TDMA COMMUNICATION FOR SS/TDMA SATELLITES WITH OPTICAL INTERSATELLITE LINKS

Aura Ganz and Yao Gao Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering University of Massachusetts Amherst, MA 01003

Abstract
In this paper we present a novel approach for the optimal time slot assi nment problem for two SS/TDMA satellites interconnectei through WDM optical intersatellite links. The protocol principle is time slot allocation of transmissions to earth zones while m i n ~ i n g transmission duthe ration. The allocation al orithm accounts for the following factors: 1) each satehte covers an arbitrary number of nondisjoint zones, 2) no onboard bufferin at the satellites, 3) parallel intersatellite links obtained %y WDM and 4) the intersatellite link delay. We present an analogy between the introduced system and the modified openshop scheduling problem. Successively, we present an heuristic algorithm for the modified openshop problem and compare it with an optimal branch-and-bound algorithm.

1.

INTRODUCTION

time slot assignment problem for two SS/TDMA satellites interconnected through WDM optical intersatellite links. The assignment algorithm should account for the following factors: 1) each satellite covers an arbitrary number of nondisjoint zones, 2) no onboard buffering at the satellites, 3) parallel intersatellite links obtained by WDM and 4) the intersatellite link delay. The protocol principle is time slot allocation of transmissions to earth zones, while incorporating all the above requirements and minimizing the transmission duration. As postulated in [8]an optimal time slot allocation problem is NP-complete even for two satellites. As first presented in [9], an analogy between the two satellite system and the modified openshop scheduling problem is introduced. Successively, we present an heuristic algorithm for the modified openshop problem and compare it with an optimal branchand-bound algorithm.

An efficient way for earth-satellite communication is using multibeam antennae and satellite-switched time division multiple access (SS/TDMA) techniques[l,2]. However, in many practical situations, ground stations exchanging traffic are not always visible by the same satellite. Current solutions involve the use of multiple satellites interconnected by intersatellite links (ISL)[3,4]. The extension of coverage allows more users direct access to the satellite network and improved quality services for various traffic (voice traffic in particular) can be provided as the benefits of time delay reduction and the elimination of excess atmospheric transmission loss that could be encountered in multiple-hopping transmission. As a result, ISL applications will increase the effectiveness of satellite communication, providing more cost-competitive services. For intersatellite links the use of optical communication using the Wavelength Division Multiplexing (WDM) technique has been receiving growing attention for the past few years[5-71. In contrast to the already existing microwave communication systems, the laser communication offers the following advantages: new frequency regime (no congestion and frequency allocation problems), very high data rates (Gbit/s), small antennas and privacy. In (81 it has been proven that the time slot assignment problem for ISL networks with an arbitrary number of satellites is NP-complete, even for quite restricted intersatellite link patterns and simplified models. Heuristic algorithms were presented in [8]for two satellites covering similar number of disjoint ground stations, one ISL and zero ISL propagation delay. In [9] the authors presented a solution for an arbitrary number of satellites, at most one ISL between each two satellites, each satellite may cover an arbitrary number of disjoint zones and arbitrary ISL propagation delay. In this paper we present a novel approach for the optimal

2.

DEFINITIONS

We consider a cluster consisting of two satellites, S I , SZ. There are I l , z parallel intersatellite links from satellite sl.to satellite s2, and Iz,l parallel intersatellite links from satehte sz to satellite SI. Satellite s1 (sz) in the cluster covers NI ( N z ) nondisjoint zoses and is provided with N I 11,~ (Nz Iz,~) transponders. Each satellite si in the cluster covers a set of zones Zi. The total number of intersatellite links in the cluster is S = 1 1 , ~ l z , ~ .We also assume that all uplinks, downlinks and intersatellite links have equal bandwidth. The ISL propagation delay is given by 6. The ISL traffic demand is characterized by a M x M matrix, where M is the total number of zones in the system, denoted by D. Entry di, in D represents the amount of traffic from uplink beam (source zone) i to downlink beam (destination zone) j, measured in units of time slot. uirj represents the traffic from uplink beam i to its satellite s j . di,, is the traffic from satellite s j to one of its downlink beam i, i.e. i Z , and j c ( l , 2 ) . islfi.ajis the traffic through the bth, 1 5 IC 5 l i j , ISL from satellite si to satellite sj, i, j E {1,2), i # j. We denote by D(p, q ) the Npx Nq submatrix of D representing the traffic between zones visible by satellite p but not by satellite q, and zones visible by satellite q but not visible by p. D(p,p) the Npx Np submatrix of D represents traffic between zones visible by satellite p alone. We refere to D(p,q ) as the intersatellite submatriz. We shall use the generic term line to refer either to a row or to a column of a matrix. The scheduling algorithm has to decompose the given traffic matrix D into distinct switching matrices, i.e. D = D1+ D2 ... D,, where n denotes the number of switching modes. To obtain a conflict free assignment, a switching matrix D; is an M x M matrix with a t most one positive

