Optical layer signaling: how much is really needed?

This article challenges the emerging industry trend of adapting Internet-style distributed network-control with its full complexity for the optical transport network. Instead, we argue that an extensive telecom-style network management interface augmented with a minimal control plane and a service layer interface between management systems is more appropriate for the real needs of the optical layer. This approach will allow more flexibility in extending the interoperability between vendors and carriers as our understanding of these networks grows, increase the reliability of the network, and be a better fit for the telecom service provider. On the other hand, the simplicity of use and automation the Internet control plane promises can just as easily be achieved with our proposal.

[1]  G. Varghese,et al.  Pitfalls in the design of distributed routing algorithms , 1988, SIGCOMM 1988.

[2]  Wayne D. Grover,et al.  Optimal capacity placement for path restoration in STM or ATM mesh-survivable networks , 1998, TNET.

[3]  Alan Mcguire,et al.  Standards: the blueprints for optical networking , 1998 .

[4]  N. Golmie,et al.  A differentiated optical services model for WDM networks , 2000, IEEE Commun. Mag..

[5]  Vern Paxson,et al.  End-to-end routing behavior in the Internet , 1996, TNET.

[6]  Ori Gerstel,et al.  Protection interoperability for WDM optical networks , 2000, TNET.

[7]  Jennifer Yates,et al.  Smart routers-simple optics a network architecture for IP over WDM , 2000, Optical Fiber Communication Conference. Technical Digest Postconference Edition. Trends in Optics and Photonics Vol.37 (IEEE Cat. No. 00CH37079).

[8]  Debashis Basak,et al.  Extensions to IS-IS/OSPF and RSVP in support of MPL(ambda)S , 2000 .

[9]  Ori Gerstel,et al.  Optical layer survivability-an implementation perspective , 2000, IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications.