Analytical Models for QoT-Aware RWA Performance

Chapter
Part of the Optical Networks book series (OPNW, volume 15)

Abstract

As can be seen in Chap. 3, a large number of QoT-Aware or Impairment-Aware Routing and Wavelength assignment algorithms (IA-RWA) were designed to minimize blocking in dynamic transparent optical networks. The very vast majority of those algorithms were evaluated through extensive simulations. With time, proposed IA-RWA grew in complexity, actually making their accurate evaluation possible only using full-scale simulations. Full-scale simulations, however, tend to be lengthy for the following three reasons: (a) the growing complexity of the proposed IA-RWA techniques; (b) the increasing complexity of the networks that must be modeled (spurred for instance by the increase in the number of wavelengths that can be routed in the network—note that this could be somewhat offset by the deployment of networks with fewer, higher-capacity channels); and (c) the inclusion of more complex QoT models in the simulations—more accurate QoT models are typically more simulation intensive. In addition, establishing a new lightpath may disrupt lightpaths that are already established through the addition of cross-channel effects, such as node crosstalk or non-linear effects. Such disruption is not desirable in a transparent network, and hence in simulations of IA-RWA the QoT of any lightpath that may be disrupted by the arrival of a new demand should be evaluated. Hence, for each new demand, the QoT of many lightpaths may have to be evaluated. If a blocking rate of 10− 5 or less is desired, then the simulation of the arrival of (many times more than) 105 lightpaths is required; if a network operator wants to test an IA-RWA in less than 10 min, then a decision must be reached for each demand in (much) less than 60 ms. This can prove difficult to achieve if QoT is to be estimated accurately.

Keywords

Convolution Demultiplexing 

References

  1. 1.
    Birman A (1996) Computing approximate blocking probabilities for a class of all-optical networks. IEEE J Sel Areas Comm 14(5):852–857Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barry R, Humblet P (1996) Models of blocking probability in all-optical networks with and without wavelength changers. IEEE J Sel Area Comm 14(5):858–867CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Subramaniam S, Azizoğlu M, Somani A (1996) All-optical networks with sparse wavelength conversion. IEEE/ACM Trans Netw 4(4):544–557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Harai H, Murata M, Miyahara H (1998) Performance analysis of wavelength assignment policies in all-optical networks with limited-range wavelength conversion. IEEE J Sel Area Comm 16(7):1051–1060CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zhu Y, Rouskas G, Perros H (2000) A path decomposition approach for computing blocking probabilities in wavelength-routing networks. IEEE/ACM Trans Netw 8(6):747–762CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Xin C, Qiao C, Dixit S (2003) Analysis of single-hop traffic grooming in mesh WDM optical networks. Proc SPIE 5285:91–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Waldman H, Campelo DR, Almeida RC Jr (2003) A new analytical approach for the estimation of blocking probabilities in wavelength-routing networks. Proc SPIE 5285:324–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sridharan A, Sivarajan K (2004) Blocking in all-optical networks. IEEE/ACM Trans Netw 12(2):384–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lu K, Xiao G, Chlamtac I (2005) Analysis of blocking probability for distributed lightpath establishment in WDM optical networks. IEEE/ACM Trans Netw 13(1):187–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Alyatama A (2005) Wavelength decomposition approach for computing blocking probabilities in WDM optical networks without wavelength conversions. Elsevier Comput Netw 49(6):727–742CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kelly F (1991) Loss networks. Ann Appl Probab 1:319–378MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    He J, Brandt-Pearce M, Subramaniam S (2011) Analysis of blocking probability for first-fit wavelength assignment in transmission-impaired optical networks. IEEE/OSA J Opt Comm Netw 3(5):411–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pointurier Y, Brandt-Pearce M, Subramaniam S (2009) Analysis of blocking probability in noise and crosstalk-impaired all-optical networks. IEEE/OSA J Opt Comm Netw 1(6):543–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Deng T, Subramaniam S, Xu J (2004) Crosstalk-aware wavelength assignment in dynamic wavelength-routed optical networks. In: Proceedings of IEEE Broadnets, pp. 140–149Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Goldstein E, Eskildsen L (1995) Scaling limitations in transparent optical networks due to low-level crosstalk. IEEE Photon Technol Lett 7(1):93–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mukherjee B, Huang Y, Heritage J (2004) Impairment-aware routing in wavelength-routed optical networks. In: IEEE LEOS 2004, vol. 1, pp. 428–429Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Azodolmolky S, Klinkowski M, Marin E, Careglio D, Solé-Pareta J, Tomkos I (2009) A survey on physical layer impairments aware routing and wavelength assignment algorithms in optical networks. Elsevier Comput Netw 53(7):926–944MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    He J, Brandt-Pearce M, Subramaniam S (2009) QoS-aware wavelength assignment with BER and latency constraints for all-optical networks. IEEE/OSA J Lightwave Tech 27(5):462–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    He J, Brandt-Pearce M, Subramaniam S (2008) Optimal RWA for static traffic in transmission-impaired wavelength-routed networks. IEEE Comm Lett 12(9):694–695CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Alcatel-LucentNozayFrance
  2. 2.The University of ArizonaTucsonUSA

Personalised recommendations