Placement of Integration Points in Multi-hop Community Networks Ranveer Chandra (Cornell University)...
-
date post
20-Dec-2015 -
Category
Documents
-
view
217 -
download
1
Transcript of Placement of Integration Points in Multi-hop Community Networks Ranveer Chandra (Cornell University)...
Placement of Integration Pointsin Multi-hop Community Networks
Ranveer Chandra (Cornell University)
Lili Qiu, Kamal Jain and Mohammad Mahdian (Microsoft Research)
2
MotivationCommunity networks
(Houses cooperate in multi-hop network for Internet access)
Internet
ITAP(Expensive!)
How many ITAPs will satisfy demands of a neighborhood?
3
Related Work
• Placement of server replicas, proxies– Web servers, internet measurement, file servers– Facility location problem
Handles locality without link capacity constraints
Does not consider impact of wireless interference
• Clustering Approach (Bejerano ’02)Only works for a TDMA MAC
4
Our Contributions
We propose placement algorithms that:– Are close to optimal– Work with a general MAC– Take wireless interference into account– Are optimized for changing workload– Provide fault tolerance to ITAP and link failures
5
Outline
• Motivation and Related Work
• Problem Formulation– Three link models with increasing realism
• Placement Algorithms
• Advanced Features
6
Mapping to a Graph
Nodes: houses and possible ITAP locations
Edges determined by either:– A connectivity graph given by Internet provider– Supplied signal and propagation characteristics– Simplified wireless connectivity model
edge (i, j) if and only if distance (i, j) CR,
where CR is the communication range
7
Reducing Search SpaceThe entire search space for ITAPs is intractable
Our Approach: • Form equivalence classes
– Locations covering the same houses are equivalent• Prune redundant classes
– Prune class if another class covers all its houses
H1 H2
H3
E1E2
E3
E4
E5
E6E7 Since E7 covers all the houses,
prune all other equivalence classes
Use a node for each remaining equivalence class
8
Problem FormulationGiven:
– A community with N houses– House demand: dh h– Link capacity : Cape e– House capacity: Caph h– ITAP capacity : Capi i
Goal: Minimize num ITAPs to serve all demands
A
B
C
CapA
CapB
CapAC
CapBC
CapCD
CapC
ITAPX
CapX
Internet
9
Simple Interference ModelsIdeal link model:
– Throughput unaffected by path length (# hops)– Possible by using smart antennas, multiple radios
1 2 3 4
Flow from 1 to 4, f bps < Cap12
f f f
10
General link model: – Throughput depends path length (# hops)– Simplifications of current day radios– Bounded Hop-count Model
• Throughput unaffected if path length < thresh, else 0
Simple Interference ModelsIdeal link model:
– Throughput unaffected by path length (# hops)– Possible by using smart antennas, multiple radios
1 2 3 4
Flow from 1 to 4, f bps < Cap12 and thresh = 4
f f f
1 2 3 4
Flow from 1 to 4, f bps < Cap12 and thresh = 2
0 0 0
11
General link model: – Throughput depends path length (# hops)– Simplifications of current day radios– Bounded Hop-count Model
• Throughput unaffected if path length < thresh, else 0
Simple Interference ModelsIdeal link model:
– Throughput unaffected by path length (# hops)– Possible by using smart antennas, multiple radios
– Smooth Degradation Model• Throughput degrades by 1/k for path of length k
1 2 3 4
Flow from 1 to 4, f bps < Cap12
f/3 f/3 f/3
12
Outline
• Motivation and Related Work
• Problem Formulation
• Placement Algorithms– Placement algorithms: Ideal Link Model– Placement algorithms: General Link Model
• Advanced Features
13
Ideal Link ModelGoal
Find minimum number of ITAPs that satisfies all demands
Results
• The above problem is NP-hard • The best polynomial approximation algorithm
– ln(N) worst-case unless P=NP
14
Greedy Algorithm
A
B
C
Set of houses
1 211 2
Opened ITAP locations
All possible ITAP locations
Main Idea
1. Initial set of opened ITAPs is null
