Impact of Network Topology Changes on Performance
Main Article Content
Abstract
Network topology, the physical and logical arrangement of network devices and connections, plays a crucial role in the performance and reliability of communication systems. Changes in network topology, such as the addition or removal of links, can have a significant impact on various performance metrics, including latency, throughput, and resilience to failures.[1][2]This paper aims to investigate the influence of network topology modifications on the overall system performance, with a particular focus on the implications for critical infrastructure networks, such as smart grids and the internet. Utilizing a combination of graph theory and simulation, we analyze the effects of these topology changes on key performance metrics, including latency, throughput, and algebraic connectivity. Our results demonstrate that strategic link additions can improve throughput by up to 15%, while unplanned link removals can significantly degrade network resilience. These findings provide valuable insights for network operators seeking to optimize performance and ensure the reliability of critical infrastructure through effective topology control.[3][4] The impact of network topology changes on performance is a crucial area of study, as it has significant implications for the reliability and efficiency of critical communication networks[5]. By understanding how alterations to the physical and logical structure of a network can affect metrics like latency, throughput, and resilience, network operators can make informed decisions to optimize system performance and ensure the robustness of critical infrastructure. Through a combination of graph theory, simulation, and empirical analysis, this paper aims to shed light on the complex relationship between network topology and overall system behavior, ultimately providing network operators with the insights necessary to navigate the challenges and opportunities presented by topology changes.[6]
Article Details
Section
How to Cite
References
1. A. A. A. Adas, “Evaluation methodology for wide area networks,” Feb. 01, 1990, Elsevier BV. doi: 10.1016/0169-7552(90)90139-j.
2. A. Sydney, C. Scoglio, and D. Gruenbacher, “The impact of optimizing algebraic connectivity in hierarchical communication networks for transmission operations in smart grids,” Feb. 01, 2013. doi: 10.1109/isgt.2013.6497801.
3. R. M. Salles and D. Marino, “Strategies and Metric for Resilience in Computer Networks,” Oct. 19, 2011, Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/comjnl/bxr110.
4. A. Nagurney and Q. Qiang, “A network efficiency measure with application to critical infrastructure networks,” Jul. 16, 2007, Springer Science+Business Media. doi: 10.1007/s10898-007-9198-1.
5. P. K. Verma and Z. Hu, “Impact of topology on the performance of communication networks,” Jan. 01, 2011. doi: 10.1109/ncc.2011.5734760.
6. Y. Chang, X. Huang, L. Deng, Z. Shao, and J. Zhang, “Systematic Topology Design for Large-Scale Networks: A Unified Framework,” Jul. 01, 2020. doi: 10.1109/infocom41043.2020.9155462.
7. W. Ellens and R. E. Kooij, “Graph measures and network robustness,” Jan. 01, 2013, Cornell University. doi: 10.48550/arxiv.1311.5064.
8. W. Liu, K. Pawlikowski, and H. Sirisena, “Algebraic connectivity metric for spare capacity allocation problem in survivable networks,” Jan. 08, 2011, Elsevier BV. doi: 10.1016/j.comcom.2010.12.012.
9. F. Wang, Z. M. Mao, J. Wang, L. Gao, and R. Bush, “A measurement study on the impact of routing events on end-to-end internet path performance,” Aug. 11, 2006, Association for Computing Machinery. doi: 10.1145/1151659.1159956.
10. M. J. F. Alenazi and J. P. G. Sterbenz, “Evaluation and comparison of several graph robustness metrics to improve network resilience,” Oct. 01, 2015. doi: 10.1109/rndm.2015.7324302.
11. W. Kellerer, A. Basta, and A. Blenk, “Flexibility of Networks: a new measure for network design space analysis?,” Jan. 01, 2015, Cornell University. doi: 10.48550/arxiv.1512.03770.
12. G. Weichenberg, V. W. S. Chan, and M. Médard, “High-reliability architectures for networks under stress,” Dec. 23, 2004. doi: 10.1109/infcom.2004.1354488.
13. O. Balmau, D. Dzung, and Y. A. Pignolet, “Recipes for faster failure recovery in Smart Grid communication networks,” Nov. 01, 2014. doi: 10.1109/smartgridcomm.2014.7007654.
14. A. Mahimkar et al., “Detecting the performance impact of upgrades in large operational networks,” Aug. 30, 2010. doi: 10.1145/1851182.1851219.
15. H. Zhang, Z. Cai, Q. Liu, Q. Xiao, Y. Li, and C. F. Cheang, “A Survey on Security-Aware Measurement in SDN,” Jan. 01, 2018, Hindawi Publishing Corporation. doi: 10.1155/2018/2459154.
16. B. J. van Asten, F. Kuipers, and N. L. M. van Adrichem, “Scalability and Resilience of Software- Defined Networking: An Overview,” Aug. 28, 2014, Cornell University.
17. A. Sen, T. R. Rakes, and L. S. Franz, “Network cost analysis for planning configuration change in distributed systems,” Aug. 01, 1987, SAGE Publishing. doi: 10.1177/016555158701300406.
18. D. Tipper, “Resilient network design: challenges and future directions,” Aug. 13, 2013, Springer Science+Business Media. doi: 10.1007/s11235-013-9815-x.
19. J. Domke, T. Hoefler, and S. Matsuoka, “Fail-in-Place Network Design: Interaction Between Topology, Routing Algorithm and Failures,” Nov. 01, 2014. doi: 10.1109/sc.2014.54.
20. H. Zhou et al., “Improving QoS in SDN with lossless multi-domain reconfigurations,” Jun. 01, 2015. doi: 10.1109/iwqos.2015.7404714.
21. M. Albanese, S. Jajodia, and S. Noel, “Time-efficient and cost-effective network hardening using attack graphs,” Jun. 01, 2012. doi: 10.1109/dsn.2012.6263942.
22. I. Papafili, K. Wajda, R. Łapacz, A. Predieri, T. Bocek, and M. Seufert, “An Overview of Application Traffic Management Approaches: Challenges and Potential Extensions,” Jul. 01, 2014. doi: 10.1109/imis.2014.7.
23. T. Grahek and A. Leong, “Design, Build and Operation at Scale,” Jan. 01, 2019. doi: 10.1364/ofc.2019.w3g.1.
24. T. Chin, M. Rahouti, and K. Xiong, "Applying software-defined networking to minimize the end-to- end delay of network services," ACM SIGAPP Applied Computing Review, vol. 18, pp. 30-40, 2018, doi: 10.1145/3212069.3212072