Fuzzy Optimization Model for Routing in B-ISDN

Emad Aboelela and Christos Douligeris

Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
University of Miami
Coral Gables, Florida 33124-0640, USA
{emad , christos}@ece.miami.edu

Abstract In the heuristic approaches the complexity of the QoS

Broadband Integrated Services Digital Networks (B-
ISDN) support a wide range of applications with diverse
traffic characteristics. Routing algorithms are required
to guarantee the quality of service (QoS) requested by
these traffic classes. In this paper, the routing problem is
formulated as a fuzzy multiobjective optimization model.
The fuzzy approach allows for the inclusion and
evaluation of several criteria simultaneously. The
proposed model takes into consideration balancing the
load in the network to avoid link saturation and hence
the possibility of congestion. The model is tested with
different loads and the effect on different measures of
performance is analyzed.
1. Introduction
In traditional data networks, routing protocols usually
characterize the network with a single metric such as
hop-count or delay. Shortest-path algorithms are then
used in these networks for path computation. The
subjectivity of today’s QoS requirements of the diverse
traffic classes in B-ISDN and the complex trade-offs
among them make it difficult to define an appropriate
unique routing metric. Moreover, given the distinct
characteristics of the various traffic classes, the same
metric is not universally applicable. Hence, a new routing
paradigm that emphasizes searching for an acceptable
path satisfying various QoS requirements is needed for
integrated communication networks. However, it is
known that such a routing problem involving two or more
additive or multiplicative QoS parameters in any possible
combination is NP-complete [13]. Hence, a number of
heuristic algorithms have been recently proposed to solve
this problem [7,12,13].
routing algorithms is reduced by choosing a subset of QoS
parameters. There are no dynamic routing methods that
use a complete set of QoS parameters to determine a route
for multimedia data flows [12]. One possible approach is
to define a function and generate a single metric from
multiple parameters.
Since Zadeh initiated the fuzzy set theory in 1965
[14], fuzzy logic has been applied to problems that are
either difficult to tackle mathematically, or where the use
of fuzzy logic provides improved performance. Many
design and control problems in communication systems
are indeed well suited for the analysis using fuzzy logic,
due to their characteristics of having multiple
performance criteria, some of which are often conflicting.
The fuzzy logic approach, gaining recognition as a tool
for handling the imprecise nature of decision making
environments without undue simplification, can be
efficiently used as a solution technique over other major
methods in multiobjective optimization.
In this paper, we view the routing problem in B-ISDN
as a multiobjective problem. Principal to multiobjective
optimization is the concept of an “efficient solution”,
where any improvement of one objective can only be
achieved at the expense of another. The fuzzy approach
can be used as an effective tool for quickly obtaining a
good compromise solution. Hence we formulate the
routing model as a fuzzy multiobjective model [10, 15].
The proposed model challenge is to find routes for flows
through paths that are not hideously expensive, according
to the required QoS, and do not penalize the other flows
already existing or expected to arrive in the network.
Having as an objective the balancing of the load over the
network links contributes in reaching a good level of
stability and fairness, which by themselves are important
attributes of routing functions.

Proceedings of the 22nd IEEE Conference on Local Computer Networks (LCN’97)

