2015 International Conference on Cyber-Enabled Distributed Computing and Knowledge Discovery

k -Maximally Disjoint Path Routing Algorithms for

SDN
John Olorunfemi Abe
Istanbul Technical University
Department of Computer Engineering
Maslak, Istanbul, Turkey
joabe@itu.edu.tr
Haci Ali Mantar
Gebze Technical University
Department of Computer Engineering
Gebze, Kocaeli, Turkey
hamantar@gyte.edu.tr
Aysegul Gencata Yayimli
Istanbul Technical University
Department of Computer Engineering
Maslak, Istanbul, Turkey
gencata@itu.edu.tr

Abstract—The problem of path optimization and k disjoint
pairs are important in survivable, QoS-aware communication
network and SDN controlled networks. While the problem of
optimally solving for maximally link-disjoint path pairs have
always received a good level of attention, more work is needed
with respect to k-maximally disjoint, multi-constrained, multi-
ple QoS link weights route provisioning, and efficient hybrid
algorithms for the problem. We propose a model algorithm to
find k-maximally link-disjoint paths with Cost (kMDPC) for QoS
routing with respect to source and destination pairs that ensures
reliability, flexibility, and survivability. The computational com-
plexity of our algorithm is efficient with the use of a modified
Dijkstra’s algorithm. The maximum k numbers of paths are
maximally disjoint paths for survivability, robustness and also
at the long run to satisfy a multiple set of defined QoS weight
value constraints. The multiple QoS constraints addressed by the
heuristic algorithm are of the delay, delay-jitter, bandwidth, link
length and link cost parameter. In polynomial time, kMDPC
finds very high number of average maximally disjoint paths.
The path diversity through the paths disjointness capabilities for
the SDN data-plane, provided by kMDPC will also help in the
switch load-balancing, Controller load-balancing and multiple
flow tables management by the SDN since the provisioned paths
are with the required QoS.
Index Terms—QoS Routing, link Disjoint Paths, Reliable
Routing, SDN, Constraint-Based Routing
I. I NTRODUCTION
In the past two decades we now have high increase in
mobility-enabled devices, the Internet-of-Things (IoT) enabled
systems, communication and telecommunication networks.
This increase has brought out the need for high-level manage-
ment of backbone and core nodes with respect to user-centric
and programmable paths [26]. The management is needed
not just in the control hardware oriented fashion, but now in
the software oriented mode. The need, also include multipath
routing that provides application-aware system, load balancing
and better traffic engineering [26], [23]. The Software-Defined
Networking (SDN) paradigm is enabling a software-oriented
control of core networks and can centralize path routing. As
traffic pattern changes dynamic provisioning of paths could
be done with cached path in the brokering system for SDN.
The high volume of Internet users, increase in traffic oriented
system and users with high mobility has enabled bandwidth
hungry applications that give rise to the need of software
defined networking (SDN). For a new technology system like
SDN, there is also the new mode of SDN-OpenFlow Traffic
management and control, especially in the system of routing
of flows from the SDN controller or controllers. Also, it is to
be noted that a good number of IoT applications, emerging
e-business applications and mobile application have the need
of high Quality of Service (QoS) systems of operation [13],
[14], [29]. For traffic-aware networks and system, there exists
more work that needs to be made for link-disjoint paths so
as to achieve high reduction in admission control time and
multipath failures or errors, not just at the node or core routers
or core equipment but, also along the computed paths [3], [6],
[11].
One of the missing links in existing multipath routing
algorithms is the lack of consideration of k number of paths
that has specific levels of disjointness. The level of disjointness
and stretch are considered in this work so as to use it for
load balancing advantage. Load equalization or balancing in
a densely populated network may be achieved by distribut-
ing the traffic between a given source node and destination
across multiple disjoint ways. This load equalization reduces
congestion within the network and additionally reduces the
likelihood of packet loss which effectively reduces the energy
consumption of the network system [13], [15]. With the advent
of programmable control planes through the SDN-Controller
(SDNC) enabled with the bandwidth brokering service we
can now have user-aware programmable paths.These paths
can be used for user-centric application or flows and be pre-
established multipath paths (PMP) used by the SDNC to
perform admission control of flows as well as routing [32].
Hybrid routing is envisioned in SDN and this constitutes a
combination of static and dynamic routing [23]. KMDP with
QoS costs (KMDPC) like delay, bandwidth that are ordered
with respect to disjointness and stretch will help with the
load balancing system of the core network. The KMDPC
will enable multiple paths provisioning for flows that could
be split and thereby used existing paths that are of low
utilization [26]. The highly needed QoS is not only in the
hardware controlled system, but, also in the SDN controlled
systems and management as in [30] where the SDNC has a
topology abstraction of the WAN. These scenarios show the
advantages of SDN with respect to high QoS, but there is
a high need of path and flow management. This is achieved
through the provision of k-maximally disjoint paths for flows
so as to effectively optimize network resources utilization to
the advantages of admission control, traffic classification and
load balancing [26], [29], [37]
Basically, maximum k-number of maximally disjoint paths
of link will increase reliable delivery of data; offer resilience
to failure; scale back congestion within the network; provides