+ +

326.5.1.
CH2829-019010000-1081 .OO $1

0 1990 IEEE

1081

entry in each line and a t most one positive entry in each intersatellite submatrix. The largest entry in a switching matrix D; dictates the switching duration of D; denoted by L;. The total duration needed to schedule the complete traffic matrix D is given by L = L1 L2 ... L,. A schedule for D is optimal if its total duration is minimal.

+ + +

3.

TWO SATELLITE CLUSTER

We first derive the lower bound, denoted by LB, on the duration of any schedule for a system with two satellites, M sones, traffic matrix D and ISL propagation delay 6. We denote by r; the sum of the entries in the ith row of traffic matrix D and by cj the sum of all entries in the j t h column of D . Let T R ( s ; , s j )the amount of traffic of intersatellite submatrix D ( s i , sj), that is, the sum of al l entries in D ( s ; ,s i ) . Theorem 1: Any schedule for D has length not smaller than LB, where

2. the jobs are the downlink beams ( M ) , Ji = d,,;,iEZj, j = 1 , 2 ; and the intersatellite links (S), J; = is~iIqaal5 h , 2 ; Ji = i ~ 1 i ~1+ j <,h , i . I<j 5~ 3 . the tasks of job i are the uplink beams which require transmission to downlink beam i. If the transmission d;j does not require any ISL, then t,, = d,,, otherwise, ti, = dji 6, and the processing time for the ISL is dj,. The scheduling problem obtained is M S(M SlopenshoplpreemptivelO~~. The modified openshop scheduling problem is Merent from the classical openshop scheduling problem, since a task may require two processors simultaneously. In case the transmission requires an ISL, both the uplink and the ISL should be simultaneously busy.

3.2

Heuristic Algorithm

Proof: Since al entries in the same line and in the same l intersatellite submatrix must be transmitted sequentially to avoid conflicts, the lower bound is given by the maximum between the maximum total traffic in intersatellite submatrices of D plus the ISL propagation delay, and the maximum line sum of D . 4 In [8] it has been pointed out that the optimal time slot assignment problem for a two satellite cluster configuration is likely NP-complete. To obtain a model which allows formalizing a solution to this problem, we translate the two satellite cluster problem into a modified openshop problem [91. Openshop Scheduling Problem: A shop scheduling problem consists of a set of m 2 l processors (or machines) ( P i , P2, ..., Pm). Each of these processors performs a different task. There are rill jobs, (J1,Jzl ...,J n ) , each consisting of m tasks (Til,x2, for job J i ) . Task j of job i is to be processed on processor j , l < j < m , for tj,,t;,>O time units. In an openshop schedule the order in which the tasks pass through the processors is immaterial. A schedule Q is a set of m processor schedules, one for each processor. In each time unit each assignment is required to satisfy the following restrictions: 1 ) at most one task is to be assigned to a processor, and 2 ) for each job, at most one task is to be assigned. A preemptive schedule is one in which tasks are not required to execute continuously. Let f;(Q) represent the finishing time for job Ji in schedule Q . The finish time, f t ( Q ) ,of a schedule Q is mc{fi(Q)}.An optimal finishing time (OFT) schedule is the one with the least finish time among all feasible schedules. We denote the openshop scheduling problem of n jobs on m processors by nlmlqpenshoplpreemptive(OFT [10-12].