0-8186-8141-1/97 $10.00 ã 1997 IEEE
 The paper is organized as follows. In section 2, an
overview of the current QoS algorithms and an
elaboration of the benefits of applying fuzzy logic in the
routing problems is presented. Section 3 provides the
problem definition and the notations used. The proposed
model is formulated in section 4. In section 5, the model
is tested and the results are analyzed using a case study.
Section 6 concludes the paper and discusses potential
future work.
2. QoS routing algorithms
A number of heuristic algorithms have been recently
proposed to solve the routing problem with multiple QoS
parameters. Heuristic approaches are often the only
candidate solutions because a routing problem with two or
more additive or multiplicative QoS parameters in any
possible combination is known to be NP-complete [13].
One approach is a scheme that uses an optimal routing
algorithm based on a single cost, which is an aggregation
of a combination of weighted QoS parameters. However,
the solutions in this case are sensitive to the aggregating
weights, and there is no clear guideline on how the
weights should be chosen. The fallback routing algorithm
[8] addressed the problem of determining these weights.
This approach tries to find a path based on the single cost
of weighted link metrics, and if it fails, it tries to find
another path by changing the values of the weights
iteratively so as to get more feasible paths, until an
appropriate path that guarantees QoS parameters can be
found.
Vogel [12] argued that many end-to-end parameters in
today’s networks are not completely independent from
each other (e.g. if the load increases, delay, delay jitter or
loss increase too). So, he selected the following set from
the known QoS specifications: throughput (t), delay (d),
and error rate (e). A parameter set (t,d,e) is assigned to
each network segment where t is the currently available
throughput in Kb/s, d is the current delay in µs, and e is
the current error rate as a multiple of 10-6. For any
candidate routes ttotal is the minimum t among all links in
the route. dtotal is the aggregated sum of all d’s of the links
in the route. Finally, if L is the set of all links in the
route: etotal = 1 − Π (1 − el ) . A QoS (t,d,e) of a route is
∀l ∈L
assumed to be sufficient for a demand (td,dd,ed) if: t≥td,
d≤dd , and e≤ed. In case of more than one route satisfying
the demand, a selection of the preferred route follows a
simple rule depending on the degree of availability of
each parameter (e.g. the availability of the throughput
parameter = t/td).
Proceedings of the 22nd IEEE Conference on Local Computer Networks (LCN’97)
0-8186-8141-1/97 $10.00 ã 1997 IEEE
Wang[13] showed that trying to optimize any two or
more of delay, delay jitter, cost, or loss probability in any
combination as metrics results in an NP-complete
problem. He argued that the only feasible combination, to
avoid the NP-completeness, are bandwidth and one of the
four (delay, loss probability, cost, and delay jitter).
The previously proposed heuristics are, in one form or
another, a search in lists of candidate paths ordered
according to a different criterion. Gavish [5] formulated
an optimization model to solve the routing problem in a
single commodity network. His objective function was
mainly to minimize the queuing end-to-end delay in the
network. He used Lagrangean relaxation and subgradient
optimization techniques for his proposed non-linear
model. For multicommodity networks, formulating the
problem as a multi-objective optimization model is always
avoided due to not only the expected non-linear model but
also due to the two types of inaccuracies incorporated in
multiobjective optimization problems. One is the
ambiguity inherited in the nature of the parameters in the
problem, and the other is the fuzzy goals for each of the
objective functions. For handling and tackling such kinds
of imprecision or vagueness, it is not hard to imagine that
the conventional multiobjective optimization approaches,
such as a deterministic or even a probabilistic approach,
can not be applied. Hence, multiobjective optimization
under imprecision or fuzziness seems to be practically
promising and applicable for dealing with decision-
making problems, such as routing problems.
The proposed routing model is formulated as a fuzzy
multiobjective optimization model [10]. Linear fuzzy
membership functions are chosen to represent the goals.
The fuzzy decision method introduced by Bellman and
Zadeh [1] is used to formulate the model. We can
summarize the benefits of applying the fuzzy
multiobjective optimization technique to solve the
problem of QoS routing in B-ISDN in the following
points:
• Using linear membership functions for the QoS
parameters contributes in avoiding the nonlinear
nature of some requirements.
• QoS goals are normalized, by their membership
functions, to a number between 0 and 1. Now
aggregation of weighted QoS parameters into a single
cost parameter is more meaningful by avoiding the
aggregation of heterogeneous quantities. Each QoS
parameter can be controlled separately by reshaping
its membership function.
 • Fuzzifying the objectives increases the feasible
solution space with the gain of avoiding the high
probability of infeasible solutions as is the case in
crisp multiobjective optimization models.
• Recalling the imprecision or fuzziness inherent in
human judgments, representing the required QoS
parameters as a fuzzy goal results in more realistic
problem representations since the network manager
avoids specifying a crisp value for his/her goals.
3. Problem definition and notations
In this study we consider the problem of optimal route
selection in computer communication networks in which
nodes, links, link capacities, and external traffic load are
given. Each traffic is categorized into a specific
commodity service. Each category of commodity services
has its own predefined QoS requirements. A set of
communicating source/destination pairs are defined.
Messages are transmitted from source to destination
through intermediate nodes and links along fixed routes
that are determined at the time of network definition.
The objective of this study is to select the set of routes
for a multicommodity flow representing connections with
different QoS requirements in a network with predefined
sets of routes between the communicating pairs of nodes.
These routes have to satisfy the delay requirement of the
message to be routed as well as “minimize” the
UR
∀p ∈P
p =R
(1)
R p1 ∩ R p 2 = φ p1 ≠ p2 & ∀p1 , p2 ∈P
C The capacity of link in bits per second.
E The current load (or previously assigned load) in
link .
d The fixed delay (propagation delay, processing delay,
etc.) through link .
λps≡λrs ∀r∈Rp The message arrival rate into the
communicating pairs p from the commodity service s
in bits/sec. It equals the arrival rate from this
commodity in any of the candidate routes for
communicating pairs p.
yr An indicator function which is one if link is used in
route r and zero otherwise.
xrs A decision variable which is one if route r is selected
for the routing of a message from commodity service
s and zero otherwise.
crs A fixed cost assigned to each route r for service s. It
can be the number of links (hops) in this route.
grs An estimated congestion degree assigned to each
route r. It is a function of the number of candidate
routes sharing the links of the given path.
From the previous notation we can conclude the
following:
- The total arrival rate in bits/sec from commodity service
s in the network: Ts = ∑ λ ps (2)
p∈P

