You are on page 1of 35

Optical Switching and Networking 23 (2017) 539

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Optical Switching and Networking

journal homepage:


Study and Analysis of Routing and Spectrum Allocation (RSA) and

Routing, Modulation and Spectrum Allocation (RMSA) Algorithms
in Elastic Optical Networks (EONs)
Forough Shirin Abkenar, Akbar Ghaffarpour Rahbar n
Computer Networks Research Lab, Electrical Engineering Technologies Research Center, Sahand University of Technology, Tabriz, Iran

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: With the growth of Internet users' trafc demands, the efcient and cost-effective usage of bandwidth
Received 11 September 2015 and spectrum in optical networks plays an important role in improving service provisioning. An Elastic
Received in revised form Optical Network (EON) is a new generation of optical networking that can provide high exibility and
7 July 2016
scalability in spectrum allocation and data rate accommodation to support different trafc types. In fact,
Accepted 18 August 2016
Available online 21 August 2016
EON can allocate the available resources in a network according to users' demands. Besides, EON gen-
erates elastic optical paths (the paths with variable bit rates) and divides available spectrum exibly
Keywords: according to the trafc demands of users. This study reviews and analyzes one of the most important
Elastic Optical Networks topics in EON namely Routing and Spectrum Allocation (RSA). In fact, RSA selects the most appropriate
resources according to the conditions of the resources and exibility assigns them to the connection
Routing and Spectrum Allocation (RSA) al-
demands. RSA can be divided into two categories: without adjusting modulation format (simply referred
Routing, Modulation and Spectrum Alloca- to as RSA) and with adjusting modulation format (called Routing, Modulation and Spectrum Allocation,
tion (RMSA) algorithms RMSA). In this paper, we review all available RSA and RMSA algorithms proposed for EON, analyze and
compare them through both quality of performance and computational complexity aspects for the rst
& 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.


1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2. Basic concepts in EON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.1. Frequency Slots (FSs) in EON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2. Continuity and contiguity constraints in EON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.3. Network and node architecture of EON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.4. Basic function in EON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3. Routing and Spectrum Allocation (RSA) in EON. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.1. RSA algorithms supporting static trafc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.1.1. Routing, Wavelength assignment, and Spectrum Allocation (RWSA) algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.1.2. Adaptive Frequency Assignment-Collision Avoidance (AFA-CA) algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.1.3. Shortest Path with Maximum Spectrum Reuse (SPSR) algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.1.4. Balanced Load Spectrum Allocation (BLSA) algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.1.5. Survivable Multipath Routing and Spectrum Allocation (SM-RSA) algorithm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.1.6. Minimum Interference (MI) routing algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.1.7. Quality of Service (QoS)-based RSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.2. RSA algorithms that support dynamic trafc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.2.1. Routing based on spectrum segment representation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.2.2. Light-path Fragmentation Algorithm (LFA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.2.3. Adaptive Unconstrained Routing-Exhaustive Spectrum Search (AUR-ESS) algorithm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: (F. Shirin Abkenar), (A. Ghaffarpour Rahbar).
1573-4277/& 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
6 F. Shirin Abkenar, A. Ghaffarpour Rahbar / Optical Switching and Networking 23 (2017) 539

3.2.4. The Most Common Available Patterns (MCAP) algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

3.2.5. Fairness-aware dynamic spectrum allocation algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.2.6. Dynamic RSA with mixed line rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.2.7. First-Last Fit spectrum allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4. Routing, Modulation level and Spectrum Allocation (RMSA) in EON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.1. RMSA algorithms that support static trafc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.1.1. Routing and Modulation Level and Spectrum Allocation (RMLSA) algorithm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.1.2. Multicast-capable RMSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.1.3. Routing and Spectrum Allocation with Joint Anycast and Unicast routing (RSA-JAU) algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.1.4. Routing and Spectrum Allocation with Dedicated Path Protection (RSA-DPP) algorithm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.1.5. RMSA optimization model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.2. RMSA algorithms that support dynamic trafc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.2.1. m-Fixed and m-adaptive RSA algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.2.2. Spectrum Reallocation (SPRESSO) algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4.2.3. Impairment-Aware Routing and Subcarrier Allocation (IARSA) algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4.2.4. Fragmentation-and alignment-aware RMSA algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4.2.5. Dynamic RMSA algorithms for High-Throughput Service Provisioning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
4.2.6. Time-Spectrum Consecutiveness (TSC) algorithms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
4.2.7. Dynamic Multipath Routing Algorithm with Trafc Grooming (MPTG) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
4.2.8. Optimal Route, Spectrum and Modulation Level Assignment (RSMLA) algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
4.2.9. Energy-Efcient Manycast RSA (EEM-RSA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
4.2.10. Multi Population Pattern Searching EON (MuPPetS-EON) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
5. The comparison of RSA algorithms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
5.1. The comparison of RSA algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
5.1.1. Qualitative performance evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
5.1.2. Quantitative performance evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
5.1.3. The comparison of computational complexity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
5.2. The comparison of RMSA algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
5.2.1. Qualitative performance evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
5.2.2. Quantitative performance evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
5.2.3. The comparison of computational complexity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
6. Future works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
7. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

