Online Trafc Engineering using Least Interference Optimization

A.B Bagula, M. Botha, and A.E Krzesinski Department of Computer Science University of Stellenbosch, 7600 Stellenbosch, South Africa Tel: +27 21 8084232 Fax: +27 21 8084416 Email: bagula@cs.sun.ac.za

Abstract Flow-based routing algorithms have recently been proposed where the online routing process uses a priori knowledge of the ingress-egress pairs and an estimation of the trafc prole to reduce LSP rejection in MPLS networks. This paper presents a new routing scheme referred to as Least Interference Optimization (LIO) where the online routing process uses the current bandwidth availability and the trafc ow distribution to achieve trafc engineering in IP networks. A Least Interference Optimization Algorithm (LIOA) is presented which balances the number and quantity of ows carried by a link to achieve efcient routing of MPLS bandwidth-guaranteed label-switched paths (LSPs). Preliminary simulation results show that LIOA outperforms several widely known routing algorithms including the Minimum Hop Algorithm (MHA), Shortest Path First (SPF), Constraint Shortest Path First (CSPF) and Minimum Interference Routing Algorithm (MIRA) on several performance parameters including (1) the LSP rejection and (2) the ease of implementation. Index Terms Trafc engineering, online routing, MHA, SPF, CSPF, MIRA, LIOA.

I. I NTRODUCTION Trafc engineering (TE) is a network management technique which improves the use and efciency of a network by explicitly steering the trafc through a routed or switched network to achieve performance goals such as delay minimization, throughput maximization, etc. The routing algorithms currently deployed in the Internet and the extensions proposed to adapt these algorithms for trafc engineering include the widely deployed Shortest Path First (SPF) and Constraint Shortest Path First (CSPF). SPF, the most widely used algorithm for intra-domain routing, uses by default a static model where trafc is routed based on link costs which are inversely proportional to the link capacity as proposed by Cisco. This static routing model may lead to unbalanced network loading by assigning bandwidth requests to overloaded portions of a network while leaving other parts of the network under-utilized.
This work is supported by grant numbers 2047362 and 2677 from the South African National Research Foundation, Siemens Telecommunications and Telkom SA Limited. One of the authors acknowledges a bursary from the Department of Labour (DoL). Opinions expressed and conclusions arrived at are those of the author and are not necessarily to be attributed to the DoL.

CSPF was proposed as an algorithm which solves the problem of load balancing of SPF by using link costs which reect the current resource availability. These include costs which are inversely proportional to the residual link capacities. However both SPF and CSPF are poorly equipped for trafc engineering support under heavy load conditions [1]. Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) enables the construction of a connection-oriented network over the connectionless IP network using bandwidth guaranteed tunnels called Label Switched Paths (LSPs). The Minimum Interference Routing Algorithm (MIRA) [2] was proposed in the context of MPLS networks as a ow-based routing algorithm which sets up LSPs using knowledge of the ingress-egress pairs to prevent the creation of bottlenecks for ows in a network, thus reducing the rejection rate of LSP requests between a specied subset of ingress-egress pairs. However, MIRA causes additional routing complexity which does not necessarily translate into equivalent performance gains. This paper presents a Least Interference Optimization Algorithm (LIOA) for setting up bandwidth-guaranteed tunnels in MPLS networks. The main contributions of this paper are Cost-based route optimization. We present an online method for nding optimal routes using a link cost metric which reduces the interference among competing ows by reducing the numbers and magnitudes of the ows carried on the links. Our routing algorithm has the same complexity as classical routing algorithms such as Breadth First Search and Dijkstras algorithm. Performance improvement. Our routing model is easy to implement (and thus easily deployed by ISPs) and offers substantial network performance improvement compared to the ow-based MIRA and the packet-based MHA, SPF, and CSPF algorithms. The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section II presents the least interference optimization model. Section III contains the performance evaluation. Our conclusions are presented in section IV.

