Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
A.
INTRODUCTION
wkg
2)
Year 1 traffic
Y2 plan
Y3 plan
Optimise
Year 3
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4 traffic
Optimise
Year 4
Y4 plan
Y5
plan
Year 5 traffic
Optimise
Year 5
Wavelengths terminated
700
600
598
500
400
338
300
200
190
107
100
60
0
1
Year
D.
Nodes, links,
demands
Outputs
Routings
Allocate demands
to links
Systems, routings
Systemallocations
If current DWDM system
capacities have been
exceeded on a link, upgrade
or stack another system.
Systems, load
Sorted list of
balancing threshold systems
A LGORITHMS EMPLOYED
finished
yes
Rerouterelevant
traffic. Observe
maximum cycle limit.
Remove or
downgrade
system
E.
Estimate number of
transponders by
examining routings Assumption :
and demand hop count # Transponders per demand = hops - 1
Estimate total
weightings
Advance to
next period
in design
and routed using the Dijkstra shortest path algorithm for the
unprotected demands, and a minimum cycle implementation for
the protected demands.
A limit on the maximum cycle length is imposed. If a
protected demand exceeds this distance, the demand is routed
link disjoint only if possible, thus pinchpoint nodes are used,
and the number of terminating transponders is increased. For
the case study network, the maximum cycle length was taken to
be 1500km. Carriers often impose a maximum cycle length to
raise the availability figure since long cycles are more likely to
experience dual failures.
DWDM systems are allocated based upon the link
allocations. Systems can be stacked using different fibres in
the link. Three types of system are assumed, of different
capacities: 40, 80 and 160 wavelengths. An in-service upgrade
is also permitted to migrate from 40 to 80 channel systems
when performing a multi-period design exercise. The system
allocation is based on simple lookup table heuristics.
These systems allocations are then questioned by the Load
Balancing module which tries to remove (or downgrade)
systems by re-routing traffic. Systems are considered if their
utilisation is under a certain threshold, or if they are within this
threshold of being downgraded to cheaper systems. Systems
closest to being removed/downgraded are examined first.
For example, using a 30% load balancing threshold, an 80
wavelength system will be considered for removal if less than
24 wavelengths are lit. But, if between 40 and 64 wavelengths
are lit, the system will be considered for downgrading to the
40-channel system.
A persistent re-route heuristic is used to try and re-route all
of the demands on the candidate system using other routes in
order to achieve the removal or downgrading of the system in
question.
The choice of the threshold is important since it allows
network planners to leave unused capacity in a network for
growth in subsequent years. If too high a value is chosen,
many demands will be re-routed on paths longer than the
shortest path. This causes an increase in the utilisation of the
systems carrying the re-routed demands, which may in
following years require an earlier upgrading than would have
been necessary using a lower threshold. Therefore an overoptimised network at Year N may mean that the later years
require several extra line systems.
A qualitative idea of total systems cost is calculated based
on simple rules of thumb for transmission systems. However,
since deployment happens over several years, a pay as you
grow scenario will apply, and a Present Value calculation is
used to compare the various options. Table 1 indicates the
relative costs taken for the DWDM systems. The in-service
upgrade cost is taken as the difference between the 40 and 80
channel costs.
Relative cost
1
80 wavelengths
2.5 = 1.58
160 wavelengths
2.5
RESULTS
Y1
24.0
22.0
22.0
24.0
24.0
24.0
35.5
34.5
34.5
35.5
32.5
32.5
Y2
0.0
0.9
0.9
1.1
1.1
2.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Y3
Y4
Y5
4.7
4.7
3.8
2.4
2.4
0.5
0.5
1.0
0.5
10.3
11.3
11.3
9.5
9.5
10.7
9.9
9.9
10.5
1.7
1.3
1.7
3.2
5.5
5.1
18.7
19.3
19.3
18.7
18.7
18.4
17.1
17.8
16.7
6.2
3.3
3.7
Total
(PV)
56.8
56.4
56.7
56.1
56.1
55.5
54.8
54.6
53.4
55.2
52.6
52.5
The later the main optimisation period (e.g. O5) the greater
the initial investment required in Year 1. This is because higher
capacity systems have been installed in lieu of the 40 channel
systems, in anticipation of the future traffic volumes.
The load balancing step causes an increase in the average
link utilisation. If this causes a system to be operating close to
the capacity limit in one year, the following years demands will
require a new system. This is why there are still significant
systems requirements in the subsequent years following
optimisation, e.g. in year 5 for the O4+ method.
However, these figures are extremely sensitive to the
discount factor chosen, which is by nature a subjective
quantity.
Fig. 7 illustrates using the 30% load balancing threshold,
how the cheapest option varies with the discount factor
chosen, and which option has the lowest cost at that rate is
indicated.
So for discount factor rates less than 17.5% in this case,
optimising the network over the whole time scale of the project
(method O5) gives the lowest overall cost network
implementation. With a discount rate greater than 17.5%, a
year-by-year iterative optimisation of the network gives the
lowest cost network (method O1+). This is similar to the results
found in [10] which suggest that frequent deployment (and
also therefore upgrading) of systems is optimal when in an
environment of large reductions in the price per bit over the
lifetime of the plan.
However, a frequent deployment & upgrade approach such
as O1+ will result in higher Operations and Management costs
since there are more technologies and systems being used
concurrently. It is clearly a trade-off between capital
investment and operating costs.
Case study
Higher C
Lower C
Best = O5
55
Best = O1+
50
Best=O5
45
Cost
Best=O1+
40
Best=O5
35
Best
=
O4+
Best=O1+
30
25
0
10
12
14 16
Discount rate (%)
18
20
22
24
Two other networks have also been analysed with the same
volume of traffic. They have different connectivities and traffic
patterns, but similar results are shown in Fig. 7. The higher
connectivity network has a region where the O4+ method
results in the lowest cost. The different gradients and
changeover points are highly dependent on the topology,
connectivity and traffic distribution, as well as the complex
relation between the traffic loads and the DWDM system
capacities. No obvious pattern has been found.
For all these solutions, the network capacity utilisation after
Year 5 is in the range 85-94%.
2)
Y1
Y2
Y3
Y4
Y5
192
209
209
195
195
202
194
195
195
202
213
213
135
143
143
131
131
141
134
145
145
140
145
145
235
242
255
233
233
256
232
269
236
232
242
242
374
424
426
371
371
362
363
336
366
363
361
361
686
686
698
686
686
744
688
678
712
678
678
678
Total
(PV)
1622
1704
1731
1616
1616
1706
1611
1624
1654
1615
1640
1640
G.
CONCLUSIONS
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
FURTHER W ORK
A CKNOWLEDGMENTS
REFERENCES
[8]
[9]
[10]
http://www.eurescom.de/Public/Projects/p700series/P709/P709.HTM
O. Gerstel, P. Lin, G.Sasaki, Combined WDM and SONET
Network design, IEEE Infocom 1999.
P. Arijs, M. Gryseels, P. Demeester Planning of WDM Ring
Networks, Photonic Network Communications, vol. 2 no. 1,
March 2000.
C. Coltro Implementing a TCP/IP aware survivable
transmission infrastructure, 2nd International Workshop on the
Design of Reliable Communications Networks, Munich, Germany,
10-12 April 2000.
L. Aguirre, C. Phillips, M. Duff, P. Lane, L. Sacks IP over
Optics: Performance Modelling of Optical Shared Protection
Rings, London Communications Symposium, 26th-27th July
1999.
Available
at
http://www.ee.ucl.ac.uk/~tcg/conference/papers99/index.html.
M . Pickavet, P. Demeester, Long-term planning of WDM
networks: A comparison between single-period and multi-period
techniques, Photonic Network Communications, vol. 1 no. 4,
December 1999.
T. Wu, R. Cardwell, M. Boyden, A Multi-Period Design Model
for Survivable Network Architecture Selection for SONET
Interoffice Networks, IEEE Transactions on Reliability, vol. 40,
no. 4, October 1991.
S. Lanning, D. Mitra, Q. Wang, M. Wright Optimal Planning
For Optical Transport Networks, Phil. Transactions of the Royal
Society (London) vol. 358 no. 1773, August 2000.