1. Introduction impairment conditions. Hence, when RSA becomes impairment-

aware, a transponder can make the modulation level of its sub-
Elastic Optical Network (EON) is the new generation of optical carrier slots adaptive to the Quality of Transmission (QoT) of a
networks which tries to allocate available resources to clients' light-path. Therefore, impairment-aware RSA is essentially a RMSA
demands optimally and prohibits the resource wastage. In EON, problem [4]. We categorize both of the RSA and RMSA algorithms
light-path is an optical path established between a given source into two groups: those that support static trafc and those that
destination pair which supports a determined data rate. One of the support dynamic trafc.
most important issues in EON is Routing and Spectrum Allocation There are some surveys published about EON. Paper [3] pro-
(RSA) problem. Different algorithms have been introduced to ad- vides a comprehensive survey on OFDM-based elastic optical
dress this challenge. In EON, the network spectrum is divided into network technologies, including basic principles of Orthogonal
a set of Frequency Slots (FSs). An RSA algorithm tries to allocate Frequency-Division Multiplexing (OFDM), Optical OFDM (O-
FSs to each demand efciently so that Blocking Probability (BP) of OFDM) technologies, the architectures of OFDM-based elastic core
demands is reduced. There are two important constraints in RSA optical networks, and related enabling technologies. The main
related to the FS concept as the continuity and contiguity of focus of [3] is on OFDM, modulation formats, and transmission
spectrum resources. According to the continuity constraint, an FS systems in EON. In addition, routing and spectrum assignment has
has to be free on all links of a light-path. According to the con- been explained very briey. Moreover, the main advantages and
tiguity constraint, the available FSs, which have to be allocated to a issues of OFDM-based elastic core optical networks that are under
connection demand, must have contiguity in all links of the re- research have been discussed. Authors in [5] have reviewed the
levant light-path. Under RSA, the continuous and contiguous exibility feature of EON and briey introduced its research areas
constraints must be guaranteed. Another important concept in (i.e., performance, cost, energy efciency and control plane re-
EON is Guard-Band (GB) that is used between a continuous quirements). In [6], all aspects of EON (i.e., basic concepts of EON,
number of FSs to separate demands for prohibiting of demands network and node models, RSA, fragmentation and defragmenta-
collision. RSA algorithms are divided into two categories as [13]: tion, and energy efciency) have been studied. RSA section has
been divided into two categories: (1) routing and (2) Spectrum
 without adjusting modulation format (simply referred to as RSA Allocation (SA). Different types of routing mechanisms and SA
in this paper). mechanisms have been reviewed in routing section and SA sec-
 with adjusting modulation format (called Routing, Modulation tion, respectively. In [7], the authors have divided RSA algorithms
and Spectrum Allocation, RMSA). into ofine, online, fragmentation-aware, grooming-aware ones
and so on. This category is different from the presented category in
A light-path may be impaired and RSA has to consider the our paper. However, no analysis or comparison has been presented
F. Shirin Abkenar, A. Ghaffarpour Rahbar / Optical Switching and Networking 23 (2017) 539 7

for these algorithms. The contribution of [8] is to identify, classify contain various widths. Therefore, a frequency segment is
and analyze three basic building blocks for enabling exible net- specied using three parameters of a slot as: width fslot (which
working solutions: (1) physical layer technological aspects; is equal to fcs ), the lowest FS number nl and the highest FS
(2) network optimization which involves spectrum fragmentation number nh [1].
concept, RSA types, the cost in EON, grooming concept, etc.; and The center frequency fc and the width of the frequency segment
(3) control plane. Authors in [8] have compared RSA with Routing
and Wavelength Assignment (RWA). Table 1 expresses the main
fw are shown with fc = 193.1 + ( (nl + nh)
2 )f
issues of the mentioned papers and the our paper issues, briey. fw = (nh nl + 1) fcs . The single slot on the grid approach is not
The main objective of this paper is to review the existing RSA good for wide channel spacing frequency grid because fc
and RMSA algorithms in EON. For the rst time, this paper com- 1
pares the proposed RSA and RMSA algorithms in detail, separately deviates from wider channel spacing frequency grid by 2 fcs [1].
and from different aspects. Hence, we have separated RSA and
 Double-sided half slot: This approach is similar to single slot, how-
RMSA algorithms and divided each of them into two categories: ever in double-sided, fslot is equal to 2 fcs . Thus, this method can
suffer from wide channel spacing frequency grid. As seen in Fig. 1c,
(1) algorithms that support static trafc and (2) algorithms that
the numbering system of FSs is different in this approach [1].
support dynamic trafc. In addition, we have gathered them and
expressed their main objectives and features in separate tables.
Existing ex-grid networks split available optical spectrum into
Finally, we have compared them from different aspects such as
a set of FSs that have a better spectrum width related to DWDM
fundamental basis, computational complexity and trafc states.
ITU-T grid 50 GHz. The size of current FSs is 6.25 GHz, 12.5 GHz
There are several abbreviations in this paper. All of them have
and 25 GHz. In ex-grid networks, the spectrum is divided into a
been mentioned in Table 2.
set of FSs.
The remainder of this work is organized as follows. Funda-
mental concepts of EON are reviewed in Section 2. In Section 3,
different RSA methods are explained. In Section 4, the RMSA 2.2. Continuity and contiguity constraints in EON
concept and related algorithms are expressed. Section 5 compares
the RSA and RMSA algorithms proposed for EON, separately. Sec- There are two important constraints in RSA, related to the FS
tion 6 provides future works for RSA and RMSA. Finally, Section 7 concept, are the continuity and contiguity of spectrum resources.
concludes this review paper. According to the continuity, an FS has to be free in all the links of a
light-path. According to the contiguity constraint, the available FSs
must have contiguity in all links of the light-path. Spectrum con-
2. Basic concepts in EON tiguity is the most important difference between EON and WDM
networks. The spectrum contiguity increases the complexity of
In this section, some important concepts of EON will be re- existing RSA approaches. In the RSA, the continuous constraint and
viewed briey including FSs, continuity and contiguity constraints, contiguous constraint must be guaranteed.
network and node models and basic function.
2.3. Network and node architecture of EON
2.1. Frequency Slots (FSs) in EON
Fig. 2 shows EON model. EON consists of two important com-
EON uses FSs to accommodate sub-wavelength, super-wave- ponents: Bandwidth Variable Transponders (BV-Transponders)
length, and multiple data rate trafc demands. As seen in Fig. 1a, and Bandwidth Variable Wavelength Cross-Connections (BV-
xed grid networks have rigid nature to allocate resources to ex- WXCs). A BV-WXC is enumerated as an EON node. These compo-
isting demands. The FS concept has been introduced to cover the nents enable EON to exibly allocate resources. A BV-Transponder
rigid nature of current frequency grids. The EON can assign the generates an optical signal according to trafc demand. Hence, it
necessary amount of contiguous FSs to demands. There are two can provide efcient use of available spectrum resources [9].
exible spectrum resource designation schemes as follows [1]: The BV-WSSs receive the spectrums and perform multiplexing/
demultiplexing and switching functions using integrated spatial
 Single slot on the grid approach: In this method, the frequency f optics. The splitting of spectrums can be based on the micro-
on the International Telecommunication Union-Tele- electro-mechanical systems (MEMS) or liquid crystal on silicon
communication Standardization Sector (ITU-T) frequency grid (LCoS) technologies [911].
uses a channel spacing fcs and a frequency number n. In addi-
tion, f is interpreted as a spectral slot having a frequency seg- 2.4. Basic function in EON
( 1
ment in range 193.1 + n 2 fcs . An ITU-T frequency number n
corresponds to a FS number. The allocation of contiguous fre- In the following, the basic concepts of EON are introduced
quency slots is depicted in Fig. 1b. A frequency segment can [1,2,9,12,13].

