Trading network management complexity for blocking probability when placing optical regenerators

M. Savasini, P. Monti, M. Tacca, A. Fumagalli, H. Waldman
{"title":"Trading network management complexity for blocking probability when placing optical regenerators","authors":"M. Savasini, P. Monti, M. Tacca, A. Fumagalli, H. Waldman","doi":"10.1109/HSPR.2008.4734458","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Optical signal regenerators (3R) are required to overcome the adverse effect of fiber and other transmission impairments. 3R units may be placed either at every node (full placement) or at some selected nodes (sparse placement) of the optical network. It has been argued [1] that while the latter placement strategy may not be optimal in terms of the total number of 3R units required to support a given set of static traffic demands, it offers a number of practical advantages over the former, e.g., a contained complexity of network management in terms of signaling overhead. In this paper the full and sparse placement strategies are compared in a dynamic optical network, whereby lightpaths are set up and torn down to best fit the offered changing demands. The study shows that the blocking probability due to the lack of available 3R units achieved by the sparse placement strategy may be comparable to the one achieved by the full placement strategy. Surprisingly, it may even be lower in some cases, thus providing an additional motivation in favor of the sparse placement strategy. The study also shows that the algorithm used to choose the nodes where to place the 3R units must be designed carefully. Two placement algorithms are compared, reporting differences in signaling overhead level as high as 6 times (when achieving a desired level of lightpath connectivity) and differences in blocking probabilities as high as two orders of magnitude (when using the same level of signaling overhead).","PeriodicalId":130484,"journal":{"name":"2008 International Conference on High Performance Switching and Routing","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2008-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2008 International Conference on High Performance Switching and Routing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/HSPR.2008.4734458","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Optical signal regenerators (3R) are required to overcome the adverse effect of fiber and other transmission impairments. 3R units may be placed either at every node (full placement) or at some selected nodes (sparse placement) of the optical network. It has been argued [1] that while the latter placement strategy may not be optimal in terms of the total number of 3R units required to support a given set of static traffic demands, it offers a number of practical advantages over the former, e.g., a contained complexity of network management in terms of signaling overhead. In this paper the full and sparse placement strategies are compared in a dynamic optical network, whereby lightpaths are set up and torn down to best fit the offered changing demands. The study shows that the blocking probability due to the lack of available 3R units achieved by the sparse placement strategy may be comparable to the one achieved by the full placement strategy. Surprisingly, it may even be lower in some cases, thus providing an additional motivation in favor of the sparse placement strategy. The study also shows that the algorithm used to choose the nodes where to place the 3R units must be designed carefully. Two placement algorithms are compared, reporting differences in signaling overhead level as high as 6 times (when achieving a desired level of lightpath connectivity) and differences in blocking probabilities as high as two orders of magnitude (when using the same level of signaling overhead).
放置光学再生器时阻塞概率的交易网络管理复杂性
光信号再生器(3R)需要克服光纤和其他传输障碍的不利影响。3R单元可以放置在光网络的每个节点(完全放置)或某些选定节点(稀疏放置)。有人认为[1],就支持一组给定的静态流量需求所需的3R单元总数而言,后者的放置策略可能不是最优的,但它比前者提供了许多实际优势,例如,就信令开销而言,网络管理的复杂性得到了控制。本文比较了动态光网络中的全路径和稀疏路径配置策略,在动态光网络中,光路的建立和拆除是最适合不断变化的需求的。研究表明,稀疏布局策略由于缺少可用的3R单元而导致的阻塞概率与完全布局策略的阻塞概率相当。令人惊讶的是,在某些情况下,它甚至可能更低,从而提供了支持稀疏放置策略的额外动机。研究还表明,选择节点放置3R单元的算法必须经过精心设计。比较了两种放置算法,报告了高达6倍的信令开销水平差异(当达到期望的光路连接水平时)和高达两个数量级的阻塞概率差异(当使用相同级别的信令开销时)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信