...,xm

To solve the modified openshop problem we next present a modified heuristic algorithm using the shortest processing time first (SPT) heuristic. The heuristic is based on the heuristic algorithm presented in [9] while extended to include the case for d i s j o i n t earth zones and parallel ISL. We consider m processors, n jobs and processing time ti,, l < i < M , l < j < _ N ,where M is the number of uplink beams, and N is the number of downlink beams. According to the translation, m = M + SI = N + S, where S is the number n of ISL in the cluster. In the SPT heuristic jobs are processed in order of nondecreasing processing time. The rule is normally implemented as follows: suppose that the j t h processor is available, and jobs J; and J k have no task currently under execution and their tasks for the j t h processor have not yet been executed, then task j of job J; is chosen to execute before task j of job Jk if the total processing time of job J; is not greater than the total processing time of job J k . We next define the variables used for the description of the ISL heuristic. joblist - the list of jobs in the order of nondecreasing processing time. processor - a mxftimematrix, where ftjme is the finish time of the schedule, processor[i,t] = 0 if processor Pi is available a t time t otherwise processor[i,t] = j if processor Pi is not available, and job j processes on the processor Pi at time t . job - a m x f t i m e matrix, job[i,t]= 0 if no task of job Ji is executing at time t otherwise job[i,t ] = 1 if at least one task of job Jj is executing at time t . getjob(i,t) - function that gets the first available job from joblist for processor P, at time t . Using the above definitions we next present the proposed heuristic. Heuristic ISL2 begin while (joblist # empty) do begin if (processor[i, t ] = 0) then begin := getjob(i, t ) ; if ( j f O ) then begin processor[i,t] := j ; joblj,t] := 1; t ; j := t ; j - 1; end; end; end; end; end. We next give some definitions for describing function getjob(i, t ) .

t=t+l; for i := 1 to M do begin

3.1

Modified Openshop Translation

Based on the ISL SS/TDMA slot assignment problem for a two satellite cluster given in section 2 and on the openshop scheduling problem defined above we translate the ISL SS/TDMA problem into a modified openshop problem[g]. 1. the processors are the uplink beams (M), P = i ~ , j r i ~ Z ,= 1,2; and the intersatellite links (S), Pi = j , 15j<h,2; Pi = i ~ l i ~l , < _ h , , . l j ~ ~ 1

WI,,,,

326.5.2.
1082

test(i,j , I S L ) - function which returns true if the traffic from uplink beam i to downlink beam j requires an ISL transmission, and the variable ISL is the index of an available ISL required for the traffic (ISL = 0, if no available ISL for the transmission). If no ISL transmission is required for the above traffic, false is returned. delay(i,t) procedure which delays processor Pi for t units of time. prejob - the index of the previous job on the same processor before the current time. Function getjob(i, t ) begin getjob := 0; wh+ (joblist# empty) and (getjob = 0) do begin j := ioblist.index:

if (job(j, ) = 0 ) and ((not t e s t ( i , j ,I S L ) ) t or ( I S L f O ) ) then begin prejob := processor[i,t - 1 ; if (prejob = j ) or (not test(i,prejob,I S L ) ) then begin " getjob := * if (ISL# Of then processor[M ISL, t ] := N ISL; end; else delay(i,d); end; joblist := joblist.next; end; end; The time complexity of this algorithm is O ( r m n ) where r is the number of nonzero entries of traffic matrix D , n is the number of uplink beams pIus the number of intersatellite links, and n is the number of downlink beams plus the number of intersatellite links. We next present the upper bound of Heuristic ISL2 denoted by U B . Theorem 2: Heuristic ISL2 generates schedules not longer than U B I where

1st 1=

0.

Proof : From the heuristic ISL, we observe that aIl the traffic from any intersatellite submatrix of traffic matrix D obeyiny the constraint that at most one transmission is permitted per ISL in a time unit, does not require more than time units; the traffic which does not require ISL transmission does not need more than

time units[lO]. Therefore, the overall schedule length for D is not longer than their sum, i.e. the upper bound UB. 4

33 .

Optimal Algorithm

We now present an optimal algorithm of the branch-andbound type which can be set using the lower bound of Theorem 1 and Heuristic ISL2. The algorithm which is a modification of the algorithm presented in [8], produces optimal schedules by an implicit enumeration which may generate an exponential number of switching matrices, thus requiring

