How Reliable Are the Real-World Optical Transport Networks?

C. Pavan; L. S. de Lima; M. H. M. Paiva; M. E. V. Segatto

doi:10.1364/JOCN.7.000578

Journal of Optical Communications and Networking
Vol. 7,
Issue 6,
pp. 578-585
(2015)
•https://doi.org/10.1364/JOCN.7.000578

How Reliable Are the Real-World Optical Transport Networks?

C. Pavan, L. S. de Lima, M. H. M. Paiva, and M. E. V. Segatto

Not Accessible

Your library or personal account may give you access

Get PDF
Email
Share
Get Citation
Copy Citation Text
C. Pavan, L. S. de Lima, M. H. M. Paiva, and M. E. V. Segatto, "How Reliable Are the Real-World Optical Transport Networks?," J. Opt. Commun. Netw. 7, 578-585 (2015)

Export Citation
- BibTex
- Endnote (RIS)
- HTML
- Plain Text
Citation alert
Save article

Abstract

Due to the increase of bandwidth supported by optical transport networks, it becomes important to identify how reliable the actual real-world network topologies are, and the relationship of reliability with other key factors. Reliability is essential in this context, since the failure of elements such as fiber links and cross connects may cause the outage of several associated optical channels, leading to large data losses. Here we address reliability related to link failures. For a fixed number of nodes, the maximum network reliability could be obtained by maximizing the number of links, but it is prohibitive due to the technological and cost constraints. However, for a given number of nodes and links, there exist a number of topologies that may have different levels of reliability. How can we build the most reliable topologies satisfying these constraints? How reliable are the real-world topologies? In order to answer these questions, we explore a class of topologies that maximize reliability. Such topologies correspond to a subclass of Harary graphs. In this paper, we compare the reliability of the real-world topologies to the most reliable ones. Also, we compare both sets of topologies with respect to cost. Our results show that, in some cases, after maximizing reliability, the resulting topologies may also present lower capital expenditure.

Full Article | PDF Article

More Like This

Genetic Algorithm for the Topological Design of Survivable Optical Transport Networks

Rui Manuel Morais, Claunir Pavan, Armando Nolasco Pinto, and Cristina Requejo
J. Opt. Commun. Netw. 3(1) 17-26 (2011)

Cross-Layer Network Survivability Under Multiple Cross-Layer Metrics

Zhili Zhou, Tachun Lin, Krishnaiyan Thulasiraman, Guoliang Xue, and Sartaj Sahni
J. Opt. Commun. Netw. 7(6) 540-553 (2015)

Cost of Loop-Free Alternates in IP-Over-WDM Networks

Ćiril Rožić and Galen Sasaki
J. Opt. Commun. Netw. 7(4) 368-379 (2015)

Previous Article Next Article

Cited By

You do not have subscription access to this journal. Cited by links are available to subscribers only. You may subscribe either as an Optica member, or as an authorized user of your institution.

Contact your librarian or system administrator
or
Login to access Optica Member Subscription

Figures (8)

You do not have subscription access to this journal. Figure files are available to subscribers only. You may subscribe either as an Optica member, or as an authorized user of your institution.

Contact your librarian or system administrator
or
Login to access Optica Member Subscription

Tables (2)

You do not have subscription access to this journal. Article tables are available to subscribers only. You may subscribe either as an Optica member, or as an authorized user of your institution.

Contact your librarian or system administrator
or
Login to access Optica Member Subscription

Equations (10)

You do not have subscription access to this journal. Equations are available to subscribers only. You may subscribe either as an Optica member, or as an authorized user of your institution.

Contact your librarian or system administrator
or
Login to access Optica Member Subscription

Network ID	Name	N	L	$〈 δ 〉$
1	CESNET	12	19	3.17
2	NSFNET	14	21	3.00
3	ITALY	14	29	4.14
4	GAR-B*	16	27	3.38
5	GERMANY	17	26	3.06
6	REDIRISNET	17	28	3.29
7	EON	19	37	3.89
8	ARPANET	20	32	3.20
9	COX	24	40	3.33
10	GEANT2*	30	48	3.20
11	CERNET*	30	47	3.13
12	IBN31*	31	50	3.23
13	COST37	37	57	3.08
14	USA100	100	171	3.42