probability of link congestion. The objective of - The total arrival rate in bits/sec from all commodity
“minimizing” the probability of congestion is achieved services in the network:
by having balanced utilized links; selecting, as much as T = ∑ Ts = ∑ ∑ λ ps (3)
possible, routes with smaller numbers of hops; and taking s∈S p∈P s∈S
into consideration the likelihood of load congestion in - The total arrival rate in bits/sec from commodity service
the network links. s in link according to the routing decision:
Als = ∑ ( yrl λ rs x rs ) (4)
The following notation is used in the proposed model: r ∈R
- The total arrival rate in bits/sec from all commodity
P The set of the communicating source/destination services in link according to the routing decision:
pairs in the network.
S The set of the commodity services to be transmitted Al = ∑ Als = ∑ ( yrl * ∑ λ rs x rs ) (5)
s∈S r∈R s∈S
in the network (voice, data, video, etc.)
L The set of all links in the network - The utilization of link : Ul =
Al + El (6)
R The set of candidate routes. This set is provided by a Cl
route generation algorithm (e.g. double-sweep - The average delay in each link [2]:
algorithm). A route is characterized by the ordered 1
set of links (from source to destination) in the route. Dl = + dl (7)
Cl − Al
V The average number of links in the routes that belong
to R. - The average networkwide delay for commodity service s
1
Rp The set of candidate routes for communicating pairs
p. Obviously we have:
Ds =
Ts
∑ Als * Dl (8)
l ∈L

Proceedings of the 22nd IEEE Conference on Local Computer Networks (LCN’97)

0-8186-8141-1/97 $10.00 ã 1997 IEEE
 - The average networkwide delay for all commodity shows that the highest membership value (=1) is for
services: Ds=ds. In some cases it is required not to decrease the
1 1 minimum delay than a specific value dsmin. In these cases
D=
T
∑ Ts * Ds = T ∑ Al * Dl (9) dsmin has to be a specific positive value. In most cases,
s∈S l ∈L
there is no restriction on the minimum delay. In these
cases dsmin can be assigned a value -∞ to have µs(Ds)=1 for
4. Problem formulation Ds<ds.
From the previous notations and definitions, it is µs(Ds)
obvious that our optimization problem will most likely be
formulated as a nonlinear zero-one programming
problem. The fuzzy logic technique is chosen to relax the 1
problem with the gain of having a simple and faster
solution to the model. In the proposed model, a fuzzy
membership function is associated with the QoS
parameter. Then the problem is formulated as a scalarized
multiobjective fuzzy optimization problem [10].

As discussed before, Wang [13] argued that the

feasible combinations of routing metrics are bandwidth
and one of the following: delay, loss probability, cost, and
delay jitter. He believed that for the majority of
applications, delay is comparatively more important than
the others (loss probability, cost, and delay jitter). He
chose bottleneck bandwidth and propagation delay as the
routing metrics. The bottleneck bandwidth is the
minimum of the residual bandwidth of all links on the
path. As the delay has two basic components: queuing
delay and propagation delay, he considered only
propagation delay since queuing delay is already reflected
in the bandwidth metric.
Hence, we implemented a fuzzy optimization model
with two main objectives. The first one is the delay
requirement and the second one is the balancing of the
utilization of the network’s links. The required bandwidth
is included implicitly in the constraints. However, the
model presented in this section is generic and should
apply to other QoS parameter. The model is formulated as
a fuzzy multiobjective model [10]. The used fuzzy
decision is the one proposed by Bellman and Zadeh [1].
4.1. Fuzzy membership functions
dsmin ds dsmax Ds
Figure 1. Fuzzy membership function for delay
Balancing the utilization all over the network’s links
is obviously beneficial to avoid link saturation and
subsequently decrease the possibility of congestion.
Hence, having a balanced load all over the network links
will guarantee low queuing delay and low buffer overflow
probability as well. If Uavg represents the average
utilization of the links in the network, then the
membership function, shown in Figure 2, can be used to
have, as much as possible, the utilization of each link (Ul)
in the vicinity of Uavg. In many cases, the main objective
is not to increase the utilization of each link over Uavg. In
these cases Umin is set to -∞ and hence µl(Ul)=1 for
Ul<Uavg. In the next section, we shall discuss how Uavg can
be predicted from the network topology and average
loads.
µl(Ul)
1

For most applications, particularly real-time ones, the

end-to-end delay is one of the most important QoS
requirements. This delay is supposed to be a specific
value but in most cases, the traffic application can
compromise within a range around the required delay. A
fuzzy membership function can be used to formulate this
Umin Uavg 1 Ul
situation. Assume that it is required to have the delay Ds
in the vicinity of the value ds. Figure 1 depicts the Figure 2. Fuzzy membership function for the
possible shape of the fuzzy membership function µs(Ds). It utilization

Proceedings of the 22nd IEEE Conference on Local Computer Networks (LCN’97)

0-8186-8141-1/97 $10.00 ã 1997 IEEE
 4.2. The Optimization Model The optimization model can then be rewritten as follows:

The fuzzy optimization model can be represented as a max w1 . Z1 + w1 . Z 2

multiobjective programming problem using the fuzzy Such that
decision introduced by Bellman and Zadeh [1] as follow: Z1 ≤ t s ∀s ∈ S
Z2 ≤ tl ∀l ∈ L
D − d s min
max: min{ µs (Ds ) } & min{ µl (Ul )} ∀s ∈S & ∀l ∈L ts ≤ s ∀s ∈ S
d s − d s min
Such that d s max − Ds
Al ≤Cl ∀l ∈L ts ≤ ∀s ∈ S
d s max − d s
∑xrs =1 ∀ p ∈P&∀s ∈S (P1)
U l − U min
(P3)
r∈Rp tl ≤ ∀l ∈ L
xrs =0 or 1 ∀r ∈R&∀s ∈S U avg − U min
1 − Ul
tl ≤ ∀l ∈ L
In P1, the objective is to maximize the minimum 1 − U avg
membership function of all traffic services (classes) delay ∑ x rs = 1 ∀ p ∈ P & ∀ s ∈S
as well as the membership function of the utilization of r ∈R p
all links in the network. The constraints are to guarantee x rs = 0 or 1 ∀r ∈R&∀s ∈S
that no link has a load exceeding its capacity and only ts ≥ 0 ∀s ∈ S
one path is chosen for each service/pair. One of the tl ≥ 0 ∀l ∈ L
possible ways of scalarizing the multiobjective Z1 , Z 2 ≥ 0
programming problem is the weighted maxmin method
[10]. By introducing the auxiliary variables Z1 & Z2, the In this model the capacity constraint (Al≤Cl) has been
problem is to optimize the weighted sum of these ignored since its effect is automatically brought into play
variables as follows: by the constraints of µl . So, the capacity constraints are
handled as penalty functions embedded in the utilization
max w1 . Z1 + w2 . Z2 formula.
Such that
Z1 ≤ µ s ( Ds ) ∀s ∈ S Gerla [6] argued that the queuing delay is not a very
Z2 ≤ µ l (Ul ) ∀l ∈ L (P2) meaningful optimization variable in ATM networks
Al ≤ Cl ∀l ∈L
where it is much less than the propagation delay. He used
∑ xrs = 1 ∀ p ∈P&∀s ∈S the queuing delay only as an indirect measure of buffer
r ∈R p
xrs = 0 or 1 ∀r ∈ R&∀s ∈S overflow probability (to be minimized). Also, a
Z1 , Z2 ≥ 0 computational study showed that it typically makes little
difference whether the cost function used in routing
includes the queuing delay or the much simpler form of
where w1 and w2 are the weighting coefficients assigned
the link utilization [2]. So, from these results we can
to the delay and utilization objectives respectively. From
simplify the delay formula to include only the propagation
the figures (Figures 1, 2):
delay and so significantly reduce the complexity of the
problem.
0 Ds ≤ d s min
 Ds − d s min Dl = dl (11)
 d − d d s min < Ds ≤ d s Fratta [4] defined the balanced network from the
µ s ( Ds ) = t s =  d s s min
− Ds perspective of the requirements of the communicating
 s max d s < Ds ≤ d s max
 d s max − d s source/destination pairs. Assuming that this condition is
 0 Ds > d s max satisfied in the network under investigation, the current
(10) objective is to have homogeneous loads in all links in the
 U l − U min network. Actually having a balanced load all over the
U − U U l ≤ U avg
 avg min network links will guarantee low queuing delay and low
 1 − Ul buffer overflow probability as well. The following
µ l (U l ) = t l =  U avg < U l ≤ 1
 1 − U avg relaxation is used to simplify the model to become zero-
0 Ul > 1 one integer linear programming problem.
 1 1 A +E
U avg = ∑ U l = ∑ l l (12)
L l ∈L L l ∈L Cl