978-1-4673-9200-6/15 $31.00 © 2015 IEEE 499

DOI 10.1109/CyberC.2015.45
scalability of packet arrival and helps in load equalization
in emerging networks that provide traffic for high data rate.
Reliable delivery of data network packets or flows or streams
of packets may be achieved by sending the concerned data
between a given source node and destination node on the
multiple disjoint paths of links. As concerned with our work
and in general, Constraint Based Routing (CBR) paths are
selected based on the QoS weight value (or also known as
link weight) of the needed flow for the respective SDN. Pre-
computed or cached path routing based systems are very much
favourable since it possesses a high response time [13], [16].
The high processing and storage overhead that occurs are to
be processed by the SDNC.
Concisely, we make the following contributions:
• This work is to find a multipath solution to achieve
improvement of QoS with k-maximally disjoint paths
(KMDPC) of source to destination in SDN controlled
communication networks (CN) as proposed needed in
[37]. Our work could give pre-computed, proactive rout-
ing that is also called PMP or path caching approaches
to centrally controlled network or SDNC routing.
K
• The algorithms proposed is of the scale of O(2 (mi )) ∗
(Elog((n) + nm)) + O(log(2K (mi ))) + O(2K (mi )))
order.
• We have a set of kMDPC that are ordered in their level
of disjointness and stretch for the choice of SDNC for
several or specific user-centric routing of flows.
The main disadvantage of this method with respect to
dynamic, real time traffic or route change is mitigated by
providing a high number of k-maximally disjoint paths for
a respective source destination pair of nodes to SDNC which
can be used for dynamic provisioning as required.
The structure of this paper is as follows. An overview of
related work is given in Section II. Our formal model and
methodology are defined in Section III. In Section IV we
develop a heuristic approach for multi-constrained problem
of the work and provide proposed algorithms for detecting k-
maximally disjoint paths with the use of partial order sets and
dominance characteristics. Furthermore, we discuss network
augmentation to make the network more resilient against
load balancing and survivability issues. Also, we discuss the
complexity of the proposed algorithms in the worst case
scenario. We also give the simulation test and result in Section
V and the Concluding remarks are given in Section VI.
II. R ELATED WORKS
The work in [31] proposed a multipath routing using frac-
tional Brownian motion (fBm) to model the traffic so as to
get a reduced average delay in the network. The work only
considered self-similar traffic which are not necessarily what
is experienced in the core network especially with SDN. Path
and routers are selected based on a N-selection game in the
work. The work in [25] provides proactive failure recovery
scheme to provide maximally disjoint paths but without using
the primary path for a source- destination pair. The scheme
is based upon the work on fast recovery with respect to
disjoint pairs using Multiple Routing Configurations(MRC).
The work did not consider maximally disjoint paths also. In
a method proposed in [35], we have reliability and delay
500
as a constraint to also obtain k ≥ 1 using the Lagrange-
relaxation approximate solution. This is done by converting
the two constraints to one using weighted function. Our work
consider maximally disjoints paths and the heuristics can be
used for more than two constraints of a Network.
[34] present an approximate algorithm to minimize the
number of paths so as to distribute flows in a network such
as MPLS or Open-Flow. The minimization of the number of
paths used to effectively feed a source-destination pair also
maintains low delay and endeavour to avoid bottleneck in the
network. Our work differs in that we seek an effective load
balancing algorithm that is also scalable in the Open-Flow
system. We are also considering MPLS based or Open-Flow
or SDNC network in our work. Our work produces paths in
the order of disjointness and Stretch so that a minimal amount
could be selected by the SDNC. The algorithm by Bhandari
et al. in [4]–[6] present an approach on how to compute the
shortest link-disjoint route between pairs. The algorithm finds
out a shortest combination of two disjoint paths. The algorithm
involves a set of two runs of a shortest path algorithm like
modified Dijkstra or the BFS algorithm. Then, the algorithm
uses a graph transformation on the primary shortest path
to form disjointness. In the model, Dijkstra’s algorithm is
applied solely to non-negative graphs with no cycles. The
graph transformation need to be done so that the resultant
graph becomes a graph with negative weights, however, with
no cycles.
Generally, in link or node disjoint research works, graph
transformation that is done varies with respect to whether
or not link disjoint or node disjoint methods are required
[26], [27], [31]. Mostly, the transformation is to attain link
disjointness in the graph which includes replacement of every
arc of the shortest path by one arc directed towards the source
node vertex and by creating the length of every arcs higher
than other negative arcs. Also, to attain node disjoint methods,
the graph transformation includes splitting of vertices on the
primary shortest path.
In [4], Suurballe’s algorithm does construction of k = 2 so-
lutions of minimum cost link-disjoint paths using the shortest
path approach with an augmentation of path on the second run
of the algorithm. The major difference between [4] and [7] is
the presentation of a new algorithm based on [4] in [7] that
did an implicit implementation of finding the two link-disjoint
paths for a given graph. It has an improvement in that a single
run of Dijkstra’s algorithm will produce the two pair of link-
disjoint paths. The basic distinction between the Suurballe’s
algorithm and Bhandari’s algorithms is with respect to the
transformation of the graph. Suurballe work performs a graph
transformation that ensures that any graph has a resultant graph
that is with non-negative edges so that Dijkstra algorithm
is applied over the resultant graph to compute the shortest
pairs of paths. Bhandari’s graph transformation results in a
negative graph, however, with no cycles. As a result of this
Bhandari uses a modified Dijkstra algorithm over the resultant
transformed graph to produce computation for the shortest
pairs of paths. Also, reference [22], describes the Maximally
Disjoint Shortest and Widest Paths (MADSWIP) algorithm.
They present a complete description, along with a proof of
correctness and the theory behind MADSWIP. The MADSWIP
algorithm efficiently computes pairs of maximally disjoint
paths from a source node to all destination nodes, such that the
pair to each destination has either minimum cost or maximum
bandwidth.
With the level of work done on link-disjoint paths for QoS
routing or management there exists a number of solutions that
address a part of the problem that exists in the formation
for different types of network. In reference [1], Guo et al.
present the extension of the link-disjoint version of Bhandari’s
Algorithm (BMDA) by applying some multiple constraint
shortest paths routing algorithm based on the concept of non-
linear path length, k-shortest path routing and non-dominance.
The work improved on MLBA by proposing a heuristic
algorithm DIMCRA for the multiple constraint link-disjoint
path pair. But DIMCRA’s solution could not give optimal
solutions, especially with respect to maximally disjointness.
The references [4], [7] shows the construction of link-disjoint
paths for k = 2 using augmentation of graph G since we could
view the problem as a minimum cost flow in a network.
In [9] the algorithm finds the maximum number of k-link-
disjoint path with minimum total length between two nodes
in a multi-graph. The maximal number of these paths was
determined through the use of the Max-flow Min-cut or Ford-
Fulkerson theorem. The edges used in the algorithm are of
unit arc length and unit arc capacity. A graph transformation
is done with respect to the directed multi-graph and then,
Suurballe’s algorithm is run on the new transformed simple
graph. Reference [11] works on the process of mapping
and creation of Shared Protection of the Largest Individual
Traversed link (SPLIT) for the survivability in mesh networks
by the differential-delay constraint (DDC) and multi-path
provisioning algorithm; the algorithm was also compared with
k-shortest link-disjoint paths (KDP).
III. T HE MODEL AND M ETHODOLOGY
We start with the presentations of critical assumptions and
then the problem and models involves in solving for k-
maximally disjoint paths. One of the main issues in SDN
controlled system is that paths formation or pre-establishment
is to have a condition whereby computed maximally disjoint
pairs of paths from source to destinations does not have a set
of links with low resource availability. It could be in a very
low probability of occurrence, but it is desired to be low and
manageable to a good extent. For example, a pair of disjoint
paths between a given source node and destination node offer
resilience to failure by considering the first available path as
primary path and therefore the second path as restoration path
and other k2 paths for load balancing. In the event of a failure,
multipath routing algorithms could offer not just method for
survivability, but also for energy savings.
Disjoint paths could either be link-disjoint or node-disjoint.
In some basic sense, a path of links is link-disjoint if there exist
no common links in between them and also a pairs of paths
of links is node-disjoint if there exists no common nodes in
the pairs. In the research works on a set of node-disjoint paths
there seems to be a lag on the works for link-disjoint paths to
a good level of analysis hence part of the need for this work of
k-maximally disjoint paths for energy management reduction
or traffic-aware network [8].
Our first set of analysis is based on a one-commodity or
constraint-based graph network, which is basically link cost
501
Fig. 1: Reversed path with negative magnitude of QoS scaled
parameter on the Path P1 = ADF EZ and forward edge on
each path with added β (in the figures a = β ) as a penalty
parameter
as in line with most of the research work. But it should be
noted that when two commodities or constraints is added to
the network the solutions becomes NP-Complete and we will
tend to use heuristic algorithms and methods. The bandwidths
to be considered at the two levels of constraints will be
that of a residual bandwidths. The residual bandwidth is the
bandwidth that is available on the link for the proposed piece
of maximally link-disjoint path for a source destination pair
at the time of request. Also link delay-jitter could be used for
the QoS weight value considerations.
A. Assumptions
Some of the basic assumptions in our work is that the
network is of a graph G that is of non-negative QoS constraints
or link weights. We also assume a multi-digraph network with
respect to some of our scenarios and unidirectional graph
networks that do not change very dynamically over a span
of time. We assume that the change in QoS weight value for
each link of a path is stable for an instance of time that a
flow request will be serviced by the SDN system. Although
we have constraints that have characteristics of multiplicative,
additive and concave functions; we assume at an instance of
time that our calculations of QoS characteristic metrics are
additive as the case may be, otherwise it will be strictly stated
and considered as in [1], [12]. The network model assumes
that traffic with an average of inter-arrival time with Poisson
characteristic is flowing into the network. Statistically from
the past, we also assume that the SDNC, knows the average
size of its traffic (both real-time and non-real-time traffic).
B. Network Model
The model that is used is that of a modified Dijkstra
algorithm, but with opportunity for negative edge [6], [15].
Also, the negative reversed link or QoS weight that is used in
graph transformation after a first run of the Algorithm 1 is to
help in energy or load balancing in the other direction of the
concerned link. The new "forward edge" of the transformed
graph also is to discourage the use of that link in the used
direction or provisioned link. As in Fig. 2, the "forward
edge" here is the edge AD towards the "destination" while
the reversed edge is DA towards the "source" after finding
path ADFEZ.
As we run the algorithm on unidirectional links of the same
graph as an example, there will be changes with respect to
forward edges becoming an infinity QoS weight value. The

