Access Network Design Continued

David Tipper
Associate Professor
Department of Information Science and
Telecommunications
University of Pittsburgh
Slides 8
http://www.sis.pitt.edu/~dtipper/2110.html

Access Design Problems

EIR
• Can roughly categorize access
AUC
design problems
HLR IBM

VLR
– One speed one center design
MSC • Capacitated MST problem
*8
P
Ba
yNetwok

x5
OO1
AON
6
0 RST
30
rs

WR
P
ET
HER LINK

LM
A
A
RS23

ALM
FN0FAN
1 P
2C

WR0PWR1
INS ACT AL
M

PCC
ARD
Centiil on1400
D
S

*8
P
BayNe

x5
OO1
AON
6
0
30
t wok

RS
T
rs

ETH
ER IK
L N R
S232
C INS AC
T LM
A

CCARD
P
Centil il on1400
D
S
– Esau-Williams algorithm
– Sharma algorithm
LM
A
PWR AL
M
FAN
0 F
AN1PWR
0 P
WR1

BSC
BSC
D
S

Ba
yNetwok
rs Centiil on1400

*8
P x5
0 ET
HER LINK RS23
2C INS ACT AL
M
RST
OO130
AON
6

PCC
ARD

• Examples
ALM
WR
P LM
A
F
AN0FAN
1 P
WR0PWR1

BSC

– Local loop in telephone network

BS3

BS3 BS2 BS4

– LAN Design
BS2

BS1
BS4

BS7
BS1
– Multi-speed access design
BS5

BS7
BS5 BS6
• Have multiple link speeds/types
BS6 – For example, LAN design from variety of
hosts
– Multi-center Design
• Cellular networks with multiple base
station controllers

TELCOM 2110 2

1
 Access Network Design
• For Multi-speed and Multi-Center network design
need
• Traffic Matrix
– Specifies traffic between all source-destination pairs
– Entry Tij is the traffic from source i to destination j
– Source and destination maybe host, LAN, etc.
– Developed in conceptual design- usually based on
peak busy hour
• Cost Matrix
– Cost of link capacity Cij between nodes i and j
– Cost may depend on traffic demand w needed C,ij(w)
• Nodal Weight
– The total traffic demand at a node
TELCOM 2110 3

Backbone & Access Sites

• Given a set of sites Ni and traffic Mean data Dallas Denver Vienna
matrix T, rate
demands

– weight(Ni) = Σj (Ti,j+Tj,i).
– Weight of a site is the sum of all traffic
Dallas ----------- 2.1 Mb
in and out of the site .1Mb
– Link Capacity needed is proportional
to weight
• Example of corporation in Dallas,
Vienna, and Denver Denver .3 Mb ----------- .8Mb
----
Weight(Dallas) = 2.2 + 2.8 = 5.0 Mbps
Weight(Denver) = 1.1 + 1.6 = 2.7 Mpbs
Weight(Vienna) = 4.0+ 2.9 = 6.9 Mbps
Vienna 2.5 Mb 1.5 Mb ------------

TELCOM 2110 4

2
 Backbone & Access Sites

• Design Principle
– Compute the weight of all the nodes to
determine if there are natural traffic centers
if the network is flat (i.e., no facility hierarchy
– Example of corporation - Vienna has largest weight
• Generally acceptable for small weight nodes to
route their traffic via big weight nodes, but we
do not want to route the traffic between big
nodes via the small nodes
• Not always obvious what is big and small node
– Want large difference in weight between the big and
small
TELCOM 2110 5

Multiple Speed Access Design

• Have a hub node to which demand nodes connected via multiple link
types
– i.e., different link capacities possible to interconnect to hub
• Multi-speed Capacitated MST (MCST) problem
• Intuitively,
– tree should have thin links at the edge
– Tree should have higher capacity towards the center (trunk of network)
• Formulation/algorithm based on concept of predecessor and ancestor
Root

Reference R. Cahn, Wide Area Network

1 2
Design: Concepts and Tools for Optimization
Morgan Kaufmann ,1998 Ch 5, 6

3 4 5

6
TELCOM 2110 6

3
 Multiple Speed Access Design
• Formulation/algorithm based on concept of predecessor and ancestor
• A tree T rooted at a node Root can be represented uniquely by a
predecessor function pred
– The function pred( ) gives the node one hop closer to the root from the
node in question
– pred(6) = 3, pred(3) = 1, pred(1) = root, pred(4) = 2, etc.
– pred2(6) = pred(pred(6)) = 1, pred3(6) = root
• Define pred(root) = root
• Given a tree T and the associated predecessor function, the ancestors
of N are all the nodes N’ that are downstream from the node away
from the root node.
Root
Ancestor(1) = {3,6}
Ancestor(2) = {4,5} 1 2
Ancestor(3) = {6}
(bit of a misnomer !)
3 4 5
pred n (N’) = N for some n > 0

6
TELCOM 2110 7

Multispeed CMST Problem

• Given
– set of nodes N0, N1, N2, … , Nn.
– set of weights (traffic demand) w1, w2, … , wn for each node
– set of link types L1, L2, … , Lm
– Set of capacities W1, W2, … , Wm
– cost matrix C(i, j, k) that gives the cost of a link of type Lk between Ni
and Nj
• Find: the tree rooted at N0 and the link assignments such that

∑ C (i , j , l )
(i)
Minimize
l∈Links

(ii)
∑w (i ) < WLink ( N , pred ( N ))
i∈N ∪ Ancestors ( N )

TELCOM 2110 8

4
 Multiple Speed CMST Problem
• Consider Multi-speed capacitated MST problem constraint
∑w (i )
i∈N ∪ Ancestors ( N )
< WLink ( N , pred ( N ))

• Capacity of upstream link can carry demand of

downstream nodes

Root
For example link(2,0)
0
w2 + w4 + w5 < W(2,0)
1 2
For link(1,0)
w1 + w3 + w6 < W(1,0)

Objective is the minimize link cost while 3 4 5

meeting demand requirements.
6
TELCOM 2110 9

Cahn’s Multi-speed Local Access Algorithm

• Heuristic Algorithm to solve mCMST similar to Esau-Williams
1. Assign each node n the smallest link capacity Wl possible to directly
connect it to the root.
2. For each node n, compute
spare_capacity(n)=Wl -wn set pred(n)=0 where 0 denotes root
3. Calculate tradeoffs for each node n
– Tradeoffn(i) is savings from linking node n to node i rather than linking
directly to the root node 0.
Tradeoffn(i)= C(n,i, l) + Upgrade(i,wn) – C(n,0, l )
– May have to upgrade links to carry additional traffic
• Need to add un= max(0, wn - spare_capacity(i)) bandwidth
• Upgrade(i, un) function determines the cost of adding un units to the links that
connect i and 0.
– Tradeoff of a node n is the minimum of all tradeoffs
Tradeoff(n)= mini (Tradeoffn(i))
4. Modify tree (add link to relay node/remove direct link to root) for node
with minimum tradeoff among all nodes
5. Repeat 3 until all tradeoff values positive

TELCOM 2110 10

5
 MSLA Example
Consider network with four access nodes to connect to a hub want a
MAXIMUM link utilization of 50%

Node Weight (kbps) Link Type Capacity

1 20,000
0 9.6 Kbps
2 2,400
1 56 Kbps
3 9,600
4 4,800 2 64 Kbps

Link cost are a piecewise linear function of distance and data rate

TELCOM 2110 11

MLSA Example

Link Cost Matrices for each link type

• Link Costs

TELCOM 2110 12

6
 MSLA Example

• Step 1 Connect each node

directly to root with minimum
link capacity that meets design
objective (i.e. 50% link
utilization or less)
• Initial Cost = 10+7+10+7 = 34
• Step 2 Calculate Spare Capacity
on each link (Max L0
Utilization=0.5) L0

L1
spare_capacity(1)=0.5*56000-
20000=8000
L1
spare_capacity(2)=0.5*9600-
2400=2400
spare_capacity(3)=0.5*56000-
9600=18400
spare_capacity(4)=0.5*9600-4800=0

TELCOM 2110 13

MSLA Example

• Step 3 Calculate Tradeoffs

for each node
Tradeoffn(i)= C(n,i, l) +
Upgrade(i,wn) – C(n,0, l )
Example node 1
L0
Tradeoff1(2)= C(1,2, l) +
Upgrade(2,20000) – C(1,0, 1 ) L0

= 10 + (15-7) -10 = 8 L1
Tradeoff1(3)= C(1,3, l) +
Upgrade(3,20000) – C(1,0, 1 ) L1
= 12 + (20-10) -10 = 12
Tradeoff1(4)= C(1,4, l) +
Upgrade(4,20000) – C(1,0, 1 )
= 12 + (15 -7) -10 = 10
Tradeoff(1) = min{8,12,10} = 8
TELCOM 2110 14

7
 MSLA Example

• Step 3 Calculate Tradeoffs

for each node
For node 2
Tradeoff2(1)= C(2,1, l) +
Upgrade(1,2400) – C(2,0, 1 )
=7+0-7=0 L0

Tradeoff2(3)= C(2,3, l) + L0

Upgrade(3,2400) – C(2,0, 1 )
L1
= 5 + 0 -7 = -2
Tradeoff2(4)= C(2,4, l) + L1
Upgrade(4,2400) – C(2,0, 1 )
= 6 + (15 -7) -7 = 7
Tradeoff(2) = min{0,-2,7} = -2

TELCOM 2110 15

MSLA Example

• Step 3 Calculate Tradeoffs

for each node
For node 3
Tradeoff3(1)= C(3,1, l) +
Upgrade(1,9600) – C(3,0, 1 )
= 12 + (20-10) - 10= 12 L0

Tradeoff3(2)= C(3,2, l) + L0

Upgrade(2,9600) – C(3,0, 1 )
L1
= 12 + (15-7) -10= 10
Tradeoff3(4)= C(3,4, l) + L1
Upgrade(4,9600) – C(3,0, 1 )
= 10 + (15 -7) -10 = 8
Tradeoff(3) = min{12,10,8} = 8

TELCOM 2110 16

8
 MSLA Example

• Step 3 Calculate Tradeoffs for

each node
For node 4
Tradeoff4(1)= C(4,1, l) + Upgrade(1,4800) –
C(4,0, 1 )
= 6 + 0 - 7 = -1
Tradeoff4(2)= C(4,2, l) + Upgrade(2,4800) – L0
C(4,0, 1 ) L0
= 6 + (15-7) -7 = 7
L1
Tradeoff4(3)= C(4,3, l) + Upgrade(3,4800) –
C(4,0, 1 )
L1
= 5 + 0 -7 = -2
Tradeoff(4) = min{-1,7,-2} = -2

Comparing the tradeoff values of all four

nodes Tradeoff (4)=Tradeoff(2) = -2
arbitrarily pick Node 4
TELCOM 2110 17

MSLA Example

Step 4 remove link from 4 to 0

And add link from 4 to 3 which is
Iteration 1 It’s lowest tradeoff value node
L0

L0 Iteration 1 topology

L1

L1
Iteration 2: Note adjust node weights

L0
Repeat tradeoff calculations
L0
Result is Let N4 goes through N3,no
Iteration 2 upgrade is needed and it is the best
tradeoff value
L1
Iteration 2 topology
L1

TELCOM 2110 18

9
 MSLA Example
Iteration 2

L0
L0

L1
L1

L0
L0 • Iteration 3 results in connecting N3 to N1
Final
design and increase (1,0) to 256 Kbps link.
L1
• All tradeoff values are positive - STOP

L2

TELCOM 2110 19

Larger Example of MSLA Algorithm:

‰We have 20 nodes in and the

weights of the nodes are generated
according to the above TABLE
TRAFDIST.
‰Weights of nodes are shown in the
TABLE SITES. Note that the weight
of N0 is normalized so that it sums to
the traffic from all the other sites.
‰To simplify the mathematics, we
assume that every line can be used to
100% of capacity.

