1. Presented by Rich Goyette
Using AHP/TOPSIS with Cost and Robustness Criteria for Virtual Network Node Assignment Rich Goyette
Presented by Rich Goyette
22/09/2018

2. Overview Virtual Networking Context; Motivation;
InP Selection Criteria;
Using AHP/TOPSIS to Rank InPs
Simulation Results
Conclusions
Future Work
22/09/2018

3. 4Ward Virtual Networking
Service Provider
(SP)
Logical Plane
Physical Plane
Requirements
Virtual Network Provider (VNP)
Infrastructure
Provider 1
(InP 1)
Provider 2
(InP 2)
Provider 3
(InP 3)
Attribute Search
and Comparison
22/09/2018

4. Motivation: Choosing InPs1 2 3 4
InP 4 1 2 3
InP 2 3 1 2 4 5 2 3 5 2 3 4 5
MapQuest
Who gets the SP’s Business?
22/09/2018

5. InP Selection Criteria
We select the best VNet based on:
Cost (less is better)
Robustness (more is better)
Robustness: the product of Security and Assurance Value of an InP’s offered VNet:
VAS and VSEC can be computed using attributes reported by each InP...
22/09/2018

6. InP Selection Criteria
Preference Model based on security relevant attributes of the InP.
Weight of each dimension of security (FIPS 199).
22/09/2018

7. InP Selection Criteria
In this presentation we consider nodes only.
Therefore:
We assume nC=0.5, nI=0.25, nA=0.25
We assume VAS is a random variable on [0,1]
22/09/2018

8. Overview of Selection Process
22/09/2018

9. Overview of Selection Process
22/09/2018

10. Overview of Selection Process
22/09/2018

11. Overview of Selection Process
22/09/2018

12. AHP/TOPSIS How do we select “best” when you must:
Minimize some criteria;
Maximize some criteria;
Analytic Hierarchy Process
Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution
22/09/2018

13. InP Ranking with AHP/TOPSIS
Bid 1
Bid 2 (Composite)
22/09/2018

14. InP Ranking with AHP/TOPSIS
❶ Construct Decision Matrix
Bi -> one of k bids;
Cj -> one of m criteria;
fkm -> performance R C
22/09/2018

15. InP Ranking with AHP/TOPSIS
❷ Normalize the Decision Matrix R C
22/09/2018

16. InP Ranking with AHP/TOPSIS
❸ Weight the decision Matrix R C
22/09/2018

17. InP Ranking with AHP/TOPSIS
❹ Positive Ideal Solution -> Max security, min cost. R C
PIS=[ ]
❺ Negative Ideal Solution -> Min security, max cost.
NIS=[ ] R C
❻Separation -> Distance from PIS, NIS
22/09/2018

18. InP Ranking with AHP/TOPSIS
❼Closeness -> Smallest distance from best, largest distance from worst.
Choose Bid 2 even though it costs more!
22/09/2018

19. InP Ranking with AHP/TOPSIS
Composite Bid Evaluation...
Who gets each disputed node?
22/09/2018

20. InP Ranking with AHP/TOPSIS
Composite Bid Evaluation...
❶ Perform TOPSIS on each disputed node and select Best InP.
❷ Compute composite cost and robustness.
Participation
1/5
1/5
3/5
22/09/2018

21. Simulation TOPSIS selection versus Greedy (cost only).
60X60 grid with 30 substrate nodes.
Variable sized InPs with random robustness profiles distributed over substrate.
10,000 simulation runs per robustness weight point.
22/09/2018

22. Conclusions
VNet robustness considers security and assurance dimensions;
AHP/TOPSIS provides an efficient way of ranking InPs when criteria optimize in different directions:
Robustness
Cost
AHP/TOPSIS can scale to other criteria:
QoS
Etc.
22/09/2018

23. Future Work
Our work focussed on offering lowest compliant value of zero-delta security attributes (e.g. encryption key length).
To what extent could aggressive business policies increase average security using these attributes?
How many InPs in a composite bid?
22/09/2018

24. Questions
22/09/2018