## 4 Performance Evaluation of GASM Algorithms over Cloud/MEC RAN Architecture  
### Simulation Settings  
We have analyzed the performance of GASM in two scenarios: Planning a static distribution of VNF provisioning in a 5G access network, and a dynamic scenario with a periodical reconfiguration of that VNF provisioning. We have also compared these two alternatives between them. The analysis has been performed with the OMNeT++ simulator and supposing a network architecture similar to the one in Figure 1 with one CO connected to 20 AOs: 10 with a high number of served users (HD-AO) and other 10 with a low number of served users (LD-AO). We consider the AOs to be NFV-enabled, i.e., they are equipped with a MEC server to host both the vBBUs of the C-RAN architecture and also instances of different VNFs to provide end-user services. The AOs connect to the CO through 10 Gbps dedicated optical links. Note that for survivability, this architecture can also be embedded in an optical ring using Wavelength Division Multiplexing (WDM) or Space Division Multiplexing (SDM) technologies. Furthermore, the CO is also equipped with IT resources to instantiate VNF, but it will not host vBBUs. In our simulations, the IT resource distribution in CO, LD-AO and HD-AO (after the instantiation of vBBUs) are shown in Table 1. These resources are equal to those presented in papers [13,23].  
In the study, we have considered three types of services: VoIP, Video and Web, each with an associated SC and service bandwidth requirements, shown in Table 2. Additionally, each instance of a VNF has associated IT requirements in terms of CPU Cores, RAM and Hard Disk (HDD) and a maximum number of concurrent operations, which are shown in Table 3. Users may request these services with a probability of 30%, 20%, and 50% respectively, like in References [32,33]. The service priority established in the algorithm is first the VoIP service requests, then, the Video demands, and lastly the Web browsing demands.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline
**Location** & **Computational Resources** \\ \hline Core Office & 100 CPU cores, 480 GB RAM and 27 TB HDD \\ High Demand—Access Office & 16 CPU cores, 64 GB RAM and 10 TB HDD \\ Low Demand—Access Office & 8 CPU cores, 32 GB RAM and 7 TB HDD \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 1: IT resource distribution in CO and AOs [13,23].  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline
**Service** & **HW Requirements.** & **Number of Concurrent Operations** \\ \hline NAT & CPU: 1 core, RAM: 1 GB, HDD: 2 GB & 3000 \\ FW & CPU: 2 cores, RAM: 3 GB, HDD: 5 GB & 2500 \\ TM & CPU: 1 core, RAM: 3 GB, HDD: 2 GB & 2500 \\ VOC & CPU: 2 cores, RAM: 2 GB, HDD: 20 GB & 1000 \\ WOC & CPU: 1 core, RAM: 2 GB, HDD: 10 GB & 1500 \\ IDPS & CPU: 2 cores, RAM: 2 GB, HDD: 10 GB & 2500 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 3: Hardware requirements associated to the VNFs [13,23,32,33].  
Regarding GASM configuration, we have set the _populationSize_ to 5 and the _nextPopulationSize_ to 10 and the _mutationProbability_ to 0.01. After performing simulations with different values of these parameters, we adopted these values as GASM provides the best results with them.