Different Algorithms for Normal and Protection Paths
Many network routing situations commonly require backup paths that satisfy various constraints on bandwidth, link or node selection, and ease of configuration. In this paper, we attempt to validate whether it is beneficial to have distinct algorithmic treatments of normal and backup path calculation, configuration, and maintenance. We present a modular suite of algorithms that enable us to manage normal and protection paths differently. In the process, we develop a simple extension of Minimum Interference Routing Algorithm for shared protection paths. We incorporate a distributed algorithm to separately calculate normal and backup paths in the network, using link state information, and present an evaluation of asynchronous dynamic reorganization of backup paths to reduce congestion in the network. Simulations demonstrate nontrivial quantitative reductions in blocking probabilities under certain conditions. We conclude that in order to choose an optimal algorithm for a protected QoS routing application, it is recommended to also consider a combination of two different algorithms for normal and backup paths.
KeywordsOptical networks MPLS protection paths
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.D. Awduche, J. Malcom, J. Agogbua, M. O’Dell, and J. McManus, Requirements for Traffic Engineering over MPLS, RFC 2702, September 1999.Google Scholar
- 2.L. Zhang, S. Deering, D. Estrin, S. Shenker, and D. Zappala, RSVP: A New Resource Reservation Protocol, IEEE Communications Magazine, Vol. 31, No. 9, pp. 8–18, September 1993.Google Scholar
- 3.R. Ramaswami and K. N. Sivarajan, Optical Networks: A Practical Perspective, Morgan Kaufman, San Francisco, 1998.Google Scholar
- 4.D. Bertsekas and R. Gallager, Data Networks, 2nd edn., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1992.Google Scholar
- 5.J. Walrand and P. Varaiya, High-Performance Communication Networks, 2nd edn., Morgan-Kaufman, 2000.Google Scholar
- 7.E. W. Dijkstra, A Note on Two Problems in Connexion with Graphs, Numerische Mathematik, Vol. 1, No. 269–271, 1959.Google Scholar
- 8.M. Kodialam and T. Lakshman, Minimum Interference Routing with Applications to MPLS Traffic Engineering, Proceedings IEEE INFOCOM 2000, Tel Aviv, Israel, March 2000.Google Scholar
- 9.M. Kodialam and T. Lakshman, Dynamic Routing of Bandwidth Guaranteed Tunnels with Restoration, Proceedings IEEE INFOCOM 2000, Tel Aviv, Israel, March 2000.Google Scholar
- 10.Y. Liu, D. Tipper, and P. Siripongwutikorn, Approximating Optimal Spare Capacity Allocation by Successive Survivable Routing, Proceedings IEEE INFOCOM 2001, Anchorage, Alaska, USA, April 2001.Google Scholar
- 11.C. Qiao and D. Xu, Distributed Partial Information Management (DPIM) Schemes for Survivable Networks – Part I, Proceedings IEEE INFOCOM 2002, New York, New York, USA, June 2002.Google Scholar
- 12.R. Gupta, E. Chi, and J. Walrand, Sharing Normal Bandwidth During a Failure, Proceedings Seventh INFORMS Telecommunications Conference 2004, Boca Raton, Florida, USA, March 2004.Google Scholar
- 13.J. Moy. OSPF Version 2. RFC 1583, March 1994.Google Scholar
- 14.Y. Rekhter and T. Li, A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (bgp-4), RFC 1771, March 1995.Google Scholar
- 15.E. Bouillet, P. Mishra, J. F. Labourdette, K. Perlove, and S. French, Lightpath Re-optimization in Mesh Optical Networks, Proceedings 7th European Conference on Networks & Optical Communications (NOC 2002), Darmstadt, Germany, June 2002.Google Scholar
- 16.P. Charalambous, C. Dennis, G. Ellinas, E. Bouillet, J. F. Labourdette, S. Chaudburi, M. Mo-rokhovich, and D. Shales, Dynegy’s National Long-haul Optical Mesh Network Utilizing Intelligent Optical Switches, IEEE/LEOS Annual Meeting Conference Proceedings, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2002.Google Scholar
- 17.UC Berkeley EECS 290Q Course website (Fall 2001): http://photonics.eecs.berkeley.edu/ee290q/jls/JLS%200911.pdf, Slide 37.
- 18.AT & T CERFnet OC/12 Network Backbone website: http://www.cerf.net/about/Bbone-map.html.