TY - GEN
T1 - Analysis of the M and M2 Routings in Circuit-Switched Networks
AU - Wong, Eric W. M.
AU - Yum, Tak-Shing P.
AU - Chan, Kit-Man
PY - 1992/12
Y1 - 1992/12
N2 - In nonhierarchical circuit-switched networks, calls can be routed to alternate paths if the direct path is blocked. In this paper, we analyze two alternate-path routing rules called the Maximum Free Circuit routing and the Maximum Free Circuit with Minimum Occupied channel routing. For convenience, we shall call them the M and M2 routings respectively. In the use of M routing, a call is routed to an alternate path that has the maximum number of free circuits when the direct path is blocked. The M2 routing is an improvement of the M routing in that when multiple alternate paths have the same number of free circuits, the path with the smallest total occupied channels is chosen. Analytical results show that M2 routing provides a small but significant improvement over M routing when the number of alternate paths is large and/or the trunk group size is small. These results are verified by simulation. As the impementation of M2 routing is no more complicated than M routing (both require the same channel occupancy information) and its performance is always better than M routing, M2 routing is deemed a better rule to use.
AB - In nonhierarchical circuit-switched networks, calls can be routed to alternate paths if the direct path is blocked. In this paper, we analyze two alternate-path routing rules called the Maximum Free Circuit routing and the Maximum Free Circuit with Minimum Occupied channel routing. For convenience, we shall call them the M and M2 routings respectively. In the use of M routing, a call is routed to an alternate path that has the maximum number of free circuits when the direct path is blocked. The M2 routing is an improvement of the M routing in that when multiple alternate paths have the same number of free circuits, the path with the smallest total occupied channels is chosen. Analytical results show that M2 routing provides a small but significant improvement over M routing when the number of alternate paths is large and/or the trunk group size is small. These results are verified by simulation. As the impementation of M2 routing is no more complicated than M routing (both require the same channel occupancy information) and its performance is always better than M routing, M2 routing is deemed a better rule to use.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84939066411&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - https://www.scopus.com/record/pubmetrics.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84939066411&origin=recordpage
U2 - 10.1109/GLOCOM.1992.276637
DO - 10.1109/GLOCOM.1992.276637
M3 - RGC 32 - Refereed conference paper (with host publication)
SN - 0780306082
SN - 9780780306080
T3 - GLOBECOM - Communication for Global Users: IEEE Global Telecommunications Conference
SP - 1487
EP - 1492
BT - GLOBECOM 1992 - Communication for Global Users: IEEE Global Telecommunications Conference
PB - IEEE
T2 - 1992 IEEE Global Telecommunications Conference: Communication for Global Users, GLOBECOM 1992
Y2 - 6 December 1992 through 9 December 1992
ER -