impractical running time, specially for large traffic matrices. However, when the traffic matrix is not large, the algorithm may generate optimal schedules in a reasonable time. The computation carried out by the algorithm is based upon the construction of a tree. Each node in the tree corresponds to the matrix of the remaining traffic to be scheduled. The transition between a node and one of its sons represents the construction of a switching matrix. Each node has two parameters: SL, which is the length of the schedule up to that node, and LB, which is the lower bound of the traffic matrix associated to that node, computed as in Theorem 1. At each step, the nwst promising node in the frontier of the tree, i.e. having the smallest sum of SL+LB, is expanded by generating all possible maximal switching matrices of its associated traffic matrix. We now define the variables used for the description of the OPTIMAL algorithm. lowerbound - the lower bound of the initial traffic matrix D , as computed in Theorem 1. upperbound the current smallest schedule length. It is initialized to the schedule length generated by Heuristic ISLZ. The algorithm will not be invoked if upperbound = lower bound. bests - the current shortest schedule. node - a node in the tree. frontier - the set of all generated but not yet expanded nodes in the tree. S L ( D ' ) - the length of the schedule starting from D and leads to the intermediate ISL traffic matrix D'. L B ( D ' ) - the lower bound on the schedule length for D', as computed in Theorem 1. getnode(f) - a function return the node D' with the smallest SL(D')+ LB(D') in the frontier set f , and remove it from f. length(S') - the length of the switching matrix S'. generatesons(D') - a function returns all sons of the node D', i.e., generate all maximal switching matrices Sij of D' and set Di,+D' - Sij, a'nd set SL(D,j)+SL(D') length( Sij ) . We next present the optimal algorithm: Algorithm OPTIMAL begin lowerbound := L B ( D ) ; upperbound := ISL(D); bests := schedule with length upperbound; frontier := D; SL(D) := 0; while (frontier # empty) do beejin D := getnode(frontier); frontier := frontier - D'; newwset := generatesons( D'); for (node E newset) do begin if (upperboundLSL(node) LB(node)) then discard node else if (node =zero-matrix) then begin upperbound := SL(n0de); bests := schedule backtrack from node to D; if (upperbound = lowerbound) then frontier = empty; end; else if (node frontier) then discard node else frontier := frontier node; end; end; end.

326.5.3.
1083

and arbitrary intersatellite propagation delay. An optimal 4. RESULTS algorithm was introduced. Since the problem is likely NPIn this section we consider two system. For each system complete, a polynomial heuristic was introduced and its we present 1) the translation of a two satellite systems with performance bounds obtained. intersatellite links to the modified openshop problem, 2) the scheduling provided by heuristic ISL2 on the above systems References and 3) the scheduling obtained by the optimal algorithm. We consider the following systems: G. Bongiovanni, D. Coppersmith, and C. K. Wong, System 1: a cluster of two satellites, where each satellite "An Optimal Time Slot Assignment Algorithm for an covers 5 zones, there is two intersatellite link from satellite SS/TDMA System with Variable Number of Transpons1 to satellite s2, and one intersatellite link from satellite s2 ders" , IEEE hnsactions on Communications, Vol. to satellite S I , 2 = (1, 2,3,4,5}, 2 2 = {4, 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 } with a 1 COM-29, 5, pp.721-726, May 1981. No. 8 x 8 ISL traffic matrix D and propagation delay 6 = 1 as shown in figure 1. T. Inukai, "An Efficient SS/TDMA Time Slot AssignSystem 2: a cluster of two satellites, where each satelment Algorithm" , IEEE Transactions and Communilite covers 3 zones, there is one ISL from each satellite to cations, Vol. COM-27, No. 10, pp. 1449-1455, October another satellite, 2 = 1,2,3, 2 2 = 4,5,6 with a 6 x 6 ISL 1 1979. traffic matrix D and propagation delay 6 = 0 as shown in figure 2. F. Takahata, "An Optimum Traffic Loading to InterStep 1: Translation satellite Links", IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in We first present the translatiop of the above systems to Communications, Vol. SAC-5, No. 4, pp. 662-673, May the modified openshop problem: 1987. System 1: 1. Number of processors = 8 3 = 11, Pi = Z l i 6 j 1 &Z3, L. P. Clare, C. Y. Wang, and M. W. Atkinson, "Multiple Satellite Networks: Performance Evaluation via j = 1 , 2 ; ~9 = 9 0 = i ~ 1 . PI1~ ~ ~ l ~ l ~ , ~ ~ . 2 =i ~ , ~ Simulation", IEEE, pp. 404-411, 1987. 2. Number ofjobs = 8 + 3 = 11, Ji = d#,i, i z J , j= 1,2; Jg = i s l f l t 1 2JIO= i s l ~ l , l Jll = i ~ l , l ~ , , ~ . ; zl R. G. Marshalek, and G. A. Koepf, "Comparison of 3. For task TSZ which requires ISL s12, is d28+6; processor Optical Technology for Intersatellite Links", SPIE OpPg processes job Jg for d28 time. The same method is used tical Technologies for Communication Satellite AppliZ. for task T 7 For the rest of nonzero tasks Ti,, the task cations, Vol. 616, pp.29-48, 1986. processing time ti, is the traffic demand from uplink j to downlink i , i.e. t,, = d3i. S. A. Siegel, J. C. Baroni, E. DiRusso, and P. R. HerSystem 2: czfeld, " Fiber Optic Link for Space Communication 1. Number of processors = 6 2 = 8, Pi = u ; , ~i , Z j , Application" , SPIE Optical Technologies for Communicatin Satellite Applications, Vol. 616, pp. 239-246, j 1,2; P7 = i ~ l , l ~ , = i ~;l , l ~ , + ~ . Ps ~ ~ 1986. 2. Number of jobs = 6 2 = 8, Ji = u i r j , i Z j , j 1 , 2 ; 57 = &d:l,sa; = i s l f a r l l . J8 R. G. Marshalek, "Optical Communications Link De3. For tasks Tcl, T52, T43, T24, TIS and T36 which require sign for the Tracking and Data Acquisition System", transmission through the ISL are processed for & j 6 time SPIE Optical Techologies for Space Communication units. For the rest of nonzero tasks the task processing Systems, Vol. 756, pp. 100-109, 1987 time t i j is the traffic demand from uplmk j to downlink i, i.e. t ; j = dji. A. A. Bertossi, G. Bongiovanni, and A. Bonuccelli, Step 2: Heuristic ISL2 "Time Slot Assignment in SS/TDMA Systems with We next provide results obtained by Heuristic ISL2 for Intersatellite Links" , IEEE Transactions on Commuthe two systems. No.6, pp. 602-608, June 1987. nications, Vol. COM-35, System 1: We obtain a decomposition of D into switching A. Ganz, Y. Gaol "Scheduling on SS/TDMA Systems 2 matrices: D = S I + S S3 with duration time 7. Matrices with Intersatellite Links", ICC89 Conference, Vol. 1, S1 and S are given in figure 3, and a zero matrix S is 2 , pp. 0515-0519, June 1989. regarded for the ISL propagation delay 6 = 1. System 2: We obtain a decomposition of D' into switchT. Gonzalez, and S. Sahni, "Open Shop Scheduling i k ing matrices: D' = S Sl ... S with duration time 5. to Minimiie Finish Time", Journal of the Association Matrices St, ...,S are given in figure 4. k for Computer Machinaq, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 665-679, Step 3: OPTIMAL Algorithm October 1976. We present the results of the OPTIMAL algorithm for the two systems. T.Fiala, "An Algorithm for the Open-shop Problem", System 1: We get the same result as the ISL2 heuristic Mathematics of Operations Research, Vol. 8, No.1, pp. for this system. 100-109, February 1983. System 2: We obtain a decompo:ition of D' into switchi S with duration time 3. , ing matrices: D' = S1" S C. Y. Liu, and R. L. Bulfin, "On the Complexity of Preemptive Open-shop Scheduling Problems" , OperaMatrices S , S and S are given in figure 5. : i i tions Research Letters, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 71-74, July 1985.

