Advertisement

Comparison of Routing Methods in Telecommunication Networks—An Overview and a New Proposal Using a Multi-criteria Approach Dealing with Imprecise Information

  • João ClímacoEmail author
  • José Craveirinha
  • Lúcia Martins
Chapter
Part of the Multiple Criteria Decision Making book series (MCDM)

Abstract

The performance evaluation and comparison of routing models in telecommunication networks, normally imply the necessity of evaluating them through multidimensional, potentially conflicting, often incommensurate criteria, frequently involving imprecise information regarding the relative importance of the various network performance criteria. As we will show, this is particularly relevant for flow-oriented, decentralized routing optimization methods, having in mind their inherent limitations. Therefore, we formulate a decision problem focused on the comparison and selection of flow-oriented routing models, evaluated through multiple global network performance measures. A proposal of a multi-criteria/multi-attribute approach for tackling this decision problem, based on the VIP (Variable Interdependent Parameter) software, will be described. The adequacy of the features of the multi-attribute decision analysis model, which uses additive aggregation of criteria with variable interdependent importance parameters, coping with imprecise information, will be discussed. A detailed formulation of the application of the proposed approach to a specific problem involving the choice of a point-to-point routing method in a modern transport telecom network, from a set of height routing models, by considering their performance evaluated in terms of nine global network performance measures, will be presented. Moreover, the extension of the decision analysis model, based on the VIP decision support tool, for dealing with this problem, in the case of face-to-face cooperative group decision, will be addressed. A case study concerning the application of this approach to the aforementioned decision problem, in a setting involving three decision makers, including a facilitator, will be presented. Finally, some conclusions, both from a methodological and practical nature, founded on the application study, will be put forward, highlighting the interest of this type of approach in this important area of telecom-network design.

Keywords

Multi-criteria/multi-attribute decision analysis Telecommunication networks Routing methods 

