Packet loss analysis of shared-per-wavelength multi-fiber all-optical switch with parallel scheduling

Eramo, V.; Germoni, A.; Raffaelli, Carla; Savi, Michele

doi:10.1016/j.comnet.2008.09.009

Cited by 14 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 19 publications

(32 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To avoid this extra cost, an SSF has been proposed in [8] in order to connect WC banks to OFs with the lowest number of OGs. To evaluate the complexity of the proposed architecture, this stage with the lowest complexity is considered.…”

Section: Complexity Evaluation and Comparisonmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To evaluate the complexity of the proposed architecture, this stage with the lowest complexity is considered. It is based on the following observation: each WC may serve a packet which may be directed to any of the N OFs; so N OGs are needed to connect a WC to the N OFs [8]. …”

Section: Complexity Evaluation and Comparisonmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In particular, two particular approaches have attracted the attention of researchers: optical packet switching (OPS) [3] and optical burst switching (OBS) [4]. A significant amount of research and experimentation has been carried out in the last decade on optical packet/burst switching [5][6][7][8].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

et al. 2010

Self Cite

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: Complexity Evaluation and Comparisonmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Complexity Evaluation and Comparisonmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

et al. 2010

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The most well-known instance is the shared-per-node (SPN) configuration [30], which represents the perfect sharing scheme, as a pool of WCs is fairly shared among all wavelengths from all input ports. In SPN, WCs are required to be tunable-input, tunable-output WCs (TITO-WCs), which are assumed to be the most complex and expensive type of WC [31]. TITO-WCs are also used in the shared-per-link (SPL) architecture [32], in which a bank of WCs is dedicated to each output fiber.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…SPL, however, is not considered in this work as it suffers from inefficient WC sharing, particularly under unbalanced traffic conditions [32,33]. More recently, in [31,33], two alternative WC-sharing configurations were proposed that use less complex WCs, specifically the shared-per-inputwavelength (SPIW) and the shared-per-output-wavelength (SPOW) switching fabrics. Whilst SPIW relies on FITO-WCs as the DWC node, SPOW requires tunable-input, fixed-output WCs (TIFO-WCs), which are considered to be the less complex, and therefore cheaper, WCs [33,34].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cost Feasibility Analysis of Translucent Optical Networks With Shared Wavelength Converters

Pedrola

Careglio

Klinkowski

et al. 2013

J. Opt. Commun. Netw.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-Translucent optical networks have emerged as potential yet feasible candidates to bridge the gap between the opaque and transparent network architectures. By allowing electrical 3R signal regeneration only at selected points in the network, translucent architectures represent a cost-effective, power-efficient solution. Concurrently, forecasts predicting highly dynamic traffic patterns make it crucial for next-generation transport networks to engage highly agile technologies that include sub-wavelength switching (SWS). In translucent SWS networks, contention resolution is achieved through the still technologically immature all-optical wavelength converters (WCs). Since WCs are expected to be expensive, power-consuming devices, there has been significant research effort on devising WC-sharing architectures, which aim at minimizing the number of these devices in the network. WC sharing, however, requires complex switching fabrics that involve a much higher number of optical gates and stronger degradation due to physical layer impairments (more electrical 3R regenerators). It is clear, then, that the technological interest in WC-sharing architectures mainly depends on the cost trade-offs existing between these three components. For this reason, in this work, we carry out a comprehensive cost feasibility analysis of translucent networks based on asynchronous WC-sharing packet switches. After modeling a set of translucent WC-sharing switching fabrics, we assess their performance in an isolated node scenario in terms of the number of WCs and optical gates required. Given the results obtained, we select the shared-per-node (SPN) architecture to compare its hardware requirements with those of a network based on dedicated WC nodes (i.e., one WC per wavelength and input port). To this end, an iterative simulation algorithm is used to dimension translucent SWS networks considering a broad range of continental-scale topologies. The results are first analyzed using relative cost values, and finally the viability/feasibility of WC-sharing schemes is discussed considering state-of-the-art technology. Our main conclusion is that, for SPN-based architectures to become cost effective, the cost of WCs has to be at least two orders of magnitude higher than that of the optical gate and similar to or lower than that of the electrical 3R regenerator.

show abstract

Contention Resolution in OPS Networks

Rahbar¹

2015

Quality of Service in Optical Packet Switched Networks

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Packet loss analysis of shared-per-wavelength multi-fiber all-optical switch with parallel scheduling

Cited by 14 publications

References 19 publications

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

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

Cost Feasibility Analysis of Translucent Optical Networks With Shared Wavelength Converters

Contention Resolution in OPS Networks

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About