z,,.

+ + +

+ +

5.

SUMMARY

We presented the first approach for the solution of the ISL/TDMA slot assignment problem for a two satellite in cluster, each satellite covering an arbitrary number of nondisjoint zones, arbitrary number of intersatelllite links

326.5.4.
1084

s;

1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

0 0 I 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

- 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 1 '

0 0 0 I 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 0 ~

0 0 0 0 0 l

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0

a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1

o o a o o o o o
D0 0 0 3 0 3 0 0
0 0 0 3 0 0 0 1

-0 0 0 0 0 0' 0 0 0 0 0 0

si= 0 0 0 0 o0 o0 o o o l
0 0 0 0 0 0

o o o o o o a o
0 s 0 0 0 3 0 0

o n 1 0 0 0

o o o o a o o o

Figure 1: A cluster of two satellites, and the fic niatrix,D).

ISL trd-

Figure 4: The decompositioa of D' using licuristic

ISL.

r.

Figure 2: A cluster of two satellites, and the fie matrix, D!

ISL trd-

s ;

1
[

0 0 1 0 0

0 0 0 1 0

0 1 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 1

0 0 0 0 0

1 0 0 0 0

O O O O l O

0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0

si-

;;;;;;
t 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

SI =

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

3 0 0 0 0 0

0 3 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 3

0 0 0 0 3 0

0 0 0 3 0 0

0 0 3 0 0 0

' 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 s

0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0

o o o o o o s o o s o o o o o o

o o o o s o o o

Figure 5: The deconiposition of D' using the OPTE MAL algorithm.

Figure 3: The decomposition of D using heuristic

ISL.

326.5.5.
1085