Market Based Multi-Agent Systems for ATM network management

M. A. Gibney and N. R. Jennings

Department of Electronic Engineering,

Queen Mary and Westfield College,
University of London,
London E1 4NS,
United Kingdom
{M.A.Gibney, N.R.Jennings}@qmw.ac.uk

Abstract

This paper discusses a distributed approach to traffic management in ATM networks. The aim is to identify and
elaborate a computationally cheap messaging protocol and decision making process which provides an efficient
traffic management regime. In this work a multi-agent system in which the individual decision making processes
are modelled as economic entities is proposed.

1.0 Introduction

A network management system has to strike a balance between accepting too much traffic and refusing too many
requests from paying customers who want to use it and who may not return if they are disappointed. If the use of
network resources is allowed to increase unchecked, network performance will degrade. If the network
performance decreases too far, both new and existing users will cease to trust it and if they cease to trust it they
will cease to use it [1].

Making the most efficient use of an ATM network while keeping up the Quality of Service (QoS) commitments
negotiated with users at connection time is the job of the network control function. Parts of the distributed network
control function can usually be classified as centralised or localised depending on the scope of information they
use to solve their problems. Both mechanisms have comparative advantages and disadvantages and both are used
to exert different levels of control in telecommunications networks. This paper begins by outlining the limitations
of centralised and localised control in section 2, and shows how multi-agent systems can combine the advantages
while compensating for the disadvantages of each. Section 3 shows how the choice of messaging protocol impacts
the time-scale of control achievable in a multi-agent system. Finally, the implications of having a simple messaging
protocol is considered in the conclusion, and areas of future work necessary to develop the market based concept
are identified.

2.0 Control Architectures for network management

Three control architectures are elaborated: a centralised architecture in which decision making is postponed until
information from the larger network can be collected at one point (section 2.1); a localised architecture in which
immediate local decisions are taken without overview (section 2.2) and lastly, a multi-layered hybrid architecture
known as a multi-agent system is discussed (section 2.3).

2.1 Centralised Control

A centralised network control mechanism possesses information from other points in the network and is able to
compute the projected impact of the changes it makes on that state before taking a decision. In a highly dynamic
system such as ATM traffic flow, global information will invariably be out of date. Therefore, a centralised
function is not appropriate for modifying aspects of the system that need to evolve rapidly. In such cases the impact
of a control function operating on the basis of inaccurate data could be worse than having no control at all [2].
However some aspects of ATM network control such as the dynamic alteration of routing tables can be handled by
slow but globally informed centralised control functions.

2.2 Localised Control

A localised control function makes its decisions on the basis of information immediately available to it. Such a
function is able to operate very rapidly but without overview. One application of a localised function in ATM

1
networks is the decision about whether or not an individual link can support a new connection. This is the part of
the Connection Admission Control function (CAC) that handles link level admission [1]. If the connection is
refused because of congestion on one link this can lead to other parts of the network being under-used. This regime
fails to make full use of network capacity, as could perhaps be achieved if this function were more aware of global
state.

2.3 Hybrid Control: A Multi-Agent System approach

Multi-agent systems combine local decision making with some level of sharing of global information to enhance
the efficiency of those decisions [3]. Individual agents are often modelled as multi-layered entities in which a local
control module exercises real time control of the local domain [4]. An agent’s higher level global planning module
reasons about the state of the wider network and the plans, local and global, of the entities within it, from its own
perspective. Within the multi-agent community there is considerable discussion about the proper division of
reasoning, representation and control between the two (or more layers) of multi-agent systems [3][4]. What is clear
from this discussion, however, is that the global planning component is different from a centralised control
mechanism in at least one important respect.

Global planning in a multi-agent system does not take place in the presence of detailed (i.e. complete) information
about the past and present system state and currently existing local plans to modify state in all parts of the network
[5]. The information manipulated by the agents concerning the state of the overall system is represented at a more
abstract level. One consequence of this is that the control based on global planning operates on a longer time scale
than control emerging from more detailed and timely state information available to the local decision making
component.

The design of a multi-agent system presents the developer with a number of issues. What is the precise nature of
the reasoning mechanism for the local and global components? How should these reasoning mechanisms be chosen
to increase the efficiency of control exerted upon the system? How should partial global information be represented
and communicated between agents? To provide answers to these questions, multi-agent system developers often
look to well studied human social interactions to provide the paradigms of interaction and reasoning upon which
to build their systems [6]. One such human activity that provides a rich store of accumulated practice and theory
in the formalisation of interactions is the market [7].

3.0 Market Based Multi-Agent Systems

Market systems have a number of properties that make them an appropriate basis for designing a distributed control
function for an ATM network. In a market based system the goals of local and global decision making components
can be unified and simplified. Agents can be modelled solely as self interested entities. They do not need to have
a model of other agents or their plans in order to compute and communicate their contribution to the global
planning layer. Markets can function as a mechanism for the efficient allocation of resources under certain well
defined conditions of continuity, monotonicity and concavity of utility and production functions [7][8].

An agent, modelled as an economic entity in a market, signals its information by means of a very efficient
protocol—namely a price at which it offers to buy or sell network resources (section 3.2). Depending on the type
of market in use, an incoming message can also be processed into an allocation or denial of resources by means of
an efficient decision making mechanism. Price information is communicated by agents to ongoing computational
auctions. The auction can be implemented so as to force negotiation between resource providers and consumers to
a quick and crisp conclusion[9]. Rapid decisions can be made, matching highest bidding buyers and lowest bidding
sellers in commitments to provide the necessary resources for the desired service. Another useful aspect of the
market metaphor is that it allows the developer of such a system to draw on considerable economics research to
establish the conditions of equilibrium from utility functions representing local knowledge and goals [7].

3.1 Network dynamics

A well known problem for concurrent systems engineers is dealing with the state of the system in which two
components attempt to simultaneously access the same resource at the same time. Without a protocol to resolve the
conflict, the system can be suspended indefinitely in a condition known as deadlock. Multi-agent system
developers face an analogous problem where the protocol designed for sharing global information between
individual entities goes into indefinite negotiation without reaching a conclusion. This condition, known as

2
livelock [3], prevents the global planning from adding any value to the system. Such a condition occurs when the
deliberation involved in global decision making is not forced to closure within the time appropriate to the required
time scale of the control function (in this case) [3].

Certain design decisions in the creation of a market based control system may impact the likelihood of livelock and
we devote the remainder of this paper to discussing this point.

3.2 Protocol and decision making

One of the main motivations for implementing a multi-agent system as a computational market is the efficiency of
the messaging protocol between distant components. Together with the processing of the content of those
messages, the protocol is likely to be a major factor determining the timescale in which the global planning function
has to operate.

Figure 1. A distributed control function, showing how a fat messaging protocol (i.e. one in which the message
complexity is high) renders the system unable to react to events of a given timescale in an evolving network

Protocol Control Function

Complexity Event time scale=1
Network
State

Network State Time

Transition

Figure 2. A distributed control function with a protocol thin enough to be able to control events of a evolving
network

Protocol Control Function

Complexity Event time scale =1
Network
State

Network State Time

Transition

If the system is to be sufficiently responsive, then a decision making function must collate relevant information,
decide on a control signal and send it before the network state upon which it based it’s decision evolves. In figure
1 (above), the control function is prevented from doing this by factors determined by the complexity of it’s
messaging protocol. Providing the finest grain control depends on slimming the communication protocol down as
far as possible and implementing a decision making process which is as fast as possible. Figure 2 shows a situation
in which the messaging protocol is simple enough to achieve the desired control. Whatever the information
processing going on inside the decision function it’s lower limit of efficiency will be constrained by the
dimensionality of its inputs. This is determined by the number of acquaintance agents with which it communicates
and the complexity of their messages. Most efficient, both in terms of transport and computation, would be a single
dimensioned message. The market based approach provides the framework required to implement the messages
between agents as one-dimensioned values namely as a number representing a price at which to sell or buy a
resource.

Consider then the computational cost of the decision which markets use to evaluate the one dimensional messages
they receive. Allocation of resources is fairly simple: they are sold to the highest bidders until they run out. The
decision process is fundamentally a sort which can be carried out in the worst case in O (n log n) time[10].

3
Therefore both with respect to messaging and decision making efficiency, the market paradigm offers a promising
basis on which to build a multi-agent system for distributed control of highly dynamic systems. At the least it can
be said that if such a system proved to be inefficient at controlling the network it would be difficult to find a way
of implementing a multi-agent system as described above that would outperform it.

4.0 Conclusions & Future Work

Consideration of messaging and computational efficiency seem to provide a case for the further investigation of
the market paradigm as a basis on which to implement a distributed control system for ATM networks. Much work
remains to be done on investigating the exact division of control time scale and responsibility for carrying out
domain level control operations (i.e. admitting and expelling connections) between local and global decision
machines. A number of competing architectures exist for modelling the relationship between layers of multi-agent
systems and yet it is not clear which of them is right for this situation. A second area of on-going investigation is
the question of the local decision making process itself. How does an individual producer or consumer of network
resources come to encapsulate all it’s knowledge into a price signal?

Acknowledgements

The work described in this paper was supported by EPSRC Grant No.GR/ L04801 awarded in July 1996. Further
information about this project can be found at: http://www.elec.qmw.ac.uk/dai/research-projects/agentCAC.html

References

1 Pitts J. M. & Schormans J.A., (1996). Introduction to ATM Design and Performance, John Wiley & Sons

2 Patel P., Loader P., Gach A., Friesen V., Kaas-Petersen C., Mialaret C., (1992) Virtual Path and Call Acceptance
Managment in ATM Networks, The Management of Telecommunications Networks, Smith R., Mamdani E.H.,
Callaghan (Editors) Ellis Horwood 1992.

3 Nwana H.S., Lee L., Jennings N.R., (1996). Co-ordination in Software Agent Systems, BT Technology Journal
Vol 14-4 October 1996

4 Fischer, K. Muller, J. P. and Pischel, M., (1996). Unifying Control in a Layered Agent Architecture. Technical
Report TM-94-05, German Research Center for AI.

5 Nwana H.S. &Ndumu D. T., (1996). An introduction to Agent Technology, BT Technology Journal Vol 14-4
October 1996

6 Kiss G., (1996). Agent Dynamics, Foundations of Distributed Artificial Intelligence, Edited G. M. P. O’Hare and
N.R. Jennings, John Wiley &Sons Inc.

7 Wellman, M.P., (1993). A Market Oriented Programming Environment and its Application to Distributed
Multicommodity Flow Problems. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 1 (1993) 1-23.

8 Varian H. R. (1984). Microeconomic Analysis (second edition), W.W. Norton & Company, New York

9 Davis D. D. & Holt C. A., (1993). Experimental Economics, Princeton University Press.

10 Brassard G., Bratley P., Algorithmics Theory & Practice, Prentice Hall (1988).