All-optical wavelength conversion: technologies and applications in DWDM networks

Elmirghani, Jaafar M. H.; Mouftah, Hussein T.

doi:10.1109/35.825645

Cited by 230 publications

(112 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

112

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…One can obtain Fðm; kÞ; 1 6 m 6 M; 0 6 k 6 W from the identities (15) and (16), and the recursion (17). Since the traffic is symmetric over the M wavelengths, a packet forwarded to the WC bank which finds k overall occupied WCs will see (in the steady-state) one of the FðM; kÞ possible WC distributions to M banks with uniform probabilities.…”

Section: Analysis Of Spow Schemementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The WCs considered in the current article are: full-range tunable-input/tunable-output wavelength converters (TTWCs) which can convert any input wavelength to any other wavelength, full-range fixed-input/tunable-output wavelength converters (FTWCs) which convert a predetermined input wavelength to any output wavelength, and fixed wavelength converters (FWCs) which can convert any wavelength to one fixed-output wavelength [13,14]. We refer the reader to Elmirghani and Mouftah [15] for technologies and applications underlying wavelength converters. We also note that wavelength converter implementations at rates over 80 Gbps are reported in [16,17].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Shared-per-wavelength asynchronous optical packet switching: A comparative analysis

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tThis paper compares four different architectures for sharing wavelength converters in asynchronous optical packet switches with variable-length packets. The first two architectures are the well-known shared-per-node (SPN) and shared-per-link (SPL) architectures, while the other two are the shared-per-input-wavelength (SPIW) architecture, recently proposed as an optical switch architecture in synchronous context only, which is extended here to the asynchronous scenario, and an original scheme called shared-per-output-wavelength (SPOW) architecture that we propose in the current article. We introduce novel analytical models to evaluate packet loss probabilities for SPIW and SPOW architectures in asynchronous context based on Markov chains and fixed-point iterations for the particular scenario of Poisson input traffic and exponentially distributed packet lengths. The models also account for unbalanced traffic whose impact is thoroughly studied. These models are validated by comparison with simulations which demonstrate that they are remarkably accurate. In terms of performance, the SPOW scheme provides blocking performance very close to the SPN scheme while maintaining almost the same complexity of the space switch, and employing less expensive wavelength converters. On the other hand, the SPIW scheme allows less complexity in terms of number of optical gates required, while it substantially outperforms the widely accepted SPL scheme. The authors therefore believe that the SPIW and SPOW schemes are promising alternatives to the conventional SPN and SPL schemes for the implementation of next-generation optical packet switching systems.

show abstract

Section: Analysis Of Spow Schemementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Shared-per-wavelength asynchronous optical packet switching: A comparative analysis

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…1 Manuscript received August 5, 2005 Some techniques used to realize all-optical wavelength converters impose a conversion range limitation. Thus, conversion range limitations can forbid conversion of a wavelength beyond its immediate neighboring wavelengths [2].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Wavelength converters are costly devices [2]; therefore, a particular effort has been devoted to designing cost-effective switch architectures by minimizing the number of converters constrained to a prescribed packet-drop probability.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…On the downside, a shared converter must be capable of converting any arbitrary wavelength switched to its input; whereas, a converter dedicated to a specific wavelength can be of a simpler fixed-input type [2]. A more complex switching arrangement is also required to allow a packet to be switched either directly to its desired output fiber, in the case that it does not encounter wavelength contention, or otherwise to a shared converter, after which it is then switched via a second switch to its desired output fiber.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Dynamically concatenated wavelength converters

Zalesky

Tucker

2006

IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-An architecture is proposed for a wavelength-division-multiplexed (WDM) optical packet or circuit switch in which a bank of limited-range wavelength converters is shared among all input fibers, and in which any subset of converters can be dynamically concatenated (cascaded) to yield a wider conversion range for a packet that would otherwise be dropped because all unused wavelengths in its desired output fiber lie outside the range of a single converter. A probabilistic model of a switch is used to numerically determine the improvement in packet-drop probability achieved by dynamically concatenating converters.

show abstract

All‐Optical Wavelength Conversion

Lazarou

Avramopoulos

2016

Wiley Encyclopedia of Electrical and Electronics Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article overviews the fundamental principles and attributes of the major all‐optical signal wavelength conversion (AOWC) methods commonly found in the literature over the last 25 years from the system perspective, which are oriented mainly for telecommunications applications. Two principal AOWC categories are analyzed: first, the optically controlled gates based on semiconductor optical amplifiers (SOAs) or electroabsorption modulators (EAMs) and second, the wave‐mixing AOWC schemes exploiting χ (3) or χ (2) material nonlinearities. In the case of the SOA‐based gates, the effects of cross gain modulation (XGM) and cross phase modulation (XPM) – with or without the employment of the offset filtering technique – are explained and a brief description of the regenerative schemes with SOA‐MZI (Mach‐Zehnder interferometer) switches is attempted. For the case of EAM‐based gates, both XAM and XPM effects are mentioned, utilized for efficient AOWC of intensity‐modulated signals. The wave‐mixing methods, covered in Section 2 of the article, start with the four wave mixing (FWM) effect on χ (3) materials, describing methods to implement polarization insensitive operation. Special attention on the AOWC of advanced modulation formats is attempted by explaining methods on minimizing the phase noise induced on the conversion process. For AOWC on χ (2) , materials the fundamental effects of difference frequency generation (DFG), sum frequency generation (SFG), and sum harmonic generation (SHG) are explained. In addition, particular focus is put on the attributes and the wavelength mapping of the cascaded cSFG/DFG and cSHG/DFG processes utilized in most AOWC‐schemes based on χ (2) nonlinearities.

show abstract

All-optical wavelength conversion: technologies and applications in DWDM networks

Cited by 230 publications

References 10 publications

Shared-per-wavelength asynchronous optical packet switching: A comparative analysis

Shared-per-wavelength asynchronous optical packet switching: A comparative analysis

Dynamically concatenated wavelength converters

All‐Optical Wavelength Conversion

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About