Trading network management complexity for blocking probability when placing optical regenerators

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorSavasini, Marcio S.en_US
dc.contributor.authorMonti, Paolo, 1973-en_US
dc.contributor.authorFumagalli, Andreaen_US
dc.contributor.authorTacca, Marco, 1973-en_US
dc.contributor.authorWaldman, Helioen_US
dc.contributor.sponsorEric Jonsson School of Engineering and Computer Science. Open Networking Advanced Research (OpNeAR) Laboratory.en_US
dc.contributor.sponsorState University of Campinas. Faculdade de Engenharia Eletrica e de Computacao.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2013-05-24T21:06:30Z
dc.date.available2013-05-24T21:06:30Z
dc.date.created2008-01en_US
dc.date.issued2013-05-24
dc.description"This research was supported in part by NSF Grant No. CNS-043593 and CAPES Process No. BEX4403/05-3."en_US
dc.description.abstractOptical signal regenerators (3R) are required to overcome the adverse effect of fiber and other transmission impairments. 3R units may be placed either at every node (full placement) or at some selected nodes (sparse placement) of the optical network. It has been argued [1] that while the latter placement strategy may not be optimal in terms of the total number of 3R units required to support a given set of static traffic demands, it offers a number of practical advantages over the former, e.g., a contained complexity of network management in terms of signaling overhead. In this paper the full and sparse placement strategies are compared in a dynamic optical network, whereby lightpaths are set up and torn down to best fit the offered changing demands. The study shows that the blocking probability due to the lack of available 3R units achieved by the sparse placement strategy may be comparable to the one achieved by the full placement strategy. Surprisingly, it may even be lower in some cases, thus providing an additional motivation in favor of the sparse placement strategy. The study also shows that the algorithm used to choose the nodes where to place the 3R units must be designed carefully. Two placement algorithms are compared, reporting differences in signaling overhead level as high as 6 times (when achieving a desired level of lightpath connectivity) and differences in blocking probabilities as high as two orders of magnitude (when using the same level of signaling overhead).en_US
dc.identifier.bibliographicCitationSavasini, M.S., P. Monti, M. Tacca, A. Fumagalli and H. Williams. 2007. "Trading Network Management Complexity for Blocking Probability when Placing Optical Regenerators." The University of Texas at Dallas.en_US
dc.identifier.seriesNumberEE09-2008en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10735.1/2644
dc.publisherThe University of Texas at Dallasen_US
dc.relation.isPartOfTechnical Report (University of Texas at Dallas. Department of Electrical Engineering)en_US
dc.rightsCC BY 3.0 (Attribution)en_US
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/en_US
dc.subjectComputer networks--Managementen_US
dc.subjectBlocking probabilityen_US
dc.subjectRegenerator placementen_US
dc.subjectk-connectivityen_US
dc.subjectOptical networksen_US
dc.titleTrading network management complexity for blocking probability when placing optical regeneratorsen_US
dc.typeTexten_US
dc.type.genreTechnical reporten_US

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
ECS-TR-EE-Savasini-310393.36.pdf
Size:
389.7 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Download

Collections

Electrical Engineering