Proceedings of the 22nd IEEE Conference on Local Computer Networks (LCN’97)

0-8186-8141-1/97 $10.00 ã 1997 IEEE
 Without loss of generality, we will assume that Cl is The last term that we add in the objective function is
constant all over the links. So, the normalized weighted summation of the estimated

∑ ( Al + El )
1 1 1 congestion degree of each candidate route, grs. This
U avg = ∑ U l = (13)
L l ∈L L Cl l ∈L estimated degree can be calculated from the list of all
candidate routes known in advance between all
communicating pairs of nodes. For a specific route, it
Also, we can have the following approximation for the
reflects the number of other routes fighting to share its
previous summation:
links. This term is weighted by w2, the same as the

∑ (Al + El ) = T * V
utilization terms because it helps in avoiding congestion.
(14)
l ∈L
Including the estimated congestion degree, grs, as well
as the current load, El, in the model is beneficial in two
where V, as defined before, is the average number of links
perspectives. It allows the model to be applied as a
in the routes connecting all communicating pairs in the
dynamically routing tool. Also, as we will see in the case
network. T, in this case, is not only the total arrival rate of
study, using traditional optimization tools limit the
all commodities to be routed but also the load already
number of the variables in the model. This can be relaxed
routed in the network (the current load in the network.)
by solving the routing problem in multiple stages. In
every stage the model is used to route the traffic between
So, now we have Ds (Equation 8) and Ul (Equation 6)
a subset of the communicating pairs.
as a linear expression in the zero-one variable x. Also,
Uavg is a constant. This makes the proposed optimization
model to be zero-one linear programming.
w1 w
max w1 . Z1 + w2 . Z2 + . ∑ t s + 2 . ∑ tl −
Maximizing the minimum value of membership S ∀s L ∀l
w3 w2
function in fuzzy optimization models is widely used. In
the case of the routing problem and the proposed model
∑ crs . xrs − V. R . S ∑ grs . xrs
V. R . S ∀r , ∀s ∀r , ∀s
this objective is not enough. For example, if we have a
link that is no way to be used in many routes, then it will Such that
be overloaded resulting in poor or small membership Z1 − t s ≤ 0 ∀s ∈ S
Z 2 − tl ≤ 0 ∀l ∈ L
utilization function. This low membership value, with no 1
way to be improved, will make the overall optimization (ds − ds min ) * t s −
Ts
∑ ∑ dl ( yrl λ rs xrs ) ≤ −ds min ∀s ∈ S
process to stop seeking for improvement in the other l∈L r∈R
1
utilization balancing for other links (because there is no (ds max − ds ) * ts +
Ts
∑ ∑ dl ( yrl λ rs x rs ) ≤ ds max ∀s ∈ S
way to maximize the minimum utilization membership l∈L r∈R
function anymore.) 1 1
( * * T * V − Umin ) * t l −
L Cl (P4)
To solve this problem, other terms may be added to
1 E
the objective function. These terms are the normalized ∑ ∑
Cl s∈S r∈R
( yrl λ rs x rs ) ≤ l − Umin
Cl
∀l ∈ L
weighted summation of the membership functions for all
traffic services delay and links utilization. Now we can 1 1 1
make sure that the optimization model will maximize all (1 − * * T * V ) * tl +
L Cl Cl
∑ ∑ ( yrl λ rs xrs )
membership functions as well as the minimum of them. s∈S r∈R
El
This will have the effect of having homogeneously ≤ 1− ∀l ∈ L
distributed traffic in the whole network. Cl

In the model (P4) the normalized weighted summation ∑ xrs = 1 ∀ p ∈ P& ∀ s ∈S

r∈Rp
of the fixed cost assigned to each candidate route, crs, has
x rs ∈ (0,1) ∀r ∈ R&∀ s ∈S
also been added to the objective function to be minimized. ts ≥ 0 ∀ s ∈S
The fixed cost can be the length of the route in hops. This tl ≥ 0 ∀l ∈ L
will help avoid using longer routes just to balance the Z1 , Z2 ≥ 0
utilization. The weighting coefficient for this term is w3.