References

  1. Clímaco, J., & Craveirinha, J. (2005). Multicriteria analysis in telecommunications design and planning—Problems and issues. In F. Figueira, S. Greco, & M. Erghot (Eds.) Chap. 22 in multiple criteria decision analysis: State of the art surveys (pp. 899–951). International series in operations research and management science. New York: Springer-Media.Google Scholar
  2. Clímaco, J., Craveirinha, J., & Girão-Silva, R. (2016). Multicriteria analysis in telecommunication network planning and design: A survey. In S. Greco, M. Ehrgott, & R. J. Figueira (Eds.) Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys. International series in operations research & management science (Vol. 233, pp. 1167–1233). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  3. Clímaco, J., Craveirinha, J., & Pascoal, M. (2007). Multicriteria routing models in telecommunication networks—Overview and a case study. In Y. Shi, D. Olson, & A. Stam (Eds.) Chap. 1 in “Advances in multiple criteria decision making and human systems management: Knowledge and wisdom”, book edited in honor of Milan Zeleny (pp. 17–46). IOS Press.Google Scholar
  4. Clímaco, J., & Martins, E. Q. (1982). A bicriterion shortest path algorithm. European Journal of Operational Research, 11, 399–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Craveirinha, J., Girão-Silva, R., & Clímaco, J. (2008). A meta-model for multiobjective routing in MPLS networks. Central European Journal of Operations Research, 16(1), 79–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clímaco, J., Craveirinha, J., & Martins, L. (2015). Cooperative group multi-attribute analysis of routing models for telecommunication network. In B. Kaminski, G. Kersten, P. Szufel, M. Jakubczyk, & T. Wachowicz (Eds.) Proceedings GDN 2015, Conference Group Decision and Negotiation 2015 (pp. 177–184), 22–26 June. Warsaw, Poland: Warsaw School of Economics Press.Google Scholar
  7. Craveirinha, J., Clímaco, J., & Martins, L. (2018). Additional computational experiments on a comparative study of the performance of flow-oriented routing methods in telecommunication networks. Research Report, INESC Coimbra RR (to appear).Google Scholar
  8. Dias, L. C., & Clímaco, J. N. (2000). Additive aggregation with variable interdependent parameters: The VIP analysis software. The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 51(9), 1070–1082.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dias, L. C., & Clímaco, J. N. (2005). Dealing with imprecise information in group multicriteria decisions: A methodology and a GDSS architecture. European Journal of Operational Research, 160(2), 291–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fortz, B., & Thorup, M. (2002). Optimizing OSPF/IS IS weights in a changing world. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, 20(4), 756–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Iyer, G., Agrawal, P., & Cardozo, R. S. (2013). Performance comparison of routing protocols over smart utility networks: A simulation study. In Proceedings Globecom 2013 Workshop—The 5th IEEE International Workshop on Management of Emerging Networks and Services (pp. 969–973).Google Scholar
  12. Keeney, R. L., & Raiffa, H. (1976). Decisions with multiple objectives: Preferences and value trade-offs. Wiley.Google Scholar
  13. Kuipers, F., Korkmaz, T., Krunz, M., & Mieghem, P. (2002a). An overview of constraint-based path selection algorithms for QoS routing. IEEE Communications Magazine, 40(12), 50–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kuipers, F., Korkmaz, T., Krunz, M., & Mieghem, P. (2002b). A review of constraint-based routing algorithms. Tech. rep.: Delft University of Technology.Google Scholar
  15. Martins, L., Lopes, J., Craveirinha, J., Clímaco, J., Cadime, R., & Monica, C. (2013). Network performance improvement through evaluation of bicriteria routing methods in transport networks. In: Network and Service Management (CNSM), 2013 Proceedings 9th International Conference on Network and Service Management (pp. 34–41).Google Scholar
  16. Medhi, D., & Ramasamy, K. (2018). Network routing: Algorithms, protocols, and architectures (2nd edn.). In The Morgan Kaufmann Series in Networking. Boston, USA.Google Scholar
  17. MEF 10.3. (2013). Ethernet Services Attributes Phase 3.Google Scholar
  18. Meghanathan, N., & Milton, L. C. (2009). A simulation based performance comparison study of stability-based routing, power-aware routing and load-balancing on-demand routing protocols for mobile ad hoc networks. In Proceedings 2009 Sixth International Conference on Wireless On-Demand Network Systems and Services (pp. 3–10). Snowbird, UT.Google Scholar
  19. Mitra, D., Morrison, J. A., & Ramakrishnan, K. G. (1999). Optimization and design of network routing using refined asymptotic approximations. Performance Evaluation An International Journal, 36–37, 267–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Niven-Jenkins, B., Brungard, D., Betts, M., Sprecher, N., & Ueno, S. (2009). Requirements of an MPLS Transport Profile. RFC 5654, September.Google Scholar
  21. Orlowski, S., Wessaly, R., Piíoro, M., & Tomaszewski, A. (2010). SNDlib 1.0—Survivable network design library. Networks, 55(3), 276–286.Google Scholar
  22. Pióro, M., & Medhi, D. (2004). Routing, flow, and capacity design in communication and computer networks. San Francisco, CA, USA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.Google Scholar
  23. Sllame, A. M., Raey, A., Mohamed, B., & Alagel, A. (2015). Performance comparison of VoIP over wireless ad hoc networks using different routing protocols and queuing techniques. In Proceedings International Symposium on Networks, Computers and Communications (ISNCC) (pp. 1–6). Hammamet.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • João Clímaco
    • 1
    Email author
  • José Craveirinha
    • 1
  • Lúcia Martins
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute for Systems Engineering and Computers at Coimbra, INESC-Coimbra, University of CoimbraCoimbraPortugal
  2. 2.Faculty of Sciences and Technology, Department of Electrical Engineering and ComputersUniversity of CoimbraCoimbraPortugal

Personalised recommendations