Performance comparison of SONET, OBS on thebasis of Network Throughput and Protection inMetropolitan Networks
Mr.Bhupesh Bhatia
Assistant ProfessorNorthern India Engineering College,New Delhi, Indiabhupeshbhatiaphd@gmail.com
R.K.Singh
Officer on special duty,Uttarakhand Technical University,Dehradun (Uttrakhand), India.
Abstract
—
In this paper we explore the performance of SONET/SDH & OBS architectures connected as mesh topology,for optical metropolitan networks. The OBS framework has beenwidely studied in past days because it achieves high trafficthroughput & high resource utilization. A brief comparisonbetween OBS & SONET is studied. The results are based onanalysis of simulations and we present a comparison betweenOBS architectures (with centralized & distributed schedulingschemes), SONET & NG-SONET.
Keywords-Add Drop Multiplexers; LCAS latency; Over Provisioning; WR-OBS; JET-OBS; Network Protection.
I.
I
NTRODUCTION
SONET & SDH are multiplexing protocols which are usedto send the digital bits over the fiber optics cable with the helpof LASER or LED. If the data rates could be compensated interms of speed then it could be transmitted via electricalinterface. These are designed for the replacement of PDHsystems used for telephonic data and other data over the samefiber optics cable at an improved speed. SONET allowed the
user to communicate with different user’s at different speeds
i.e. in the asynchronous speed. So it is not just as thecommunication protocol but also a transport protocol. So itbecomes the first choice to work in the asynchronous transfermode. So they are used widely in the world. The SONET isused in the United States and Canada and SDH is used in therest of the world. [5]OBS is a kind of switching which lies in between theoptical circuit and optical packet switching. This type of switching is appropriate for the provision of light paths fromone to another node for many services/clients. It operates at thesub level wavelength and it is designed to improve theutilization of wavelength by quick setup. In this the data fromthe client side is aggregated at the network node and the sendson the basis of assembly/aggregation algorithm. [5]II.
O
PTICAL
P
ACKET
S
WITCHING
N
ETWORK AND
T
OPOLOGIES
SONET network architecture made up of 2x2 opticalnetwork nodes, interconnected uni-directionally. They haveoptical add-drop Multiplexers. The higher node allows user toconnect to other sub-networks by Wavelength DivisionMultiplexing. The switching is controlled by electronic logiccircuits which are based on packet-by-packet, which isdetermined only by header processing. [1]
Figure 1. Unidirectional Mesh topology optical network
The overall switching time is less than two microsecondsfor every packet and is independent of payload size. Thisarchitecture helps to use the deflection routing to avoidcollisions and there is no need for further buffering and thuscost reduces [2][3].This provides the optical nodes to be operatedasynchronously. Our solution is given for MAN access anddistribution, having 15km length and networks having lessthan 48 nodes [2].Mesh topology is selected for the analysis of throughputand to find the load on each node. The motive is to find whichlinks are more frequently used and should be secured to avoidloss of critical service. These considerations also include thecost parameter.III.
B
ASIC
T
HEORY AND
P
ARAMETERS
The total capacity that can be given for a network is shownby (1) where,
Ħ
is the total average number of hops fromorigin to destination, N number of nodes and S link capacity;the factor 2 is used because each node has possibility of twooutputs [2][3].
(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security,Vol. 8, No. 7, October 201072http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/ISSN 1947-5500
H S N C
t
..2
(1)If we consider Poisson distribution eq., every nodegenerates the uniform traffic to each node and the link is of unidirectional nature. The no. of users in this network is N(N-1).So the capacity can be given by :-
)1.(.2
N H SC
u
(2)If there is any link failure, the network capacity decreasesand if total links of 2N and m links are failed, then thecapacity can be given as :-
H Sm N C
t
).2(
(3)If the network load seems to be
c
L
and the capacity be
t
C
then the network throughput can be given as:-[4]
..
ct p
LC T
(4)To determine the throughput for each destination node andthen take an average, a general expression for
p
T
can bewritten as [6] :-
N T T
N i pi p
1
(5)
where
i
= destination node
pi
T
= partial throughput to that node
N
= total number of nodesIV.
S
IMULATION
M
ETHODS AND
N
ETWORK
C
ONFIGURATIONS
Here we choose the mesh topology MSq-24, MS-32, MSq-48, with 24, 32, 48 nodes with bit-rate is 4.2 Gb/s, and link length of 15km.
Figure 2. Comparative Throughput for mesh networks using old and newmethods
Here it is supposed that each node is generating the equaltraffic to every other node. Applications can be defined as thetotal number of packets transmitted from a node to all otherConnected nodes, and the sum of all applications is the totaltraffic load on the network. For the analysis of the protection,we take only single link failure. The SONET network trafficgraphs were obtained using the Network Simulator software.[6][7][8]
V.
