1 / 28

Optimal Multi-Path Routing and Bandwidth Allocation under Utility Max-Min Fairness

Optimal Multi-Path Routing and Bandwidth Allocation under Utility Max-Min Fairness. Jerry Chou and Bill Lin University of California, San Diego IEEE IWQoS 2009 Charleston, South Carolina July 13-15, 2009. Outline. Problem Approach Application to optical circuit provisioning Summary.

dsager
Download Presentation

Optimal Multi-Path Routing and Bandwidth Allocation under Utility Max-Min Fairness

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. Optimal Multi-Path Routing and Bandwidth Allocation under Utility Max-Min Fairness Jerry Chou and Bill Lin University of California, San Diego IEEE IWQoS 2009 Charleston, South Carolina July 13-15, 2009

  2. Outline • Problem • Approach • Application to optical circuit provisioning • Summary

  3. Basic Max-Min Fair Allocation Problem Saturated flows Fully allocated link C1 C2 C3 5 Max increase • Motivation: Bandwidth allocation is a common problem in several network applications • Example: C1: AD C2: BD C3: CD B 10 10 A D 10 10 C

  4. Utility Max-Min Fairness C1: AD C2: BD C3: CD 1 1 1 utility utility utility 0 0 0 0 BW 10 0 BW 10 0 BW 10 B 10 10 A D 10 10 C Utility functions capture differences in benefits for different commodities

  5. Utility Max-Min Fairness C1: AD C2: BD C3: CD 1 1 1 utility utility utility 0 0 0 0 BW 10 0 BW 10 0 BW 10 B 10 10 A D 10 10 C Utility functions capture differences in benefits for different commodities

  6. Utility Max-Min Fairness C1: AD C2: BD C3: CD 1 1 1 utility utility utility 0 0 0 0 BW 10 0 BW 10 0 BW 10 B 10 10 A 6 D 10 10 2 C Freedom of choosing multi-path routing achieves higher min utility and more fair allocation

  7. Prior Work • Utility max-min fair allocation only considered fixed (single-path) routing • Optimal multi-path routing only considered weighted max-min and max-min fairness

  8. Why is the Problem Difficult? • Why is optimal multi-path routing and allocation under utility max-min fairness difficult? • Unlike conventional fixed (single) path max-min fair allocation problems • Cannot assume a commodity is saturated just because a link that it occupies in the current routing is full • Once a commodity is saturated, cannot assume its routing is fixed in subsequent iterations

  9. Example • At iteration i, suppose we route both flows AD and AE with 5 units of demand If routing is fixed after iteration, AD would be at most 5 B 0/10 0/10 A D AD:5 5/10 10/10 E AE:5 C 5/5

  10. Example • At iteration i+1, suppose we want to route AD with 10 units of demand Route of AD must change to increase B 10/10 10/10 A D AD:10 0/10 5/10 E AE:5 C 5/5

  11. Outline • Problem • Approach • OPT_MP_UMMF • ε-OPT_MP_UMMF • Application to optical circuit provisioning • Summary

  12. OPT_MP_UMMF • Step 1: Find maximum common utility that can be achieved by all unsaturated commodities • Step 2: Identify newly saturated commodities • Step 3: Assign the utility and allocation for each newly saturated commodity

  13. Key Differences Fix utility, not routing • A commodity is truly saturated only if its utility cannot be increased by any feasible routing • Requires testing each commodity for saturation separately • To guarantee optimality, fix the utility, not the routing after each iteration

  14. Comments • Although OPT_MP_UMMF achieves optimal solution, both Steps 1 & 2 require solving non-linear optimization problems Step 1 Step 2

  15. ε-OPT_MP_UMMF • Instead of solving a non-linear optimization problem, find maximum common utility by means of binary search • Test if a common utility has feasible multi-path routing by solving a Maximum Concurrent Flow (MCF) problem

  16. Maximum Concurrent Flow (MCF) • Given network graph with link capacities and a traffic demand matrix T, find multi-path routing that can satisfy largest common multiple l of T • If l < 1, means demand matrix cannot be satisfied • If l > 1, means bandwidth allocation can handle more traffic than specified demand matrix • MCF well-studied with fast solvers

  17. Find Maximum Utility • Determine demand matrix by utility functions • Find feasible routing by querying MCF solver • If l<1, decrease utility, otherwise increase utility 100 100 100 100 Utility(%) Utility(%) Utility(%) Utility(%) 80 80 80 80 60 60 60 60 40 40 40 40 20 20 20 20 10 20 30 40 50 10 20 30 40 50 10 20 30 40 50 10 20 30 40 50 BW BW BW BW C = 100

  18. Outline • Problem • Approach • Application to optical circuit provisioning • Summary

  19. Optical Circuit Provisioning Application Boundary routers WDM links Optical circuit switches Optical circuit-switched long-haul backbone cloud • Provision optical circuits for Ingress-Egress (IE) pairs to carry aggregate traffic between them • Goal is to maximize likelihood of having sufficient circuit capacity to carry traffic

  20. Optical Circuit Provisioning (cont’d) • Utility curves are Cumulative Distribution Functions (CDFs) of “Historical Traffic Measurements” • Maximizing likelihood of sufficient capacity by maximizing utility functions • Route traffic over provisioned circuits by default • Adaptively re-route excess traffic over circuits with spare capacity • Details can be found in • Jerry Chou, Bill Lin, “Coarse Circuit Switching by Default, Re-Routing over Circuits for Adaptation”, Journal of Optical Networking, vol. 8, no. 1, Jan 2009

  21. Experimental Setup • Abilene network • Public academic network • 11 nodes, 14 links (10 Gb/s) • Historical traffic measurements • 03/01/4 – 04/21/04

  22. Example Seattle New York Chicago Sunnyvale Denver Indianapolis Los Angeles Washington Kansas City Atlanta Houston SeattleNY: 90% time ≤ 6Gb/s 50% time ≤ 4Gb/s Allocate: 6Gb/s SunnyvaleHouston: 90% time ≤ 6Gb/s 80% time ≤ 4Gb/s Allocate: 4Gb/s Seattle NY has 90% acceptance probability Sunnyvale Houston has 80% acceptance probability

  23. Comparison of Allocation Algorithms • WMMF: Single-path weighted max-min fair allocation • Use historical averages as weights • Only consider OSPF path • UMMF: Single-path utility max-min fair allocation • Only consider OSPF path • MP_UMMF: Multi-path utility max-min fair allocation • Computed by our algorithm

  24. Individual Utility Comparison • Reduce link capacity to 1 Gb/s • MP_UMMF has higher utility for most flows

  25. Minimum Utility Comparison • MP_UMMF has greater minimum utility improvement under more congested network

  26. Excess Demand Comparison • Simulate traffic from 4/22/04-4/26/04 • MP_UMMF has much less excess demand

  27. Summary of Contributions • Defined multi-path utility max-min fair bandwidth allocation problem • Provided algorithms to achieve provably optimal bandwidth allocation • Demonstrated application to optical circuit provisioning

  28. Thank You

More Related