1 / 29

Fundamental Complexity of Optical Systems

Fundamental Complexity of Optical Systems. Hadas Kogan, Isaac Keslassy Technion (Israel). Lookup. Switching. Buffering. Router – schematic representation. Router. Problem - electronic routers do not scale to optical speeds: Access to electronic memory is slow and power consuming.

garima
Télécharger la présentation

Fundamental Complexity of Optical Systems

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Fundamental Complexity of Optical Systems Hadas Kogan, Isaac Keslassy Technion (Israel)

  2. Lookup Switching Buffering Router – schematic representation Router Problem - electronic routers do not scale to optical speeds: • Access to electronic memory is slow and power consuming. • Data conversions are power consuming as well. Opticto electronic Electronic to optic … … Optic to electronic Electronic to optic

  3. Power consumption per chassis There has to be some future alternative! [Nick McKeown, Stanford]

  4. How about an optical router? • No electronic memory bottleneck • No O/E/O conversions BUT: An optical router is thought to be too complex. Is it?

  5. Optical router complexity Objective: quantify the fundamental complexity of an optical router Two types of fundamental complexity: • Construction complexity: number of basic optical components needed (e.g., 2x2 optical switches) • Control complexity: frequency of optical switch reconfigurations

  6. Main contributions • Define fundamental complexity in general optical constructions: • Control complexity • Construction complexity • Find lower and upper bounds on these costs. • Construct optical router with minimum complexity.

  7. Outline • Background • Control complexity (# switch reconfigurations) • Definition • Bounds • Construction complexity (# switches) • Definition • Optimally constructed constructions

  8. Two possible ways to “store” light • To slow/stop light. BUT: requires gas environments with tight temperature and pressure constraints, and currently seems impractical. • Use optical switches and fiber delay lines. . Buffer Buffer

  9. How do we store light? An optical memory cell: (a) writing the packet (b) circulating the packet (c) reading the packet (a) (b) (c) 1 1 1 We’ve presented a buffer capable of storing one optical packet.

  10. A naive optical queue with buffer B 1 1 1 1 1 • The number of 22 switches needed for the naive construction is B. • Could be less than B when several packets can share the same line (with different line lengths).

  11. Input 1 Output 1 … … Input N Output N What we want: an ideal router • An output-queued push-in-first-out (OQ-PIFO) switch. • OQ - Arriving packets are placed immediately in the queue of size B at their destination output. • PIFO – packets departure ordering is according to their priority.

  12. What we want: an ideal router • Why it is ideal: • OQ: Work conserving implies best throughput and minimal delay. • PIFO: Enables FIFO, strict priorities, WFQ… • But – up to N packets destined to the same output: • Speed-up for switch • Speed-up for queue • PIFO is hard to implement.

  13. How do we do it in optics? PIFO 1 B OQ If packets are destined to different outputs: • Switching: optical switch NxN with O(NlnN) 2x2 optical switches ([Shannon ’49], [Benes ’67]). • Buffering: optical PIFO queue B 2x2 optical switches ([Sarwate & Anantharam ’04]). 1 Input 1 Output 1 2 Output 2 1 Output 3 … 3 … 3 Input N Output N 2 1 B PIFO

  14. Control complexity

  15. Generalization to systems • An optical system - a network element that has input links, output links and inner states, and is built with optical 2x2 switches and FDLs. • Inner states - the different settings of the system elements.External states – distinguishable possible system outputs.

  16. 3 4 1 2 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 2 1 4 3 0.5 1 1 2 3 2 2 4 1 0.25 3 3 4 1 0.25 4 4 2 3 Definition • Control complexity – a measure of the minimal expected number of switch reconfigurations. Example: • 4 inputs, 4 outputs, 3 external states: What is the control complexity of an optical system with these states?

  17. 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 2 1 4 3 3 4 1 2 0.5 0.25 0.25 Link to coding Coding Switching Source symbols: A1 – w.p. 0.5 A2 – w.p. 0.25 A3 – w.p. 0.25 A 2x2 switch A binary digit State entropy Source entropy ??? Minimizing expected code length Coding results should apply also to switching!

  18. Definitions • A super switch: • Passive and active controls – for each state, a control is called passive if its value is irrelevant for setting that state. Otherwise, it is called active. C

  19. Active Active Passive C1 3 4 1 2 2 1 4 3 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 0.5 0.25 0.25 C2 Example: C1=0 C1=1, C2=0 C1=1, C2=1 With coding: w.p 0.5 A1 ↔0 w.p 0.25A2↔10 w.p 0.25A3↔11

  20. Definition – control complexity • Definition: the control complexity of an optical system is its minimal expected number of active controls, T – states space, - number of active controls per state

  21. 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 2 1 4 3 3 4 1 2 0.5 0.25 0.25 Link to coding Coding Switching Source symbols: A1 – w.p. 0.5 A2 – w.p. 0.25 A3 – w.p. 0.25 A 2x2 switch A binary digit. States entropy Source entropy Minimized expected code length ??? Control complexity

  22. C1 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 2 1 4 3 3 4 1 2 0.5 0.25 0.25 C2 Lower bound Theorem: The control complexity is lower bounded by the entropy of the states: Proof: Similar to the proof of expected code length lower bound In the previous example:

  23. An upper bound on the control complexity Theorem: The control complexity is upper bounded as follows: Stages of proof: • Generate Huffman coding (expected code length ≤ H+1) . • There exists a construction (using multiplexers and distributers) of a memoryless system such that the active controls for each state are the Huffman coding of that state • A system with memory can be composed from a memoryless system using a time-space transformation.

  24. Construction complexity

  25. 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 5 1 4 2 8 3 6 7 N 7 1 6 2 3 3 8 4 2 5 4 6 1 7 5 8 Definition • Construction complexity: the minimal possible number of 2x2 switches in the construction. • Examples: • An NxN switch: N! states, O(NlnN) switches [Shannon, ‘49], [Benes, ‘65]. • A Time Slot Interchange (TSI) with time frame N: N! states - O(lnN) switches [Jordan et. al., ‘94].

  26. Construction complexity • Intuition: With C 2x2 switches during T time slots, the possible number of resulting states K is upper bounded by 2CT. • Therefore: to get K states in state duration T, a lower bound on the construction complexity is given by:

  27. Optimally-constructed constructions • A construction algorithm is optimally constructed if its number of 2x2 switches is equal in growth to the construction complexity. • Examples: • An NxN switch: • A TSI: [Benes, ‘65]. [Jordan et. al., ‘94].

  28. Input 1 Output 1 … … Input N Output N Conclusion – construction complexity of optical routers B The construction complexity of an OQ-PIFO switch is Θ(Nln(N))+Θ(Nln(B)) = Θ(Nln(NB)) NxN switch: Θ(Nln(N)) PIFO buffer of sizeB: Θ(ln(B))

  29. Thank you!

More Related