WAN Network Design II

Telcom 2110 Network Design

University of Pittsburgh
Slides 12

WAN Packet Network Design

• Many algorithms - optimization
formulations for WAN packet
network design
• Commercial tools
– VPIsystems, WANDL, OPNET,
etc.
• Basic approaches
– Design topology – then route
traffic
– Route traffic – then capacitate
design
– Joint Optimization
– Hybrids

TELCOM 2110 Spring 06 2

1
 Basic WAN Network Design

• Minimize total cost

• Subject to Constraints … for example
– Link capacity must exceed some min, and be less
than some max
– Average Packet Delay must be < maximum
– Reliability requirements
– Throughput, etc.
• General goals
– Short path between all sources and destinations.
– Well-utilized components with high speed lines to
achieve economy of scale.
– These are somewhat contradictory goals
TELCOM 2110 Spring 06 3

WAN Network Design

• WAN typically have a backbone/edge structure
• Backbone is almost always a mesh or ring design
• Mesh topologies introduce the problem of routing
traffic
• Many optimization formulations and design tools for
WAN network design
– Optimization Techniques usually form the initial basis of the
formulation
– Often use a heuristic or meta-heuristic solution technique
• Formulation depends
– Network layer (e.g., WDM, SONET, MPLS, etc.),
– Technology,
– QoS requirements
– Reliability goals
– Other constraints

TELCOM 2110 Spring 06 4

2
 Optimization Based Design
• Good Reference is M. Pioro and D. Medhi, Routing, Flow and Capacity
Design in Communication and Computer Networks, Morgan Kauffman 2004

Maximize (or minimize): f ( x1 , x2 K xn ) Objective

Subject to: g1 ( x1 , x2 K xn ) {≤, ≥, =} b1

g 2 ( x1 , x2 K xn ) {≤, ≥, =} b2
Constraints

…
g m ( x1 , x2 K xn ) {≤, ≥, =} bm

… where x1 , x2 K xn are the decision variables

Formulations usually either
•Linear Programming problems (objective and constraints linear)
•Integer Programming problems (linear objective and constraints but integer design
variables)
•Mixed Integer Programming problems
•Nonlinear MIPs, etc.

Telcom2110
TELCOM 2110 Spring
Spring 06 2006 7 5

Optimization Based Network Design

Procedure
Input Data

¾ Node Locations
¾ Potential Links
¾ Traffic Demands
¾ Cost function/parameters

Network Design Optimizer

Find working path Find backup

paths for given
Survivability
for traffic
demands failure scenarios requirements

Network design strategy/

Network optimization model

Network topology & Technology, QoS

Link capacity assignment requirements, etc

Output Results

¾ Network Cost
¾ Network Topology
¾ Capacity of Links
¾ Working Paths
¾ Backup Paths
TELCOM 2110 Spring 06 6

3
 Virtual Private Network
• A Virtual Private Network (VPN) refers to
“ A class of service that use a shared network to
emulate the characteristics of a private network.”
• Private link emulation over a shared infrastructure
– Leased virtual trunks in circuit switched telco network
– Virtual Path network over ATM backbone
– Virtual LAN over Fast Ethernet infrastructure
– Virtual IP WAN network over IP/MPLS infrastructure

• Transparency between provider and customer network.

• Full-mesh trunks are usually created for a VPN over a
backbone.

