Advertisement

Journal of Simulation

, Volume 11, Issue 4, pp 322–334 | Cite as

Maintaining the accuracy of focusing topology area in network simulation

  • Xiaofeng Wang
  • Xiaojing Wang
  • Yu Yang
  • Fei Chen
Article
  • 58 Downloads

Abstract

In network simulation, higher simulation accuracy generally leads to significantly increased computational overhead. To mitigate this issue, we present a new network simulation method for the focusing topology area (NESFOTA). The idea is to partition the topology into two parts that are complementary to each other, namely the focusing topology area and the non-focusing topology area. The focusing topology area is of interest to the simulation users and it is simulated using the traditional packet-level models to attain satisfactory accuracy. On the other hand, the non-focusing topology area is simulated with a higher level of abstraction to decrease the computational overhead. In particular, a method is proposed for the non-focusing topology area simulation, and theoretical analysis shows that it degrades marginally the simulation accuracy of focusing topology area. Compared to the traditional method, the NESFOTA method reduces the computational overhead by about 10 times at most while achieving nearly the same simulation accuracy of focusing topology area.

Keywords

network simulation discrete-event simulation simulation accuracy networks and graphs 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work is supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (Grant No. 2016YFB0800305) and by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 61672264, 61602214).

Statement of contribution

In the evaluation of large-scale and high-speed computer networks by simulation, higher simulation accuracy generally leads to significantly increased computational overhead. To mitigate this issue, we present in this paper a new network simulation method for the focusing topology area (NESFOTA). The main contributions are as follows:
  1. (a)

    The topology is partitioned into two parts that are complementary to each other, namely the focusing topology area (FTA) and the non-focusing topology area (NFTA). The FTA is of interest to the simulation users and it is simulated using the traditional packet-level models to attain satisfactory accuracy. On the other hand, the NFTA is simulated with a high level abstraction to decrease the computational overhead. Meanwhile, we maintain the topology structure of NFTA and do not collapse or ignore it. In this way, all the routing paths are maintained, for simulation accuracy.

     
  2. (b)

    We propose a high-level abstraction model (CAQUP) for the NFTA, the main feature of which is to maintain the simulation accuracy of drop rate and forward delay when one packet is transmitted through the NFTA. In this way, the CAQUP model degrades marginally the simulation accuracy of FTA.

     
  3. (c)

    The experimental results prove that the NESFOTA method reduces the computational overhead by about 10 times at most while achieving nearly the same simulation accuracy of FTA. The NESFOTA method also presents its superiority in offering higher simulation accuracy over the existing hybrid methods with fluid models.

     

