Scheduling Combined Unicast and Multicast Traffic in WDM Networks

  • Zeydy Ortiz
  • George N. Rouskas
  • Harry G. Perros
Part of the IFIP — The International Federation for Information Processing book series (IFIPAICT)


We study the performance of various strategies for scheduling a combined load of unicast and multicast traffic in a broadcast WDM network. The performance measure of interest is schedule length, which directly affects both aggregate network throughput and average packet delay. Three different scheduling strategies are presented, namely: separate scheduling of unicast and multicast traffic, treating multicast traffic as a number of unicast messages, and treating unicast traffic as multicasts of size one. The strategies are compared against each other using extensive simulation experiments in order to establish the regions of operation, in terms of a number of relevant system parameters, for which each strategy performs best. Our main conclusions are as follows. Multicast traffic can be treated as unicast traffic under very limited circumstances. On the other hand, treating unicast traffic as multicast traffic produces short schedules in most cases. Alternatively, scheduling and transmitting each traffic component separately is also a good choice.


  1. [1]
    M. Ammar, G. Polyzos, and S. Tripathi (Eds.). Special issue on network support for multipoint communication. IEEE Journal Selected Areas in Communications, 15(3), April 1997.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    M. Borella and B. Mukherjee. A reservation-based multicasting protocol for WDM local lightwave networks. In Proceedings of ICC ‘85, pages 12771281. IEEE, 1995.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Z. Ortiz, G. N. Rouskas, and H. G. Perros. Scheduling of combined unicast and multicast traffic in broadcast WDM networks. Technical Report TR-97–09, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, 1997.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Z. Ortiz, G. N. Rouskas, and H. G. Perros. Scheduling of multicast traffic in tunable-receiver WDM networks with non-negligible tuning latencies. In Proceedings of SIGCOMM ‘87, pages 301–310. ACM, September 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    G. N. Rouskas and M. H. Ammar. Multi-destination communication over tunable-receiver single-hop WDM networks. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, 15 (3): 501–511, April 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    G. N. Rouskas and V. Sivaraman. Packet scheduling in broadcast WDM networks with arbitrary transceiver tuning latencies. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, 5 (3): 359–370, June 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    V. Sivaraman and G. N. Rouskas. Hipert: A High Performance Reservation protocol with took-ahead for broadcast WDM networks. In Proceedings of INFOCOM ‘87, pages 1272–1279. IEEE, April 1997.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zeydy Ortiz
    • 1
  • George N. Rouskas
    • 1
  • Harry G. Perros
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA

Personalised recommendations