Proceedings of the 22nd IEEE Conference on Local Computer Networks (LCN’97)

0-8186-8141-1/97 $10.00 ã 1997 IEEE
 5. Tests and results three groups of nodes that communicate with each other
in this study. Each node is allowed to communicate with
Testing the proposed optimization model requires the any other node not in its group. So, we have 40 pairs of
definition of the traffic load. Traffic types can be communicating nodes. These nodes are chosen to cover
classified into three categories [9]. First, we have low- the whole network. The double-sweep algorithm [3, 11] is
latency traffic which consists of small messages, each used to allocate the 12-shortest (in distance) paths
sent as small number of packets. The key performance between each of the communicating pairs.
measure of such traffic is the end-to-end per packet delay.
Second, continuous-rate traffic consists of a continuous
traffic stream with a certain intrinsic rate where the
application does not benefit from bandwidths higher than
this rate; e.g. video traffic. Finally, high-bandwidth traffic
consists of transfers of large blocks of data; e.g. file
transfer. The key performance measure is the average
throughput.

Following Ma [9], our evaluation is based on

distinguishing two loads: low-latency (LL) and high-
bandwidth (HB) traffic. The continuous-rate traffic is
included in the low-latency traffic load. This
classification distinguishes two traffic classes each of Figure 3. Sample network (distances in miles)
them has compatible measures of performance from
routing perspective. The high-bandwidth traffic service
will have 90% of the load assigned to each
communicating nodes pair.
17 1
5.1. Test parameters 22 6
24 10
The following metrics have been used in [12] as a 26 13
comparison basis for routing techniques:

1) minimum number of hops; 15

2) maximum throughput; 18
20
3) minimum delay.

In the proposed model, testing the effect of the

different levels of the weighting coefficients w1, w2, and
w3 will include implicitly the effect of the previous
metrics individually (by setting one or more coefficients
to zero) and with different levels of combinations
between these metrics. The analysis will show the effect
of these combinations on the performance measures.
5.2. Case study
The previous model has been applied to the network
in Figure 3. This topology have been used in
computational experiments in [5]. The CPLEXTM mixed
integer optimizer has been used to solve the model. All
distances are in miles and the capacity of all links is
assumed to be 622Mbps. The propagation delay is
assumed to be 10 ms per 1000 mile. Figure 4 shows the
Figure 4. Communicating pairs
As discussed before, the load is supposed to be from
two traffic services, LL traffic and HB traffic. The test has
been done with different loads into each pair ranging
from 40 Mbps to 140 Mbps, 10% of the load being from
LL traffic and 90% from HB traffic. For LL traffic, dsmin,
ds, and dsmax are chosen to be -∞ ms, 12.5 ms, and 25 ms
respectively. The corresponding values for HB traffic are -
∞ ms, 25 ms, and 50 ms respectively.
5.3. Performance measures
The following are the performance measures reported
by testing the case study:

Proceedings of the 22nd IEEE Conference on Local Computer Networks (LCN’97)

0-8186-8141-1/97 $10.00 ã 1997 IEEE
 - Throughput as a function of the load: It is the number of 29.0
bytes successfully delivered to the destination 28.0
nodes as a percentage of the total load.
27.0
- Link utilization: It is the fraction of the capacity used by
26.0
transferred load.

Delay in msec
25.0
- Load deviation: It is a measure of how the load is
24.0
distributed all over the network links. It is the
23.0
standard deviation of the links utilization.
22.0
- Average propagation delay (ms): It is the propagation
21.0
delay experienced by traffic.
- Average number of hops/path: For all paths used to 20.0