Fig. 2: An unidirectional example graph. No forward edge or
reversed edge on this case (a = β )
infinity value is to discourages the algorithms not to use
that edge for subsequent flow since a flow has been served
on it. For bidirectional links, we will also use a multiplier
constant value of γ = 1, 2, 3, 4 for the calculation of β the
QoS additive-discouraged cost parameter for forward edges.
We could also use the values of QoS weight values of Qi at
each run of KMDPC Algorithm 1. Basically, the QoS additive
discouraged-cost or penalty is to enforce the usage of other
paths so as to create a load balancing scenario and if well
modelled for traffic-aware management. Since the problem of
finding the k-maximum disjoint paths for a source destination
is NP-hard [1], [5], [8], and with just one level of constraint
characteristic is not solvable in polynomial time; we relax
the solution first by not putting constraints like the minimum
multiple weight of QoS values. Our algorithm could be used
with graphs that have negative weights with respect to QoS
cost.
C. Modified Dijkstra algorithm(MDA)
The main characteristic of Dijkstra algorithm that made it
suitable for QoS routing and used in our work is that it is
used by the hop by hop protocols of Internet routing and
the optimal scalability advantage of the algorithm. Since large
network and SDN controlled network are scalability problem-
prone, then using a Modified Dijkstra algorithm helps reduce
worst case computational time of source to destination routing.
This is done on graphs of the same characteristic with routing
using most times a full tree optimal paths. Generally, it takes a
greedy approach computation for Dijkstra’s algorithm to find
the shortest path between a source destination pair or from a
source to any other destination.
The main difference between the traditional Dijkstra
algorithm and the modified Dijkstra algorithm is that in
the original Dijkstra, when we have a vertex with the least
length and it is selected, then it is said to be permanently
labeled. This means that the shortest length of the concerned
node from the source node has been found and cannot
change. It also means that no further scanning from any
other vertex can update the label of this vertex with respect
to the distance from Source node. In the Bhandari Modified
Algorithm, we have to keep already labeled node from the
source to be evaluated again if there is a negative arc in the
path. This means that any set of node that has been labeled
permanent are also included in the updated set S. This case is
particularly useful when there are negative arcs in the disjoint
path construction problem.
502
Parameters
Pn Number of paths available for the SDNC at an
instance
Sr All resources(bandwidth,network state, etc.) for
path formation for a Request or Demand
Ri Flow or demand request for paths
BM DA Bhandari Modified Dijkstra Algorithm [6]
Cf QoS Cost function value that is the minimum
needed for the request or demand
γ multiplicative factor serving as a penalty so that
request for path formation along the applied link
is discouraged. [6] suggest γ = 4. This value
is assumed to be for additive QoS parameters
and when otherwise (multiplicative or concave) we
convert the QoS to additive function as in [36]
Qi QoS value or parameter
G an weighted graph denoting the network.