$c_{1}$	$c_{2}$	$c_{3}$	$c_{4}$	$c_{5}$	$c_{6}$	$c_{7}$	$c_{8}$	$c_{9}$	$c_{10}$	$c_{11}$	$c_{12}$	$c_{13}$
Network ID	OTN						HGOR
	$R$	$S_{2}$	$S_{3}$	$S_{4}$	$〈 k_{p} 〉$	$T$	$R$	$S_{2}$	$S_{3}$	$S_{4}$	$〈 k_{p} 〉$	$T$
1	0.987786	6	108	901	1.50	690	0.999971	0	10	180	1.49	672
2	0.995581	2	51	596	1.69	1048	0.999963	0	14	287	1.45	1064
3	0.996706	2	62	910	1.46	850	1.000000	0	0	12	1.35	850
4	0.993065	4	114	1540	1.45	1432	0.999981	0	10	264	1.36	1418
5	0.982903	10	255	3033	1.48	1860	0.999968	0	16	412	1.39	1752
6	0.981346	12	310	3806	1.48	1532	0.999978	0	12	330	1.37	1696
7	0.992832	6	214	3702	1.37	1900	0.999998	0	2	85	1.23	2120
8	0.998517	0	20	618	1.49	2614	0.998790	0	16	510	1.33	2682
9	0.987016	12	465	8702	1.47	3950	0.999984	0	16	642	1.27	4380
10	0.984636	19	875	19,573	1.47	6670	0.999984	0	24	1174	1.23	8380
11	0.974957	30	1344	29,012	1.39	7012	0.999982	0	26	1250	1.23	8324
12	0.995861	5	274	7250	1.34	8386	0.999986	0	24	1223	1.22	9106
13	0.993889	10	590	16,954	1.44	12,440	0.999986	0	34	2007	1.21	15,214
14	0.999905	22	3774	321,593	1.27	150,776	1.000000	0	58	10,248	1.07	265,676

Network ID	Name	N	L	$〈 δ 〉$
1	CESNET	12	19	3.17
2	NSFNET	14	21	3.00
3	ITALY	14	29	4.14
4	GAR-B*	16	27	3.38
5	GERMANY	17	26	3.06
6	REDIRISNET	17	28	3.29
7	EON	19	37	3.89
8	ARPANET	20	32	3.20
9	COX	24	40	3.33
10	GEANT2*	30	48	3.20
11	CERNET*	30	47	3.13
12	IBN31*	31	50	3.23
13	COST37	37	57	3.08
14	USA100	100	171	3.42

$c_{1}$	$c_{2}$	$c_{3}$	$c_{4}$	$c_{5}$	$c_{6}$	$c_{7}$	$c_{8}$	$c_{9}$	$c_{10}$	$c_{11}$	$c_{12}$	$c_{13}$
Network ID	OTN						HGOR
	$R$	$S_{2}$	$S_{3}$	$S_{4}$	$〈 k_{p} 〉$	$T$	$R$	$S_{2}$	$S_{3}$	$S_{4}$	$〈 k_{p} 〉$	$T$
1	0.987786	6	108	901	1.50	690	0.999971	0	10	180	1.49	672
2	0.995581	2	51	596	1.69	1048	0.999963	0	14	287	1.45	1064
3	0.996706	2	62	910	1.46	850	1.000000	0	0	12	1.35	850
4	0.993065	4	114	1540	1.45	1432	0.999981	0	10	264	1.36	1418
5	0.982903	10	255	3033	1.48	1860	0.999968	0	16	412	1.39	1752
6	0.981346	12	310	3806	1.48	1532	0.999978	0	12	330	1.37	1696
7	0.992832	6	214	3702	1.37	1900	0.999998	0	2	85	1.23	2120
8	0.998517	0	20	618	1.49	2614	0.998790	0	16	510	1.33	2682
9	0.987016	12	465	8702	1.47	3950	0.999984	0	16	642	1.27	4380
10	0.984636	19	875	19,573	1.47	6670	0.999984	0	24	1174	1.23	8380
11	0.974957	30	1344	29,012	1.39	7012	0.999982	0	26	1250	1.23	8324
12	0.995861	5	274	7250	1.34	8386	0.999986	0	24	1223	1.22	9106
13	0.993889	10	590	16,954	1.44	12,440	0.999986	0	34	2007	1.21	15,214
14	0.999905	22	3774	321,593	1.27	150,776	1.000000	0	58	10,248	1.07	265,676

Abstract

Cited By

Figures (8)

Tables (2)

Equations (10)

Journal of Optical Communications and Networking