route the load during the measurement interval, 19.0

10 15 20
this is the average number of hops of these paths. Segment Size

5.4. Results and analysis
In Figure 5 and 6, the proposed model has been used
to route a load of 60 Mbps between the communicating
pairs. The weighting coefficients are assigned equal
values of 1, i.e. W=[1 1 1]. The pairs are divided into
segments of size N (number of source/destination pairs
per segment). The model has been tested for different
values of N (10, 15, and 20). From the figures increasing
the segment size has a little effect on the performance.
This is due to taking into consideration while solving the
model for the first segments the degree of estimated
congestion as well as the updated load in the links. This
means that solving the problem using a small segment
size will not affect the results dramatically while it will
decrease dramatically the run time. In our case having 10
pairs per segment (25% of the whole pairs) seems to be a
reasonable choice.
40
35
LL traffic HB traffic
Figure 6. Effect of the Segment size on traffic
delay: W=[1 1 1] and load = 60MB/node
Figures 7 to 12 show the effect of changing the values
of the weighting coefficients. W=[1 1 1] represents the
model in its recommended mode. For W=[0 0 1], the
model will optimize only the number of hops in all routes
to be minimized. Finally, W=[1 0 0], will minimize the
delay of the services in the routes (in this case ds= 0 ms
for both services.)
In Figure 7, for a load of 70 Mbps per each pair, the
throughput as a function of the load is represented. Using
W=[1 1 1 ] we get the highest throughput for all segment
sizes. This is due to the fact that balancing of the load in
all links as a goal while solving for the first segments will
help in avoiding congestion in routing the later segments.
Hence, segment size of 10 is a reasonable choice that
compromises between being a small value and offering
good performance.

30 100

25
Percentage

90
20

15 80
Throughput

10
70
5

0 60
10 15 20
Segment Size

50
Load Deviation Average Utilization 5 10 15 20
Segment Size
Figure 5. Effect of the Segment size on load
W=[1 1 1] W=[0 0 1] W=[1 0 0]
deviation and average utilization
W=[1 1 1] and load=60 MB/node Figure 7. Effect of segment size on throughput
for different W: Load = 70 MB/node

Proceedings of the 22nd IEEE Conference on Local Computer Networks (LCN’97)

0-8186-8141-1/97 $10.00 ã 1997 IEEE
 100 24.00

23.50
90

Delay of LL traffic in msec

23.00
80
Throughput

22.50
70
22.00

60
21.50

50 21.00
60 80 100 120 140 40 50 60
Load per node in MB/sec Load per node in MB/sec

W=[1 1 1] W=[0 0 1] W=[1 0 0] W=[1 1 1] W=[0 0 1] W=[1 0 0]

Figure 8. Effect of different loads/pair on the Figure 10. Effect of different loads/pair on the
throughput for different Ws: Segment Size = 10 delay of LL traffic for different Ws:
Segment size= 10
From Figure 8, for low load value the three modes have
26.00
100% throughput. For higher loads (70 Mbps and 110
25.50
Mbps), the recommended mode has the highest
25.00
throughput because with higher load, resources become Delay of HB traffic in msec
more scarce, and the recommended mode outstands the 24.50

other modes because of its strategy of balancing the load 24.00

that decreases the likelihood of links’ congestion. As the 23.50

load becomes very high (greater than 120 Mbps), the 23.00

performance of the three modes turns poor and almost the 22.50
same. The reason is that with very high loads, all links 22.00
are likely to be congested. 21.50

40 21.00
40 50 60
Load per node in MB/sec
35
W=[1 1 1] W=[0 0 1] W=[1 0 0]
30

Figure 11. Effect of different loads/pair on the

Load Deviation

25
delay of HB traffic for different Ws:
20
Segment size = 10
15

10 The third mode (W=[1 0 0]) has the lowest delay among
the three modes as shown in Figures 10 and 11. One of
5
the objectives of the recommended mode is to have the
0
40 50 60
delay of both traffic classes in the vicinity of their ds
Load per node in MB/sec value. That is why, for this mode, the delay of LL traffic
W=[1 1 1] W=[0 0 1] W=[1 0 0]
is low while for HB traffic is high as required.

Figure 9: Effect of different loads/pair on the
load deviation for different Ws:Segment size = 10
Figure 9 shows that the recommended mode has the
lowest load deviation among the three modes. The other
two modes are almost the same because they do not take
into consideration the balancing of the load among the
network links. In this figure, 10 communicating pairs per
segment are used.
The effect of using the three modes of operation on the
average path length (in hops) is shown in Figure 12. As
expected, the second mode of operation (W=[0 0 1]) has
the lowest average number of hops in the routes as it is its
main function. The third mode has the worst values for
different load while the recommended mode comes in the
middle.