β additive parameter where β = γ Qi
G weighted auxiliary transformed graph from G with
path Pi reversed and negative QoS parameters.
New forward path QoS as Qi + β
−Qi a reversed path with negative QoS value
mi QoS cost or link weight value of path in the set i.
With two QoS path, we pick the first set as i = 1
and second set as i = 2
Pi a general set of paths containing shortest edge-
disjoint paths from s to d using BMDA .
Pir Request-set containing k-shortest edge-disjoint
paths from s to d using BMDA to find shortest
path with needed QoS .
F Vs (d) Set containing the k-MDPC from s to d using
Algorithm 2 for each si -di pairs
PiD (mi1 , mi2 ) Sets of Two-QoS arranged paths in the order of
Dominance.
QSR Two-QoS(m1 , m2 ) path focal point to use to find
the level of dominance with respect to other paths
Lc The centre point to use as reference to do path dom-
inance ordering or upper bounding with respect to
other paths. In Fig. 4 example, Lc = (0, 3)
τ Stretch of path i with respect to another path j
equals. It is used to find least hop counts paths.
|P −P |
φ Disjointness ( = (1 − i |P i−k )) of path i with
i|
respect to another path k . It is used to choose
better paths for load balancing etc.
CfR (m1 , m2 ) upper bound QoS with respect to the demand or
request .
CTSDN C
otal (PT otal ) QoS cost function from history by the SDNC at
the instance with respect to all paths.
D. MDA for k-Link disjoint path on a unidirectional network
Considering the link disjoint modifications after the first
run and we have negative edges from the modified graph
G, rescanning the vertex or node can update the label or
QoS weight value of this vertex node of Modified Dijkstra
algorithm [4], [15]. This is a slight modification of the original
Dijkstra algorithm. This algorithm differs from the normal
Dijkstra’s algorithm since it enables negative paths to be
evaluated and scan all the neighbourhood nodes of a selected
node at a point of the run. For Fig. 2, let us run the Algorithm
1 so as to get the k-number of maximally disjoint paths from
source node A to destination node Z. On the unidirectional
graph, using the Algorithm 1, we have P1 = ADF EZ with
QoS cost value of 5. A second run with the modified graph and
an additional QoS weight value of β = 180 added to first path,
but with no reverse of the link yields the new Path P2 = AF Z
with cost value of 12. Also, Path P3 = ABDECZ with cost
value of 7 + 1 + 3 + 1 + 10 = 22.
The relax characteristic of the MDA will make it to choose
the better QoS value since it will always do a neighbourhood
or adjacent search and not a complete greedy approach as the
 Algorithm 1: k-maximally Disjoint Path with Cost function Algorithm 2: k-maximally Disjoint Paths (F Vs (d)) with 2 QoS
(kMDPC) Algorithm weight Cost functions (kMDPC) Algorithm
Function:KMDPC Function:kMDPC(mi );
Input: (Graph G(V, E), Request R (s,d,Cf )) Input: G(V,E), Request: R (s, d, Cf (m1 , m2 )), Algorithm 1
Output: k-MDPC Output: k-MDPC with Cf (m1 , m2 )
1 For Ri = ∅) ∧ CTSDN C
otal (PT otal ) > Cf (Pi ) then
2 Run (BMDA_Path_Pi ); 1 For Ri (mij ) = ∅) ∧ CTSDN C R
otal (PT otal ) > Cf (m1 , m2 ) then
3 Pir ← Select_Set_BMDA_Path Pi ; 2 1
Run (Algorithm 1 Pi ((2 ))); K
4 K ← 1, 2, . . . , k; 3 Pir (m1 ) ← Select_Set_Algorithm 1 Pi1 ((2K ));
5 Update (Pir ) 4 Update (Pir (m1 ))
6 while (negative_BMDA_Path_(Pi ) = true) do
5 Run (Algorithm 1 Pi2 (2K ));
7 G ← G ;
8 Run (BMDA_Path_Pi ); 6 Pir (m2 ) ← Select_Set_Algorithm 1 Pi2 (2K );
9 Update (Pir ) then 7 Update (Pir (m2 ))
10 if (Pir < k) do 8 do plot((Pir (m1 )), (Pir (m2 ))) on_Cartesian then
11 go to Step 7 9 Find PiD (mi1 , mi2 );
12 else 10 ∀ (Pir (m1 )), (Pir (m2 )) do
13 if (number_of _Pi ) < k then 11 QSR_Cf (m1 , m2 ) ← (mi1 − Lc(mi ))2
14 go to Step 23 +(mi2 − Lc(m2 ))2
15 else 12 if((mi1 ) − Lc(mi ))2 + (mi2 − Lc(m2 ))2
16 if (Pir ≥ k) then < QSR_(CfR (m1 , m2 ) ← true then
17 Accommodate (Ri );
18 Update (Sr ); 13 Update PiD (mi1 , mi2 );
19 Return k-MDPC; 14 while (PiD (mi1 , mi2 ) = ∅) then
20 end if 15 ∀PiD (mi1 , mi2 ) do
21 end if 16 Update Pir (mi1 , mi2 );
22 end if 17 if ∃ Same_Dominance_Path then
23 end if 18 Run φ disjointness_of_paths
24 end for 19 else
20 if Same_φP = ∅ ∧ F vs (d) = k then
|Pi−k |
21 Call τ = ( |P )
i|
22 else   r
Dijkstra’s Algorithm. Also the next path P4 = ADCZ with 23 if ( Pir (mi1 , mi2 ) ⊆ ∨ ∈ Pi ) then
i
Accommodate( Ri (mj ));
QoS weight cost value of 376 etc. It is of a note that the 24
25 Update Sr ;
increase in the value of the QoS weight value that is imposed 26 Output kMDPC(mi )
on the link of a discovered path could be additive even for 27 else
QoS value like probability of loss values of a link, which can 28 go to Step 2
29 else
be converted to logarithm scale, which makes it a form of an 30 end if
additive QoS value. 31 end if
Since there are no negative cycles, a suitable shortest path 32 end if
33 end while
algorithm like the modified Dijkstra algorithm or the BFS 32 end if
algorithm could be used for the construction of the disjoint 33 end for
paths. For the forward arcs, we put a near infinity cost or
length to that path. This construction of the forward path will
help to make the traversal to be impossible when disjoint paths
exists. It also helps in the determination of the maximally Qi + β but also noting the former values Qi + β with respect
disjoint paths with either least cost or length or other metrics to that particular link. Consequently, for example, the path D
of concerned when such path do not exist. now has forward Qi link cost of β − 1 . Another run of the
algorithm also gives path P3 = ABDEF Z with QoS weight
E. MDA for k-Link disjoint path on a bidirectional network cost value of 16.
graph with Example The modified graph in Fig. 1 has a forward and reversed
For the graph, in Fig. 1, let us run the Algorithm 1 so as to edge on the shortest path P1 = ADF EZ. The new forward
get the k-number of maximally disjoint path from source node edge will have Qi + β. In our example graph we use the
A to destination node Z. Since there is no negative edge for β = 4 ∗ 45 = 180 value using γ = 4.
now, it strictly behaves like the normal Dijkstra’s algorithm
IV. K-M AXIMALLY D ISJOINT PATH WITH M ULTIPLE Q O S
and gives the result of path P1 = ADF EZ as shown in line
2 to 6 of Algorithm 1. After this step we change the direction For SDN controlled networks, we need k > 2 value not just
(reverse) of Path P1 ADFEZ and change the magnitude of cost for survivability but also for load balancing. As earlier stated,
to negative as shown in Fig. 1 and in line 6 to 11 in Algorithm with the multi-constrained characteristic there is a resultant
1. We then add a forward edge now as Qi + β. NP-Complete set of problem [1], [7], [10]. The more the
If we run the BMDA again as in line 8 of Algorithm 1; number of constraints the more unsolvable in polynomial time
that is, a second run for path P2 of the Modified Dijkstra’s the algorithms becomes. The number of constraints are with
Algorithm with path P1 = ADF EZ we follow the required respect to QoS metrics weight value of more than 1-vector
steps. Therefore, we have the new Path P2 = AF DBCZ like bandwidth and link delay, where the former is a min/max
with QoS weight cost value of 14 and it is noted that the new QoS metrics and latter an additive metrics.
path has a high number of hop counts. We also reverse the This is a Multiple Constraints Maximally Link-disjoint
path P2 = AF DBCZ and add a forward edge with cost of Paths Pairs problem (MCMLPP). Reference [1] shows DIM-

