Packet Routing in Telecommunication Networks with Path and Flow Restrictions

We address packet-switched telecommunication networks, including ATM, SMDS, and X.25 services. We analyze important extensions of routing models by imposing restrictions on paths and flows. We then study how these modifications affect the computational requirements for solution. The restricted cases...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:INFORMS journal on computing 1999-03, Vol.11 (2), p.188-197
Main Authors: LeBlanc, Larry J, Chifflet, Jerome, Mahey, Philippe
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Access control
Algorithms
Communication
Communications industry
Communications networks
Computer network equipment industry
Computer Science
hop limits
large-scale networks
network
Operations Research
Packet switched networks
priority routing
Queuing
Routing
Studies
telecommunication routing
Telecommunications services industry
Time management
Traffic congestion
Virtual private networks
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:We address packet-switched telecommunication networks, including ATM, SMDS, and X.25 services. We analyze important extensions of routing models by imposing restrictions on paths and flows. We then study how these modifications affect the computational requirements for solution. The restricted cases we examine are: 1) hop limits—the flow between each pair of nodes can take a maximum of h hops; 2) node and link capacity constraints—instead of traditional queuing delays, queuing is treated indirectly using penalty terms for "effective" capacity constraints; and 3) high- and low-priority flows—because of higher grade-of-service requirements for high-priority flows, additional capacity constraints are imposed on them. We discuss the importance of these restrictions and report results of computational testing using the flow-deviation algorithm. We also discuss the importance of limiting the number of routes used between node pairs and then analyze numerically how many distinct routes are typically used by the final solution from the flow-deviation algorithm when no route limits exist between node pairs.
ISSN:1091-9856
1526-5528
1091-9856
DOI:10.1287/ijoc.11.2.188