Programming topology

1. Introduction

Telecommunication networks have become strategic resources for private- and state-owned institutions, and its economic importance continuously increases. There are series of recent tendencies that have a considerable impact on the economy evolution such as growing integration of networks in the productive system, integration of different services in the same communication system, and important modification in the telephone network structure. Such evolutions accompany a significant growth of the design complexity of these systems. The integration of different sorts of traffics and services and the necessity of a more accurate management of the service quality are factors that make this type of systems very hard to design, to dimension, and therefore to optimize. This situation is aggravated with a very high competitiveness context in an area of critical strategic importance.

The conception of a WAN is a process in which dozens of sites with different characteristics require to be connected in order to satisfy certain reliability and performance restrictions with minimal costs. This design process involves the terminal site location, the concentrator location, the backbone (central network or kernel) design, the routing procedures, as well as the lines and nodes dimensioning. A key aspect on WAN design is the high complexity of the problem, as much in its globality as in the principal subproblems in which it is necessary to decompose it. Due to the high investment levels, a cost decrease of very few percentage points while preserving the service quality results in high economic benefits.

Typically, a WAN network global topology can be decomposed into two main components: the access network and the backbone network. These components have very different properties, and consequently they introduce specific design problems (although they are strongly interdependent). On the one hand, this causes complicated problems (particularly algorithmic ones); on the other hand, it leads to stimulating and difficult research problems.

A WAN access network is composed of a certain number of access subnetworks, having treelike topologies; and the flow concentration nodes allow to diminish the costs. These integrated flows reach the backbone which has a meshed topology, in order to satisfy security, reliability, vulnerability, survivability, and performance criteria. Consequently, the backbone is usually formed by high-capacity communication lines such as optic fiber links.

Modeling a WAN design by means of the formulation of a single mathematical optimization problem is very intricate due to the interdependence of its large amount of parameters. Therefore the design of a WAN is usually divided into different subproblems [1, 2, 3, 4]. A good example of a possible decomposition approach for the WAN design process is the following [5]:

1. Access and backbone network topologies design. Specific knowledge about the cost of laying lines between different network sites (terminals, concentrators, and backbone) is assumed. Frequently, these costs are independent of the type of line that will effectively be installed since they model the fixed one-time costs (cost of digging trenches in the case of optic fiber, installing cost, placing a fiber cable into service). A high percentage from the total construction network budget is spent in this phase [6].

2. Dimensioning of the lines that will connect the different sites of the access and backbone networks and the equipment to be settled in the mentioned sites.

3. Definition of the routing strategy of the flow on the backbone network.

This work focuses on phase (1) of the decomposition of a WAN design process. More precisely, it deals with the topology planning process concerning the access network. Due to the NP-hard nature of the problem and even though there exist some results, there is still room for improving industrial practices applied today. In this sense, the authors believe it is of strategic importance to design powerful quantitative analysis techniques, potentially easy to integrate into tools. Combinatorial optimization models are introduced that formally define the topological design of the access networks. Moreover, different results related to the topological structure are introduced. Finally, different algorithms are proposed for the topological design which are based on Dynamic Programming and Dynamic Programming with State-Space Relaxation methodology.

2. A model for a WAN design

In this section, a model for the design of a WAN is introduced. The model tries to show the most essential aspects which are considered when designing access and backbone networks. In this model, some parameters are not considered: the operation probability of the lines and equipment, the number of equipment ports, and the memory capacity of the equipment. The objective is to design a WAN with the smallest possible installation cost, so that the constraints are satisfied.

In what follows, the data of the model are presented as well as its formalization as a combinatorial optimization problem on weighted graphs. The goal is to find the optimal topology that satisfies the imposed constraints to the access and backbone networks. Figure 1 shows an example of a wide area network. The information available for each type of equipment (switch and concentrator) and each type of connection line, as well as the line laying, is the following:

• Eais the set of types of connection lines available. FurthermoreeEathe following data are given:

  • ceis the cost by kilometer of the line typee. Here the laying cost is not included.

  • veis the speed in Kbits/s of the line typee.