503
CRA (link-disjoint multiple constraints routing algorithms)
the heuristics with additive QoS weight value so as to
form a generalized method. Using a modified version, we
propose a maximally k-link-disjoint Multi-constraints Multi-
path (MCMP) as defined in [4]. Consider a network that is
represented by a graph, G = (V, E). Each link (u, v) in E is
specified by a link weight vector with m additive QoS weights
components.
wi (u, v) ≥ 0, i = 1, . . . , m.
Given m constraints, with upper boundary of Li ; for i =
1...m, the problem is to find a set of path P from the
source
node s to a destination node d such that wi (P ) = (u, v)
in Pi path.
wi (u, v) ≤ Li f or i = 1, . . . , m.
A path that satisfies all m constraints is referred to as a
feasible path. But in our case we have another constraint
of a strict k maximally link-disjoint path. With QoS routing
comes the responsibility to use multiple paths to fulfill not
just load balancing in the network but also management of
path formation as in SDN. Also, since path QoS weight and
analysis can follow a lexicographic orderings using the set of
partial order sets (POSET) of non-negative QoS weight value
then, we could model the precedence and dominance of link of
a path or complete paths so as to determine the characteristics
[18], [27].
For example, a path or link of a path Pi with QoS weights
characteristic ordering of (3, 4) is dominated by one of (4, 3)
[38]. This is from the theorem of the "Principle Of Well-
Ordered Induction" which says suppose that S is a well-
ordered set of paths with specific QoS weights of pairs. Then,
P (x) is true for all x ∈ S, if using Inductive Step we have :
For every y ∈ S, if P (x) is true for all x ∈ S with x < y,
then P (y) is true [27], [28].
A good example is for a 4-tuple QoS weight constraints, we
could have a scenario like (1, 2, 3, 5) < (1, 2, 4, 3), because the
entries in the first two QoS weight metrics positions of these
4-tuple agree, but in the third position the entry in the first
4-tuple, 3, is less than that in the second 4 − tuple, 4. (Here
the ordering on 4 − tuple is the lexicographic ordering that
comes from the usual "less than or equals" relation on the set
of integers.) Based on the fact that QoS enabled path are of
Partially Ordered Sets (POSET), we use this property to set the
precedence of paths or links with respect to the order of use
for path’s request provisioning. In multi-constrained multi-path
routing, we could map them out in multidimensional space for
analysis as in Fig. 4 example [38]. This is used in Algorithm
2, which is the full implementation of KMDP with multi-
constrained QoS cost characteristic that has an output of k
number Link-disjoint paths to provide minimum of 2 (or mi
) QoS parameter (link Delay, latency, bandwidth, etc.). It is
a combination of BMDA and Algorithm 1 with the addition
of capabilities for ordering path (route) QoS with respect to
disjointness and stretch.
Using the path dominance characteristic we ordered path
as shown in Fig. 4 as an example. The paths that are nearer
to the origin (0, 3) are dominant paths. Paths cost function
or QoS weight are plotted and then we use upper boundary
(1) Fig. 3: An example graph with 2 QoS weight parameters, the
first sensitive QoS metric( path delay, path loss ratio) and the
other insensitive QoS metrics(no of hops, power dissipated per
unit data/SDN flow) [19]
(2)
Fig. 4: Dominant path characteristics, the paths nearer to the
(0, 3) are dominant on others, that is, those paths could be the
first set that could be used to provision SDN flow request.
radius formula to pick paths under a QoS region or dominance.
The upper boundary radius is chosen with respect to the level
of QoS needed for a particular SDN system or network as
shown in line 10 to 13 of Algorithm 2. For example, [1]
presents an upper boundary of (10, 10); 2-tuple QoS cost for
their illustrations. The disjointness and stretch parameters of
paths with respect to the first path or pre-assigned paths are
also used to choose paths that are fit in the KMDPC especially
when paths are of the same dominance characteristic as shown
in line 17 to 20 in Algorithm 2.
If we have dominant set of paths that have a better perfor-
mance level than all other paths then, we choose these sets of
paths called F Vs (d) = k in Algorithm 2 (kMDPC) as shown
in line 20 to 26 of Algorithm 2. From Fig. 3 , we have the
first set of paths with respect to QoS weight metrics m1 as
P1 = ACDZ = (1, 4) + (1, 3) + (2, 3) = (4, 10) and adding
the "discouraging constraint" we have AC = (94, 4); CD =
(94, 3); DZ = (95, 3). Also,P2 = ADCZ = (8, 17); P3 =
AEZ = (9, 9) and P4 = ABZ = (11, 13). The "discouraging
constrained parameter β = 3 ∗ 31 = 93 where γ = 3 for m1
with respect to QoS parameter cost 1. This value is added to
each path after each run of the algorithm to force the algorithm
to seek other path so as to achieve load-balancing.
And now running Algorithm 2(kMDPC) with just QoS
weight metric m2 , we have P1 = AEZ = (9, 9) and we
could generate other paths with just QoS metric m2 and do
a plot of on the coordinates as shown in Fig.4 . From Fig.4,
P1 = P2 and P4 are the 2 dominant paths from this example
504
if we need k = 2 . If we need more paths then we could use 0.8
path−No16
path−No15

P2 = ACDZ and P1 = AEZ . 0.7 path−No14

path−No13

Disjointness of path with respect to others

path−No12
0.6 path−No11
path−No10

A. Worst case complexity of Algorithm 2 (KMDPC) 0.5

path−No9

The Algorithm 2(kMDPC) which also have the Algorithm 0.4

1 embedded in it is the k-maximally Disjoint Paths F Vs (d) 0.3

with minimum of two QoS weight Cost functions (kMDPC) 0.2

Algorithm as shown in line 2 to 6 of Algorithm 2. The 0.1

algorithm uses a Fibonacci heap as the data structure for 0

the queue to store the 2K paths that need to be generated

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Path Index

for each QoS constraints mi . In the Fibonacci heap structure Fig. 6: Disjointness of path with respect to previously found
for the usage of a priority queue, Dijkstra’s Algorithm can paths for 16 set of paths in COST239 real topology
be implemented on a graph with n nodes and E edges to
run in O(Elog(n)) time, plus the time for n ExtractMin and
m ChangeKey operations. Considering N or V and E are
4
path−No 20

stretch of path with respect to others

path−No 19

the number of nodes and of links respectively in the graph 3.5 path−No 18
path−No 17

G = (V, E) , the queue can never contain more than 2K mi

path−No 16
3
path−No 15
path−No 14

paths. 2.5

When using a Fibonacci heap to structure the queues, 2

selecting the minimum path length among 2K mi different 1.5

path lengths takes at most a calculation time of the order of 1

O(2K mi )log(n) [21]. The outermost for-loop is invoked at 0.5

most 2K mi times from each side of each link in the graph to 0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Path Index
create set of paths for a QoS constraint. Therefore, calculating
the required optimal paths take O(2K mi ) when there are mi Fig. 7: Stretch of paths 14,15,16,17,18,19,20 with respect to
metrics in the graph while verifying path dominance takes other paths that has been previously found for Randomly-
O(2K m) at the worst scenario. Adding or replacing a path generated topologies-140 Node Complete graph (Provisioning
length in the queue takes O(1). For graph transformation as for 20 paths)
in line 6 to 7 in Algorithm 1, the construction of auxiliary paths
or augmentation for paths in the discourage mode is with the
worst case complexity of O(nE). The total complexity of the graph to hold sets of newly discovered, temporary labelled
Algorithms 2 now becomes: routes for that node i. The first heap contains the paths that
O((2K mi ) ∗ (Elog((n) + nm))) are discovered by running the Algorithm 1 to generate 2K mi
paths.
KMDPC adds the dominance sorting with Heap operation of A second heap operation could be used to perform a
O(log(2K mi )) and the disjointness formula check with the O(log(2K mi ) Heap-down-Dominance operation using our
worst case running time of O(2K mi ) , this gives a total of: dominance calculation formula as shown in line 17 to 22 of
Algorithm 2. This will help to pick the set that is needed out
O(2K mi ) ∗ (Elog(n + nm)) + O(log(2K mi ) + O(2K mi )
of the 2K mi paths as required by the demand or request. A
queue, is maintained for each node which contains the set of
3
permanently labelled routes discovered by the algorithm, in the
path−No16
path−No15 order in which they are discovered (which will be in increasing
path−No14
2.5
QoS vector weight mi ). The general flow of the Algorithm 2
Stretch of path with respect to others

