A Comparison on Bandwidth Requirements of Path Protection Mechanisms

  • Claus G. Gruber
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3420)


A large variety of resilience mechanisms are known today. However, often the used resilience mechanisms are not adapted to the network operator’s and customer’s needs. For this, a detailed analysis and a comparison of resilience mechanisms and capacity requirements is needed. In this paper we analyze the capacity requirements of three widely used shared path protection mechanisms with each other: shared global path protection, shared local link protection and shared local to egress protection. Additionally we present an optimization approach based on linear programming to obtain optimal working and resilience path configurations for a given network structure and apply these optimizations to different case study networks.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Moy, J.: OSPF Version 2, Request For Comments 2328, IETF (April 1998)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Intermediate System to Intermediate System Intra-Domain Routeing Exchange Protocol for use in Conjunction with the Protocol for Providing the Connectionless-mode Network Service (ISO 8473) ISO DP 10589 (February 1990)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rosen, E., Viswanathan, A., Callon, R.: Multiprotocol label switching architecture, Request For Comments 3031, IETF (January 2001)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Orlowski, S., Wessäly, R.: Comparing restoration concepts using optimal network configurations with integrated hardware and routing decisions. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on the Design of Reliable Communication Networks (DRCN), Banff, CA (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schupke, D.A., Gruber, C.G., Autenrieth, A.: Optimal configuration of p-cycles in WDM networks. In: IEEE ICC 2002, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    ILOG CPLEX Version 9.0, Concert Version 2.0, http://www.ilog.com
  7. 7.
    Batchelor, P., et al.: Ultra high capacity optical transmission networks, Final report of action COST 239 (1999)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Salama, H.F.: Multicast Routing for Real-Time Communication on High Speed Networks Dissertation, Raleigh, NC (1996)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    A comparison of MPLS with KING Hammock Routing. Internal report of the project KING (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Autenrieth, A.: Differentiated Resilience in IP based Multilayer Transport Networks. Dr.-Ing. thesis, Munich University of Technology, Munich, Germany (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Grover, W.D.: Mesh-based Survivable Transport Networks: Options and Strategies for Optical, MPLS, SONET and ATM Networking. Prentice Hall PTR, Englewood Cliffs (2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Claus G. Gruber
    • 1
  1. 1.Insitute of Communication NetworksMunich University of TechnologyMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations