doi:10.1016/j.peva.2006.06.002
Copyright © 2006 Elsevier Ltd All rights reserved.
OBS contention resolution performance
aARC Special Research Centre for Ultra-Broadband Information Networks (CUBIN), Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, The University of Melbourne, Vic. 3010, Australia
bThe Centre for Advanced Internet Architectures, Faculty of I.C.T., Swinburne University of Technology, P.O. Box 218, Vic. 3122, Australia
cDepartment of Communication Systems Engineering, Ben Gurion University, Beer-Sheva 84105, Israel
dOptoelectronics Research Centre, Department of Electronic Engineering, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
Received 11 August 2005;
revised 5 February 2006.
Available online 7 August 2006.
Abstract
In this paper, a performance comparison of resolution policies specific to optical burst switching is presented. A framework, based on a reduced-load approximation, is developed to estimate path blocking probabilities in an optical burst switched network of arbitrary topology, in which any combination of the following resolution policies is applied in a specific order: limited wavelength conversion, burst deflection and burst segmentation. Our framework is used to compare the relative performance of each resolution policy for two sets of ingress and egress router pairs defined on the NSF network. With respect to the assumptions considered, it is shown that limited wavelength conversion is more effective in reducing blocking relative to burst deflection if the maximum wavelength conversion radius is sufficiently large, otherwise burst deflection is more effective. Furthermore, limited wavelength conversion or burst deflection are more effective in reducing blocking relative to burst segmentation. Burst segmentation is justified as a stand alone resolution policy; however, using burst segmentation to complement another resolution policy offers only a marginal reduction in blocking. Both just-in-time and just-enough-time scheduling is analyzed. Simulations are implemented to corroborate the accuracy of our framework and extensions.
Keywords: Optical burst switching; Blocking probability; Reduced-load approximation; Burst contention; Limited wavelength conversion; Deflection routing; Burst segmentation
Fig. 1. Primary lightpath with deflection lightpaths.
(a) Reality.
(b) Model.
Fig. 2. OBS signaling timing diagram for a route
, where the control packet is represented with a solid line, Δ denotes the length of the electronic processing period at each switch, c denotes propagation delay and α denotes switch configuration time; switch ni begins to configure at time ti.
(a) Constant offsets.
(b) Variable offsets; new burst is divided into three segments of which only the middle segment is scheduled.
Fig. 3. Constant offsets ensure a burst is divided into at most two segments, whereas variable offsets may require a burst to be divided into more than two segments.
Fig. 4. M/G/∞ queue defined in Section 3 ‘appended’ to the state of the Markov process
in which all wavelengths within the target range are busy.
Fig. 5. NSF network topology, each solid line represents two links aligned in opposing directions.
Fig. 6. Minimum number of wavelengths required to achieve a blocking probability of 10−3.
(a) No segmentation, no deflection.
(b) No segmentation, deflection.
(c) Segmentation, no deflection.
(d) Segmentation, deflection.
Fig. 7. Average path blocking probability estimated by analytical results and simulation for set 1.
(a) No segmentation, no deflection.
(b) No segmentation, deflection.
(c) Segmentation, no deflection.
(d) Segmentation, deflection.
Fig. 8. Average path blocking probability estimated by analytical results and simulation for set 2.
Table 1.
Two sets of ingress and egress router pairs

Table 2.
Summary of plots


Corresponding author.