At present we see only one basic approach being considered by implementors and standards organizations for provisioning of dynamic protected lightpath services that make efficient use of shared protection capacity. This is the paradigm of a primary working path protected end-to-end by a disjoint backup path using shared spare capacity. Sharing is arranged among the backup paths associated with other primary paths that are failure-disjoint from the current primary path. This approach called shared backup path protection (SBPP) has many advantages but also provides a great deal of network state information to be available and current in every node. It also makes the arrangement of protection a per-connection task, rather than user-selectable service option supported by the network itself. We propose an alternative paradigm for consideration, partly summed up as provisioning over protected capacity rather than provisioning protection. Under a given distribution of spare capacity, locally acting protection or restoration schemes create an "envelope" of protected working channels. Dynamic provisioning within this envelope is simplified to a shortest path routing problem and (depending on the mode of operation) requires little or no dissemination of state changes on a per-connection basis. We explain how existing "static" capacity design methods can be adopted to the dimensioning of such a working capacity envelope and the envelope dimensions further adapted online to track evolution of the overall pattern of random demand. An important property is that nothing needs to be done to arrange protection for services on the per-connection timescale other than routing the service itself. Arbitrarily fast-paced demand arrivals and departures can be accommodated within a static distribution of spare capacity. Adjustments to the envelope itself are required only on the timescale on which the statistical parameters of the random demand changes. This may provide an inherently more scalable, less database-dependent, and higher-availability alternative than SBPP, or at least an additional service modality that can be offered to customers.
[1]
Wayne D. Grover,et al.
NODE-INCLUSIVE SPAN SURVIVABILITY IN AN OPTICAL MESH TRANSPORT NETWORK
,
2003
.
[2]
Thomas E. Stern,et al.
Protection cycles in mesh WDM networks
,
2000,
IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications.
[3]
Greg M. Bernstein,et al.
IP-centric control and management of optical transport networks
,
2000,
IEEE Commun. Mag..
[4]
T. V. Lakshman,et al.
Shared backup Label Switched Path restoration
,
2001
.
[5]
Eiji Oki,et al.
A disjoint path selection scheme with shared risk link groups in GMPLS networks
,
2002,
IEEE Communications Letters.
[6]
Wayne D. Grover.
Bridging the Ring-Mesh Dichotomy With P-Cycles
,
2000
.
[7]
Wayne D. Grover,et al.
Exploiting forcer structure to serve uncertain demands and minimize redundancy of p-cycle networks
,
2003,
OptiComm: Optical Networking and Communications Conference.
[8]
Pin-Han Ho,et al.
A framework for service-guaranteed shared protection in WDM mesh networks
,
2002,
IEEE Commun. Mag..
[9]
M. Herzberg,et al.
The hop-limit approach for spare-capacity assignment in survivable networks
,
1995,
TNET.
[10]
Wayne D. Grover,et al.
Optimal capacity placement for path restoration in STM or ATM mesh-survivable networks
,
1998,
TNET.
[11]
Wayne D. Grover,et al.
Span-Restorable Mesh Network Design to Support Multiple Quality of Protection (QoP) Service-Classes
,
2002
.
[12]
Muriel Médard,et al.
Generalized loop-back recovery in optical mesh networks
,
2002,
TNET.
[13]
O. Gerstel.
Optical layer signaling: how much is really needed?
,
2000
.