Capacity overprovisioning for networks with resilience requirements

M. Menth, Rüdiger Martin, J. Charzinski
{"title":"Capacity overprovisioning for networks with resilience requirements","authors":"M. Menth, Rüdiger Martin, J. Charzinski","doi":"10.1145/1159913.1159925","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This work focuses on capacity overprovisioning (CO) as an alternative to admission control (AC) to implement quality of service (QoS) in packet-switched communication networks. CO prevents potential overload while AC protects the QoS of the traffic during overload situations. Overload may be caused, e. g., by uctuations of the traffic rate on a link due to its normal stochastic behavior (a), by traffic shifts within the network due to popular contents (b), or by redirected traffic due to network failures (c). Capacity dimensioning methods for CO need to take into account all potential sources of overload while AC can block excess traffic caused by (a) and (b) if the capacity does not suffice. The contributions of this paper are (1) the presentation of a capacity dimensioning method for networks with resilience requirements and changing traffic matrices, (2) the investigation of the impact of the mentioned sources of overload (a-c) on the required capacity for CO in networks with and without resilience requirements, and (3) a comparison of this equired capacity with the one for AC. Our results show that in the presence of strong traffic shifts CO requires more capacity than AC. However, if resilience against network failures is required, both CO and AC need additional backup capacity for the redirected traffic. In this case, CO can use the backup capacity to absorb other types of overload. As a consequence, CO and AC have similar bandwidth requirements. These findings are robust against the network size.","PeriodicalId":109155,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 2006 conference on Applications, technologies, architectures, and protocols for computer communications","volume":"82 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-08-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"57","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 2006 conference on Applications, technologies, architectures, and protocols for computer communications","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/1159913.1159925","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 57

Abstract

This work focuses on capacity overprovisioning (CO) as an alternative to admission control (AC) to implement quality of service (QoS) in packet-switched communication networks. CO prevents potential overload while AC protects the QoS of the traffic during overload situations. Overload may be caused, e. g., by uctuations of the traffic rate on a link due to its normal stochastic behavior (a), by traffic shifts within the network due to popular contents (b), or by redirected traffic due to network failures (c). Capacity dimensioning methods for CO need to take into account all potential sources of overload while AC can block excess traffic caused by (a) and (b) if the capacity does not suffice. The contributions of this paper are (1) the presentation of a capacity dimensioning method for networks with resilience requirements and changing traffic matrices, (2) the investigation of the impact of the mentioned sources of overload (a-c) on the required capacity for CO in networks with and without resilience requirements, and (3) a comparison of this equired capacity with the one for AC. Our results show that in the presence of strong traffic shifts CO requires more capacity than AC. However, if resilience against network failures is required, both CO and AC need additional backup capacity for the redirected traffic. In this case, CO can use the backup capacity to absorb other types of overload. As a consequence, CO and AC have similar bandwidth requirements. These findings are robust against the network size.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
对于有弹性需求的网络,容量过剩
本研究的重点是将容量过度配置(CO)作为接纳控制(AC)的替代方案,在分组交换通信网络中实现服务质量(QoS)。CO防止潜在的过载,而AC在过载情况下保护流量的QoS。过载可能会引起,例如,由于链路的正常随机行为而导致链路上的流量率波动(a),由于流行内容而导致网络内的流量变化(b),或者由于网络故障而导致的流量重定向(c)。CO的容量量纲方法需要考虑所有潜在的过载来源,而AC可以在容量不足的情况下阻止(a)和(b)引起的多余流量。本文的贡献是:(1)提出了具有弹性要求和流量矩阵变化的网络的容量量纲方法,(2)调查了上述过载源(a-c)对具有和不具有弹性要求的网络中CO所需容量的影响。(3)将此所需容量与AC所需容量进行比较。我们的结果表明,在存在强流量转移的情况下,CO比AC需要更多的容量。然而,如果需要针对网络故障的弹性,CO和AC都需要额外的备份容量来处理重定向的流量。在这种情况下,CO可以使用备份容量来吸收其他类型的过载。因此,CO和AC具有相似的带宽需求。这些发现与网络规模无关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Session details: Wireless Proceedings of the 2006 conference on Applications, technologies, architectures, and protocols for computer communications Session details: Applications Session details: Measurement Session details: Routing 1
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1