TELCOM 2110 Spring 06 7

VPN Networks
Concept of a transport network: one physical network
many VPN logical network possibilities …through cross-
connects, routing etc.
K
B
C

D
A
Z

TELCOM 2110 Spring 06 8

4
 VPN Overlay Network

Overlay VPN B
Network
C
A

B2 B3
B1
Service Provider
C1 C3
Network C2
A1 A2

TELCOM 2110 Spring 06 9

Basic VPN Network Design

• Goals of VPN network design same as

general network design – just an overlay
connecting a subset of network nodes
– Minimize total cost
– Subject to Constraints … for example
• Link capacity must exceed some min, and be less than
some max
• Average Packet Delay must be < maximum
• Reliability requirements
• Throughput, etc.
– Variations
• Only difference is physical topology defined –
multiple VPNs are usually deployed
• Consider MPLS case
TELCOM 2110 Spring 06 10

5
 MPLS Background
• Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) is expected to be
used over IP infrastructure to deliver QoS performance to
different service classes, provide security, VPNs
• MPLS use a label-swapping forwarding technique.
• Labels are assigned when the packet enters into the
network.
• MPLS routers forward packets based on the label value.
• Fields: Label, Class of Service, Stack bit, Time-to-Live

0 20 32
Label CoS S TTL IP header

MPLS header

TELCOM 2110 Spring 06 11

MPLS Network

“ Packet Classification ”

12
TELCOM 2110 Spring 06 12

6
 MPLS Packet Forwarding

In In Address Out Out In In Address Out Out

I/F Lab Prefix I/F Lab I/F Lab Prefix I/F Lab
4 X 171.68.10 3 5 0 5 171.68.10 1 3
… … … … … … … … … …

MPLS Network

171.68.10 / 24
LSR - A LSR - B LSR - C
IP packet
Label=5 Label=3
171.68.10.12
IP packet IP packet
171.68.10.12 171.68.10.12

13
TELCOM 2110 Spring 06 13

Forward Equivalent Class

• Packets entering MPLS domain will be classified into
different Forward Equivalent Class (FEC).
• FEC can be defined to distinct granularity of packet
forwarding decision
– Destination-based (unicast) routing
– Multicast routing
– Traffic engineering
– VPNs
– QoS
– Security, etc…
• Different levels of traffic aggregation are possible.
– Aggregate traffic based on its IP destination pre-fixed.
– Aggregate traffic based on its egress node.
– etc..
TELCOM 2110 Spring 06 14

7
 Label Assignment and Distribution

• Labels have local significance

• Labels are assigned and exchanged between
adjacent LSRs from downstream to upstream
direction.
- Unsolicited downstream
LSRs assign a label to each FEC and distribute labels to all its
upstream neighbors.
- Downstream on demand
For each FEC, upstream LSR request label binding to its
downstream LSRs.
• In MPLS, A forwarding path can be a sink-tree
path or a multipoint-to-point path ending at an
egress node.
TELCOM 2110 Spring 06 15

Downstream on Demand
Label Assignment

Use label 5 for Use label 3 for

Destination 171.68.10 / 24 Destination 171.68.10 / 24

171.68.40 / 24 171.68.10 / 24
LSR - A LSR - B LSR - C

Request label for Request label for

Destination 171.68.10 / 24 Destination 171.68.10 / 24

16
TELCOM 2110 Spring 06 16

8
 Label Switched Path

• A label-switched path (LSP) is a path through

which packets of a particular FEC will be
forwarded.
• Two types of LSPs
1. Prefixed-based
¾ LSPs created based on “route” advertisement
¾ Controlled by routing or signaling
¾ Traditional IP-OSPF routing ( No QoS or CoS support )
2. Tunnel based
¾ LSPs created between specific MPLS end-points
¾ Controlled by signaling (RSVP-TE, CR-LDP)
¾ Used for traffic engineering, QoS provision, VPN service, etc..
• LSPs are always unidirectional
TELCOM 2110 Spring 06 17

VPN over MPLS backbone

• MPLS is expected to be used over the IP
infrastructure to deliver QoS performance to
different classes of service (CoS).

• Using explicit path setup in MPLS, a QoS-based

VPN can be efficiently built over the
infrastructure.

