Workpackage 5 Transmission and Physical Aspects

1. WP5 f-t-f meeting September 12/13, 2005 Darmstadt Agenda Introduction Review of D26 Status of activities: PCAG, CSG, other, next steps Plenary meeting / workshop in November Wrap-up, Tasks Workpackage 5 Transmission and Physical Aspects Herbert Haunstein

2. Agenda for Darmstadt meeting September 12th: 10:00 – 11:00 Arrival / Welcome / Agenda 11:00 – 12:30D26 review 12:30 – 13:30 Lunch Break 13:30 – 18:00 D26 review 19:00 Dinner September 13th: revised 09:00 – 11:00 CSG (agree on table entries in D26) + Coffee break 11:00 – 13:00 PCAG (compare concepts / results) 13:00 – 14:00 Lunch Break14:00 – 14:30 Prepare plenary meeting (Nov. 24/25 )& workshop (22/23) Turin 14:30 – 15:00 Wrap-up, tasks Team: M.Gunkel, D.Schupke, G.Lehmann, A.Schinabeck, A.Lord, M. Wade, M.Potenza, H.Bülow, J.Martensson, S.Santoni, S. dePatre, T. Politi, H.Haunstein, C. Fürst, T. Fischer

3. Topics to be discussed • ECOC poster presentation - booth support • Tanya, Henning, Cornelius, Andrew are at ECOC, they will contact Giuseppe Ferarris • Standards contributions • Communication through board representative • NOBEL workshop & plenary meeting • Subteams (PCAG, CSG, OPM, PMD mitigation?) • D28 • Annual Report • Final Audit • Publications: (jointly out of WP5) • conference deadlines: e.g. OFC 13th Oct (probably A. Lord) Should provide a consistent story

4. Schedule Sep 12/13: WP5 meeting Darmstadt (send presentations) Sep 16: Contributions for Draft H of D26 Sep 21: Compiled version H Sep 26: Telco 10am (if required), Matthias‘ section available COB Sep 28: Final editorial work Sep 30: Deliver D26 Oct 21: CSG update (document or slides) Nov 22/23: NOBEL Workshop (PCAG, CSG, PMD, OPM) Nov 24/25: Final Plenary Dec 19/20 Final WP5 meeting Nürnberg (Lebkuchen & Glühwein) Dec 30 Deliver D28 Annual Report / Final Audit We are here

5. Work split • D26 : Dynamic Networks (Structure: Summary + Appendix ) • Path computation during network planning • Physical constraints aware light path computation (operation phase) • Part of cost comparison • D28 : Domain Oriented Approach (static and dynamic) • Conclusions of cost comparison study • Translucent Network  Define transparent domains or other strategyHow ‘big’ could / should a domain be ? • O-E-O vs. all-optical – cost study to support the design of transparent domains • Create specifications for components (and subsystems) based on the results from D19/D26 • Hand over to experimental work in “NOBEL phase II”, theoretical studies still ongoing

6. Backup slides for reference

7. WP5 D28 - Contributions TILab: "How 'big' could /should a domain be" and "Requirements for components (and subsystems) based on the results of the previous work (Marcello) ASEL/ACIT: ACIT: transients (from D26, Dominique) BT: cost studies (OPM, OEO vs. transparency) (Yu Rong) Lucent: verify simulation results and revise specifications for main building blocks of transparent optical networks (Alfons, Bernd) Marconi: Cost studies (Cornelius) Plabs: Contribute to compile the specifications of network elements (Stefano) Siemens: Identification and specification of key components of transparent optical networks (Gottfried) T-Systems: Cost comparison of an opaque and transparent approach for the DT network and price list (Matthias) ACREO: definition of experiments preferably carried out in Acreo's all ethernet/IP based testbed (e.g. OPM, Anders B.) FT: translucent networks (Hisao) NTUA: network simulations based on reference networks? (Tanya)

8. Time line & sub teams of WP5 M12 M15 M21 M24 M4 Dynamic Network simulation (Routing) Network Design Rules Optimization Specification of network elements for verification Building Blocks Reference Networks Physical Feasibility Light Path Design • Dedicated sub teams: • Carrier‘s group (reference networks, traffic demand estimation) • Optical performance monitoring group (jointly w/ WP4, finished) • Path computation algorithms group (Dominic) • Cost study group (Martin) • PMD mitigation synopsis

9. Milestones Milestones[1] and expected result M5.1 Specification of design targets available (M15) M5.2 Simulation results for a transparent optical network (M21) M5.3 Simulation results adapted and verified for all network elements (lab trial) (M24) [1]Milestones are control points at which decisions are needed; for example concerning which of several technologies will be adopted as the basis for the next phase of the project.

10. Audit Recommendations D13 Physical feasibility of optical transport networks: a comprehensive definition of physical system models and reference configurations for use in the project. This is based on available technology and simulation work is indicative of performance that could be expected of an ASON such as practical link spans, methods of monitoring, switching.This area of work is central to the success of NOBEL as the costs of providing and operating the physical layer will determine the ultimate viability of the NOBEL concepts. The fundamental problem that needs to be addressed is as follows:For an ASON to be fully flexible as described in the proposal a connection may take a variety of physical routes across the network. So if short range connections share the same infrastructure as long range connections, as is inherent in the NOBEL principles, the physical layer components (transponders, amplifiers, compensations, equalisation, etc.) must be designed at the outset to support the longest possible path and maximum capacity (bit rate and waveband) over the network lifetime. If a significant proportion of the traffic requires shorter range connections then the network will be over-engineered and uneconomic. Any alternative that partitions the traffic would appear to reduce flexibility. This means the whole network must be designed for the most demanding connections, requiring the highest speed, longest range, best modulation method etc. Conventional cross-connect networks inherently allow a mix of low and high performance components to achieve an economic mix according to network geography, traffic etc. The NOBEL concept does not appear to allow such a mix without compromising flexibility. (Intelligent use of electronics and optimisation of individual ASON islands alone do not solve the problem). In the next period the project should seek to demonstrate that it is able to resolve this problem in a practical way.