Optimal Node Hardware Module Planning for Layer-One Optical Transport Networks

Shen, Gangxiang; Peng, Limei; Shen, Yunfeng; Sardesai, H.P.

doi:10.1364/jocn.3.000937

Cited by 12 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Traffic grooming in transport networks can be performed via different node architectures, which provide different trade-offs between their complexity and the offered flexibility [3]- [6]. In fixed architectures reconfiguration requires manual intervention on the site [3]- [5].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moreover, the mixture of client signals that can be groomed is usually fixed by the muxponder module itself [3]- [5]. Contrariwise, in flexible architectures reconfiguration can be made remotely and virtually all possible mixtures of client services are allowed [3]- [6]. If the size of the flexible network element (NE) is large enough to accommodate all the required modules, it provides a non-blocking architecture [4], [5].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Therefore, partial non-blocking architectures can be attained by using various smaller sized and independent NEs. Then, in partial non-blocking architectures, at both planning and operation stages the interconnection between modules installed in different NEs is inhibited [4]- [6]. An additional advantage of flexible architectures is that they can support hitless traffic re-grooming.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Most of the existing dimensioning models and multi-period studies have been neglecting the constraints imposed by the hardware architectures. Works that take into account the hardware architectures constraints can be found in [3], [4], [6], [16], [17]. These studies focused on greenfield planning.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Note that hitless re-grooming cannot be modeled or its potential benefits evaluated in greenfield scenarios. Moreover, in [6], [16], [17] only the partial non-blocking EXCs architecture is considered, and the models proposed in [6] perform the optimization of the modules placement after the traffic grooming optimization. In addition, the savings provided by the hitless re-grooming process are demonstrated in [7], [9], without assessing the impact of the traffic pattern and variability.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Benefits of Node Architecture Flexibility and Hitless Re-Grooming in Transport Networks

Morais

Pedro

Monteiro

et al. 2015

J. Lightwave Technol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper proposes dimensioning models for transport network nodes taking into consideration the multiplexing/grooming architecture. The models are suitable for multiperiod planning and assume node architectures with different levels of flexibility. Fixed architectures are based on muxponder modules whereas flexible architectures comprise an electrical cross connect (EXC). Within the flexible architectures, non-blocking EXC and partial non-blocking EXCs architectures are considered. Importantly, the models also support hitless re-grooming in flexible architectures. Using the developed models, we analyze the impact of node architecture flexibility in the number of line interfaces required, and assess the potential savings attained by exploiting hitless re-grooming. Results show that enhanced flexibility produces more savings when the client traffic bit rate is much smaller than the line bit rate. Moreover, hitless traffic re-grooming can assist in mitigating the impact of flexibility limitations that arise when deploying smaller sized EXCs.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%