Table 1
Survey papers.

Survey Main issue Published year

[3] Modulation formats and transmission system of OFDM 2012

[5] Performance, cost, energy efciency and control plane requirements of EON 2013
[6] Basic concepts of EON, network and node models, RSA fragmentation and defragmentation, energy efciency 2015
[7] RSA algorithms (ofine, online, fragmentation-aware, and grooming-aware), but without any analysis and comparison 2014
[8] Physical layer technological aspects; network optimization involving spectrum fragmentation concept, RSA types, cost in EON, Accepted for publication
and grooming concept; and control plane
Our paper Studying, classifying, analysis and comparison of RSA and RMSA in both quality of performance and computational complexity
8 F. Shirin Abkenar, A. Ghaffarpour Rahbar / Optical Switching and Networking 23 (2017) 539

Table 2 Table 2 (continued )

Abbreviation Explanation
Abbreviation Explanation
RWSA Routing, Wavelength assignment, and Spectrum Allocation
AFA-CA Adaptive Frequency Assignment-Collision Avoidance SA Spectrum Assignment
AFA-JAU Adaptive Frequency Assignment-Joint Anycast and Unicast SB Spectrum Block
AR Adaptive Routing SFPS Sorted Feasible Paths Searching
ARMSA Adaptive RMSA SM-RSA Survivable Multipath-RSA
AUR-ESS Adaptive Unconstrained Routing-Exhaustive Spectrum Search SP Shortest Path
BA-EEM Blocking Aware-EEM SPF Shortest Path First
BFS Breadth First Search SPRESSO SPectrum REaLLOcation (SPRE (LLO) (SSO))
BFSA Best Fit Spectrum Assignment SP-RWSA Shortest Path-RWSA
BLSA Balanced Load Spectrum Allocation SPSR Shortest Path with maximum Spectrum Reuse
CAP Common Available Pattern SPV Spectrum-constraint Path Vector
CA-SA Collision-Aware Spectrum Allocation SSRSMLA Split-Spectrum RSMLA
EEM-RSA Energy-Efcient Manycast-RSA TS Tabu Search
EON Elastic Optical Network TSC Time-Spectrum Consecutiveness
FA Fragmentation-Aware TSP TranSPonder
FAR Fixed Adaptive Routing
FBP Flow Blocking Probability
FF First Fit  Sub-wavelength accommodation: If the required bandwidth of a
FFSA First Fit Spectrum Assignment
demand is less than a full wavelength capacity and cannot
FI Fairness Index
FLF First-Last Fit completely ll it, this state is called stranded bandwidth issue.
FR Fixed Routing For solving this problem, EON uses efcient sub-wavelength
FS Frequency Slot granularity fractional bandwidth) and allocates resources ac-
GA Genetic Algorithm cording to trafc demands [9].
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
Hop Constraint-MCAP
 Super-wavelength accommodation: If the required bandwidth of
HQ High Quality a demand is more than a wavelength capacity, multiple con-
H-SSRSMLA Heuristic-SSRSMLA tiguous wavelengths are combined together to construct a su-
IARSA Impairment-Aware Routing and Subcarrier Allocation per-wavelength. Then, the demand is transmitted by this super-
ILP Integer Linear Programming
wavelength. Note that the concept of super-wavelength is dif-
KSP k Shortest Path
LB Lower Band ferent from the Virtual Concatenation (VC). In VC, the wave-
LCM Link Coexistence Matrix lengths that are not contiguous can be concatenated together,
LFA Light-Path Fragmentation but in EON, the wavelengths that construct super-wavelength
LQ Low Quality must be contiguous to save the spectrum [9].
Largest Spectrum Saving
Most Common Available Patterns
 Multiple data rate accommodation: Since the nature of EON is
MFS Most Slot First exible, it can direct the accommodation of mixed data bit rates
MF-TSP Multi-Flow TSP on a ber [9].
MHLT Maximum Heaviest Link TSC
MI Minimum Interference
EON uses three functions which are [14]:
MPP MultiPath Provisioning
MPT Maximum Path TSC
MPTG Multipath routing algorithm with Trafc Grooming  Segmentation: SLICE allocates the bandwidth according to users'
MR Minimum Residual demands. Thereby, reducing the consumed spectral resources.
MRSA Maximum Reuse Spectrum Allocation Hence, the free bandwidth can be used by other optical paths
MSF Most Slot First
MSP Modied Shortest Path
MTLT Maximum Total Link TSC  Variation: the capacities of optical paths are adjusted dynami-
MUB Maximum Usable Bandwidth cally according to the required capacity of paths that is variable
MuPPetS-EON Multi Population Pattern Searching-EON at different time periods of the day and night. The free resources
NBP Normalized Blocking Probability
can be used by other optical paths [14].
OFDM Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing
 Aggregation: to reduce the consumption of bandwidth re-
PADR Progressive Allocation and Dynamic Reallocation sources, EON aggregates multiple requests as a super-wave-
PCF Power Consumption Function length request and transmits it through the core network
P-EEM Pure-EEM [14,15].
PLG Pattern Layered Graph
PRSA Pattern-Layered RSA
PSPADR Partial Sharing, Progressive Allocation and Dynamic On the other hand, EON allocates resources to requests ac-
Reallocation cording to the volume of clients' trafc, allocates just-right amount
QoS Quality of Service
of bandwidth to demands adaptively, and considers the distance of
QoT Quality of Transmission
QPF QoS Provisioning based on Fragmentation optical paths (the number of end-to-end node hops) to allocate
QPS QoS Provisioning based on Squeezing resources adaptively. These concepts imply bit rate adaptation,
RMLSA Routing, Modulation Level and SpectrumAssignment bandwidth adaptation, and distance adaptation, respectively [14]:
RMSA Routing, Modulation and Spectrum Allocation
RMSA/MS RMSA/Maximum Spectrum
RMSA/PC RMSA/Power Consumption  Bit rate adaptation: when the volume of client trafc changes,
RS Random Spectrum the capacity of the optical link is adjusted accordingly [14].
RSA Routing and Spectrum Allocation  Bandwidth adaptation: there are different optical paths with
RSA-DPP RSA/Dedicated Path Protection
different capacities. The amount of allocated bandwidth to an
RSA-JAU RSA/Joint Anycast and Unicast
RSMLA Route, Spectrum and Modulation Level Assignment arrived request is exactly adapted to that request requirement
RSVP Resource reSerVation Protocol [14].
RWA Routing and Wavelength Assignment  Distance adaptation: there are different optical paths with
F. Shirin Abkenar, A. Ghaffarpour Rahbar / Optical Switching and Networking 23 (2017) 539 9

Fig. 1. Spectral resource designation schemes [1]: (a) current ITU-T DWDM frequency grid with different channel spacings (CSs); (b) single slot on the rigid approach; and
(c) double-sided half slot approach.

Totally, RSA is divided into two subproblems: routing and SA.

Many approaches have been proposed to solve the RSA problem.
Some of them try to address routing subproblem, some of them
consider SA and some others focus on both issues. Generally, the
main objective of existing methods, which is common between
them, is efcient and cost-effective usage of resources according to
client demands. Routing, Wavelength assignment, and Spectrum
Allocation (RWSA); routing based on spectrum segment [17]; and
some other algorithms have been proposed to solve this problem.
In the following, we review the RSA algorithms under two cate-
gories: (1) the algorithms that support static trafc and (2) the
algorithms that support dynamic trafc.
Fig. 2. Architecture of an EON [9].
3.1. RSA algorithms supporting static trafc

different end-to-end node hops. Each of these paths has its One type of trafc is static trafc, which is known in advance
transmission and ltering-related impairments. EON is capable and the trafc information is given in a constant matrix, where the
to select an appropriate modulation level adopted to distance duration of each demand is considered as innity. The RSA algo-
[14]. rithms designed for static trafc nd the appropriate routes and
then assign the appropriate resources to the demands according to
In [16], the distance-adaptive spectrum allocation in EON has the matrix.
been considered. Since a signal traverses through multiple EON
nodes and is ltered by them, the width of the spectrum is narrow 3.1.1. Routing, Wavelength assignment, and Spectrum Allocation
and spectrum utilization is reduced. Hence, the authors in [16] (RWSA) algorithm
have used appropriate modulation formats according to trans- Since spectrum contiguity increases the complexity of existing
mission reach in order to address the mentioned narrowing issue. RSA approaches, a new concept called channel is introduced. A
channel comprises multiple contiguous FSs and is assigned to each
request. Using channel allocation can reduce the mentioned
3. Routing and Spectrum Allocation (RSA) in EON complexity because the FSs are contiguous in the channel. How-
ever, in the assignment based on FSs, rst FSs have to be con-
RSA plays an important role in EON. When different demands tiguous and then they can be assigned to demands. This RSA
with various resource requirements arrive, the RSA algorithms problem is divided into two sub-problems: demand routing sub-
have to check all the available conditions and select the best op- problem and spectrum allocation sub-problem [18].
tion for each demand so that the maximum number of clients' The objective of RWSA is to maximize spectral efciency. An
demands have been served. There are different parameters which EON may support a set of line rates, for example {10 Gb/s, 40 Gb/s,
construct the main objective of RSA. These parameters are differ- 100 Gb/s, 400 Gb/s, 1 Tb/s}. The RWSA problem is divided into two
ent in various conditions. For example, some of the RSA algorithms subproblems. The rst subproblem is to nd the set of line rates
try to alleviate BP, while some others want to improve resource for a request such that total capacity of line rates is at least equal to
usage or energy efciency. the requested data rate. This sub-problem is referred to rate
10 F. Shirin Abkenar, A. Ghaffarpour Rahbar / Optical Switching and Networking 23 (2017) 539

Table 3 return the shortest path as PATH and the number of

Required variables for RWSA formulation [19].
this shortest path as k
Variables Description end

A A set of auxiliary links

E The set of point-to-point single-ber links
G (N , A ) Auxiliary graph KPaths-RWSA: Algorithm 2 shows the procedure of the KPaths-
K Number of routes as potential solutions RWSA algorithm. After nding the new set of requests and or-
li Line rate dering the set of requests according to the cost function (U), the
N A set of auxiliary nodes KPaths-RWSA algorithm solves the routing and channel sub-
R Request
W Wavelength slots
problem at the same time by nding K shortest paths. In Greedy-
Zew The discrete spectrum availability information RWSA, K paths are found on the rst available K wavelengths and a
The spectrum availability information for each wavelength slot j on wavelength is not repeated more than once. In KPaths-RWSA, K
an edge e along path i. shortest paths are found at the rst. In order to reduce the com-
plexity of the RWSA problem, the spectrum is discredited in the
frequency domain, and the smallest unit of a spectrum is referred
to as a wavelength slot. Thus, the allocated spectrum can also be
selection algorithm. The second subproblem is how to establish dened in terms of the number of consecutive wavelength slots.
light-paths at the specic line rates between a sourcedestination No more than one light-path can occupy a wavelength slot
pair such that the total required spectrum in the network is (spectrum) at the same time; however, a light-path may occupy
minimized. This problem is named routing and channel allocation more than one consecutive wavelength slots depending on the
[19]. offered line rate. The wavelength of a light-path is dened as the
In the rate selection algorithm, the combination of line rates, which lowest indexed wavelength slot occupied by the light-path. The
requires the minimum amount of spectrum is selected. Then, routing available wavelength slots of paths are sorted in a set. Then, the
and channel allocation segment uses Greedy-RWSA, KPaths-RWSA or path, where its available wavelength slot is minimum, is selected.
Shortest Path RWSA (SP-RWSA) to schedule light-paths at lower- Hence, a wavelength may be repeated on more than one path [19].
number wavelengths (i.e., the wavelength with lower indexes) such
that the total occupied spectrum is minimized [19]. Table 3 shows the Algorithm 2. KPaths-RWSA (R, Zew , W ).
required variables for the RWSA algorithms [19]. 1: foreach request do
Greedy-RWSA: Greedy-RWSA operates based on spectrum re- Calculate the cost function (U ) .
quirements. Algorithm 1 shows the procedure of the Greedy-
RWSA algorithm. To calculate the spectrum requirements, a cost Order the requests according to these calculated
function is introduced. Let U = H sd xli be the mentioned cost cost functions.
function, where H sd represents the distance between source node s 2: K- ShortestPath(G(V , E ) , s, d, K ).
and destination node d, and xli indicates the spectral width re- 3: forall the K paths do
quired to support data line rate li . After nding the new set of forall the W wavelengths do
requests and ordering the set of requests according to the cost Find the available required number of consecutive wavelength
function (U), the Greedy-RWSA algorithm solves the routing and
slots which are starting from the lowest slot on the available
channel allocation subproblem. At the same time using an aux-
iliary graph and the Breadth First Search (BFS) algorithm, the path spectrum of each path.
between the source and destination nodes is checked. If there end
exists more than one path, the shortest path is selected. The end
Greedy nds K potential solutions for each request that indicates 4: return the path with the lowest available wavelength slot.
the algorithm can nd K routes on K unique wavelengths. Finally,
the RWSA algorithm selects the path with the shortest physical
distance. If K 1, only the rst shortest path is selected. When K
SP-RWSA: after nding the new set of requests and ordering the
increases, a shorter path among available paths is given higher
set of requests according to the cost function (U), the SP-RWSA
priority. Thus, the routing becomes a composition of adaptive and
algorithm solves the routing and channel subproblem at the same
shortest path routing [19].
time. This algorithm is the same as KPaths-RWSA in which K 1
Algorithm 1. Greedy-RWSA (R, Zew , W , K ). [19].
According to achieved performance results from [19], RWSA
1: foreach request do can improve spectrum utilization, network cost and energy con-
Calculate the cost function (U ) sumption in OFDM networks compared with WDM networks.
Order the requests according to these calculated
3.1.2. Adaptive Frequency Assignment-Collision Avoidance (AFA-CA)
cost functions.
end Another algorithm that tries to solve the RSA problem is AFA-
2: Construct the auxiliary graph (G(N , A)). CA heuristic algorithm that supports static trafc and performs
3: Find K-shortest paths between source node s routing and resource assignment according to a given trafc ma-
and destination node d by BFS (G(N , A) , s, d ). trix. The aim of AFA-CA is to minimize the allocated frequency
4: Find the shortest path among all calculated K-shortest paths. spectrum width in the network. The main idea behind the AFA-CA
5: if K 1 then is to assign the contiguous FSs to requests without happening any
return the first shortest path as PATH and k = 1. overlap in contiguous spectrums [20].
else Algorithm 3 shows the procedure of AFA-CA. Demands are
F. Shirin Abkenar, A. Ghaffarpour Rahbar / Optical Switching and Networking 23 (2017) 539 11

processed in decreasing order of requested number of FSs, i.e., the Algorithm 4. MRSA algorithm [21,22].
algorithm starts the process with the demand that has requested
1: Sort the spectrum path requests in descending order of the
the most number of FSs. There is a function called MinFS that
trafc demands.
analyzes all candidate paths of the considered demand d and
2: while there exists non-zero trafc demands do
searches for the lowest indexed FS that can be selected for demand
d. Using MinFS, the request with the lowest index of FS is selected.
If there are some requests with the same lowest index, the de- 3: J
mand with the lowest average length of the path is selected. Again, 4: Take the request with the maximum demands
if there are some requests with the same lowest average length, (say t j ).
the demand with the shortest path is selected. Then, the satised
5: Accommodate t j using the first available
demand is removed from the demand set and the process con-
tinuous until the demand set becomes empty. After that, the value consecutive subcarriers .
of the maximum number of requested FSs is reduced and new 6: J J pj
requests are considered. The AFA-CA continues until it allocates
7: forall the the remaining requests having non
bandwidth to all trafc demands in the network [20].
zero traffic demands do
Algorithm 3. AFA-CA algorithm [20]. 8: if pi is disjoint with all paths in J then
1: n max{number of requested FSs} 9: Accommodate pi , ti using the first
2: Construct the demand set by ordering the available consecutive subcarriers
demands in decreasing order of requested FSs. 10: J J pi .
3: forall the demands in demand set do
Select the demand with the lowest index of FS.
end end
4: Allocate the demand to calculated path.
5: Remove the demand from demand set.
6: if the demand set is empty then end
Go to (Step 7)
Go to (Step 3) According to the results obtained from [21,22], SPSR cannot
else achieve load balancing in the network. On the other hand, in SPSR,
7: n n 1 the shortest path routing can potentially reduce the overall path
8: if n < 1 then overlapping.
else 3.1.4. Balanced Load Spectrum Allocation (BLSA) algorithm
Go to (Step 2) BLSA determines routing with balancing load within a network
end in order to minimize the maximum number of required sub-
carriers. The BLSA comprises three steps as path generation, path
selection, and spectrum allocation [21,22]:
According to the achieved performance results in [20], AFA-CA
can reduce the number of FSs of occupied frequency spectrum. In 1. Path generation: the k-shortest path algorithm is used to gen-
addition, AFA-CA can reduce the computation time compared to erate k (where k 1) paths [21,22].
other algorithms like Most Slot First (MSF) (see Section 4.2.5) and 2. Path selection: the path is selected based on load balancing
FA-FF. within all the bers in the network for each spectrum path
3.1.3. Shortest Path with Maximum Spectrum Reuse (SPSR) 3. Spectrum allocation: The MRSA algorithm is used to accom-
algorithm modate all of the spectrum paths [21,22].
One of the most important aims of an RSA problem should be
the minimization of the amount of used spectrum (i.e., the number Path overlapping is an important issue in these algorithms. For
of subcarriers). One way for this minimization is to reuse sub- dening the overlapping concept assume that there are two re-
carriers. The SPSR algorithm makes it possible to reuse subcarriers, quests. Request 1 and request 2 need two subcarriers and one
and in this way, it can reduce the maximum number of required subcarrier, respectively. The subcarriers of each request have to be
subcarriers. The SPSR combines the shortest path routing and consecutive. However, the assigned subcarriers to different re-
Maximum Reuse Spectrum Allocation (MRSA) algorithms. In ad- quests must be separated by guard-bands. If there is no guard-
dition, SPSR supports static trafc and performs routing and re- band between allocated subcarriers to request 1 and request 2,
source assignment according to a given trafc matrix. these requests are called overlapped.
Algorithm 4 shows the procedure of the MRSA algorithm. Ac- There are two denitions in these algorithms as Lower Band
cording to MRSA, the requests of spectrum paths are ordered (LB) and Maximum Subcarrier (MS). LB is the load on the most
based on the size of trafc demands. The larger trafc demands congested ber that determines the minimum number of sub-
have high priority because subcarrier consecutiveness constraint carriers on a ber, and MS is the maximum subcarrier number on a
makes it hard to nd available consecutive subcarriers for large ber. Performance results in [21,22] show that BLSA can achieve
trafc demands. Only the ber-disjoint spectrum paths may reuse load balancing in the network. However, the longer path routing in
the same subcarriers. The MRSA uses the rst-t algorithm to nd BLSA increases the overall path overlapping. Hence, the overall
available consecutive subcarriers as displayed in Lines 5 and 9 in path overlapping in BLSA is high. In fact, although BLSA has a
Algorithm 4 [21,22]. smaller lower bound, the gap of MS between BLSA and its LB is
12 F. Shirin Abkenar, A. Ghaffarpour Rahbar / Optical Switching and Networking 23 (2017) 539

