120 likes | 234 Vues
This paper presents a novel approach to network survivability, combining span and path restoration to protect against node failures, with operational efficiency and lower spare capacity requirements. The system is tested on various network topologies and traffic demands, demonstrating improved protection capabilities in a cost-effective manner.
E N D
Node-InclusiveSpanSurvivability in an Optical Mesh Transport Network John Doucette and Wayne D. Grover TRLabs and University of Alberta Edmonton, AB, Canada john.doucette@trlabs.ca, grover@trlabs.ca NFOEC 2003 Orlando, FL, USA 7-11 September 2003
Introduction • Span Restoration • Localized and shorter restoration paths • Faster and easier control of transmission effects • Less capacity efficient • No ability to recover from node failures • End-to-End Path Restoration • More capacity efficient • Inherent ability to recover from node failures • Operationally more complicated • Many nodes involved, and restoration paths are lengthy • Greater average delay • Can we modify span restoration to protect node failures? • Will this combine benefits of span and path restoration?
Span Restoration Path Restoration B B custodial nodes X X custodial node X C X C custodial node A Z A Z Y Y D D Node-Inclusive Span Survivability NA NZ custodial regions B X X C A Z Y node-inclusive span entity D Node-Inclusive Span Survivability Concept
X X A A B B C C D D E E A B C D E Node Failure Recovery: X NISS Operational Details Span Failure Recovery:
restoration route custodial node B Y D custodial node A Z O X X X C X custodial node D custodial regions custodial node O restoration route NISS Operational Details(2)
Integer Linear Programming Model Objective Function: • Minimize cost of spare capacity Subject To: • Restoration flow for all span failure scenarios • Spare capacity allocation for span failures • including stub release • Restoration flow for all node failure scenarios • Spare capacity allocation for node failures • including stub release
Computational Aspects • Test networks • Group A: Nine small test networks (9-node 17-span to 11-node 26-span) • Group B: Three families of networks of varying average nodal degree (15-node to 25-node) • Traffic demands • Group A: Various, as per networks’ sources • Group B: Uniform random demands from 1 to 10 wavelengths • Working capacity is shortest path routed • Eligible route enumeration • At least five eligible restoration routes per failure scenario • ILP solution method • Implemented in AMPL and solved using CPLEX 7.1 MIP • 4-processor UltraSparc Sun Server, 450 MHz, 4 GB RAM • Solved to within 0.01% of optimality • Most problems solved in several seconds or minutes
Results Test Networks: Group A
Results (2) Test Networks: Group B 15-node family
Results (3) Test Networks: Group B 20-node family
Results (4) Test Networks: Group B 25-node family
Concluding Remarks • Node failure protection is inherent • and we can explicitly guarantee it • Spare capacity requirements are good • significantly below span restoration • approaching path restoration (within 0% to 10%) • Easily amenable to dynamic service provisioning • working capacity envelope can apply • Localized restoration paths make operational aspects much easier than path restoration