path−No13
path−No12

2
path−No11 (KMDPC) is to take the minimum vector dominant path or
path−No10
path−No9 route entry from the heap, find dominance paths or routes, if
1.5 it is incomparable with existing routes in queue and required
dominance characteristic exists, it is pushed onto the queue.
1
The "relaxed" routes from the MDA for respective neighbours
0.5 are also added to the appropriate level of the balanced tree.
If one used a single constraint (mi = 1 and k = 1), the
0
0 2 4 6 8
Path Index
10 12 14 16 complexity reduces to that of the Dijkstra algorithm. If the
boundary limit for the dominant characteristic to determine
Fig. 5: Stretch of path with respect to previously found paths the needed boundary path Li for i = 1, ..., m can be bounded
for 16 set of paths in COST239 real topology by a constant or polynomial in log(Li ), the solution remains
as a polynomial function as proved by [20].
The first heap operation is to keep the temporary routes
or paths so that we can check for maximally disjointness or V. S IMULATIONS AND E XPERIMENTAL R ESULTS
correlations of the radius of the path. This heap operation This section presents simulation results of the KMDPC
is with respect to each source node. In our proposed data Algorithm for routing solutions that produce a load balancing
structure, a balanced tree is maintained for each node in the or solution for network congestion and QoS routing. The

505
simulations are done on a computer of AMD Athlon (tm) 1

Disjointness of path with respect to others

II Dual-Core M320 x 2, 1.7 GB RAM, 32bit, with Ubuntu
0.9

0.8

14.04 − LT S. Experiments are done on random-generated 0.7

complete graphs of different nodes and with the high number 0.6

of paths for each needed path or for a request. Also we used 0.5

COST239 and NSFNET as real topology to test the algorithm 0.4

0.3

functionality and performance. As an example, for a request to 0.2

path−No 13

the SDNC for 20 paths, the test is runs for a two-QoS cost with 0.1
path−No 12
path−No 11
path−No 10

mi = 1 for 40 times and also for the QoS cost mi = 21 for 0

0
path−No 9
2 4 6 8 10 12

40 times. With a 140 -Node Complete graph that is generated Path Index

randomly, we have sets of path that dominates other paths and Fig. 9: Disjointness of path with respect to previously found
have maximal disjointness as produced by Algorithm 2. paths for 20 set of paths in 140-Node randomly generated
TABLE I: Sample 16 best paths found with respective 2-QoS Complete graph
costs, source 1-destination 13 on NSFNET topology
cost 1 cost 2 path graph networks show a level of scalability. The scalability is
1.31 8.54 [1, 0, 2, 13]
1.31 8.54 [1, 0, 2, 13] also shown in the NSFNET and COST239 real topologies. For
0.82 17.61 [1, 7, 8, 12, 13] the randomly-generated topologies, we used complete graph
1.47 20.98 [1, 7, 8, 12, 10, 11, 13] types of 200 − node, 180 − node etc. with n − nodes, we
0.65 23.68 [1, 3, 5, 10, 12, 13]
1.30 27.05 [1, 3, 5, 10, 11, 13]
have n(n − 1) edges. As we have the highest number of
261.23 2445.38 [1, 0, 2, 13] paths to be pre-established, we have a linear increase in the
261.62 2466.55 [1, 3, 5, 9, 8, 11, 10, 12, 13] computational time to pre-establish or cache that path. It is
2237.86 20955.63 [1, 7, 6, 9, 8, 11, 10, 12, 13] also the computational time with respect to the formation of
5421.47 50732.42 [1, 0, 2, 13]
47046.18 440252.93 [1, 7, 6, 9, 5, 10, 11, 13] paths. The time axis is in milliseconds. For the randomly
59195.23 554327.06 [1, 3, 5, 9, 6, 7, 8, 12, 10, 11, 13] generated complete graphs, the paths are formed in the scale
1196365.43 11202674.78 [1, 0, 2, 13] of n(n − 1) ∗ (thenumberof pathsneeded) ∗ 2. So a large
1807015.70 16909869.53 [1, 3, 5, 9, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13] pool of paths is first found and then ordered to give respective
10385380.41 97247899.28 [1, 7, 6, 9, 5, 10, 12, 13]
57512135.99 538191746.54 [1, 0, 2, 13] level of disjointness or stretch. The ordering with respect to
dominance is done in Algorithm 2, line 11 and 12 through
From Fig. 6, Fig. 12(b) the average disjointness is higher their path cost radius. For most of the graphs we found a 20
than 0.5. Also in Fig. 9 we have the disjointness of path-No-9 paths cached set which is selected out of over 40 paths that
to path-No-13 with respect to previously found paths in a 140- are ordered with respect to their dominance.
node complete graph topology. In comparison to that of Fig.
6, the average disjointness of paths found by Algorithm 2 is
200−Node
of the same characteristics. This gives a better load balancing. 6000
180−Node
160−Node
Average Computational Time (ms)

140−Node
Paths with high disjointness could also be used by the SDNC 5000

to provide resilience against failure as requested by a specific 4000

SDN flow. 3000

2000

4
path−No 13
stretch of path with respect to others

1000
path−No 12
3.5
path−No 11
path−No 10 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
3 path−No 9
Generated 20−paths−Path−Index for Randomly−Generated Complete Graphs
path−No 8
path−No 7
2.5
path−No 6

2
path−No 5
Fig. 10: Average Path computational Time for Randomly-
1.5
generated topologies-Complete graph (Provisioning for 20
1
paths)
0.5

0
0 2
Fig. 8: Stretch of path with respect to previously found paths
for 20 set of paths in 140-Node randomly generated Complete
graph
The scalability of the algorithms, especially for two QoS
cost constraints is also shown with the linearity of average
computational time over the course of time when paths are to
be found as shown in Fig. 10, Fig. 12(a) and Fig. 11. In Fig.
12(a),Fig. 11 ,Fig. 10; the trend of computational time of the
graphs at the low node of 5 and that of 400 node complete
4 6 8 10 12
The TABLE-II shows the sample paths generated by Al-
Path Index gorithm 2 for a typical type of network. This is a randomly
generated topology of 140 node complete graph. The source-
destination pair is 0-139. The result shows that paths are or-
dered partially in their dominance characteristics. In TABLE-
III and TABLE-I, the cost and path produced by Algorithm
2 is presented with COST239 and NSFNET real topologies
respectively. The best path can be used by the SDNC to serve
the flow requests of specific QoS constraints as proposed
in [37] . The Stretch characteristic of paths formed by the
Algorithm 2 in Fig. 8, Fig. 12(c) and Fig. 5 shows that at an
average disjointness of the path is more than 0.5. This gives a

506
 150 1 3

Stretch of path with respect to others

COST239−more−Path
path−No8
COST239 0.9
path−No7

Disjointness of path with respect to others

NSFNET
2.5 path−No6
0.8
Average Computational Time (ms)

path−No5
0.7 path−No4
100 2
path−No3
0.6
path−No2
0.5 1.5

0.4

50 1
0.3

0.2 path−No 20
path−No 19 0.5
path−No 18
0.1
path−No 17
path−No 16
0 0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Path Index for generated 32 paths Path Index
Path Index