R
ESULTS AND
D
ISCUSSION
The throughput for mesh topology is shown in the figure.3.Here, we can observe that SONET performed well in the meshnetwork and brilliant in the condition of higher number of nodes. From this we can conclude that mesh topology isproviding the high capacity without considering the cost of installation. We can see the traffic analysis of MS-24, MS-32,MS-
48 and the protocols used in this analysis is “store andforward”.
Figure 3. Comparative Throughput for mesh using the new method
Although in the above mentioned technique i.e. Store &Forward, the sent packets have to wait so as to provide them a
shortest path for their destination, it doesn’t matter because
here we are just considering the utilization of links and theircorresponding distribution of traffic. But ideally we shouldrestrict ourselves to overload the certain links so as tominimize the failures, and we must take decision that where toapply protection mechanisms.VI.
N
ETWORK
P
ROTECTION AND
F
AILURE ANALYSIS
In mesh network, the links which are failed and less used,made a slight change in the performance of the network. Thesimulations include the MSq-24, MS-32, and MSq-48. Weobserve that in mesh topology the performance and thethroughput reduced but the rate of reduction is almost half ascompare to ring topology. In the mesh topology some morefeatures are seen like protection of network, location of failureand finally restoration. So all such problems are reduced in themesh topology.VII.
NG-SONET
(N
EXT
G
ENERATION
SONET)NG-SONET is another approach which is most recent andin this there is provision of the carriers for optimizing the
(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security,Vol. 8, No. 7, October 201073http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/ISSN 1947-5500
allocation of bandwidth and uses the unused and fragmentedcapacity in the SONET ring. It also matches the better clientrate. It uses some new protocols to accomplish these taskssuch as generic framing for encapsulating data and virtualcatenation for using fragmented bandwidth and (LACS) link capacity adjustment for resizement of existing links [ 9][10].But it has some drawbacks which are:-1.
Over provisioning of links in case of Ethernet usage.2.
LCAS latency.SONET & NG-SONET Network Models [14]VIII.
WR-OBS
(W
AVELENGTH
R
OUTED
OBS)In WR-OBS, the control packets are processed at a centralnode to determine the actual path to send the packets at thedestination. The acknowledgements are sent to the sourcenodes and decided whether these are destroyed or transmit thedata bursts. So this technique is best for optimal path selectionwhich in turn gives the congestion control and helps inbalancing the traffic over links. It has time delay consists of aggregation time and connection establishment time. Itprovides less delay than SONET & NG-SONET for lowbandwidth links. This is due to the Ethernet packettransmissions are independent of time slot and frames.[11][12][13]OBS-JET & WR-OBS Network Models [14]Offset time delay
po
t T
3
p
t
= processing time at each hopIX.
JET-OBS
(J
UST
E
NOUGH
T
IME
)In this an offset time is transmitted before the data burst issent and processed electronically at each node for preservingthe resources for the each data bursts. But the offset time mustbe carefully chosen so that there should not be problemaroused of queuing and delay problem between the hops [11][12][13].It has two types of delays:-1.
Aggregation Delay
i
T
2.
Offset time delay
o
T
Where
/ /
i N T
i
N
= average number of packets
= mean arrival of packetsand
po
t T
3
p
t
= processing time at each hopArchitecture of OBS-JET core node [14]X.
C
OMPARISON
OBS is a kind of switching which lies in between theoptical circuit and optical packet switching whereas SONET ismultiplexing protocols which are used to send the digital bitsover the fiber optics cable [5]. OBS has three wavelengths fordata and one wavelength for control channel whereas SONEThas all four wavelengths available for data transmissions. OBShas data loss due to scheduling contentions while in SONETdata loss is due to excessive delays [15]. OBS is of two typesJust Enough Time (JET) OBS & Wavelength Routed (WR)OBS while SONET is of one type NG-SONET. OBS is notgood for ring model network while SONET works best in ringnetwork. OBS uses deflection routing to avoid contentionwhereas in SONET there is no such algorithm. OBS uses theforwarding tables for mapping the bursts whereas SONET hasno such facility. OBS is preferred for busty traffic whereasSONET is not preferred for a busty traffic [15].XI.
C
ONCLUSION
We have studied and analyzed the capacity and throughputof SONET & OBS in mesh topology and have reached at thedecision that mesh topology is better than the ring topology. If we talk about the protection, then we observe that the failureof links has more impact on ring topology instead of meshtopology. Also in the mesh topology, the impact on capacitydue to failed links is much less and is less critical than the ringtopology and this confirm that the mesh topology is robust in
(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security,Vol. 8, No. 7, October 201074http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/ISSN 1947-5500
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
Performance comparison of SONET, OBS on the basis of Network Throughput and Protection in Metropolitan Networks
In this paper we explore the performance of SONET/SDH & OBS architectures connected as mesh topology, for optical metropolitan networks. The OBS framework has been widely studied in past days because it achieves high traffic throughput…
(More)
182
Reads
2
Readcasts
0
Embed Views
Recommended
More From This User
Notes
Load more