Proceedings of the 22nd IEEE Conference on Local Computer Networks (LCN’97)

0-8186-8141-1/97 $10.00 ã 1997 IEEE
 4.00
3.90
3.80
Average Path Length in hops
3.70
3.60
3.50
3.40
3.30
3.20
3.10
3.00
40 50
Load per node in MB/sec
W=[1 1 1] W=[0 0 1] W=[1 0 0]
Figure 12. Effect of different loads/pair on the
average path length for different Ws:
Segment size = 10
The previous results show that the proposed model in
its recommended mode of operation, i.e. W=[1 1 1], has a
better performance. Without a big loss in the performance
level, it allows to segment the communicating pairs with
the benefit of decreasing the run time. Balancing the load
in all links, by fairly distributing the load all over the
network links, helps in increasing the throughput and
avoiding congestion as well. Also, the chosen routes meet
the delay requirements for each traffic class.
6. Conclusion and future work
In this study, we proposed a fuzzy optimization model
for routing in B-ISDN. The proposed model challenge is
to find routes for flows through paths that are not
hideously expensive, according to the required QoS, and
do not penalize the other flows already existing or
expected to arrive in the network. The fuzzy approach is
an effective tool for quickly obtaining a good compromise
solution. The model is analyzed in terms of performance
under different routing scenarios. We obtained good
improvements in performance compared with the
traditional routing techniques while maintaining a
sufficient low processing overhead. Throughput has been
increased and probability of congestion has been
decreased by balancing the load all over the network
links.
Current work is addressing the solution of the model
using the generalized network model (mathematical
perspective) that has been successfully applied to solve
large-scale zero-one or mixed integer programming. In
this case, the proposed model can be tested as a dynamic
routing tool.
Proceedings of the 22nd IEEE Conference on Local Computer Networks (LCN’97)
0-8186-8141-1/97 $10.00 ã 1997 IEEE
7. References
[1] Bellman and L.A. Zadeh, “Decision-Making in a Fuzzy
Environment”, Management Science, Vol. 17, No. 4,
December 1970, pp. 141-164.
[2] D. Bertsekas and R. Gallager, Data Networks, Prentice-
Hall, Inc., Englewood, New Jersey, 1987.
[3] J.R. Evans and E. Minieka, Optimization Algorithms For
Networks and Graphs, Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York,
1992.
[4] L. Fratta, M. Gerla, and L. Kleinrock, “The Flow
60
Deviation Method: An Approach to Store-and-Forward
Communication Network Design”, Networks, Vol. 3, No.
2, 1973, pp. 97-133.
[5] B. Gavish and I. Neuman, “A System for Routing and
Capacity Assignment in Computer Communication
Networks”, IEEE Transactions on Communications, Vol.
37, No. 4, April 1989, pp. 360-366.
[6] M. Gerla, J.S. Monteiro, and R. Pazos, “Topology Design
and Bandwidth Allocation in ATM Nets”, IEEE Journal
on Selected Areas in Communications, Vol. 7, No. 8,
October 1989, pp. 1253-1262.
[7] A. Iwata, R. Izmailov, D. Lee, B. Sengupta, G.
Ramamurthy, and H. Suzuki, “ATM Routing Algorithms
with Multiple QoS Requirements for Multimedia
Internetworking”, IEICE Transactions on
Communications, Vol. E79-B, No.8, August 1996, pp.
999-1007.
[8] W.C. Lee, M.G. Hluchyi, and P.A. Humblet, “Routing
Subject to Quality of Service Constraints in Integrated
Communication Networks”, IEEE Network, Vol. 9, No. 4,
July/August 1995, pp. 46-55.
[9] Q. Ma, P.Steenkiste, and H. Zhang, “Routing High-
bandwidth Traffic in Max-min Fair Share Networks”,
ACM SIGCOMM’96, CA, USA, August 1996, pp. 206-
217.
[10] M. Sakawa, Fuzzy Sets and Interactive Multiobjective
Optimization, Plenum Press, New York, 1993.
[11] D.R. Shier, “On Algorithms for Finding the k-shortest
Paths in a Network”, Networks, Vol.9, No. 3, Fall 1979,
pp.195-214.
[12] R. Vogel, R.G. Herrtwich, W. Kalfa, H. Wittig, and L.C.
Wolf, “QoS-Based Routing of Multimedia Streams in
Computer Networks”, IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in
Communications, Vol. 14, No. 7, September 1996, pp.
1235-1244.
[13] Z. Wang and J. Crowcroft, “Quality-of-Service Routing
for Supporting Multimedia Applications”, IEEE Journal
on Selected Areas in Communications, Vol. 14, No. 7,
September 1996, pp. 1228-1234.
[14] L.A. Zadeh, “Fuzzy Sets”, Information and Control, Vol.
8, 1965, pp.338-353.
[15] H.J. Zimmermann, Fuzzy Sets, Decision Making, and
Expert Systems, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston,
1987.