• Kis the set of types of concentrator equipment available. FurthermorekKthe following data are given:

  • ckis the installation cost of the concentrator typek.

  • vkis the speed in Kbits/s of the concentrator typek.

• Wis the set of types of switch equipment available. FurthermorewWthe following data are given:

  • cwis the installation cost of the switcher typew.

  • vwis the speed in Kbits/s of the switcher typew.

• C=FcostL=cij=direct connection costs between the sites ijiSjSCSD; this matrix gives us, for a site ofSand a site ofSCSD, the cost of laying a line among them. When the direct connection among both places is not possible, we assume thatcij=.

Figure 1.

WAN example.

In terms of graph theory, a model for the design of a WAN, based on the problem, is presented as follows. Some notation is introduced next, that is then used to formally define the problem.

• E1=ijiSTjSCSD/dij

• E2=ijiSCjSCSD/dij

• E3=ijiSDjSD/dij

• E=E1E2E3is the set of all feasible connections on the WAN.

• DST=DtitiST, where Dtiis the set of terminal nodes which demand connections withtiST.

• VST=vi,ji,jSTis the traffic demand matrix.

Definition 1(WANDPwide area network design problem). LetG=SEbe the graph of feasible connections on the WAN. The wide area network design problemSEKWEaCDSTVSTconsists in finding a subnetwork ofGof minimum cost which satisfies the following points:

1. The backbone network topology must be at least 2-node-connected.

2. The access and backbone networks must be able to support the demand of connection and traffic required by the terminal sites.

Given the complexity of the WANDP, to facilitate its solution, the topological design problem is divided into three subproblems:

1. The Access Network Design Problem

2. The backbone network design problem (BNDP)

3. The routing (or flow assignment) and capacity assignment problem (RCAP)

The remainder of this work concentrates only in the first problem (ANDP).

3. Access Network Design Problem

The Access Network Design Problem is defined as follows.

Definition 2(ANDPAccess Network Design Problem). LetGA=SE1E2be the graph of feasible connections on the access network andCthe matrix of connection costs defined previously. The Access Network Design ProblemSE1E2Cconsists in finding a subgraph ofGAof minimum cost such thatiST;there exists a path fromito some sitejSDof the backbone network.

Notation 1.ΓANDP denotes the space of feasible solutions of ANDPSE1E2Cthat do not have any cycle and with an output only toward the backbone networktST. These have forest topology as we illustrate in Figure 2.

Figure 2.

A feasible solution of ANDP.

In order to define these problems in terms of graph theory, the following notation is introduced:

• STis the set of terminal sites (clients) to be connected to the backbone.

• SCis the set of feasible concentrator sites of the access network. On each one of these sites, an intermediate server equipment might be placed. From this one, a trunk line is laid toward the backbone or other concentrator site.

• SDis the set of feasible switch sites of the backbone network. On each one of these sites, a powerful server might be placed and, from it, connection lines toward other backbone server equipment.

• V=STSCSDare all the feasible sites of the WAN network.

• A=aiji,jVis a matrix which gives for any pair of sitesi,jV, the costaij0of laying a line between them. When the direct connection betweeniandjis not possible, we defineaij=.

• U=ijijVaij

• G=VUis the simple graph which models every node and feasible connection of the WAN.

The General Access Network Design Problem (GANDP) consists of finding a minimum-cost subgraphHGsuch that all the sites ofSTare communicated with some node of the backbone. This connection can be direct or through intermediate concentrators. The use of terminal sites as intermediate nodes is not allowed; this implies that they must have degree one in the solution.

The GANDP is here simplified by collapsing the backbone into a fictitious node and given the name of Access Network Design Problem. The equivalence between both problems, GANDP and ANDP, as well as the NP-hardness of the ANDP, is proved in [7].

This work concentrates on the ANDP with the objective of proposing a new approach for solving this problem. We study different results related to the topological structure of the ANDP solutions. In particular we present results that characterize the topologies of the feasible solutions of an ANDP instance. The following proposition shows the topological form of the feasible solutions of ΓANDP for a given ANDP instance.

Proposition 1.Given an ANDP with associated graphGA=SE1E2and matrix of connection costsC. If the subnetworkH=STS¯E¯(withS¯SCSDandE¯E1E2) is an optimal solution of ΓANDP, it is composed of a set of disjoint treesH=H1Hmthat satisfy:

1. HlH,jSDunique/jHl

2. HlH,a subsetSTlST,STlSTlNODESHl

3. l=1mSTl=ST

Proof. Trivial.

The following propositions present results that characterize the structure of the global optimal solution.

Proposition 2.Let ANDPSE1E2Cbe a problem wherescSC,s¯SCSDandsSTSCsuch thatsscscs¯E1E2andswSD/cs,sw

Proof.Let us suppose that there existsTAΓANDP global optimal solution such thatscTAa concentrator site withgsc<3inTA. Ifgsc=1;thenscis a pendant inTA; therefore, eliminating this, a feasible solution of smaller cost would be obtained. This is a contradiction; hence,gsc1. Ifgsc=2, lets¯SCSDbe the site adjacent toscinTAwhich its output site is toward the backbone network. LetsSTSCbe the other adjacent site inTA. Considering the networkH=TAscssw, whereswSDsatisfiescs,sw

COSTH=COSTTAcs,sccsc,s¯+cs,sw

Furthermore, it is easy to see thatHΓANDP. Hence, this implies thatHis a better feasible solution compared withTA. This is a contradiction, entailing thatgsc3inTA, as required and completing the proof.

Proposition 3.Given an ANDPSE1E2Csuch that for any three sitess1s2s3, withs1STSC,s2SCands3SCSD, the strict triangular inequality is satisfied, i.e.,cs1,sk

Proof.As in the previous proposition, let us suppose that there existsTAΓANDP global optimal solution such thatscTA, a concentrator site withgsc<3inTA. Clearlygssmust be different to 1. Now, let us consider the casegsc=2inTA. Lets1,s2be the adjacent sites toscinTA. By hypothesiscs1,s2

COSTT¯A=COSTTAcs1,sccsc,s2+cs1,s2

This is a contradiction; therefore,gsc3inTA, hence completing the proof.

The next section presents algorithms applied to the ANDP(k) withk12. A way of computing the global optimal solution cost of it using the Dynamic Programming approach is obtained. Considering that the ANDP(1) is a NP-hard problem, we obtain lower bounds to the global optimal solution cost by Dynamic Programming with State-Space Relaxation in polynomial time.

4. Algorithms applied to the ANDP

This chapter presents the Dynamic Programming approach as alternative methodology to find a global optimal solution cost for the ANDP(1) and ANDP(2). After we introduce the Dynamic Programming with State-Space Relaxation as a method to obtain lower bounds for the original problem.

5. Computational results

This section presents the experimental results obtained with the recursions of above. The algorithms were implemented in ANSI C. The experimental results were obtained in an Intel Core i7, 2.4 GHz, and 8 GB of RAM running under a home PC. The recursions presented in Propositions 4 and 5 were applied to the ANDP(1) and the ANDP(2), respectively, whereas the recursion presented in Proposition 6 was applied to ANDP(2). They were tested using a large test set, by modifying the Steiner Problem in Graphs (SPG) instances from SteinLib [10]. This library contains many problem classes of widely different graph topologies. Most of the problems were extracted from these classes: C, MC, X, PUC, I080, I160, P6E, P6Z, and WRP3. The SPG problems were customized, transforming them into ANDP instances by means of the following changes. For each considered problem:

1. The terminal node with greatest degree was chosen as the z node (modeling the back- bone).

2. The Steiner nodes model the concentrator sites, and the terminal nodes model the terminal sites.

3. All the edges between terminal sites were deleted (as they are not allowed in feasible ANDP solutions).

Moreover, if the resulting topology was unconnected, the problem instance was discarded. Let us notice that since in the ANDP the terminals cannot be used as intermediate nodes (which implies also that edges between pairs of terminals are not allowed), the cost of a SPG optimum is a lower bound for the optimum of the corresponding ANDP. Therefore they are for ANDP(k) withk12.

