On the Hardness and Inapproximability of Virtual Network Embeddings

Many resource allocation problems in the cloud can be described as a basic Virtual Network Embedding Problem (VNEP): the problem of finding a mapping of a <italic>request graph</italic> (describing a workload) onto a <italic>substrate graph</italic> (describing the physical infrastructure). Applications range from mapping testbeds, over the embedding of batch-processing tasks to the embedding of service function chains and come with different mapping restrictions for nodes and edges. The restrictions studied most often are node and edge capacities, node mapping, edge routing and latency restrictions. While the VNEP has been studied intensively, complexity results are only known for specific models and this paper provides a first comprehensive study of the computational complexity of the VNEP by systematically analyzing its hardness for any combination of the above stated mapping restrictions. For all studied variants the <inline-formula> <tex-math notation="LaTeX">${ {\mathcal {NP}}\text {-completeness}}$ </tex-math></inline-formula> of the respective decision problems is shown. Furthermore, <inline-formula> <tex-math notation="LaTeX">${ {\mathcal {NP}}\text {-completeness}}$ </tex-math></inline-formula> results for finding approximate embeddings, which may, e.g., violate capacity constraints by certain factors, are derived. Lastly, it is also shown that all these results pertain when restricting the request graphs to planar and degree-bounded graphs. While theoretic in nature, our results have severe practical implications. Firstly, <italic>any</italic> optimization variant of the VNEP is <inline-formula> <tex-math notation="LaTeX">${ {\mathcal {NP}}\text {-hard}}$ </tex-math></inline-formula> and cannot be approximated for any of the studied restrictions, unless <inline-formula> <tex-math notation="LaTeX">${ {\mathcal {P}}{\,=\,} {\mathcal {NP}}}$ </tex-math></inline-formula>. Secondly, we uncover structural hardness properties: the VNEP is <inline-formula> <tex-math notation="LaTeX">${ {\mathcal {NP}}\text {-hard}}$ </tex-math></inline-formula> and inapproximable even if, e.g., only node placement and edge routing restrictions are considered.

[1]  Stefan Schmid,et al.  Competitive and deterministic embeddings of virtual networks , 2011, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[2]  Matthias Rost,et al.  Beyond the Stars: Revisiting Virtual Cluster Embeddings , 2015, CCRV.

[3]  Venkatesan Guruswami,et al.  Hardness of routing with congestion in directed graphs , 2007, STOC '07.

[4]  Edoardo Amaldi,et al.  On the computational complexity of the virtual network embedding problem , 2016, Electron. Notes Discret. Math..

[5]  Xavier Hesselbach,et al.  Virtual Network Embedding: A Survey , 2013, IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials.

[6]  A. Rowstron,et al.  Towards predictable datacenter networks , 2011, SIGCOMM.

[7]  Christos H. Papadimitriou,et al.  On the complexity of integer programming , 1981, JACM.

[8]  Matthias Rost,et al.  Parametrized complexity of virtual network embeddings: dynamic & linear programming approximations , 2019, CCRV.

[9]  Richard M. Karp,et al.  Reducibility Among Combinatorial Problems , 1972, 50 Years of Integer Programming.

[10]  Anja Feldmann,et al.  Optimizing Long-Lived CloudNets with Migrations , 2012, 2012 IEEE Fifth International Conference on Utility and Cloud Computing.

[11]  Matthias Rost,et al.  Charting the Complexity Landscape of Virtual Network Embeddings , 2018, 2018 IFIP Networking Conference (IFIP Networking) and Workshops.

[12]  Carlos Pignataro,et al.  Service Function Chaining (SFC) Architecture , 2015, RFC.

[13]  Anja Feldmann,et al.  It's About Time: On Optimal Virtual Network Embeddings under Temporal Flexibilities , 2014, 2014 IEEE 28th International Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium.

[14]  Holger Karl,et al.  Specifying and placing chains of virtual network functions , 2014, 2014 IEEE 3rd International Conference on Cloud Networking (CloudNet).

[15]  Isaac Keslassy,et al.  Minimizing Delay in Network Function Virtualization with Shared Pipelines , 2017, IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems.

[16]  David G. Andersen,et al.  Theoretical Approaches to Node Assignment , 2002 .

[17]  Matthias Rost,et al.  Virtual Network Embedding Approximations: Leveraging Randomized Rounding , 2018, 2018 IFIP Networking Conference (IFIP Networking) and Workshops.

[18]  Raouf Boutaba,et al.  ViNEYard: Virtual Network Embedding Algorithms With Coordinated Node and Link Mapping , 2012, IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking.

[19]  Lucian Popa,et al.  What we talk about when we talk about cloud network performance , 2012, CCRV.

[20]  JOSEP DÍAZ,et al.  A survey of graph layout problems , 2002, CSUR.

[21]  Matthias Rost,et al.  An Approximation Algorithm for Path Computation and Function Placement in SDNs , 2016, SIROCCO.

[22]  Amin Vahdat,et al.  Sincronia: near-optimal network design for coflows , 2018, SIGCOMM.

[23]  David Eppstein,et al.  The Polyhedral Approach to the Maximum Planar Subgraph Problem: New Chances for Related Problems , 1994, GD.

[24]  Sanjeev Arora,et al.  Computational Complexity: A Modern Approach , 2009 .

[25]  Günther R. Raidl,et al.  Introducing the Virtual Network Mapping Problem with Delay, Routing and Location Constraints , 2011, INOC.

[26]  Luciana S. Buriol,et al.  Security-aware optimal resource allocation for virtual network embedding , 2012, 2012 8th international conference on network and service management (cnsm) and 2012 workshop on systems virtualiztion management (svm).

[27]  Michael R. Fellows,et al.  The complexity of induced minors and related problems , 1995, Algorithmica.