set of rings that covers every edge of the graph.
This is one class of ring network.
....in a BLSR, how well are the wi quantities “balanced” ? (since
• Balance
the largest of them dictates the protection capacity).
....to what extent does a given ring tend to serve demands that
• Capture both originate and terminate in the same ring.
....a multi-ring design may not “cover” all graph edges,
• Span elimination if the working demands can take non-shortest path routes.

....for the highest service availability, some demands may employ

• Dual-ring interconnect geographically redundant duplicate inter-ring transfers

• transit sites ....not all nodes may be sites where demands can switch rings.

....each ring needs ADMs where demands add / drop, but not
•glass-throughs elsewhere ( ~> Express rings etc.).

TELCOM 2110 Spring 06 30

 Graph coverage
• a set of rings that uses or overlies all edges of the physical facilities graph is called
a “ring cover”.
• “Coverage-based” design is a special (simpler) case of multi-ring design.
• More generally the aim is to protect all demands, not necessarily to “cover all
spans.” “span eliminations”

example

a single ring design

a three ring “cover” that may also serve all
demands…
Q. what is implied?

Source: W. D. Grover, ECE 681, UofA, Fall 2004

TELCOM 2110 Spring 06 31

 Net Solver (Gardner, et al., Globecom ‘95)

• Objective
– Find min-cost ring design that serves all demands.
• Key Assumptions & Constraints
– Cost is calculated based on fixed and variable costs.
– Requires an initial ring design.
– Ring capacity is fixed and modular (rings not “ideal”).
• Methodology
1. Route demands over the initial set of rings using either (1) shortest path, (2)
shortest ring transition, or (3) minimum congestion routing (user-defined).
2. Compute the total cost of the initial design.
3. Generate a set of alternative ring designs by modifying the initial ring design
using three different ring operations:
(1) split;
(2) merge; and
(3) enlargement.

TELCOM 2110 Spring 06 32

 Net Solver
• Ring Operations

R R1
R2

(a) Split operation

R1

R
R2

(b) Merge operation

R R’

(c) Enlargement operation

TELCOM 2110 Spring 06 33

 Net Solver (cont’d)

• Methodology (cont’d)
4. Route demands and compute the total cost for each alternative
design.
5. Select the design with the lowest total cost.
6. Repeat steps 3-5 until no further improvements in cost can be
obtained.

• Capabilities
– BLSR, UPSR and mixed designs.
– Accounts for fixed ring capacities.
– Identifies the location of active/passive nodes and demand
routing.

TELCOM 2110 Spring 06 34

 Optimization Formulation Notation

demands and routing

J - set of candidate rings (BLSRs).
K - set of all demands.
S - set of spans in the network topology.
dk - size of demand bundle k.

costs & capacities I - set of routes for all demands.

bij - add/drop cost of carrying route i on ring j.

Fi - flow of working route i.
cj - “fixed cost” (optical line costs) of ring j.
Gij - flow of route i carried by ring j.
ei - termination cost for route i.
ws - working load on span s.
m j - capacity of BLSR j.

decision variables
X j - copies of candidate ring j in design.

TELCOM 2110 Spring 06 35

 Pure span coverage IP
• Span Coverage (SCIP)
1. Route demands over network topology and calculate working load
ws on each span.
2. Generate a set of ring candidates (topology, ring type and capacity)
and calculate ring candidate costs.
SCIP
Minimize: ∑c X
j∈J
j j
(1)

Subject to: ∑( m) X
j∈J s
j j ≥ ws ∀s ∈ S (2)

Xj ≤0 ,
integer, ∀j ∈ J (3)

TELCOM 2110 Spring 06 36

 “Fixed Charge and Routing”
• Fixed Charge and Routing (FCIP)
1. Generate a set of several possible routes for each demand.
2. Generate a set of ring candidates (topology and ring type) and
calculate ring candidate costs.
FCRIP
Minimize: ∑c X + ∑ ∑b G
j∈J
j j
i∈I j∈J ( i )
ij ij (1)

Subject to: ∑F = d
i∈I (k )
i k , ∀k ∈ K (2)

∑G
j∈J (s )
ij ≥ Fi , ∀i ∈ I , ∀s ∈ S (3)

∑G
i∈I (s )
ij ≤ mj X j , ∀j ∈ J , ∀s ∈ S (4)

TELCOM 2110 Spring 06 37

 Understanding “Fixed Charge and
Routing” approach
Key idea: Solver is free to choose rings are routing of flows jointly,
to min cost of rings plus inter-ring add/ drop transition costs

(3) amongst “stacked”

ring spans allocation of
each ring’s portion of flow sums to
D
total on the given route
for that O-D pair ring j∈J
(“fixed” optical line cost)
three possible routes
for demand pair k,
I(k)
route
O ring j∈J and flow
add/ drop for other
costs
(2) sum of flow F(i) to each spa demand
n s
route I(k) = dk routing dependent
pairs
add/ drop costs

(4) capacity greater than

sum of flows crossing span

TELCOM 2110 Spring 06 38

 Numerical Comparison
5 10 0
1

• Test Networks 3 2
2 9 3 4

4
11 15 13 19
15 14

Metro 7
7

10 6
14

11 8 6 12 17

13 12 1 18 16 8

Net15 Net20
29 40 10

39 12 3

30
13 11
26
27
38 15 42

1 28
22 21 14 17 20 5 33 43

16
11 7 16 18 22 23
2 12 15

10 4 27 19 41
3

Long-haul
14 32
26 24 6
17

24 28 1 21
31
13
36 37 29 4 32

8
6 18 8 25 31
5 25

2 30 9

7 9
23 20 19 35 34

Net32 Net43
Source: W. D. Grover, ECE 681, UofA, Fall 2004
TELCOM 2110 Spring 06 39
 Numerical Results
• Modeling Assumptions
– Ring types: 12-λ OSPR and 48-λ OSPR.
– Cost model: 4 times capacity for twice the cost.
– No restrictions on inter-ring transition locations.
• Experimental Procedure
1. Formulated each IP in AMPL mathematical
programming language.
2. Populated AMPL data sets.
3. Generated problem instances using AMPL and
solved with CPLEX.
4. Entered solutions into SONET Planner (Nortel
Networks) to obtain final detailed costing.
TELCOM 2110 Spring 06 40
 Results

Cost ($000s)

RingBuilder SCIP FCRIP

Net15 6,535 5,810 7,187*

Net20 9,886 10,083 8,953*

Net32 91,596 90,291 96,368*

Net45 116,674 130,100* -

* - time limit exceeded, best feasible solution shown.

TELCOM 2110 Spring 06 41

 Results (cont’d)

Runtime* (seconds)

RingBuilder SCIP FCRIP

Net15 6.2 1.6 43,200
Net20 10.5 38.7 43200
Net32 8.5 361 43,200
Net45 1,233 43,200 -

43,200 sec = 12 hour run-time limit

TELCOM 2110 Spring 06 42