Abstract
In competitive packet routing games, the packets are routed selfishly through a network and scheduling policies at edges determine which packets are forwarded first if there is not enough capacity on an edge to forward all packets at once. We analyze the impact of priority lists on the worst-case quality of pure Nash equilibria. A priority list is an ordered list of players that may or may not depend on the edge. Whenever the number of packets entering an edge exceeds the inflow capacity, packets are processed in list order. We derive several new bounds on the price of anarchy and stability for global and local priority policies. We also consider the question of the complexity of computing an optimal priority list. It turns out that even for very restricted cases, i.e., for routing on a tree, the computation of an optimal priority list is APX-hard.
Highlights
A fundamental combinatorial optimization problem that has received considerable attention in the past is packet routing in graphs
For global priority lists and (PoS for short) behaves as multiple s√ource-sink instances we show that the P oS ∈ Ω( n) and the price of anarchy (PoA)
For general local priority lists and asymmetric multi-commodity games we derive that the PoA is in between T/4 and 4T 2, where T is a kind of dilation of the graph, i.e., the maximal length of a path, where edges with travel time 0 contribute 1 to the path
Summary
A fundamental combinatorial optimization problem that has received considerable attention in the past (cf. [4, 14, 17, 18, 21, 24]) is packet routing in graphs. A prominent variant is discrete store-and-forward packet routing, where every vertex can store arbitrarily many packets, but only a limited number can enter an edge simultaneously at each discrete time step, see [17]. For example, a chip with components and wires corresponding to the nodes and edges, respectively, of the associated graph, and with a centralized clock rate for the chip given by a crystal oscillator. 49:2 Competitive Packet Routing with Priority Lists that route rational and selfishly one packet from their source to their sink through the network. We are given a priority list (i.e., an ordered list of the players) to resolve conflicts whenever more than capacity many players seek to enter that edge at the same point in time. See [6] for the first landmark paper and several follow ups [1, 5, 7, 12]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