larger and it is due to the longer routing paths [21,22]. of the path level spectrum fragmentation. The MI algorithms ob-
tain minimum interference through the choice of paths that will
3.1.5. Survivable Multipath Routing and Spectrum Allocation (SM- decrease the maxow values of all other sourcedestination pairs
RSA) algorithm (i.e., (s, d)) as small as possible. In addition, critical links are
In MultiPath Provisioning (MPP), one data stream is split into identied as the links that whenever a request is routed to them,
multiple low-rate streams and each stream passes through sepa- the maxow values of one or more (s, d) pairs decrease. To nd the
rate routes. When a failure occurs on one of the assigned paths to a best path rst of all, the links are weighted according to their
connection, trafc is automatically carried out on another path. critically using Eq. (1), where sd indicates the importance of an (s,
Hence, multipath provisioning naturally provides partial protec- d) pair. Then, a weighted graph is generated by using the men-
tion with high efciency. Partial protection means guaranteeing a tioned weighted links. After that, the Dijkstra algorithm is run to
part of the requested bandwidth, rather than the full amount, at nd the best path. Fig. 3 shows an example of MI. There is a re-
the event of a link failure [23,24]. SM-RSA uses the advantages quest from S2 to D2 requiring two FSs. First of all, MI comprises
mentioned for MPP. In fact, the aim of SM-RSA is to accommodate available patterns to nd the best resources. As seen in this gure,
a given set of demands using MPP to minimize the number of there are two available paths for this request which are (4, 5, 6, 7)
utilized spectrums [25]. and (4, 2, 7), but since the rst path has the minimum interference
To accommodate a connection demand using MPP, two or more related to the second one, choosing it reduces maxow of the (4, 2,
link-disjoint paths have to be determined. This phase is performed 7) to zero. Hence, (4, 5, 6, 7) is chosen [27].
by using Bhandari's link-disjoint paths algorithm [26]. This algo-
rithm computes the largest number of link-disjoint paths with the
w (l) = sd
(s, d) l Csd (1)
least total cost for a given pair of source and destination nodes.
After that, the required subcarriers on each path is allocated to the There are two algorithms based on MI described in the fol-
demand so that the bandwidth and protection requirements of lowing [27]:
this demand are satised. In addition, the utilized spectrum is MI-RSA algorithm: The MI-RSA algorithm comprises of four
minimized. Hence, MPP splits the incoming demand into multiple steps as:
low-rate demands and can minimize the utilized spectrum [25].
Performance evaluation results in [25] show that SM-RSA can  Step 1: the request with r required slots is received [27].
minimize the utilized spectrum. In addition, SM-RSA can reserve  Step 2: the weighting procedure is performed according to Eq.
more subcarriers than required. (1). In addition, Eq. (2) is used to normalize the weights [27]:

w(l) = logw(l) (2)

3.1.6. Minimum Interference (MI) routing algorithms
One important issue in RSA is Fragmentation which means se-  Step 3: the Dijkstra algorithm is applied to the weighted to-
parating the available spectrum into small non-contiguous spec- pology with link capacities greater than the number of re-
trum blocks and allocating/de-allocating these blocks on demands quested slots to compute a lowest weighted sum path [27].
[3,7]. Most approaches on RSA focus on mitigating the spectrum  Step 4: if the shortest path can be found by the Dijkstra algo-
fragmentation effects generated by elastic allocation through re- rithm, the rst r shared continues slots are selected. Otherwise,
routing mechanism. However, the high equipment cost or the the request is blocked [27].
disruption of active trafc due to the reallocation of these schemes
are the main drawbacks for rerouting schemes. In addition, ex- Minimum Interference Pattern-layered RSA with First-Fit spec-
isting approaches consider the spectrum fragmentation on link trum allocation (MI-PRSA-FF): In order to reduce the probability of
level. However, a fragmentation procedure limits the capacity of rejection due to the spectrum consecutiveness constraint, the MI-
resources due to the continuity constraint. The main aim of MI RSA is combined with PRSA-FF. Here, a pattern refers to the exact
algorithms is to mitigate the spectrum fragmentation on path level continuous number of slots assigned to meet their needs of the
by achieving minimum interference. current request. The PRSA-FF develops the original physical to-
The MI algorithms use maxow value to evaluate the severity pology into virtual pattern-layered topologies. The MI-PRSA-FF

Fig. 3. An example of MI [27].