II. T HE L EAST I NTERFERENCE O PTIMIZATION M ODEL Consider a network represented by a directed acyclic graph G(N , L) where N is the set of nodes and L is the set of links. Let C denote the capacity of link and let Pi,e denote the set of feasible paths connecting the ingress-egress pair (i, e). Assume that a request to establish an LSP tunnel of bandwidth di,e units between an ingress-egress pair (i, e) is received and that future demands concerning LSP requests are not known. The routing problem consists of nding the best feasible path p Pi,e such that 0<f di,e Lp Lp < C min (C f )
p

3) Compute the link costs L . 4) Compute the reduced network. Eliminate all links with residual capacities less than di,e to form a reduced network whose links have sufcient spare capacity to carry the demand di,e . 5) Find the new least cost path. Use Dijkstras algorithm to nd the new least cost path p from i to e in the reduced network using the link costs L . 6) Route the trafc demand. Assign the trafc demand di,e to the path p . 7) Update the link ows. For each link p : f := f + di,e . B. The Least Interference Optimization Algorithm The objective of LIOA is to nd a path between a pair of nodes that minimizes the number and the magnitude of the ows carried by the links on the path. A power-based penalty function The link penalty function is L (I , f ) = I /S 1 (6)

(1) (2) (3) (4)

=
p

L (I , f )
pPi,e

min Lp

where L (I , f ) is the cost of link when carrying I ows, f is the total ows on link and Lp is the cost of path p. Equations (1), (2), (3) and (4) express respectively the feasibility of the ows, the feasibility of the path, the additivity of the path cost function and the optimality of the routing process. A. The Minimum Interference Routing Algorithm The objective of MIRA is to nd a path between a pair of nodes that blocks the least amount of available ow between all other source-destination nodes. The link penalty function MIRA uses the link penalty function expressing costs which determine the relative importance of the ingress-egress pairs. In MIRA, computing the link costs reduces to nding the set of critical links for all ingress-egress pairs where the set of critical links belong to min-cut sets computed using the current residual link capacity. The link penalty function is L =
(s,d ): Cs,d

where the link interference I is the number of ows carried on the link, the link slack S = C f where C is the link capacity, f is the trafc carried by a link and 0 1 is a parameter representing the trade-off between LIO and CSPF routing. The link penalty function (6) is minimized by minimizing the the link interference I and maximizing the link slack S . By dispersing trafc ows over the network through interference minimization, this link cost will minimize the number of LSPs blocked under congestion. Note that CSPF routing 1/(C f ) = 0 SPF routing 1/C =f =0 L (I , f ) = I =1 LIO routing When 0 < < 1 the link penalty function yields a mix of LIO and CSPF routing. The impact of the parameter on the link penalty function is discussed further in Section III. A log-based penalty function A link penalty function based on the logarithm of the powerbased penalty function (6) is given by L (I , f ) = log(I + 1) + (1 ) log(k/(C f )) where 0 < 1, 1 k/(C f ) (I + 1)/(1) and k = max C avoids negative link costs. The LIO routing algorithm Consider a demand for di,e bandwidth units between two nodes i and e. LIOA executes four steps in routing this demand 1) Compute the link costs L(I , f ) = I /(C f )1 C f di,e C f > di,e .

1/s,d

(5)

where s,d is the max-ow between pair (s, d ) and Cs,d is the set of critical links between the pairs (s, d ) as determined by the max-ow algorithm. The MIRA routing algorithm Consider a demand for di,e bandwidth units between two nodes i and e. MIRA uses the link penalty function dened in equation (5) above and executes seven steps in routing this demand 1) Compute the max-ow values s,d for all (s, d ) pairs except (i, e). 2) Compute the set of critical links for all (s, d ) pairs except (i, e). A link is critical for a given ingress-egress pair if that link belongs to any min-cut for that ingressegress pair.