Table 1 shows the results obtained by applying the recurrences presented in Propositions 4 and 5. In each one of them, the first column contains the names of the original SteinLib classes with the name of the customized instance. The entries from left to right are:

• The size of the selected instance in terms of number of nodes, edges, and terminal sites, respectively

• A lower bound for the optimal cost; the SPG optimum costLBSPG

• copt1andcopt2wherecoptkis the cost of the best feasible solution found inΓANDPk

• The gap of the cost for the best feasible solution ofΓANDPkwith respect to the lower boundLBSPGkwithk12LB_GAPSPGk

TheLB_GAPSPGkis computed as

LB_GAPSPGk=100×coptkLBSPGLBSPG.E15

Feasible solutions were obtained here only for i080-112, i080-115, and i160-015 withk=1because, as can be seen, the cost is finite. The optimal values of the SPG instances (LBSP G) provided lower bounds for the optimal values of the ANDP (therefore to ANDP(k) withk0), considering that in the ANDP generation process, all the connections between terminal nodes were deleted and further that ANDPs feasible solution space is more restrictive than of SPG. The experimental results obtained forcopt1have an average gap with respect to the lower bound of 20.72%. Increasing k to 2 (applying the recursion presented in Proposition 5), feasible solutions were obtained for all the testing networks, and the experimental results obtained have an average gap with respect to the lower bound of 7.01%.

It can be proved that (it is out of the scope of this chapter) increasingk, the following inequality is fulfilled:

coptk1coptk1+floornCk·1k+nT·cmaxcmin1E16

Table 2 shows the results obtained. Despite the bound was not good in these cases (due the heterogeneity of costs of the lines), it can help us in some cases to answer the following question: how much can be saved with a higherk?

Table 3 shows the results obtained by applying the recursion presented in Proposition 6. As before the first column contains the names of the original SteinLib classes with the name of the customized instance. The entries from left to right are:

• The size of the selected instance in terms of number of nodes, edges, and terminal sites, respectively

• The cost of a global optimal solution ofΓANDP2copt2

• The execution time, in seconds, forcopt2tcopt2

• A lower bound for the cost of a global optimal solution ofΓANDP2by applying Dynamic Programming with State-Space Relaxation (presented in Proposition 6) (LBSSR2)

• The execution time, in seconds, forLBSSR2tLBSSR2

• The gap of the cost for a global optimal solution ofΓANDP2copt2with respect to the lower boundLBSSR2;LB_GAPSSR2

TheLB_GAPSSR2is computed as

LB_GAPSSR2=100×copt2LB2SSRLB2SSRE17

In general, the gaps related to the lower bounds were low. Therito each terminal site and concentrator site were distinct integers chosen from1STSC. This lower bound can be increased by modifying the state-space through the application of subgradient optimization tori. As future work, it is possible to incorporate the method for a better choice ofri.

It can be noticed that the execution times of computing global optimal solution costs were much longer than using Dynamic Programming with State-Space Relaxation.

6. Conclusions

The implementation of the algorithms was tested on a number of different problems with heterogeneous characteristics. In particular, a set of ANDP instances transforming 18 SPG instances extracted from SteinLib was built. The optimal values for the selected SPG instances are lower bound for the corresponding ANDP. The solutions found by the algorithm were, in average, 21% and 7% lower than the mentioned bounds in ANDP(1) and ANDP(2), respectively. It is reasonable supposing that the gaps related to the global optimum of the ANDP instances be even lower since the feasible solutions of the ANDP that are also feasible solutions of the original SPG, but not reciprocally. In this sense, remember that in any ANDP instance generated, all the edges between pairs of terminal nodes were deleted (because in our ANDP such connections are not allowed) having the additional constraint that the terminal nodes must have degree one in the solution.

Besides, a Dynamic Programming with State-Space Relaxation algorithm was developed which can give a lower bound in polynomial time. The average gaps with respect to the global optimal solution costs were lower than 20%.

Notice that, as expected, the execution times of the proposed algorithms are strongly dependent on the number of sites, edges, and terminal sites. To sum up, as far as the authors are concerned, the results obtained with the recurrences above are very good, considering that computing the global optimal solution of an ANDP(2) is a NP-hard problem.