F. Shirin Abkenar, A. Ghaffarpour Rahbar / Optical Switching and Networking 23 (2017) 539 13

involves four steps. Steps one and two are the same in MI-RSA and similar to QPS, except that QPF fragments the LQ requests instead
steps three and four are as follows [27]: of squeezing them [28].
Fig. 4 illustrates an example of both QPS and QPF. The rst si-
 Step 3: the weighted graph is converted to virtual pattern- tuation of links has been shown in Fig. 4a, where HQ request could
layered topologies [27]. use the LQ links (i.e., link 5). When a HQ request arrives, there is
 Step 4: the Dijkstra algorithm is applied to a weighted pattern no available SB for this request neither in HQ links nor LQ links.
layered topology and the path is computed sequentially from Hence, QPS and QPF have to release appropriate SBs for this new
the rst layer to the last layer. Next, the path with the lowest request. According to Fig. 4b, QPS selects the assigned LQ request
weighted sum is selected. If there is more than one lowest on link 5 and squeezes it on available SBs on link 6. However, the
weighted sum path, the rst path is chosen [27]. squeezed request needs 6 slots and there are 5 slots on link 6. It
means one slot of the squeezed request will be lost. However, QPF
Performance results in [27] show that MI-RSA and MI-PRSA-FF tries to fragment the LQ request on link 5 to two new requests and
can reduce the Flow Blocking Probability (FBP). assigns the available SBs on both links 6 and 7 to these fragments.
QPF has been shown in Fig. 4c. It is noticeable that there is loss in
3.1.7. Quality of Service (QoS)-based RSA QPS in some situations.
One important issue in the EON domain is QoS provisioning. Performance evaluation in [28] shows that QPS has less BP than
Two QoS-based algorithms have been presented in [28] which are QPF. However, QPS yields to the loss in LQ requests but there is no
called QoS Provisioning based on Squeezing (QPS) and QoS Pro- loss in QPF. In addition, FF-based mechanisms yield better per-
visioning based on Fragmentation (QPF), and use two important formance than R-based ones.
mechanisms of EON as squeezing and fragmentation, respectively,
in order to support QoS in EON. Both QPS and QPF classify the 3.2. RSA algorithms that support dynamic trafc
incoming demands into High Quality (HQ) and Low Quality (LQ)
requests and theat them in specic policies. Both QPS and QPF These algorithms support dynamic trafc, where the trafc
have common parts. One of them is the FloydWarshal routing conditions are changed in time. Hence, these algorithms have to
mechanism that tries to order all available paths between each s- d update their information and adapt themselves to new conditions
pairs. Then, the available routes (i.e., np ) are classied into two to select appropriate routes and assign the appropriate resources
categories which are HQ's paths (i.e., nHQ ) and LQ's paths (i.e., nLQ ) to demands.
and are calculated by Eqs. (3) and (4), respectively. The FF and R
are used as spectrum assignment mechanisms. The main step of 3.2.1. Routing based on spectrum segment representation
each algorithm is different which are described in the following: Improving both transmission capacity and exibility of band-
width is a signicant issue in optical networks. Hence, a exible
nHQ = np (3) architecture based on O-OFDM is introduced to cope with this
issue. The advantages of O-OFDM are high capacity, high spectrum
nLQ = np nHQ (4) efciency, and exibility of bandwidth. There are two re-
presentation approaches for spectrum: slot-based representation
QoS Provisioning based on Squeezing (QPS): The QPS algorithm and segment representation, where segment representation is
uses the squeezing mechanism to alleviate the blocking prob- more exible than slot-based approach. Since the variety of optical
ability of HQ trafc. When a request is squeezed, it means that the components resolutions and spectral widths of all signals is high,
request is transformed to another path, where it is likely that the determining spectrum width is so difcult. Hence, the aim is to
available FSs of the new path are less than the required FSs of the present spectrum based on the segments algorithm that is showed
request. In this situation, some FSs of the request will be lost. To by continuous spectrum segments [17].
prevent the HQ trafc loss, QPS applies the squeezing mechanism The algorithm based on segments comprises routing and
only for LQ requests. QPS threats differently in related to incoming spectrum aggregation, spectrum selection and signaling process in
requests [28]: which all of them are based on spectrum segments. Routing and
spectrum aggregation includes three routing algorithms, and
 If a HQ request arrives, QPS tries to nd available resources in spectrum selection consists of three selection schemes that will be
nHQ . If it could not nd any resources, it searches in nLQ to nd described in the following. Trafc process can be divided into two
required resources. If QPS could not nd the available FSs processes [17]:
among nLQ , it tries to squeeze the LQ requests on the other
available paths and assign the released resources to HQ. If the  Trafc routing: Trafc routing is implemented in a source node
squeezing is impossible, QPS decides to preempt LQ requests and is congured with real-time trafc arrivals. The main aim of
and assigns their resources to HQ. Finally, if there are not any trafc routing is to determine solutions of dynamic RSA. The
available resources, HQ will be blocked [28]. trafc demands that are not accepted by the RSA algorithm are
 If a LQ request arrives, QPS tries to nd available resources in blocked. This situation is dened as routing blocking. The aim of
nLQ . If it could not any available resources, it searches in nHQ to RSA is to maximize the amount of capacity of established de-
nd available FSs with the low index, but when a HQ request mands or minimize the probability of routing blocking [17].
arrives and needs the occupied resources with LQ, the LQ re-  Signaling: Signaling is processed between distribution nodes
quest has to release them [28]. and includes reservation of spectrum resources, trafc trans-
mission, and trafc release. Failure in the signaling process is
QoS Provisioning based on Fragmentation (QPF): The QPF algo- considered as signaling blocking [17].
rithm is based on the fragmentation mechanism. Fragmentation of
a request means to fragment the request to multiple lower-rate In the following, the mentioned routing algorithms and selec-
requests and route the fragments through different paths. QPF tion schemes are described:
tries to provide the best conditions for serving HQ requests, and
hence when there is no sufcient resource for an incoming HQ Routing and spectrum aggregation: routing determines a route
request, the QPF tries to search for LQ paths. All steps in QPF are (or candidate routes) for a bandwidth variable light-path, while
14 F. Shirin Abkenar, A. Ghaffarpour Rahbar / Optical Switching and Networking 23 (2017) 539

Fig. 4. An example of QoS-based algorithms: (a) rst situation of links; (b) QPS; and (c) QPF.

