Buffer Size for Routing Limited-Rate Adversarial Traffic

TL;DR

This paper introduces a non-greedy scheduling policy for adversarial network traffic that guarantees minimal buffer sizes in tree networks, contrasting with greedy algorithms that require larger buffers, and highlights the necessity of centralized control.

Contribution

The paper proposes a simple, centralized, non-greedy scheduling algorithm that ensures optimal buffer sizes in tree networks under adversarial traffic constraints, demonstrating the importance of coordination.

Findings

Buffer size is bounded by σ+2ρ in tree networks with the proposed policy.

Greedy scheduling can require buffer sizes proportional to network size, even with smooth traffic.

Centralized control is necessary to prevent buffer overflows in adversarial traffic scenarios.

Abstract

We consider the slight variation of the adversarial queuing theory model, in which an adversary injects packets with routes into the network subject to the following constraint: For any link $e$, the total number of packets injected in any time window $[t,t')$ and whose route contains $e$, is at most $\rho(t'-t)+\sigma$, where $\rho$ and $\sigma$ are non-negative parameters. Informally, $\rho$ bounds the long-term rate of injections and $\sigma$ bounds the "burstiness" of injection: $\sigma=0$ means that the injection is as smooth as it can be. It is known that greedy scheduling of the packets (under which a link is not idle if there is any packet ready to be sent over it) may result in $\Omega(n)$ buffer size even on an $n$-line network and very smooth injections ($\sigma=0$). In this paper we propose a simple non-greedy scheduling policy and show that, in a tree where all packets are destined at the root, no buffer needs to be larger than $\sigma+2\rho$ to ensure that no overflows occur, which is optimal in our model. The rule of our algorithm is to forward a packet only if its next buffer is completely empty. The policy is centralized: in a single step, a long "train" of packets may progress together. We show that in some sense central coordination is required, by presenting an injection pattern with $\sigma=0$ for the $n$-node line that results in $\Omega(n)$ packets in a buffer if local control is used, even for the more sophisticated "downhill" algorithm, which forwards a packet only if its next buffer is less occupied than its current one.