• Different FECs may be used to classify traffic

from different VPNs which may or may not
– use the same forwarding path.
– share the same portion of network bandwidth.
TELCOM 2110 Spring 06 18

9
 Logical Network Topology

Provider Edge (PE) Router

Provider Core Router
C
Overlay A
VPN Network
B

Service Provider
IP/MPLS Network

TELCOM 2110 Spring 06 19

Point-to-Point LSPs

Provider Edge (PE) Router

Provider Core Router

C
Label Switch Path (LSP)

Overlay A
VPN Network
B

2
Service Provider 5
MPLS Network 3

4
6

TELCOM 2110 Spring 06 20

10
 Multipoint-to-point LSPs

Provider Edge (PE) Router

Provider Core Router

C
Label Switch Path (LSP)

Overlay A
VPN Network
B

1
Service Provider 2
MPLS Network

“ Shared-BW links”
TELCOM 2110 Spring 06 21

VPN Design Problem

• Given
– Physical network topology
– Link capacity and its cost
– VPNs requirements (i.e., traffic demands, QoS)

• Find the optimal logical sink-trees and their dimension

such that
– Objective :
• Minimize (total virtual network cost, number of LSPs)
– Constraints :
• QoS requirements (packet-level parameters)
• GoS requirements (call-level parameters)
• Link capacity limitation

TELCOM 2110 Spring 06 22

11
 VPN Design Procedure

• Three main tasks

1)Path generation
• Candidate tree(s) generation
• Feasible tree(s) selection

2)Virtual link dimensioning

• Logical link bandwidth sizing of a given demand.

3)Network routing optimization

• Route selection for each VPN logical link

TELCOM 2110 Spring 06 23

Tree Selection

1
• Possible set of
candidate trees Depth = 1

– All distinct spanning

2 3 4 n
trees
(i) Sink-tree with 1-hop depth
– Steiner trees n
spanning over M ⊆ N
nodes 3
Depth = n-1
– Disjoint shortest-path
2
trees
1
(ii) Sink-tree with (n-1)-hop depth
• Feasible trees selection
TELCOM 2110 Spring 06 24

12
 Link Dimensioning

‹ “Effective bandwidth” calculation will be used to determine

the link capacity requirement at each link.
‹ For example,

Assured Service traffic with source characteristic

(Source peak rate- R peak , Utilization factor-ρ , Mean burst period- b )
Equivalent capacity estimation for each source ĉi
a − 1+ (a − 1)2 + 4 ρ a
cˆi = R peak
2a
where
a = −
b
(1− ρ ) lnε
B
Packet loss ratio
Buffer size
TELCOM 2110 Spring 06 25

Link Dimensioning (cont.)

‹ At a merged link, an aggregated bandwidth will be determined.

For η traffic connections multiplexed

Allocated BW : Cˆ ≤ η ∗ R peak

Cˆ = min {η ⋅ m + α ′ ⋅ σ , η ⋅ cˆi }

α′ = − 2 ln (ε ) − ln (2π )

Packet loss ratio

‹Bandwidth and LSPs efficiency is achieved when traffic is

merged into the same pipe.

TELCOM 2110 Spring 06 26

13
 General Case

• Mathematical models for VPN design problem are

needed for a traffic demand matrix of
– Multiple VPNs.
– Multiple service classes.
– Multi-hour period.
• Point-to-point traffic demand is considered.
• A traffic demand is classified/routed based on an exit
node.
• Two cases :
– No bandwidth aggregation
– Bandwidth aggregation is possible when traffic is
merged/multiplexed on a sink-tree paths.

TELCOM 2110 Spring 06 28

Special Case

• Simplified formulations can be derived

from general case models
– One VPN traffic class
– Single service class.
– One-hour period.
• Point-to-point traffic demand.
• A traffic demand is classified/routed
based on an exit node.

