Waveband Assignment in Bi-directional Ring Networks

Alnaimi, M.; Subramaniam, Suresh

doi:10.1109/ofc.2008.4528518

Cited by 1 publication

(8 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In this work, L-ROADMs are limited-add whereas in [9], the L-ROADMs were limited add/drop. This paper and [7][8] [9] have the same main goal, to minimize the band size of the LROADMs and maximize the number of L-ROADMs. Here, we derive an upper bound for the number of F-ROADMs needed for permutation traffic, when the L-ROADMs have a given band size.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…Since the shortest route is always chosen, the longest path for interconnecting any two nodes will use ((N + 1)/2 − 1) links of the ring. In [9] where the L-ROADMs were limited add/drop, an efficient heuristic was proposed that uses W min = (N 2 − 1)/8 wavelengths [2] per fiber. It showed, for example, that a band-size of 5 wavelengths in a 7-node ring network could be achieved using W min = 6, as shown in Table I.…”

Section: All-to-all Trafficmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Since LROADMs have smaller tunable ranges than F-ROADMs, they are less expensive than F-ROADMs. This paper and [7][8] [9] are motivated by [3] which first considered the problem of determining the band size and the number of L-ROADMs that can satisfy a given traffic demand. Specifically, the paper considered all-to-all (one lightpath between every pair of nodes) traffic in a ring network and answered the question: what is the maximum number of LROADMs of band-size K that can be used to set up all-to-all traffic?…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We presented some results for wavebanding in uni-directional ring networks in [7] and [8]. In [9], we considered a bi-directional ring network and presented some results for all-to-all traffic. In this work, L-ROADMs are limited-add whereas in [9], the L-ROADMs were limited add/drop.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In [9], we considered a bi-directional ring network and presented some results for all-to-all traffic. In this work, L-ROADMs are limited-add whereas in [9], the L-ROADMs were limited add/drop. This paper and [7][8] [9] have the same main goal, to minimize the band size of the LROADMs and maximize the number of L-ROADMs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Wavebanding in Bi-Directional WDM Ring Networks with Limited Reconfigurability

Alnaimi

Subramaniam

2008

2008 Proceedings of 17th International Conference on Computer Communications and Networks

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An important factor that affects the cost of WDM networks is the number of wavelengths to be added/dropped by reconfigurable optical add drop multiplexers (ROADMs). Limiting the range of wavelengths that can be accessed at a node reduces costs. In this paper, we study wavelength assignment (WA) in WDM bi-directional ring networks with limited reconfigurability and take up the problem of supporting two traffic types -permutation traffic and all-to-all traffic -while minimizing the worst-case wavelength range of the ROADMs and respecting the wavelength termination and continuity constraints. ROADMs can be limited in tuning range (L-ROADMs) or have full range (FROADMs). In this work, a node can either possess a limited-add L-ROADM or an F-ROADM. For permutation traffic, we show that at least one F-ROADM is necessary, and we also give an upper bound on the number of F-ROADMs needed as a function of the range of L-ROADMs at other nodes. For all-to-all traffic, we develop an integer linear programming (ILP) formulation,and also propose a new wavelength assignment algorithm that uses W u = N 2 4 − N 2 + 1 4 wavelengths. Our heuristic's results are similar to the ILP's. The results show that a saving of 85-93.3% in tuning range is achievable for this type of traffic.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: All-to-all Trafficmentioning

confidence: 99%