Shared-per-wavelength asynchronous optical packet switching: a comparative analysis

Simple item page
dc.citation.epage2181en_US
dc.citation.issueNumber13en_US
dc.citation.spage2166en_US
dc.citation.volumeNumber54en_US
dc.contributor.authorAkar, N.en_US
dc.contributor.authorRafaelli, C.en_US
dc.contributor.authorSavi, M.en_US
dc.contributor.authorKarasan, E.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2015-07-28T11:59:48Z
dc.date.available2015-07-28T11:59:48Z
dc.date.issued2010-03-23en_US
dc.departmentDepartment of Electrical and Electronics Engineeringen_US
dc.description.abstractThis paper compares four different architectures for sharing wavelength converters in asynchronous optical packet switches with variable-length packets. The first two architectures are the well-known shared-per-node (SPN) and shared-per-link (SPL) architectures, while the other two are the shared-per-input-wavelength (SPIW) architecture, recently proposed as an optical switch architecture in synchronous context only, which is extended here to the asynchronous scenario, and an original scheme called shared-per-output-wavelength (SPOW) architecture that we propose in the current article. We introduce novel analytical models to evaluate packet loss probabilities for SPIW and SPOW architectures in asynchronous context based on Markov chains and fixed-point iterations for the particular scenario of Poisson input traffic and exponentially distributed packet lengths. The models also account for unbalanced traffic whose impact is thoroughly studied. These models are validated by comparison with simulations which demonstrate that they are remarkably accurate. In terms of performance, the SPOW scheme provides blocking performance very close to the SPN scheme while maintaining almost the same complexity of the space switch, and employing less expensive wavelength converters. On the other hand, the SPIW scheme allows less complexity in terms of number of optical gates required, while it substantially outperforms the widely accepted SPL scheme. The authors therefore believe that the SPIW and SPOW schemes are promising alternatives to the conventional SPN and SPL schemes for the implementation of next-generation optical packet switching systems.en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipEuropean Commission (EC)en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipScientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TÜBiTAK)en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.comnet.2010.03.008en_US
dc.identifier.issn1389-1286
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11693/12038
dc.language.isoEnglishen_US
dc.publisherElsevieren_US
dc.relation.isversionofhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.comnet.2010.03.008en_US
dc.source.titleComputer Networksen_US
dc.subjectOptical packet switchingen_US
dc.subjectWavelength conversionen_US
dc.subjectShared-per-wavelength optical architectureen_US
dc.subjectMarkov chainsen_US
dc.subjectFixed-point analysisen_US
dc.titleShared-per-wavelength asynchronous optical packet switching: a comparative analysisen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US

Files

Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
10.1016-j.comnet.2010.03.008.pdf
Size:
720.74 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Full printable version
Download

Collections

Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering