Revisiting p-Cycles / FIPP p-Cycles vs. Shared Link / Path Protection

Abstract

While the advantages of p-cycles and FIPP p-cycles are well established, there has been no systematic analysis of how much bandwidth they consume in comparison with the shared link or path protection schemes. It was also recently observed that, even enumerating a huge number of cycles is not necessarily a guarantee for obtaining good quality solutions with the classical ILP models if tools for large scale programming such as, e.g., column generation techniques, are not used. For instance, a reduction of up to 37% of the solution cost for FIPP p-cycles can be obtained when using column generation instead of classical ILP modeling. We propose to investigate the bandwidth protection costs of p-cycles and FIPP p-cycles in comparison with those of shared link and path protection, using column generation models for the four protection schemes, and therefore obtaining the optimal values for all of them, out of any doubt. Accurate quantitative comparisons show that the average excess required bandwidth is about 6.6% for p-cycles and about 13.4% for FIPP p-cycles in exchange of a much faster restoration time.978-1-4244-2390-3/08/$25.00 ©2008 IEEE

Design of efficient node p-cycles in WDM mesh networks

“…In this section, we evaluate the performances of the newly proposed scheme for node protection using p-cycles (node p-cycles), and compare it with three other schemes: (i) the OG p-cycle scheme of [2] (OG p-cycle) using a column generation reformulation as described in Section 5; (ii) the path p-cycle scheme using the model of Section 6; (iii) the link p-cycle scheme corresponding to the original p-cycles using the column generation model of [5]. Note that the column generation does not change the models initially proposed (in relation with the constraint set), but only the scalability of the solution process.…”

“…Most studies on FIPP p-cycles did not pay attention to node protection, but merely to path versus link protection with respect to bandwidth requirements, as in [13,5,14]. FIPP p-cycle design may vary from one study to the next (see [4] for a thorough analysis of their differences).…”

“…Path p-cycles are known to be more capacity efficient than link p-cycles in the context of protection against a single link failure [5,14]. With respect to single node failures, to the best of our knowledge, comparisons can only be found in [2], where the solution methods are heuristics.…”

Improved availability models for p-cycle-based network design

“…Several approaches have therefore been designed for preselecting a promising set of candidate cycles [13], [14], [15]. More recently, pcycle network design without cycle enumeration [12] and dynamic generation of promising cycles using column generation method [16] have also been introduced in the literature. Clearly, the model ApC is not scalable if we consider an off-line explicit enumeration of all p-cycles.…”

Link failure recovery in large arbitrary networks via network coding

“…The column generation technique is also applied to the p-cycle protection [20] and SPP [21] problems resulting in significant time and memory savings. It is a better fit to diversity coding technique than p-cycle protection and SPP since, in diversity coding, there is a single subproblem that generates coding groups.…”