2. Iterate over all ITAPs, and apply greedy step – Select ITAP satisfying the greatest demand
3. Add selected ITAP to set of opened ITAPs
4. Loop through steps 2 and 3 until all demands satisfied
15
Greedy AlgorithmMain Idea
1. Initial set of opened ITAPs is null
2. Iterate over all ITAPs, and apply greedy step – Select ITAP satisfying the greatest demand
3. Add selected ITAP to set of opened ITAPs
4. Loop through steps 2 and 3 until all demands satisfied
A
B
C
Set of houses Opened ITAP locations
All possible ITAP locations
1 211 2
2
16
Greedy StepCan be mapped to a max flow min cut problem• Handle house demands: Add a virtual source• Handle ITAP capacities: Add a virtual sink
A
B
C
1
2
Cap
AB
Cap
BC
S
dA
dB
dC
CapA1
CapB1
CapC2
T
Cap1
Cap2
CapB2
17
CIN
BIN
Greedy StepCan be mapped to a max flow min cut problem• Handle house demands: Add a virtual source• Handle ITAP capacities: Add a virtual sink• Handle house capacities: Split the house nodes
AIN
1
2
Cap
AB
Cap
BC
S
dA
dB
dC
CapA1
CapB1
CapC2
T
Cap1
Cap2
CapB2
AOUT
BOUT
COUT
d A
dB
dC
CapA1
CapB1
CapC2
CapB2
CapA
CapB
CapC
CapBC
CapBA
CapAB
CapCB
Select ITAP that gives max flow from S to T
18
Ideal Link Model: Algorithms
• Greedy placement– ln(N) worst-case bound (best possible in worst-case)
• Cluster-based placement– Partition network nodes into minimum number of disjoint clusters– Place an ITAP in each cluster
• Random placement– Randomly open an ITAP iteratively until all demands are satisfied
• Lower bound– Relax the integer constraints and solve the relaxed LP problem
19
Varying communication radius
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 10 20 30 40 50
Communication Radius (m)
# IT
AP
s
greedy cluster random lower bound
100 nodes, Cape 6 Mbps, Capi 100 Mbps, dh 1 Mbps
20
General Link Model
Problem is NP-Hard. Use Greedy heuristic• Main idea
– iteratively open ITAP to maximize satisfied demand
• The Greedy step– Formulate a linear program (not efficient)– Develop better algorithms for two special cases:
• bounded hop-count • smoothed throughput degradation
21
Greedy Step• Bounded hop-count
– Modify Ford-Fulkerson method for max-flow – ignore augmenting paths > hop-count threshold
• Smooth throughput model (throughput = 1/L)– Goal: max piP 1/|pi|, where
• P is the set of all the augmenting paths in the graph
– Observation: prefer imbalance in path lengths– Approach: iteratively pick shortest augmenting path
22
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 5 10 15 20
hop-count threshold
# IT
AP
s
greedy cluster random lower bound
Bounded-hop count100 nodes, Cape 6 Mbps, Capi 100 Mbps, dh 1 Mbps, CR 10 m
23
Smooth degradation
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 10 20 30 40 50communication radius (m)
# IT
AP
s
greedy random lower bound
100 nodes, Cape 6 Mbps, Capi 100 Mbps, dh 1 Mbps
24
Outline
• Motivation and Related Work
• Problem Formulation
• Placement Algorithms
• Advanced Features
25
Changing Demands
• Problem– Place ITAPs to handle changing demands
• User demands exhibit periodicity (e.g. diurnal pattern)
• Greedy algorithm – max(Xi/ Yi), where
• Xi is satisfied demand in period i, and
• Yi is the total demand in period i
– ln(kN) worst-case bound, where k is number of periods
26
Fault Tolerance Considerations
• Problem– Ensure Internet connectivity when nodes and link fail
• Approach– Control parameters
• Number of independent paths: p• Over-provisioning factor: all paths allocate f/d capacity
– Compute satisfied demands using LP– Greedy algorithm gives good results
27
Conclusion
• First ITAP placement study for general MAC• Design ITAP placement algorithms for
– Three wireless throughput models– handling periodically changing demands– providing fault-tolerance
• Showed efficiency using simulations, analyses• Greedy algorithms are near optimal in all cases
28
Thank you
29