Photonic Network Communications

, Volume 5, Issue 3, pp 203–225 | Cite as

Pan-European Optical Transport Networks: An Availability-based Comparison

  • Sophie De Maesschalck
  • Didier Colle
  • Ilse Lievens
  • Mario Pickavet
  • Piet Demeester
  • Christian Mauz
  • Monika Jaeger
  • Robert Inkret
  • Branko Mikac
  • Jan Derkacz
Article

Abstract

The traffic to be carried by today's European backbone networks increases very rapidly. An important portion of this traffic consists of data traffic (mainly IP-related). In the future data traffic is expected to become the abundantly dominant traffic type, while voice traffic will only account for a very small portion of the total traffic volume. In this paper, some network topologies for such a pan-European fiber-optic backbone network are presented (more details can be found in [1]). These topologies are compared in terms of the efficiency of the network design both from a cost and capacity point of view and in terms of the availability of the connections routed over this network. In order to be able to assess the network topologies under realistic circumstances, the expected traffic demand is forecasted. This enables to make the comparison for the current traffic volume as well as for the traffic patterns of the future. As not all types of (data) traffic require the same degree of survivability and in order to leverage the total capacity cost of the network design, a distinction is made between different recovery options in the optical layer for the different traffic types considered.

pan-European fiber-optic topologies traffic forecast availability expected loss of traffic 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    http://ibcn.atlantis.rug.ac.be/projects/COST266_IST_lion/NRS/index.htmlGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    L. Roberts, C. Crump, US Internet IP traffic growth, Caspian networks, http://www.caspiannetworks.com/pressroom/press/08.15.01.shtml, (Aug. 2001).Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    The European Information Technology Observatory, http://www.eito.comGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    http://www.gnutellanew.com/information/what_is_gnutella.shtmlGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    http://www.kazaa.com/en/help_general.htmGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    J. P. Morgan, Securities Inc Equity Research: Backbone! How changes in Technology and the rise of IP threaten to disrupt the long-haul telecom services industry, http://www.mckinsey.de/_downloads/knowmatters/telecommunications/backbone.pdf, Sept. 2000.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    EISY-WAY, Evolution of information and communication and its impact on research activities, issue 2, (Aug. 1999).Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/mels/dwdm/dwdm_fns.htmGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    D. Colle, et al., Data-centric optical networks and their survivability, IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, special issue on WDM-based network architectures, vol. 20,no. 1, (Jan. 2002), pp. 6-20.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    A. Dwivedi, R. Wagner, Traffic model for USA long-distance optical network, Proc. of Optical Fiber Communication Conference (OFC) 2000 (Baltimore, USA, March 2000), Vol. 1, TuK1-1, pp. 156-158.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    http://www.carrier1.netGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    http://ww.ebone.comGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    http://www.globalcrossing.comGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    http://www.i-21future.comGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    http://www.kpnqwest.comGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    http://www.level3.comGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    http://www.viatel.comGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    http://www.colt-telecom.comGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    M. O'Mahony, M. C. Sinclair, B. Mikac, Ultra-high capacity optical transmission network European Research project COST239, Proc. of CONTEL'93, (Zagreb, Croatia, 1993), ITA 12 1–3, pp. 33-45.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    http://www.ep.net/naps_eu.htmlGoogle Scholar
  21. [21]
    What is the best way to calculate the distance between 2 points?, http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/geo/gisfaq?Q5.1Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    ETSI Rec. EN 300 416, Network Aspects (NA); Availability performance of path elements of international digital paths v. 1.2.1, (August 1998).Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    M. C. Sinclair, Improved model for European international telephone traffic, IEE Electronics Letters, vol. 30,no. 18, (Sept. 1994), pp. 1468-1470.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    R. Ranganathan, L. Blair, J. Berthold, Benefits of grooming capable cross-connects in a Pan-European optical network, Proc. of 27th European Conference on Optical Networking (ECOC'01), (Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Oct. 2001), pp. 38-39.Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    M. Vaughn, R. Wagner, Metropolitan network traffic demand study, Proc. of 13th annual meeting Lasers and Electro-Optics Society (LEOS 2000 Annual Meeting), (Rio Grande, Puerto Rico, November 2000), Vol. 1, pp. 102-103.Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/indexgeo.htmlGoogle Scholar
  27. [27]
    http://www.census.gov/epcd/cbp/images/cbp_hist.gifGoogle Scholar
  28. [28]
    http://cyberatlas.internet.com/big_picture/geographicsGoogle Scholar
  29. [29]
    http://www.infoworld.com/cgi-bin/displayStory.pl?/features/990510mids.htmGoogle Scholar
  30. [30]
    P. Green, Progress in optical networking, IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 39,no. 1, (Jan. 2001), pp. 54-61.Google Scholar
  31. [31]
    ITU Recommendation E.800, Terms and definitions related to quality of service and network performance including dependability, (August 1994).Google Scholar
  32. [32]
    C. L. Hwang, F. A. Tillman, M. H. Lee, System-Reliability Evaluation Techniques for Complex/Large systems—A review, IEEE Transactions on Reliability, vol. R-30,no. 5, (Dec. 1981), pp. 416-423.Google Scholar
  33. [33]
    ACTS project AC205, Protection Across Network Layers (PANEL), Deliverable D1: Operators requirements, (1996).Google Scholar
  34. [34]
    ITU Recommendation G.911, Parameters and calculation methodologies for reliability and availability of fiber optic systems, (April 1997).Google Scholar
  35. [35]
    G. Willems, P. Arijs, W. Van Parys, P. Demeester, Capacity versus availability trade-offs in mesh-restorable WDM networks, Proc. of 3rd International Workshop on Design of reliable Communications Networks (DRCN'01), (Budapest, Hungary, Oct. 2001), pp. 107-112.Google Scholar
  36. [36]
    P. Batchelor, et al., Study on the implementation of optical transparent transport networks in the European environment-results of the research project COST 239, Photonic Network Communications, vol. 2,no. 1, (Jan./March 2000), pp. 15-32.Google Scholar
  37. [37]
    I. Jurdana, B. Mikac, An availability analysis of optical cables, Proc. of Workshop on All-Optical Networks (WAON'98), (Zagreb, Croatia, May 1998).Google Scholar
  38. [38]
    D. Vercauteren, P. Demeester, J. Luystermans, E. Houtrelle, Availability Analysis of Multi-layer Networks, Proc. of 3rd International Conference on Telecommunications System Modeling and Analysis, (Nashville, USA, March 1995), pp. 483-493.Google Scholar
  39. [39]
    J. Derskacz, et al., IP/OTN Cost Model and Photonic Equipment Cost Forecast—IST project LION, Proc. of 4th Workshop on Telecommunications Techno-Economics, (Rennes, France, May 2002), CD-ROM.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sophie De Maesschalck
    • 1
  • Didier Colle
    • 1
  • Ilse Lievens
    • 1
  • Mario Pickavet
    • 1
  • Piet Demeester
    • 1
  • Christian Mauz
    • 2
  • Monika Jaeger
    • 3
  • Robert Inkret
    • 4
  • Branko Mikac
    • 4
  • Jan Derkacz
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Information Technology (INTEC)Ghent University—IMECGentBelgium
  2. 2.Communication Technology LaboratorySwiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) ZurichZurichSwiss
  3. 3.T-Systems TechnologiezentrumBerlinGermany
  4. 4.Department of TelecommunicationsUniversity of ZagrebZagrebCroatia
  5. 5.AGH, Department of TelecommunicationsKrakówPoland

Personalised recommendations