TELCOM 2110 Spring 06 29

14
 Mathematical Formulation

Minimize ∑ ψ l ∗ Yl
Total VPN capacity cost
l∈L
Given
α l , Cl Link utilization factor , Maximum link capacity

Dk , Bkd Traffic demand , Bandwidth requirement

Pk , γ lp, d Set of precomputed sink-tree paths , Link path incidence matrix

Obtain
Yl Link BW allocations

X kp Routing path
32
TELCOM 2110 Spring 06 32

Special Case
(without BW aggregation)

Formulation-III
Minimize ∑ ψ l ∗ Yl
Total VPN capacity cost
l∈L
Subject to :
Path selection criteria

(1) ∑ X kp = 1 ; for all k ∈ K

p∈Pk
Link capacity requirement

⎛ ⎞
(2) ∑ ∑ Eqv B d
k ,(T , QoS ∗ ⎜ )
⎜ ∑ p, d
γ l
∗ X p⎟
k ⎟ ≤ Yl
k ∈ K d ∈D k ⎝ p∈P ⎠
k ; for all l ∈ L

Link capacity limitation

(3) Yl ≤ α l ⋅ Cl ; for all l ∈ L

33
TELCOM 2110 Spring 06 33

15
 Special Case
(with BW aggregation)
Formulation-IV
Minimize ∑ ψ l ∗ Yl
Total VPN capacity cost
l∈L
Subject to :
Path selection criteria

(1) ∑ X kp = 1 ; for all k ∈ K

p∈Pk
Link capacity requirement
⎛⎛ ⎞ ⎞
⎜⎜ p⎟ ⎟
(2) ∑ ⎜⎜ ⎜ ∑ k ∑ p, d k ⎟
γ ; for all l ∈ L
d l
Eqv B ∗ ∗ X , T , QoS ⎟⎟ ≤ Yl
k ∈K ⎝⎝ d ∈D k p∈Pk ⎠ ⎠

Link capacity limitation

(3) Yl ≤ α l ⋅ Cl ; for all l ∈ L

34
TELCOM 2110 Spring 06 34

Numerical Study
• The design model is a mixed Integer
programming problem of NP-hard type.

• The problem is translated using AMPL model

description language and solution is obtain
using CPLEX 6.6 solver.

• Benchmark is obtained for a small network

where LP bound is easy to establish.

TELCOM 2110 Spring 06 35

16
 Tested Networks

8-node Network 10-node Network

TELCOM 2110 Spring 06 36

Sample Results

Topolo Full-Mesh Design Sink-Tree(s) Design Sink-Tree(s) Design

gy (w/o BW aggregation) (with BW aggregation)

Optim Simplex No. Optim Simplex No. of Optim Simplex No. of

al Iteration of al Iteration LSPs al Iteration LSPs
Cost s LSPs Cost s Cost s

8-node 104 54 56 104 241 8 56 473 8

10- 174 65 90 174 736 10 90 1503 10

node

TELCOM 2110 Spring 06 37

17
 Multiple VPN Design Problem

• Given
– Physical network topology
– Link capacity and its cost
– Number of VPNs and their requirements
• Traffic demands , QoS, etc.
May have 100 or 1000s of VPNs to provision over infrastructure
• Find the logical layout and their dimension such that
– Objective :
• Minimize (total virtual network cost, number of LSPs)
– Constraints :
• QoS requirements (packet-level parameters)
• GoS requirements (call-level parameters)
• Link capacity limitations

TELCOM 2110 Spring 06 42

Multiple VPN Overlays

TELCOM 2110 Spring 06 43

18
 Multiple VPN Design Problem
• Heuristic Solution
1. Assign each VPN a weight = Sum (traffic demand x
distance)
2. Sort VPNs on weight
3. Use a standard algorithm to layout VPN i (Mentor,
Routing approach, optimization formulation, etc.)
4. Subtract VPN i bandwidth requirements from
physical network capacity where used.
5. Repeat step 3 and 4 until all VPNs are provisioned.
– Note VPNs with small weight are likely to have
non- shortest path routes through the physical
network.
TELCOM 2110 Spring 06 44

19