On Monitoring and Failure Localization in Mesh All-Optical Networks

Tapolcai, János; Wu, Bin; Ho, Pin–Han

doi:10.1109/infcom.2009.5062012

Cited by 68 publications

(67 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To detect and localize network faults, it is not necessary to put monitors on all links, lightpaths, or nodes. M-cycles were extended to more general structures, such as m-trails [20] and m-trees.…”

Section: Fault Recovery Challengesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Practical issues for the implementation of survivability and recovery techniques in optical networks

Ellinas¹,

Papadimitriou²,

Rak³

et al. 2014

Optical Switching and Networking

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Failures in optical networks are inevitable. They may occur during work being done for the maintenance of other infrastructures, or on a larger scale as the result of an attack or large-scale disaster. As a result, service availability, an important aspect of Quality of Service (QoS), is often degraded. Appropriate fault recovery techniques are thus crucial to meet the requirements set by the Service Level Agreements (SLAs) between the carriers and their customers.In this paper, we focus on practical issues related to the deployment of fault recovery mechanisms in commercial optical networks. In particular, we outline the most important functionalities that, to our knowledge, need to be implemented, as well as discuss the related problems making deployment of fault recovery mechanisms difficult. Investigated topics include: fault recovery challenges (fault detection, location, and recovery), multiple failures recovery, as well as application of reliability mechanisms in elastic optical networks, and in multiprovider multilevel networks.

show abstract

Section: Fault Recovery Challengesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Practical issues for the implementation of survivability and recovery techniques in optical networks

Ellinas¹,

Papadimitriou²,

Rak³

et al. 2014

Optical Switching and Networking

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In fact due to |E| = 2n 2 + 2n < 2(n + 1) 2 in a square grid lattice, it leads to 2 + 6 · log 2 (n + 1) 2 + 6 log 2 |E| 2 ≈ 3 log 2 |E| , which is about 3 times of the theoretical lower bound: log 2 (|E| + 1) . In [27], an observation made from extensive simulations on thousands of general topologies is that, the um-trail solution on a topology without degree-2 nodes can achieve the theoretical lower bound of 1 + log 2 (|E| + 1) provided sufficient running time for the construction. This was disproved by an example in [1].…”

Section: Previous Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Link Fault Localization Using Bi-Directional M-Trails in All-Optical Mesh Networks

Tapolcai¹,

Rónyai

2013

IEEE Trans. Commun.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-The paper considers the problem of single-link failure localization in all-optical mesh networks. Our study follows a generic monitoring approach using supervisory lightpaths (SLPs), in which a set of bi-directional monitoring trails (bmtrails) are defined and closely monitored, such that the network controller can achieve unambiguous failure localization (UFL) for any single link by collecting the flooded alarms from the affected bm-trails. With a target of minimizing the number of bm-trails (or the length of alarm codes) required for singlelink UFL, the paper provides optimal (or essentially optimal) solutions to the bm-trail allocation problem on a number of well known topologies. First we demonstrate that the theoretical lower bound of log 2 (|E| + 1) bm-trails can be achieved in any 2 · log 2 (|E| + 1) connected graph, where |E| is the number of links. Next, we prove an essentially optimal solution for 1-by-N grid topologies (also known as chocolate bar graphs), where 0.42 + log 2 (|E| + 2) bm-trails can be achieved. Based on the solution for chocolate bars, we further investigate bm-trail solutions to general 2-dimensional (2D) grid topologies, and the developed solution requires no more than 3 + log 2 (|E| + 1) bm-trails for UFL. Such an optimal (or essentially optimal) logarithmic behavior, although has been well observed in general topologies in our previous studies [1], [2], is formalized for the first time in this paper via a suite of polynomial-time deterministic constructions that consume less than a few seconds of running time in topologies of thousands of nodes.

show abstract

“…To improve the GMPLS based approaches, link-based monitoring [3][6] [7][8] [9] [17] has been considered such that every link is exclusively monitored via a single-hop supervisory lightpath (S-LP). Once a failure occurs, the monitor(s) subject to LOL will issue an alarm, which is further shipped to the network controller or the corresponding decision nodes (e.g., edge routers) for subsequent restoration processes.…”

Section: Background a Failure Localization In Gmplsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To achieve solutions with the number of transmitters/monitors in the order of logarithm to the number of SRLGs, out-of-band monitoring via simple/non-simple mcycles and m-trails were investigated in [7][8] [9]. These studies take the S-LP allocation problem as a topology coding process by assigning each SRLG a unique code, where 1 Mohammed L. Ali and Pin-Han Ho are with University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, N2L 3G1 Canada (e-mail: {mlali,p4ho}@uwaterloo.ca).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

M-Burst: A Framework of SRLG Failure Localization in All-Optical Networks

Ali

Tapolcai

et al. 2012

J. Opt. Commun. Netw.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-Fast and unambiguous failure localization for shared risk link groups (SRLGs) with multiple links is essential to build fully survival and functional transparent all-optical mesh networks. Monitoring trails (m-trails) has been proposed as an effective approach to achieve this goal. However, each mtrail traverses through each link by constantly taking a wavelength channel (WL), which causes a significant amount of resource consumption. In this paper, a novel framework of alloptical monitoring for SRLG failure localization is proposed. We investigate the feasibility of periodically launching optical bursts along each m-trail instead of supervisory lightpath to probe the set of fiber segments along the m-trail, aiming to achieve a graceful compromise between resource consumption and failure localization latency. The paper will firstly define the proposed framework and highlight the relevant issues regarding its feasibility. We provide theoretical justifications of the scheme. As a proof of concept, the paper formulates the optimal burst scheduling problem via an Integer Linear Program (ILP) and implements the method in networks of all possible SRLGs with up to d = 3 links. A heuristic method is also proposed and implemented for multiple link SRLG failure localization keeping all the assumptions same as the ILP method. Numerical results for small networks show that the scheme is able to localize single and multiple link SRLG failures unambiguously with very small amount of failure localization latency.

show abstract

On Monitoring and Failure Localization in Mesh All-Optical Networks

Cited by 68 publications

References 14 publications

Practical issues for the implementation of survivability and recovery techniques in optical networks

Practical issues for the implementation of survivability and recovery techniques in optical networks

Link Fault Localization Using Bi-Directional M-Trails in All-Optical Mesh Networks

M-Burst: A Framework of SRLG Failure Localization in All-Optical Networks

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About