TELCOM 2110 20

10
 Esau Williams: 20 nodes with 9.6Kbps links

Cost = $26,963
Only 9 sites share links to N0, more like a star.

TELCOM 2110 21

Esau Williams: 20 nodes with 56Kbps links

Cost = $30,160
A nice tree structure, but the cost is higher because out on
the periphery of the network there is too much capacity.
TELCOM 2110 22

11
 MSLA: 20 nodes with multispeed links

Cost = $22,760
There is a central D56 tree and a peripheral D96 tree

TELCOM 2110 23

Access Design Problems

AUC EIR • Can roughly categorize

HLR IBM

VLR access design problems

*8
P
Ba
yNetwok

x5
OO1
AON
6
0 RST
30
rs

ET
HER LINK RS23
2C INS ACT AL
M

PCC
ARD
Centiil on1400
D
S
MSC
– One speed one center design
D
S

BayNe
t wok
rs Centil il on1400
ALM
WR
P LM
A
A
FN0FAN
1 P
WR0PWR1

• Capacitated MST problem

*8
P x5
0 ETH
ER IK
L N S
R232
C INS AC
T LM
A
RS
T
OO130
AON
6

CCARD
P

LM
A
PWR AL
M
FAN
0 F
AN1PW0
R P
WR1

BSC
BSC
D
S

Ba
yNetwok
rs Centiil on1400

*8
P x5
0 ET
HER LINK RS23
2C INS ACT AL
M
RST
OO130
AON
6

PCC
ARD

ALM
WR
P LM
A
A
FN0FAN
1 P
WR0PWR1

BSC
– Esau-Williams algorithm
BS3
– Sharma algorithm
BS3 BS2 BS4

BS2

BS1
BS4

BS7
BS1

BS5
– Multi-speed access design
BS7

BS6
BS5 BS6
• mCMST – MSLA
– Multi-center Design
• Multiple Centers (hubs) – nodes
can connect to any center
TELCOM 2110 24

12
 MultiCenter Access Design

• Given
– A set B of hub or backbone sites {B0, …, Bm}
– A set N of access nodes {N1, … , Nn}
• A set of weights {w1, … , wn} for each access node
• A upper limit on capacity, W (one speed design).
• A cost matrix Cost(i,j) giving the costs between each (hub)
backbone/access pair of sites.
• Build a set of trees that connect each access node to a hub
• Constructing a forest of trees – often not interconnected

TELCOM 2110 25

MultiCenter Local Access Problem (MCLA)

• The multicenter local – access problem is to

find a set of trees T1, … , Tk such that

(1) Exactly 1 backbone site belongs to each tree

(2) The link capacity is not violated

∑ N i ∈T j
wi < W

(3) The Cost is minimum

∑ ∑Trees l∈Links
C ( Node1l , Node2l )

TELCOM 2110 26

13
 Example
Consider site with 3 backbone nodes
Circles : X, Y and Z

Have 17 access nodes

Squares: A, B, C and D, etc

Could represent host and Ethernet switches

connected to campus backbone

TELCOM 2110 27

MultiCenter Local Access Problem

• This problem is a much more complex than the
single-center one
• Suppose we have n access nodes that we want to partition into
sets of M nodes (i.e., one set for each backbone node. The
number of possible partitions is :
n
⎛ n ⎞ n−M
∑ ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟2
M ⎝M ⎠
Even for the modest number n = 21, M = 7
the complexity is daunting .

• After partitioning of the access sites must solve M

capacitated MST problems (use Esau-Williams
algorithm or Sharma algorithm)
• How to partition into sets?
TELCOM 2110 28

14
 Nearest-Neighbor Esau-Williams (NNEW)

• For each b in B, let Sb={ n∈N | Cost(n,b) < Cost(n,b’) ∀b’∈B}

Group nodes in to sets based on nearest backbone node as judged by
the direct connection cost
• If n is equidistant between several backbone nodes, add n to one Sb at
random.
• Use Esau-Williams to construct a capacitated MST on each set b∪Sb.

