Analysis of the m and m2 routings in circuit‐switched networks

Abstract

AbstractIn 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 additional 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 implementation 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.