References

  1. Baccelli F and Hong D (2003) Flow level simulation of large IP networks. In Proceedings of International Conference on Computer Communications (INFOCOM’03). IEEE, San Francisco, CA, 1911–1921. doi:  10.1109/INFCOM.2003.1209213.
  2. Erazo M and Liu J (2013) Leveraging symbiotic relationship between simulation and emulation for scalable network experimentation. In Proceedings of the 2013 ACM SIGSIM Principles of Advanced Discrete Simulation (SIGSIM-PADS 2013). ACM, Montreal, QC, Canada, 79–90. doi:  10.1145/2486092.2486103.
  3. Figueiredo DR, Liu B, Guo Y, Kurose J and Towsley D (2006) On the efficiency of fluid simulation of networks. Computer Networks 50(12): 1974–1994. doi:  10.1016/j.comnet.2005.10.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Gu Y, Liu Y and Towsley D (2004) On integrating fluid models with packet simulation. In Proceedings of International Conference on Computer Communications (INFOCOM’04). IEEE, Hong Kong, 2856–2866. doi:  10.1109/INFCOM.2004.1354702.
  5. Jin D, Zheng Y and Nicol DM (2014) A parallel network simulation and virtual time-based network emulation testbed. Journal of Simulation 8(3): 206–214. doi:  10.1057/jos.2013.29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Kiddle C, Simmonds R, Williamson C and Unger B (2003) Hybrid packet/fluid flow network simulation. In Proceedings of the 17th Workshop on Parallel and Distributed Simulation (PADS’03). IEEE, Washington, DC, USA, 143–152. doi:  10.1109/PADS.2003.1207430.
  7. Kim H, Hou JC and Lim H (2008) TranSim: Accelerating simulation of large-scale IP networks through preserving network invariants. Computer Networks 52(15): 2924–2946. doi:  10.1016/j.comnet.2008.06.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kumar S, Park J and Iyengar SS (2010) A loss-event driven scalable fluid simulation method for high-speed networks. Computer Networks 54(1): 112–132. doi:  10.1016/j.comnet.2009.08.018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lee J, Bohacek S, Hespanha JP and Obraczka K (2007) Modeling communication networks with hybrid systems. IEEE/ACM Transaction on Networking 15(3): 630–643. doi:  10.1109/TNET.2007.893090.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Li T, Vorst NV and Liu J (2013) A rate-based TCP traffic model to accelerate network simulation. Simulation 89(4): 466–480. doi:  10.1177/0037549712469892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Li T and Liu J (2015) Cluster-Based Spatiotemporal Background Traffic Generation for Network Simulation. ACM Transactions on Modeling and Computer Simulation 25(1): Article 4. doi:  10.1145/2667222.
  12. Liljenstam M, Yuan Y, Premore BJ and Nicol DM (2002) A mixed abstraction level simulation model of large-scale Internet worm infestations. In Proceedings of the 10th IEEE/ACM Int’l Symp. on Modeling, Analysis, and Simulation of Computer and Telecommunication Systems (MASCOTS 2002). IEEE, Washington, DC, USA, 109–116. doi:  10.1109/MASCOT.2002.1167067.
  13. Liu B, Figueiredo DR, Guo Y, Kurose J and Towsley D (2001) A study of networks simulation efficiency: fluid simulation vs packet level simulation. In Proceedings of International Conference on Computer Communications (INFOCOM’01), IEEE, Anchorage, AK, 1244–1253. doi: ftp://128.119.245.9/pub/infocom01-fluid.pdf.
  14. Liu J (2006) Packet-Level integration of fluid TCP models in real-time network simulation. In Proceedings. of the 38 th conference on Winter Simulation (WSC’06). Monterey, CA, 2162–2169. doi:  10.1109/WSC.2006.323017.
  15. Liu N, Carothers C, Cope J, Carns P and Ross R (2012) Model and simulation of exascale communication networks. Journal of Simulation 6(4): 227–236. doi:  10.1057/jos.2012.4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Liu Y, Presti F L, Misra V, Towsley D and Gu Y (2003) Fluid models and solutions for large-scale ip networks. In Proceedings of ACM SIGMETRICS 2003. NY, USA, 91–101. doi:  10.1145/781027.781039.
  17. Liu Y, Presti FL, Misra V, Towsley DF and Gu Y (2004) Scalable fluid models and simulations for large-scale IP networks. ACM Transactions on Modeling and Computer Simulation (TOMACS) 14(3): 305–324. doi:  10.1145/1010621.1010625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Schuchard M, Mohaisen A, Foo Kune D, Hopper N, Kim Y and Vasserman EY (2010) Losing control of the Internet: using the data plane to attack the control plane. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on Computer and communications security (CCS ‘10). ACM, Chicago, IL, 726–728. doi:  10.1145/1866307.1866411.
  19. Nicol DM and Yan G (2004) Discrete event fluid modeling of background TCP traffic. ACM Transactions on Modeling and Computer Simulation (TOMACS) 14(3): 211–250. doi:  10.1145/1010621.1010622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nicol DM (2008) Efficient simulation of Internet worms. ACM Transactions on Modeling and Computer Simulation (TOMACS) 18(2): 159–174. doi:  10.1145/1346325.1346326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pan R, Prabhakar B, Psounis K and Wischik D (2005) SHRiNK: a method for enabling scalable performance prediction and efficient network simulation. IEEE/ACM Transaction on Networking 13(5): 975–988. doi:  10.1109/TNET.2005.857080.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rahman MA, Pakštas A and Wang FZ (2009). Network modelling and simulation tools. Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory 17(6): 1011–1031. doi:  10.1016/j.simpat.2009.02.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Riley GF, Jaafar TM and Fujimoto R (2002) Integrated fluid and packet network simulations. In Proceedings of the 10th IEEE/ACM Int’l Symp. on Modeling, Analysis, and Simulation of Computer and Telecommunication Systems (MASCOTS 2002). IEEE, Washington, DC, 511–518. doi:  10.1109/MASCOT.2002.1167114.
  24. Shortle JF, Mark BL and Gross D (2009) Reduction of closed queueing networks for efficient simulation. ACM Transactions on Modeling and Computer Simulation (TOMACS) 19(3): 437–471. doi:  10.1145/1540530.1540531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wang J, Yu X and Yan J (2009) Research on network simulation abstract technology based on simplicity theory. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Wireless Networsk and Information Systems. Shanghai, China, 186–192. doi:  10.1109/WNIS.2009.
  26. Xu J, Zhang S, Huang E, Chen C, Lee L and Celik N (2014) Efficient multi-fidelity simulation optimization. In Proceedings of the 2014 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC 2014). IEEE, Savannah, GA, 3940–3951. doi:  10.1109/WSC.2014.7020219.

Copyright information

© The Operational Research Society 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xiaofeng Wang
    • 1
  • Xiaojing Wang
    • 1
  • Yu Yang
    • 1
  • Fei Chen
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Internet of Things EngineeringJiangnan UniversityWuxiChina
  2. 2.School of Digital MediaJiangnan UniversityWuxiChina

Personalised recommendations