A belongs to X set of nodes

‰ Example: (since X is the closest backbone
node to A)
B to Y
D to Z
C is equidistant to X and Z so can be
placed in either set.

TELCOM 2110 29

Nearest-Neighbor Esau-Williams (NNEW)

• Assume topology at right

• B = {9,10,11}
• N = {0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8}
• Weight of each node is 1, except
for nodes 4 and 5, which have
weight 2
• Cost C(i,j) is given by the
physical distance between nodes i
and j
• Capacity of link W = 3
• Step 1 is partition nodes into 3
sets using nearest-neighbor
algorithm

TELCOM 2110 30

15
 Nearest-Neighbor Esau-Williams (NNEW)

• Use Esau-Williams to construct a capacitated MST on each

set Sb
• Backbone nodes connected separately

TELCOM 2110 31

Test of Quality of Design

• Test: reattach the leaves to a different tree and see

if it reduces the cost.
• The quality of NNEW is not that great

TELCOM 2110 32

16
 Nearest-Neighbor Esau-Williams (NNEW)

• NNEW algorithm doesn’t always work well

• Problem is the location of the other access nodes cannot be ignored when
deciding which access nodes should home to which center.
• Example two hubs (N1, N2), cheaper design if N5 connects through N9 to N2
- but nearest neighbor prohibits this.

TELCOM 2110 33

MultiCenter Esau-Williams (MCEW)

• Recall that, in Esau-Williams algorithm

– Calculate the tradeoff as the saving by linking Ni to Nj instead of linking
it directly to the center/root.
Tradeoff(Ni) = minjCost(Ni, Nj) - Cost(Comp(Ni),Center)

• MCEW algorithm replaces the tradeoff function with:

Tradeoff(Ni) = minjCost(Ni, Nj) - Cost(Comp(Ni),Center(Ni))

• Initially, we set Center(Ni) to be the closest backbone center.

• If node Ni is merged with node Nj, update
Center(Ni)=Center(Nj).

• MCEW has an advantage over NNEW when size of nodes in clusters large

TELCOM 2110 34

17
 NNEW vs. MCEW

• Only a slight cost advantage of using MCEW as

opposed to NNEW.
• Test of quality show MCEW has better solution

TELCOM 2110 35

Access Design Problems

• Looked at three access design problems
– One speed one center design
• Capacitated MST problem
– Esau-Williams algorithm
– Sharma algorithm
– Multi-speed access design
• mCMST – MSLA
– Multi-center Design
• NNEW, MCEW
• Solution algorithms not cast in stone – often
need to add constraints to improve design or
make practical
TELCOM 2110 36

18
 Some Branches Have Too Many Nodes.

• EW tests only if the

combined weight of the
two components doesn’t
exceed the upper bound
weight_limit.

• Solution: add additional

size_limit constraints
that prohibit the merge
of two components with
too many nodes.

TELCOM 2110 37

Some Branches Have Too Many Hops.

• Branch with many hops => large

delay variation and less reliable
• Solution: add depth checking
constraint – a hop count limit,
i.e., depth-limit the
tree built by EW

‰ Each site maintains a value depth[ni]

‰ Initially set to 1, update when we
evaluate the tradeoff between n1
and n2,
Depth[n2] = max (depth[n2],
depth[n1] +1)
and compare against threshold.
TELCOM 2110 38

19
 Some Node in Tree Has Too Many Links

‰ Degree of node directly

relates to port count, may
want to keep port count
below a given value
• Solution: add degree
constraint

‰ Initialize the degree of

each site to 1, when we
accept the merge from n1
to n2 then we increase the
degree of n2 by 1. Do not
accept merges that violates
the constraint.

TELCOM 2110 39

Access Design Problems

• Looked at three access design problems

– One speed one center design
– Multi-speed access design
– Multi-center Design

• Studied algorithms for each case

• Useful for logical layer design
• Next consider physical design of access
networks.
TELCOM 2110 40

20