OSA's Digital Library

Journal of Optical Communications and Networking

Journal of Optical Communications and Networking

  • Editors: K. Bergman and V. Chan
  • Vol. 1, Iss. 6 — Nov. 1, 2009
  • pp: 543–554

Analysis of Blocking Probability in Noise- and Cross-Talk-Impaired All-Optical Networks

Yvan Pointurier, Maïté Brandt-Pearce, and Suresh Subramaniam  »View Author Affiliations


Journal of Optical Communications and Networking, Vol. 1, Issue 6, pp. 543-554 (2009)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1364/JOCN.1.000543


View Full Text Article

Acrobat PDF (303 KB)





Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Browse by Journal and Year


   


Lookup Conference Papers

Close Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Article Tools

Share
Citations

Abstract

In all-optical networks with no wavelength converters, signals are switched optically inside the nodes and therefore propagate over hundreds or thousands of kilometers with no electrical regeneration. Over such distances, physical impairments, such as intersymbol interference (ISI), amplifier noise, and leaks within nodes (cross-talk), accumulate and can lead to serious signal degradation, resulting in poor quality of transmission (QoT) as measured by signal bit-error rates. The role of routing and wavelength assignment (RWA) algorithms is to accommodate incoming calls in optical networks over a route and a wavelength. RWA algorithms block calls if a continuous wavelength from the source to the destination cannot be found (wavelength blocking) or when the QoT of the call is not acceptable (QoT blocking). Evaluating RWA algorithms via simulations is possible but time consuming, and hence analytical methods are needed. Wavelength blocking has been studied analytically in the past, but QoT blocking has never been analytically modeled to our knowledge. In this paper, we present an analytical method to evaluate blocking probability in all-optical networks, accounting for physical layer impairments. Our physical layer model includes ISI and noise, two static effects that only depend on the network topology, and also cross-talk, which depends on the network state. Simulations on three different topologies with various numbers of channels, representing small- to large-scale networks, show that our technique is suitable for quick and accurate dimensioning of all-optical networks: the accuracy of the blocking rates computed with the analytical method, taking only seconds or minutes to run, is the same as that of simulations, which take hours to run.

© 2009 Optical Society of America

OCIS Codes
(060.1155) Fiber optics and optical communications : All-optical networks
(060.4251) Fiber optics and optical communications : Networks, assignment and routing algorithms

ToC Category:
Research Papers

History
Original Manuscript: June 26, 2009
Revised Manuscript: September 9, 2009
Manuscript Accepted: September 11, 2009
Published: October 15, 2009

Citation
Yvan Pointurier, Maïté Brandt-Pearce, and Suresh Subramaniam, "Analysis of Blocking Probability in Noise- and Cross-Talk-Impaired All-Optical Networks," J. Opt. Commun. Netw. 1, 543-554 (2009)
http://www.opticsinfobase.org/jocn/abstract.cfm?URI=jocn-1-6-543


Sort:  Author  |  Year  |  Journal  |  Reset

References

  1. J. Berthold, A. Saleh, L. Blair, and J. Simmons, “Optical networking: past, present, and future,” J. Lightwave Technol. , vol. 26, no. 9, pp. 1104-1118, May 2008. [CrossRef]
  2. J. Simmons, Optical Network Design and Planning. New York, Springer: 2008.
  3. J. Strand, A. Chiu, and R. Tkach, “Issues for routing in the optical layer,” IEEE Commun. Mag. , vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 81-87, Feb. 2001. [CrossRef]
  4. Y. Pointurier, M. Brandt-Pearce, S. Subramaniam, and B. Xu, “Cross-layer adaptive routing and wavelength assignment in all-optical networks,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. , vol. 26, pp. 32-44, Aug. 2008. [CrossRef]
  5. I. Chlamtac, A. Ganz, and G. Karmi, “Lightpath communications: a novel approach to high bandwidth optical WANs,” IEEE Trans. Commun. , vol. 40, no. 7, pp. 1171-1182, July 1992. [CrossRef]
  6. H. Zang, J. Jue, and B. Mukherjee, “A review of routing and wavelength assignment approaches for wavelength-routed optical WDM networks,” Opt. Networks Mag. , vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 47-60, Jan. 2000.
  7. G. Agrawal, Fiber-Optic Communications Systems. New York, Wiley: 2002.
  8. E. Goldstein and L. Eskildsen, “Scaling limitations in transparent optical networks due to low-level crosstalk,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett. , vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 93-94, Jan. 1995. [CrossRef]
  9. A. Birman, “Computing approximate blocking probabilities for a class of all-optical networks,” in Proc. IEEE INFOCOM, vol. 2, 1995, pp. 651-658.
  10. R. Barry and P. Humblet, “Models of blocking probability in all-optical networks with and without wavelength changers,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. , vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 858-867, June 1996. [CrossRef]
  11. Y. Zhu, G. Rouskas, and H. Perros, “A path decomposition approach for computing blocking probabilities in wavelength-routing networks,” IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw. , vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 747-762, Dec. 2000. [CrossRef]
  12. K. Lu, G. Xiao, and I. Chlamtac, “Analysis of blocking probability for distributed lightpath establishment in WDM optical networks,” IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw. , vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 187-197, Feb. 2005. [CrossRef]
  13. S. Subramaniam, M. Azizoğlu, and A. Somani, “All-optical networks with sparse wavelength conversion,” IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw. , vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 544-557, Aug. 1996. [CrossRef]
  14. A. Sridharan and K. Sivarajan, “Blocking in all-optical networks,” IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw. , vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 384-397, Apr. 2004. [CrossRef]
  15. B. Mukherjee, “WDM optical communication networks: progress and challenges,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. , vol. 18, no. 10, pp. 1810-1824, Oct. 2000. [CrossRef]
  16. T. Deng, S. Subramaniam, and J. Xu, “Crosstalk-aware wavelength assignment in dynamic wavelength-routed optical networks,” in Proc. IEEE Broadnets, 2004, pp. 140-149.
  17. A. Willner, M. Cardakli, O. Adamczyk, Y.-W. Song, and D. Gurkan, “Key building blocks for all-optical networks,” IEICE Trans. Commun. , vol. E83-B, pp. 2166-2177, Oct. 2000.
  18. Y. Pointurier and M. Brandt-Pearce, “Analytical study of crosstalk propagation in all-optical networks using perturbation theory,” J. Lightwave Technol. , vol. 23, no. 12, pp. 1901-1910, Dec. 2005. [CrossRef]
  19. S.-P. Chung, A. Kasper, and K. Ross, “Computing approximate blocking probabilities for large loss networks with state-dependent routing,” IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw. , vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 105-115, Feb. 1993. [CrossRef]
  20. Y. Pointurier, M. Brandt-Pearce, and S. Subramaniam, “Analysis of blocking probability in noise and crosstalk impaired all-optical networks,” in Proc. IEEE INFOCOM, Anchorage, AK, May 2007, short paper.

Cited By

Alert me when this paper is cited

OSA is able to provide readers links to articles that cite this paper by participating in CrossRef's Cited-By Linking service. CrossRef includes content from more than 3000 publishers and societies. In addition to listing OSA journal articles that cite this paper, citing articles from other participating publishers will also be listed.

« Previous Article  |  Next Article »

OSA is a member of CrossRef.

CrossCheck Deposited