Centralized vs. distributed algorithms for resilient 5G access networks

  • Bahare M. Khorsandi
  • Federico Tonini
  • Carla RaffaelliEmail author
Original Paper


Cloud radio access networks (C-RANs), relying on network function virtualization and software-defined networking (SDN), require a proper placement of baseband functionalities (BBUs) to reach full coverage of served areas and service continuity. In this context, network resources can be shared and orchestrated to meet the flexibility required by a dynamically evolving environment. Different methodologies, based on analytical formulation or heuristic algorithms, can be applied to achieve suitable trade-offs among cost components. This paper considers both centralized and distributed algorithms to obtain BBU hotel placement in C-RAN and compares their performance, scalability and adaptability to evolving scenarios. As expected, the results obtained with the distributed approach are sub-optimal, but very close, in most cases, to the optimal solutions obtained with a centralized algorithm based on integer linear programming. In addition to off-loading the SDN orchestrator, the distributed approach, differently from the centralized one, is shown to be able to cope with the evolution of the C-RAN topology with limited incremental changes in the original placement. The limits of the centralized approach in terms of scalability that the distributed approach is able to overcome are also evidenced.


Cloud RAN Fronthaul Resiliency ILP Distributed algorithm 


  1. 1.
    Checko, A., Christiansen, H.L., Yan, Y., Scolari, L., Kardaras, G., Berger, M.S., Dittmann, L.: Cloud RAN for mobile networks—a technology overview. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. 17(1), 405–426 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rodriguez, V.Q., Guillemin, F.: VNF modeling towards the cloud-RAN implementation. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Networked Systems (NetSys), Gottingen (2017)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Checko, A., Avramova, A.P., Berger, M.S., Christiansen, H.L.: Evaluating C-RAN fronthaul functional splits in terms of network level energy and cost savings. IEEE J. Commun. Netw. 18(2), 162–172 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fiorani, M., Rostami, A., Wosinska, L., Monti, P.: Transport abstraction models for an SDN-controlled centralized RAN. IEEE Commun. Lett. 19(8), 1406–1409 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pioro, M., Medhi, D.: Routing, Flow, and Capacity Design in Communication and Computer Networks. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2014)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Musumeci, F., Bellanzon, C., Carapellese, N., Tornatore, M., Pattavina, A., Gosselin, S.: Optimal BBU placement for 5G C-RAN deployment over WDM aggregation networks. IEEE/OSA J. Lightw. Technol. 34(8), 1963–1970 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Carapellese, N., Tornatore, M., Pattavina, A.: Energy-efficient baseband unit placement in a fixed/mobile converged WDM aggregation network. IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. 32(8), 1542–1551 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Khorsandi, B.M., Raffaelli, C., Fiorani, M., Wosinska, L., Monti, P.: Survivable BBU hotel placement in a C-RAN with an optical WDM transport. In: Proceedings of 13th International Conference on Design of Reliable Communication Networks (DRCN), Munich (2017)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tang, L., Zhu, C., Lin, Z., Shi, J., Zhang, W.: Reliable facility location problem with facility protection. PLOS ONE 11(9), 1–24 (2016)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Khorsandi, B.M., Tonini, F., Raffaelli, C.: Design methodologies and algorithms for survivable C-RAN. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Optical Network Design and Modeling (ONDM), Dublin (2018)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wong, E., Grigoreva, E., Wosinska, L., Mas Machuca, C.: Enhancing the survivability and power savings of 5G transport networks based on DWDM rings. IEEE/OSA J. Opt. Commun. Netw. 9(9), D74-D85 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gu, R., Zhang, S., Ji, Y., Yan, Z.: Network slicing and efficient ONU migration for reliable communications in converged vehicular and fixed access network. Veh. Commun. 11, 57–67 (2018)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Liu, F., Wang, Y., Lin, M., Liu, K., Wu, D.: A distributed routing algorithm for data collection in low-duty-cycle wireless sensor networks. IEEE Internet Things J. 4(5), 1420–1433 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chang, Y., Tang, H., Li, B., Yuan, X.: Distributed joint optimization routing algorithm based on the analytic hierarchy process for wireless sensor networks. IEEE Commun. Lett. 21(12), 2718–2721 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Frank, C., Romer, K.: Distributed facility location algorithms for flexible configuration of wireless sensor networks. In: Proceedings of the 3rd IEEE International Conference on Distributed Computing in Sensor Systems (DCOSS), Santa Fe (2007)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Velazquez, E., Santoro, N.: Distributed facility location for sensor network maintenance. In: Proceedings of IEEE Mobile Ad-hoc and Sensor Networks (MSN), Fujian (2009)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Raffaelli, C., Khorsandi, B.M., Tonini, F.: Distributed location algorithms for flexible BBU hotel placement in C-RAN. In: Proceedings of 20th International Conference on Transparent Optical Networks (ICTON), Bucharest (2018)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pizzinat, A., Chanclou, P., Saliou, F., Diallo, T.: Things you should know about fronthaul. IEEE/OSA J. Lightw. Technol. 33(5), 1077–1083 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    IBM ILOG CPLEX Optimization Studio ver. 12.6.3Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.DEIUniversity of BolognaBolognaItaly

Personalised recommendations