Load balancing routing in Time-Sensitive Networks

Arif, Fouad Abdul Razzaq; Atia, Tayseer S.

doi:10.1109/infocommst.2016.7905383

Cited by 11 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…3) Routing: In contrast to routing mechanisms in conventional networks, Arif et al [119] have proposed a computationally efficient optimization method to evaluate the routing paths for a TSN end-to-end connection. The proposed solution considers an optimality criterion that minimizes the routing path delays which effectively reduces the end-the-end latency of the TSN flows across the network.…”

Section: ) Resource Reservationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ultra-Low Latency (ULL) Networks: The IEEE TSN and IETF DetNet Standards and Related 5G ULL Research

Nasrallah

Thyagaturu

Alharbi

et al. 2019

IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutorials

506

219

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many network applications, e.g., industrial control, demand Ultra-Low Latency (ULL). However, traditional packet networks can only reduce the end-to-end latencies to the order of tens of milliseconds. The IEEE 802.1 Time Sensitive Networking (TSN) standard and related research studies have sought to provide link layer support for ULL networking, while the emerging IETF Deterministic Networking (DetNet) standards seek to provide the complementary network layer ULL support. This article provides an up-to-date comprehensive survey of the IEEE TSN and IETF DetNet standards and the related research studies. The survey of these standards and research studies is organized according to the main categories of flow concept, flow synchronization, flow management, flow control, and flow integrity. ULL networking mechanisms play a critical role in the emerging fifth generation (5G) network access chain from wireless devices via access, backhaul, and core networks. We survey the studies that specifically target the support of ULL in 5G networks, with the main categories of fronthaul, backhaul, and network management. Throughout, we identify the pitfalls and limitations of the existing standards and research studies. This survey can thus serve as a basis for the development of standards enhancements and future ULL research studies that address the identified pitfalls and limitations.

show abstract

Section: ) Resource Reservationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ultra-Low Latency (ULL) Networks: The IEEE TSN and IETF DetNet Standards and Related 5G ULL Research

Nasrallah

Thyagaturu

Alharbi

et al. 2019

IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutorials

506

219

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Instead, a user defined common proportional factor for path length was applied. Arif and Atia [30] provided a mathematical model for load-balancing routing in a general TSN by estimating long-term average path delays. However, the influence of different possible traffic shapers defined by IEEE TSN is not considered.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Data Flow Control for Network Load Balancing in IEEE Time Sensitive Networks for Automation

Weichlein

Zhang

et al. 2023

IEEE Access

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IEEE time sensitive networks (TSN) offer redundant paths for automation networks that are essential preconditions for network load balancing (NLB) distribution. They also provide several traffic shapers and schedulers with different impacts on the data flow control. The selection of the right traffic shaper or scheduler for an automation network is challenging. Their influence depends on various network parameters such as network extension, network cycles, application cycles, and the amount of data per traffic class and network cycle. In this study, data flow control for NLB in automation TSN using different traffic shapers and schedulers was investigated. The effects of the network parameters on the shapers and schedulers were derived and imported into the data flow control model of the automation network. The sample networks were simulated, and performance comparisons were made. The results show that the enhancements for scheduled traffic (EST), strict priority queuing (SPQ), and the combination of SPQ with frame preemption (FP) are better scheduler selections in connection with larger networks, fast network cycles, and fast application cycles. The cyclic queuing and forwarding (CQF) shaper and asynchronous traffic shaper (ATS) are rather an alternative for load control in small networks or in conjunction with slow applications. INDEX TERMS Automation networks, data flow control, load balancing, Time Sensitive Networks I. INTRODUCTION

show abstract

“…Instead, a user-defined common proportional factor for path length was applied. Arif and Atia [27] provided a mathematical model for load-balancing routing in a general TSN by estimating long-term average path delays. However, the influence of different possible traffic shapers defined by IEEE TSN is not considered.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Data Flow Control for Network Load Balancing in IEEE Time-Sensitive Networks for Automation

Weichlein¹,

Zhang²,

Li³

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

<p>IEEE time-sensitive networks (TSN) offer redundant paths for automation networks that are essential preconditions for network load balancing (NLB) or distribution. They also provide several traffic shapers and schedulers with different impacts on the data flow control. The selection of the right traffic shaper or scheduler for an automation network is challenging. Their influence depends on various network parameters such as network extension, network cycles, application cycles, and the amount of data per traffic class and network cycle. In this study, the data flow control for network load balancing in an automation TSN using different traffic shapers and schedulers was investigated. The effects of the network parameters on the shapers and schedulers were derived and imported into the data flow control model of the automation network. The sample networks were simulated, and performance comparisons were performed. The results show that enhancements for scheduled traffic (EST), strict priority queuing (SPQ), and the combination of SPQ with frame preemption are better scheduler selections in connection with larger networks, fast network cycles, and fast application cycles. The cyclic queuing and forwarding (CQF) shaper and asynchronous traffic shaper (ATS) are only alternatives for data load control in small networks or in conjunction with slow applications.</p>

show abstract

Load balancing routing in Time-Sensitive Networks

Cited by 11 publications

References 5 publications

Ultra-Low Latency (ULL) Networks: The IEEE TSN and IETF DetNet Standards and Related 5G ULL Research

Ultra-Low Latency (ULL) Networks: The IEEE TSN and IETF DetNet Standards and Related 5G ULL Research

Data Flow Control for Network Load Balancing in IEEE Time Sensitive Networks for Automation

Data Flow Control for Network Load Balancing in IEEE Time-Sensitive Networks for Automation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About