(a) Average Path computational Time to generate 20 (b) Disjointness of path with respect to previously (c) Stretch of path with respect to previously found
path for real topologies COST239 and NSFNET found paths for 20 set of paths in 140-Node ran- paths for 16 set of paths in COST239 real topology
domly generated graph

Fig. 12: Characteristics of Algorithm 2 with respect to Average Computational time, Disjointness and Stretch

with high disjointness could be used for failure resilience while

paths with disjointness between 0.5 and 0.75 are important for
200
60−Node
40−Node
Average Computational Time (ms)

180 20−Node

160
6−Node
load balancing and multi-routing capabilities. Future works
140 will use real traffic to test the throughput and other network
120

100
parameters of popular core network graphs.
80

60 TABLE III: Sample paths found with respective 2 QoS costs,

40
source 1-destination 10 for COST239 topology
20

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 cost 1 cost 2 path
Generated 20−paths−Path−Index for Randomly−Generated Complete Graphs
0.69 4.49 [1, 9, 10]
0.69 4.49 [1, 9, 10]
Fig. 11: Average Path computational Time for Randomly- 1.75 7.53 [1, 0, 4, 10]
generated topologies-Complete graph (Provisioning for 20 2.13 13.28 [1, 5, 8, 10]
paths) 0.92 16.53 [1, 0, 5, 4, 10]
1.02 16.69 [1, 2, 6, 10]
1.72 17.70 [1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 10]
TABLE II: Sample paths found with respective 2 QoS costs, 0.93 24.41 [1, 3, 2, 6, 10]
source 0-destination 139, 140-Node complete graph 93.71 1046.96 [1, 5, 0, 9, 10]
93.68 1061.21 [1, 3, 0, 9, 10]
cost 1 cost 2 path 919.30 10278.46 [1, 9, 0, 3, 2, 5, 4, 10]
-0.62 0.97 [0,13,38,95,139] 919.96 10282.93 [1, 9, 4, 10]
1.22 0.31 [0,137,102,139] 11562.17 129287.14 [1, 0, 6, 2, 3, 7, 8, 10]
1.39 0.48 [0,123,80,139] 14871.91 166205.29 [1, 0, 5, 8, 6, 10]
1.41 0.47 [0,109,128,14,106,139] 150251.82 1680438.02 [1, 5, 2, 6, 10]
0.15 1.55 [0,90,11,101,1,66,37,96,43,98,19,58,54,107,139] 252783.49 2824757.96 [1, 3, 2, 7, 6, 8, 10]
-0.38 1.54 [0,45,10,88,134,74,70,124,139]
0.32 2.05 [0,86,37,123,35,62,139]
1.74 1.3 [0,100,98,139] The average computational time to get paths with respect
0.61 2.32 [0,12,56,82,11,139] to this experiments is shown in Fig. 10 and Fig. 11. This
2.31 1.46 [0,8,44,67,1,129,139] shows the level of complexity with respect to time averagely
2.21 1.7 [0,41,127,86,34,139]
2.29 1.79 [0,122,65,77,82,56,12,139] as more paths are needed or provisioned in the network. The
2.65 1.23 [0,71,133,51,80,123,37,86,127,61,139] SDN controller could use this characteristic to form a viable
0.22 2.94 [0,13,122,9,76,101,45,26,125,139] topology for the Internet ASes that is needed by research
2.76 1.16 [0,107,136,127,86,37,16,120,139] works.
2.42 1.82 [0,57,38,13,73,139]
3.16 1.65 [0,46,137,24,61,127,41,112,103,68,139]
3.23 1.67 [0,76,78,108,23,126,106,14,139] VI. C ONCLUSION
3.67 0.57 [0,70,74,134,88,10,139]
3.81 0.51 [0,35,123,48,89,117,95,38,13,139] With increase in SDN deployment with the scalability issues
especially in traffic-aware routing [37], this work proposed
the model to get pre-established or pre-computed k-maximally
load balance in a network like the SDNC-enabled Autonomous link-disjoint paths. The solution of the algorithm aims to in-
systems (ASes) with almost complete graph like this scenario crease survivability or resilience and load balancing in traffic-
a better view of management. The management is of load aware networks like SDN through the use of disjointness
balancing concerned and path like these pre-established is a and stretch parameters and their. The discouraged/penalty
good option and solution. The stretch parameters of paths parameter β or increase in cost weight value of QoS for the
could be used also as a QoS constraint with respect to the link could be done in the form of Qi , Q2i , Q4i , Q8i or in the
number of hops a path entails with respect to other paths. Paths series 2Qi , 4Qi , 8Qi etc. The unidirectional network model

