P-cycle based protection schemes for multi-domain networks

Farkas, Attila; Szigeti, J.; Cinkler, Tibor

doi:10.1109/drcn.2005.1563870

Cited by 20 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Having the upper level domain topology available, there are several fast and efficient cycle-search algorithms [21] that may be applied to get the (upper level) inter-domain p-cycle candidate set. Selecting the candidate p-cycles is the task of the common management plane (proposed in Sect.…”

Section: Assigning Candidate Mdpcsmentioning

confidence: 99%

P-cycle Protection in multi-domain optical networks

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Providing resilient inter-domain connections in multi-domain optical GMPLS networks is a challenge. On the one hand, the integration of different GMPLS domains to run traffic engineering operations requires the development of a framework for inter-domain routing and control of connections, while keeping the internal structure and available resources of the domains undisclosed to the other operators. On the other hand, the definition of mechanisms to take advantage of such automatically switched inter-domain connectivity is still an open issue. This article focuses on the analysis of applicability of one of these mechanisms: p-cycle-based protection. The proposed solution is based on the decomposition of the multi-domain resilience problem into two sub-problems, namely, the higher level interdomain protection and the lower level intra-domain protection. Building a p-cycle at the higher level is accomplished by certain tasks at the lower level, including straddling link connection, capacity allocation and path selection. In this article, we present several methods to realize inter-domain p-cycle protection at both levels and we evaluate their performance in terms of availability and spent resources. A discussion on a proposal of implementation of signalling based on extensions of existing protocols such as RSVP-TE and the PCE architecture illustrates the practical viability of the approach.

show abstract

Section: Assigning Candidate Mdpcsmentioning

confidence: 99%

P-cycle Protection in multi-domain optical networks

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Using another fourth path, e.g., 1-9-5-4-8-10 enlarges the different E3-DODP sets from four to eight. The reader might be surprised to know that the pair (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10), in the network (ignoring fiber duct considerations), is associated with a total of 62 E3-DODP sets compared to 132 E2-DODP sets. The network model, based on OD Cycles, uses different E2-DODP and E3-DODP sets and only a fraction of the total sets is considered for network optimization.…”

Section: Failure-independent (Fi) Od Cyclesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…If fibers 5-6 and 4-6 traverse a common conduit or duct (indicated by a bidirectional arrow) that cycle is not eligible for OD pair (6-8) as it does not meet SRLG route-diversity considerations. Despite this, the cycle is still eligible for other OD pairs with survivable traffic, such as OD pair (4)(5)(6)(7)(8), composed of the 2-disjoint paths 4-8 and 4-6-5-8.…”

Section: Expending Od Cycles To Multi-network Failuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Reference [7] has specified the term Quality of Protection (QoP), introduced as a parallel notion to the well-known perception of Quality of Service (QoS). The p-Cycles approach, which uses shared backup resources in a proactive trail setup mode for line restoration [10], has been extended into several directions: Multi-service survivable networks using line protection and restoration are detailed in [3,9]; work on path-protection p-Cycles has also been published [16]; expanding p-Cycles to Multi-Domain and Multi-Service Networks (MDMSNs) can be seen in [6,23]. Various issues of Shared Backup Path Protection (SBPP) that refer to multi-recovery considerations are indicated for the following: multiple-network failures [15]; dual-link failures in WDM under differentiated Service Level Agreements (SLAs) in [11] and for recovery from double-network fault in [24].…”

Section: Previous Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We first refer to single-failure OD Cycles. Assume that OD pair (6)(7)(8) in Figure 1 is associated with survivable traffic. The cycle 6-5-8-4-6 (indicated by dotted lines) is composed of two paths 6-5-8 and 6-4-8.…”

Section: Expending Od Cycles To Multi-network Failuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Compound OD Cycles for a Wide Variety of Survivability Policies in Transport Networks

Herzberg¹,

Shleifer²,

Ring³

2009

NPA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Converged telecommunication networks, which simultaneously support a growing variety of services through a common network infrastructure, are aimed at significantly reducing network expenditures. This trend has encouraged the development of a unified network paradigm capable of supporting a wide variety of cost-effective recovery solutions, each of which may cope differently with fiber cuts and nodal equipment failures in order to satisfy service-dependent requirements. Expansion of the Origin-Destination (OD) Cycles approach is used to meet that challenge by offering ten different policies for survivability and their relative performance measures in terms of consumption of network resources and the resulting times of recovery. For practical purposes the scope of failure scenarios is limited to single and double-network failures only, even though the approach suggested is generic and can basically address even more complex events. Three test networks are extensively analyzed to demonstrate the paradigm developed and to present some useful observations about the relative positioning of the policies considered for survivability

show abstract