Manager place constraint

[behroozfarkiani]

If you place a function on a physical node then specific physical nodes can be selected for management of that chain.

x_w^v = z_w1^h + z_w2^h + ...

w is a physical node h is a chain that v belongs to w1, w2, ... is a set of physical nodes that can support management on w

[1995parham]

I added this constraint in another way. There are some constraints per each virtual function of a chain that specifies the physical nodes that cannot handle the manager of this virtual function.

[behroozfarkiani]

They are not the same. A manager is supposed to manage a set of VNFs and restricts their locations, so the constraint must be enforced by the manager VNFs, not the abstract functions.

[1995parham]

Yes, you are right. I will change it today and let you know again.

[1995parham]

This time should works 😄

[behroozfarkiani]

I think you changed the code in this way: for each chain, place a manager on one of the specified locations.

if (!this.cfg.getNodes().get(n).getNotSupportedNodes().contains(j)) {
     constraint.addTerm(1, this.zHat[h][n]);

If it is, it is completely wrong! you must implement this: for each manager, the set of managed chains must be placed on one of the specified locations.

[1995parham]

I implement the following constraint:

x_w^v = z_w1^h + z_w2^h + ...

that force a specific set of managers if a VNF placed on a physical node by this each manager can have its physical nodes.

[behroozfarkiani]

Actually, I can't read your code. it is not self-describable. So, it is better to explain it in an example.

[1995parham]

Yes, you are right. I will write it down to you now.

[1995parham]

I find out the issue with my current implementation and change the constraint to the following:

if VNF v of chain h is placed on physical machine w then chain h cannot be managed with managers that do not support physical machine w.

[behroozfarkiani]

use the illustrative example to show your implementation