Comparison of Single and Multi-objective Evolutionary Algorithms for Robust Link-State Routing
Traffic Engineering (TE) approaches are increasingly important in network management to allow an optimized configuration and resource allocation. In link-state routing, the task of setting appropriate weights to the links is both an important and a challenging optimization task. A number of different approaches has been put forward towards this aim, including the successful use of Evolutionary Algorithms (EAs). In this context, this work addresses the evaluation of three distinct EAs, a single and two multi-objective EAs, in two tasks related to weight setting optimization towards optimal intra-domain routing, knowing the network topology and aggregated traffic demands and seeking to minimize network congestion. In both tasks, the optimization considers scenarios where there is a dynamic alteration in the state of the system, in the first considering changes in the traffic demand matrices and in the latter considering the possibility of link failures. The methods will, thus, need to simultaneously optimize for both conditions, the normal and the altered one, following a preventive TE approach towards robust configurations. Since this can be formulated as a bi-objective function, the use of multi-objective EAs, such as SPEA2 and NSGA-II, came naturally, being those compared to a single-objective EA. The results show a remarkable behavior of NSGA-II in all proposed tasks scaling well for harder instances, and thus presenting itself as the most promising option for TE in these scenarios.
KeywordsMulti-objective evolutionary algorithms Traffic engineering NSGA SPEA Intra-domain routing OSPF
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 2.Awduche, D., Malcolm, J., Agogbua, J., O’Dell, M., McManus, J.: Requirements for Traffic Engineering Over MPLS. RFC 2702 (Informational), September 1999Google Scholar
- 3.Claise, B.: RFC 3954 - Cisco Systems NetFlow Services Export Version 9, October 2004Google Scholar
- 6.Evangelista, P., Maia, P., Rocha, M.: Implementing metaheuristic optimization algorithms with jecoli. In: Proceedings of the 2009 Ninth International Conference on Intelligent Systems Design and Applications, ISDA ’09, pp. 505–510. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA (2009)Google Scholar
- 7.Fortz, B.: Internet traffic engineering by optimizing ospf weights. In: Proceedings of IEEE INFOCOM, pp. 519–528 (2000)Google Scholar
- 9.Iannaccone, G., Chuah, C., Mortier, R., Bhattacharyya, S., Diot, C.: Analysis of link failures in an ip backbone. In: Proceedings of the 2Nd ACM SIGCOMM Workshop on Internet Measurment, IMW ’02, pp. 237–242. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2002)Google Scholar
- 10.Medina, A., Lakhina, A., Matta, I., Byers, J.: Brite: Universal topology generation from a users perspective. Technical report, Boston, MA, USA (2001)Google Scholar
- 11.Moy, J.: OSPF Version 2. RFC 2328 (Standard), April 1998. Updated by RFC 5709Google Scholar
- 12.Oran, D.: OSI IS-IS Intra-domain Routing Protocol. Technical report, IETF, February 1990Google Scholar
- 13.Pereira, Vitor, Rocha, Miguel, Cortez, Paulo, Rio, Miguel, Sousa, Pedro: A Framework for Robust Traffic Engineering Using Evolutionary Computation. In: Doyen, Guillaume, Waldburger, Martin, Čeleda, Pavel, Sperotto, Anna, Stiller, Burkhard (eds.) AIMS 2013. LNCS, vol. 7943, pp. 1–12. Springer, Heidelberg (2013) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15.Tan, K.C., Lee, T.H., Khor, E.F.: Evolutionary algorithms for multi-objective optimization: Performance assessments and comparisons. Artif. Intell. Rev. 17(4), pp. 251–290, June 2002Google Scholar
- 16.Zitzler, E., Laumanns, M., Thiele, L.: Spea 2: Improving the strength pareto evolutionary algorithm. Technical report (2001)Google Scholar