2) Find the new least cost path. Apply Dijkstras algorithm to nd the least cost path p Pi,e . 3) Route the trafc demand. Assign the trafc demand di,e to path p . 4) Update the link ows and interference. For each link p : I := I + 1; f := f + di,e . The original MIRA algorithm [2] required as many maxow computations as the number of ingress-egress pairs where each max-ow computation has O(N 3 ) complexity for a network of N nodes. Improved versions of MIRA known as S-MIRA and L-MIRA use approximations of the link interference [4]. These improvements result in a lower LSP rejection compared to the original MIRA algorithm but result in additional complexity which can outweigh the advantages offered by the approximations. The complexity of LIOA is determined by the shortest path computation which has complexity O(N + L) or O(N 2 ) depending on whether shortest paths are found using a Breadth First Search or Dijkstras algorithm. III. P ERFORMANCE E VALUATION We conducted simulation experiments using a ctitious representation of a South African network illustrated in gure 1 to compare the performance of ve routing algorithms (1) Minimum Hop Algorithm (MHA) (2) Least Interference Optimization Algorithm (LIOA) (3) Shortest Path (SPF) (4) Constraint Shortest Path (CSPF) and (5) Minimum Interference Routing (MIRA). The test network has 23 nodes with 88 unidirectional links. The dark thick links have capacity 48 units and the light thin links have capacity 12 units corresponding respectively to OC-48 and OC-12 links. In our simulation experiments, each node is used as an ingress and egress node, leading to 506 ingress-egress pairs.
Messina 10 Pietersburg/Polokwane

Hop Algorithm (MHA), Shortest Path rst (SPF) and Constraint Shortest Path First (CSPF) compare versus the MIRA algorithm. The second metric reveals the impact of bandwidth allocation on future admission control. LSP rejection refers to LSP requests which were not accepted due to random uctuation of the bandwidth availability. A. LSP rejection We conducted simulation experiments to analyze (1) the behavior of the different algorithms (2) the impact of the LIOA calibration parameter on the network performance and (3) the performance difference resulting from using the multiplicative and additive versions of the LIOA cost function. Different algorithms We simulated two LSP setup modes: static and dynamic. In the static mode, LSP requests were long-lived while the dynamic mode assumed that LSP requests are offered randomly, are kept for a random time period and nally torn down. Each simulation experiment consists of 20 trials. In the static case, the link capacities were scaled by 30. 4500 LSP setups each requesting between 1 to 6 units of bandwidth were simulated. In the dynamic case, the link capacities were scaled by 30. 3500 long-lived LSPs were rst loaded. Thereafter 2000 more short-lived LSP requests were simulated. The LSP requests were for 1-6 units of bandwidth. Figure 2 compares the performance achieved by MIRA, SPF, MHA, CSPF and LIOA in dynamic mode. Figure 2 reveals that LIOA rejects fewer LSP requests compared to the three other algorithms.
1300 1250 1200 1150 1100 Rejected Requests 1050 1000 950 900 850 800 750 700 MHA CSPF SPF MIRA LIOA

11

14

Mafikeng 15

12

Pretoria

Nelspruit

13 Johannesburg

Klerksdorp 18 Upington 17

8 Kroonstad Kimberley Bloemfontein 16 7 De Aar 19 23 Richards Bay

650 600 1
Pietermaritzburg 6 Durban

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

22 Springbok

Trial Number

Fig. 2.
5 Bisho 4 East London

Network optimality: dynamic mode

Beaufort West 21 Cape Town 1 Saldanha

20

Mosselbaai

Port Elizabeth

Fig. 1.

A South African network

The results illustrated in gure 3 are found when MIRA, SPF, MHA, CSPF and LIOA are compared in static mode. These results reveal that LIOA rejects fewer requests compared to the three other algorithms. The calibration parameter We conducted simulation experiments in dynamic mode to evaluate the impact of as a parameter expressing the tradeoff between LIO and CSPF routing. Figure 4 reveals the lowest LSP rejection is obtained for = 0.5, a value balancing LIO and CSPF routing.

The relevant performance metrics are LSP rejection under congestion (heavy load conditions) and the quality of the paths found by the different algorithms. The rst parameter was chosen to compare how algorithms such as LIOA, Minimum

700 650 600 550 Rejected Requests 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