507
could also be modelled to get the same set of reliable k-
maximally disjoint paths. For SDN controlled networks that
have a global view of the network wide scale,k-maximally
link disjoint paths with specific disjointness greater that 0.5
could be provided by this algorithm and with specific value
of Stretch.
Since computational cost of routing is also important to
traffic-aware management, the algorithm is scalable enough to
address scalability prone problem network. The provisioning
of reliable communication k paths that are maximally disjoint
with scaled value of QoS constraints also proves to effectively
make the network to respond to both high admission control
capabilities of core nodes like ingress and egress routers and
survivability constraints. Future works will compare these
set of examples graph and results with the energy cost and
incorporate the work in Inter-Autonomous system driven by
SDN. Also, a virtual plane for hybrid path provisioning could
be considered for emerging networks.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work is funded by The Scientific and Technological
Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) under the "113E253"
project. The authors would like to thank Asst. Prof. Dr. Cicek
Cavdar of KTH, Sweden for some insight on disjoint path
algorithms.
R EFERENCES
[1] Guo, Y., Kuipers, F., and Van Mieghem, P. (2003). Link-disjoint paths for
reliable QoS routing. International Journal of Communication Systems,
16(9), 779-798.
[2] Pieda, Peter, and John Spicer, "Using OPNET to Evaluate Diverse
Routing Algorithms." Tropic Networks 135.
[3] Li, Chung-Lun, S. Thomas McCormick, and David Simchi-Levi. "Finding
disjoint paths with different path-costs: Complexity and algorithms."
Networks 22.7 (1992): 653-667.
[4] J. W. Suurballe. Disjoint paths in a network. Networks, 4(2):125–145,
1974.
[5] Whalen, J. S., & Kenney, J. (1990, December). Finding maximal link
disjoint paths in a multigraph. In Global Telecommunications Con-
ference, 1990, and Exhibition.’Communications: Connecting the Future’,
GLOBECOM’90., IEEE (pp. 470-474). IEEE.
[6] Ramesh Bhandari. Survivable networks: algorithms for diverse routing.
Springer Science & Business Media, 1999.
[7] J. W. Suurballe and R. E. Tarjan, A quick method for finding shortest
pairs of disjoint paths, Networks, vol. 14, pp. 325-336, 1984.
[8] Ou, C., Zang, H., Singhal, N. K., Zhu, K., Sahasrabuddhe, L. H.,
MacDonald, R. A., & Mukherjee, B. (2004). Subpath protection for
scalability and fast recovery in optical WDM mesh networks. Selected
Areas in Communications, IEEE Journal on, 22(9), 1859-1875.
[9] Whalen, J. S., & Kenney, J. (1990, December). Finding maximal link
disjoint paths in a multigraph. In Global Telecommunications Confer-
ence, 1990, and Exhibition. ’Communications: Connecting the Future’,
GLOBECOM’90., IEEE (pp. 470-474). IEEE.
[10] Monti, P., Muhammad, A., Cerutti, I., Cavdar, C., Wosinska, L., Castoldi,
P., & Tzanakaki, A. Energy-efficient lightpath provisioning in a static
WDM network with dedicated path protection. In Proc. ICTON.(2011,
June)
[11] Huang, Sheng, Charles U. Martel, and Biswanath Mukherjee. Survivable
multipath provisioning with differential delay constraint in telecom mesh
networks, Networking, IEEE/ACM Transactions on 19.3 (2011): 657-
669.
[12] Dahshan, Mostafa H. Maximum-Bandwidth Node-Disjoint Paths, arXiv
preprint arXiv:1305.0907 (2013).
[13] O. Younis et al, Constraint-Based Routing in the Internet: Basic Prin-
ciples and Recent Research, IEEE Commun. Surveys & Tutorials, 3rd
qtr., 2003, pp. 2-13.
[14] R. Bolla et al. , Energy Efficiency in the Future Internet: A Survey
of Existing Approaches and Trends in Energy-Aware Fixed Network
Infrastructures, IEEE Commun. Surveys and Tutorials , vol. 13, no. 2,
2nd qtr. 2011, pp. 233-44
508
[15] Sheshadri, S. K., Multi-constrained node-disjoint multipath QoS routing
algorithms for status dissemination networks (Doctoral dissertation,
WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY). 2004.
[16] R. Bolla et al.,The potential impact of green technologies in next-
generation wireline networks: Is there room for energy saving optimiza-
tion?, IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 49, no. 8, 2nd qtr. 2011,
pp. 280-86.
[17] Sezer, S.; Scott-Hayward, S.; Chouhan, P.K.; Fraser, B.; Lake, D.;
Finnegan, J.; Viljoen, N.; Miller, M.; Rao, N., Are we ready for SDN?
Implementation challenges for software-defined networks, Communi-
cations Magazine, IEEE , vol.51, no.7, pp.36,43, July 2013
[18] Gelenbe, Erol. Sensible decisions based on QoS. Computational
management science 1.1, pp 1-14., (2003).
[19] Smith, B.R.; Thurlow, L., Practical multipath load balancing with QoS,
Computing, Networking and Communications (ICNC), 2013 International
Conference on , vol., no., pp.937,943, 28-31 Jan. 2013
[20] S. Chen, K. Nahrstedt, On finding multi-constrained paths, Proc.
ICC’98, Atlanta, Georgia, 1998.
[21] T.H. Cormen, C.E. Leiserson, R.L. Rivest, Algorithms, MIT Press,
Boston, 1991.
[22] R. Ogier, B. Bellur, and N. TPaft-Plotkin. An Efficient Algorithm
for Computing Shortest and Widest Maximally Disjoint Paths. SRI
International Technical Report ITAD-161 6-TR-170, November 1998.
[23] Ian F. Akyildiz, Ahyoung Lee, Pu Wang, Min Luo, Wu Chou, A
roadmap for traffic engineering in SDN-OpenFlow networks, Computer
Networks, Volume 71, 4 October 2014, Pages 1-30, ISSN 1389-1286,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.comnet.2014.06.002.
[24] Y.O. Lee, A.L.N. Reddy, Disjoint multi-path routing and failure recov-
ery, in: Proc. ICC, Cape Town, South Africa, 2010.
[25] Yong Oh Lee and A.L. Narasimha Reddy. Constructing disjoint paths
for failure recovery and multipath routing. Computer Networks, 56(2):719
– 730, 2012.
[26] M.E.M. Campista, M.G. Rubinstein, I.M. Moraes, L.H.M.K. Costa, and
O.C.M.B. Duarte. Challenges and research directions for the future
internetworking. Communications Surveys Tutorials, IEEE, 16(2):1050–
1079, Second 2014.
[27] Piet Van Mieghem and Fernando A. Kuipers. Concepts of exact qos
routing algorithms. IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw., 12(5):851–864, October
2004.
[28] Kenneth Rosen. Discrete Mathematics and Its Applications 7th edition.
McGraw-Hill, 2011.
[29] N.M.M.K. Chowdhury and R. Boutaba. Network virtualization: state
of the art and research challenges. Communications Magazine, IEEE,
47(7):20–26, July 2009.
[30] Sushant Jain, Alok Kumar, Subhasree Mandal, Joon Ong, Leon
Poutievski, Arjun Singh, Subbaiah Venkata, Jim Wanderer, Junlan Zhou,
Min Zhu, Jon Zolla, Urs Hölzle, Stephen Stuart, and Amin Vahdat.
B4: Experience with a globally-deployed software defined wan. In
Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM 2013 Conference on SIGCOMM,
SIGCOMM ’13, pages 3–14, New York, NY, USA, 2013. ACM.
[31] Donghyuk Han and Jong-Moon Chung. Self-similar traffic end-to-end
delay minimization multipath routing algorithm. Communications Letters,
IEEE, 18(12):2121–2124, Dec 2014.
[32] M.R. Celenlioglu, S.B. Goger, and H.A. Mantar. An sdn-based energy-
aware routing model for intra-domain networks. In Software, Telecommu-
nications and Computer Networks (SoftCOM), 2014 22nd International
Conference on, pages 61–66, Sept 2014.
[33] B.A.A. Nunes, M. Mendonca, Xuan-Nam Nguyen, K. Obraczka, and
T. Turletti. A survey of software-defined networking: Past, present, and
future of programmable networks. Communications Surveys Tutorials,
IEEE, 16(3):1617–1634, Third 2014.
[34] T. Hartman, A. Hassidim, H. Kaplan, D. Raz, and M. Segalov. How
to split a flow? In INFOCOM, 2012 Proceedings IEEE, pages 828–836,
March 2012.
[35] R.C. Loh, S. Soh, and M. Lazarescu. Addressing the most reliable edge-
disjoint paths with a delay constraint. Reliability, IEEE Transactions on,
60(1):88–93, March 2011.
[36] Sheng Zhang, Zhuzhong Qian, Sanglu Lu, and Daoxu Chen. A binary
graph reduction algorithm for multi-constrained qos routing. In Proceed-
ings of the Second Asia-Pacific Symposium on Internetware, Internetware
’10, pages 2:1–2:8, New York, NY, USA, 2010. ACM.
[37] Min Luo, Yulong Zeng, Jianfei Li, and Wu Chou. An adaptive multi-
path computation framework for centrally controlled networks. Computer
Networks, 83(0):30 – 44, 2015.
[38] J.L. Sobrinho. Algebra and algorithms for qos path computation and
hop-by-hop routing in the internet. In INFOCOM 2001. Twentieth Annual
Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies.
Proceedings. IEEE, volume 2, pages 727–735 vol.2, 2001.