1 / 8

Dimensioning considerations for DMM

Dimensioning considerations for DMM. Elena Demaria Loris Marchetti DMM WG, March 2012. Scope. Evaluation of possible economic benefits for the operator to deploy a dmm-based architecture

cato
Download Presentation

Dimensioning considerations for DMM

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Dimensioning considerations for DMM Elena Demaria Loris Marchetti DMM WG, March 2012

  2. Scope • Evaluation of possibleeconomic benefits for the operator to deploy a dmm-basedarchitecture • First comparison, evenif in a simplified scenario, between a centralized and a distributed model

  3. Network topology (startingpoint) • The network is made by different PoPs each one directly connected (single hop) to the backbone • Only one PoP gives access to the Internet (internet exchange point) • It is a very simple model • Extensions/enhancements will be considered for next versions of the draft

  4. The centralized scenario • In the centralized scenario the PGWs are located only in the PoP where the Internet exchange point is located.

  5. The (selected) distributed scenario • Different distributed scenarios may exist but we consider the one in which each PoP is equipped with a PGW

  6. The formulas • Centralized scenario: • sum_{i=1}^{n-1}(2*2^10*cost_link*Internet_Traffic_PoP_i)+ • sum_{i=1}^{n-1}(4*2^10*cost_link*Local_Traffic_PoP_i)+ • cost_PGW(sum_{i=1}^{n} (traffic_PoP_i)) • Distributed scenario: • sum_{i=1}^{n-1}(2*2^10*cost_link*Internet_Traffic_PoP_i)+ • sum_{i=1}^{n}(cost_PGW(traffic_PoP_i))

  7. Results • Not an always-valid model but, based on traffic distribution, one model can be more convenient than the other • What makes the difference is the percentage of traffic local to the PoP • If sufficient traffic is exchanged internally to the PoP there is no need to transport it to the exchange point so that the distributed scenario becomes more convenient • On the opposite side, if all the traffic generated by the customers is directed to the internet the difference between the two scenarios reduces and there is no convenience to have a local PGW when the traffic must however be transported to the exchange point

  8. Questions?

More Related