MHA CSPF SPF MIRA LIOA

B. The quality of the paths We conducted simulation experiments in dynamic mode to compare the quality of the LSP pathsets found by LIOA and MIRA. A trial of 5500 events was used for each experiment. Let PL and PM denote the sets of paths found by LIOA and MIRA respectively. The pie chart in Figure 6 presents a graphical view of the correlation between the pathsets PL and PM . The slice labelled PL PM (strong ) represents the LSPs common to both PL and PM whose LIOA and MIRA ow values differ by less than 5%. The slice labelled PL PM (weak ) represents the LSPs common to both PL and PM whose LIOA and MIRA ow values differ by more than 5%. The slice labelled PL \ PM represents the LSPs discovered only by LIOA and the slice labelled PM \ PL represents the LSPs discovered only by MIRA. With reference to Figure 6 we see that 55% of the paths in LIOA and MIRA are strongly correlated (LL LM (strong )), 29% are weakly correlated (LL LM (weak )), 7% of the LSPs were found only by MIRA (LM \ LL ), and 9% of the LSPs were found only by LIOA (LL \ LM ).
LL LM (strong )

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Trial Number

Fig. 3.
1300

Network optimality: static mode

= 0 .8 = 0 .2 = 0 .5

1200

1100 Rejected Requests

PSfrag replacements

1000

900

800

700

600 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Trial Number

Fig. 4.

The calibration parameter

PSfrag replacements

LM \LL LL\LM LL LM (weak )

Fig. 6. LSP correlation between MIRA and LIOA

Power-based versus log-based metrics Figure 5 compares the two cost metrics (power- and logbased) using different values of the parameter for the two metrics in dynamic mode. The gure shows that the two cost metrics achieve approximately the same performance when = 0.5 for the power-based metric and = 0.2 for the logbased metric. This reveals for the test network being simulated, our routing scheme is relatively insensitive to the composition rule of the link penalty function: an additive composition rule performs as well as a multiplicative composition rule.
1300 1250 1200 1150 1100 Rejected Requests 1050 1000 950 900 850 800 750 700 650 600 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Trial Number Log Power

In general we observe that LIOA achieves lower rejection compared to MIRA. This relative efciency results from the set of weakly correlated LSPs where ows are more efciently distributed by LIOA. IV. C ONCLUSION This paper presents an efcient routing algorithm using the least interference optimization (LIO) concept to achieve online trafc engineering in IP networks. A new cost metric which balances the number and intensity of ows offered to a network is presented. We show that this metric achieves network optimization under heavy trafc load proles. This cost metric may be implemented using either a power version based on a multiplicative composition rule or a logarithmic version based on an additive composition rule with the same efciency. For the network model under consideration, simulation results reveal that the Least Interference Optimization Algorithm (LIOA) requiring neither a priori knowledge of the ingressegress pair nor the estimation of the trafc prole outperforms the widely known Minimum Hop Algorithm (MHA), Shortest

Fig. 5.

Power- versus log-based metrics

Path First (SPF), Constraint Shortest Path First (CSPF) and Minimum Interference Routing Algorithm (MIRA) algorithms on several performance aspects including the simplicity of the implementation and the optimization of the network. R EFERENCES
[1] I.W. Widjaja, I. Saniee, A. Elwalid, D. Mitra, Online Trafc Engineering with Design-Based Routing, 15th ITC Specialist Seminar on Internet Trafc Engineering and Trafc Management, Wu rzburg, Germany, July 2002. [2] K. Kar, M. Kodialam, T.V. Lakshman. Minimum Interference Routing with Application to MPLS Trafc Engineering, Proc. IEEE INFOCOM, Tel-Aviv, Israel, March 2000. [3] J. Stevens. Spatial Reuse through Dynamic Power and Routing Control in Common-Channel Random-Access Packet Radio Networks, SURAN Program Technical Note (SRNTN) 59, Richardson, TX:Rockwell Inc., August 1988. Available from Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC). [4] M. Kodialam, T. V. Lakshman. MPLS Trafc Engineering Using Enhanced Minimum Interference Routing: An Approach Based On Lexicographic Max-Flow, Proceedings of Eighth International Workshop on Quality of Service (IWQoS), Pittsburgh, USA, June 2000. [5] S. Suri, M. Waldvogel, P. Warkhede Prole-based Routing: A new Framework for MPLS Trafc Engineering, Quality of Future Internet Services, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol 2156, September 2001.

Antoine Bigomokero Bagula obtained the MEng in Computer Engineering from the Universit e Catholique de Louvain in Belgium and the MSc in Computer Science from the University of Stellenbosch. He is currently a lecturer and a PhD student in the Department of Computer Science at the University of Stellenbosch.