spectrum aggregation explores routed paths and calculates the The AR depends on the timely update of the network status. The
aggregated spectrum over the path. Three algorithms of routing AR based on the segment is modied from the modied Dijkstra
and spectrum aggregation are as following [17]: Shortest Path (MSP) algorithm. The MSP algorithm does not
1. Fixed shortest path Routing (FR): each node congures a consider Filtering-Guard Band (FGB) and could not support
xed and constant pre-calculated routing table and there is these different spectrum selection approaches in the segment-
no requirement for dynamic state information of a link. The based networks. Algorithm 5 shows the procedure of AR/MSP
routing table includes the shortest path for each source algorithm [17].
destination (SD) pair. When a request arrives, the routing Spectrum selection: spectrum selection includes: (i) selecting
controller in a source node searches the routing table ac- one available segment from aggregated spectrum and (ii) de-
cording to SD addresses and selects the shortest pre-calcu- termining one appropriate starting/ending frequency. Spectrum
lated path. FR is a two-phase approach. Its phases are the selection step is independent of the previous segment described
routing process and spectrum aggregation [17]. in routing and spectrum aggregation steps. Two issues must be
2. Fixed Alternate Routing (FAR): FAR is proposed to improve considered in spectrum selection: (i) avoidance of spectral col-
the efciency of blocking. It can be implemented by calcu- lision and (ii) avoidance of spectral fragmentation. The spec-
lating at least three candidate paths. Then, each SD candidate trum selection approaches based on segment include [17]:
path is sorted (e.g., according to hop number or transmission 1. Segment-based First-Fit (FF) approach: FF selects the rst
reach). Constructing the FAR routing table is difcult. The FAR idle segment and assigns the starting frequency to it. FF se-
uses the k-shortest path algorithm to congure a routing ta- lects frequency segments in the low-frequency domain and
ble. The FAR is a two-step approach. At the rst step, when a reduces the probability of spectrum fragmentation, but the
request arrives, the routing controller searches the pre-cal- collision is a signicant problem in FF. Note that different
culated routing table and selects the ordered path. At the nodes may choose the same spectrum segment simulta-
second step, it processes the spectrum aggregation for each neously, and this may lead to signal blocking [17].
candidate path, alternatively [17]. 2. Segment-based Random (RS) spectrum approach: RS se-
3. Adaptive Routing (AR): AR is a single-phase approach which lects the spectrum segment and the side of the spectrum (i.e.,
considers routing and spectrum aggregation simultaneously. left or right) randomly. Compared with FF, the RS tends to
F. Shirin Abkenar, A. Ghaffarpour Rahbar / Optical Switching and Networking 23 (2017) 539 15

choose different segments hence, it can reduce the probability According to the performance results in [17], FF and MR exhibit
of spectrum collision. Of course, RS splits the spectrum into more spectrum collision at light-trafc and fewer spectrum colli-
more fragments, thus increasing the routing blocking [17]. sion at heavy-trafc. In addition, the signaling blocking rate of RS
3. Minimum Residual (MR) spectrum approach: MR considers rises slightly because the increasing spectrum utilization in RS
spectrum defragmentation and the segment that has minimal causes more collisions. In fact, at heavy-trafc situations, more
but sufcient bandwidth is selected. Other segments with trafc is blocked in the routing process. Hence, signaling blocking
more continuous bandwidth are kept for future requirements. rates of FF, RS, and MR are all decreased.
The time complexity of MR is O(k ), where k is the segment
number [17]. 3.2.2. Light-path Fragmentation Algorithm (LFA)
Signal processing: signal processing consists of (i) reserving the A connection request must be fragmented in some situations.
spectral bandwidth on each link over the path (trafc adjust- The Light-path Fragmentation Algorithm (LFA) uses idle trans-
ment process); (ii) transmitting data; and (iii) releasing optical ponders (TSPs) in source and destination nodes, fragments a high-
path. It expands Open Shortest Path First-Trafc Engineering rate connection to multiple low-rate connections, and then assigns
(OSPF-TE) and Reservation Protocol-Trafc Engineering (RSVP- them to fragmented network spectrum [29]. If the required
TE) protocols. Computation processes for routing, spectrum number of FSs exceeds the size of the available spectral gap in
aggregation, and spectrum selection is performed in a source candidate paths between source and destination nodes, the re-
node in computation time ( tC ). The setup process starts (with quest is blocked. Otherwise, it is possible to divide the request into
the propagation delay ( tD )) to reserve spectral segments from multiple independent low-rate signals and allocate them into
the source node to a destination node. As soon as an inter- multiple contiguous spectral gaps. This operation can originate
mediate node receives a RSVP (RESV) message, it considers the from Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) proto-
local spectrum resources and congures its BV-WSSs to col. Establishing multiple light-paths for a single request implies
bypass the signal (with processing and conguration time (tp)). that a TSP must be assigned to source and destination of each
Otherwise, a RSVP (RESV-ERR) message is returned back to the light-path [29].
source node and the relevant demand is blocked because of For an incoming request, the LFA mechanism rst checks
signaling blocking [17]. whether there is at least one TSP in both source and destination.
After this verication, LFA selects k shortest paths and then cal-
Algorithm 5. AR/MSP algorithm [17]. culates minimum number of required FSs for the connection re-
Input: Integers in the topology with nodes N and links E. quest. There must be spectral gaps for each k-candidate path to
A new demand with SD(s, d ) and the occupied band- guarantee contiguous FSs. Then, LFA orders the available spectral
width B arrives. gaps for each candidate path in a descending order. After that, LFA
Output: The routing path from s to d (P(s, d)) with aggregated checks whether the connection request can be assigned to each of
the candidate paths. At the last step, LFA rst fragments the re-
available spectrum S(s, d) .
quest into two fragments (i.e., light-paths) and checks whether the
fragment assignments to light-paths are in contiguous manner.
1: Initialize the visited nodes set: M s Note that this algorithm is an iteration-based algorithm that in-
2: while d M do creases the number of fragments in each iteration. Hence, at the
Search j N M (i. e ., unvisited nodes) with the minimum next iteration, the number of light-paths is increased to three. This
cost of j. procedure continues until the number of fragments becomes equal
if j is found then to the maximum allowed fragments ( maxfrag _allowed ) [29].
The bandwidth of each fragmentation is determined initially
Run(MSP )
and depends on the available spectral gaps width on each candi-
date path. The fragmentation algorithm uses a SP-FF algorithm to
return Blocking
assign the spectrum to requests [29].
end Fig. 5 shows an example of LFA. At the rst time, all slots are
end occupied by the existing requests (i.e., Fig. 5a). After a time dura-
3: return Required P(s, d) and S(s, d) . tion and according to Fig. 5b, one of the connections is terminated
and then its released resources are available for the next coming

Fig. 5. An example of LFA [29].

16 F. Shirin Abkenar, A. Ghaffarpour Rahbar / Optical Switching and Networking 23 (2017) 539

requests. As seen in Fig. 5b, when a new connection arrives, since available FSs according to NFSR. After that, AUR-ESS constructs an
there are not enough number of available slots, the LFA fragments auxiliary graph of the physical network. If all the FSs from rstSlot
it into two fragments and assigns the available resources to them to lastSlot in the ber that connect two nodes of the physical
[29]. network are not used by another light-path, the two nodes are
Performance evaluations in [29] show that LFA can improve connected together by a symbol link in the auxiliary graph. Then,
average blocking bandwidth, average transponder utilization, and AUR-ESS searches for the shortest path using the Dijkstra algo-
blocking probability. In fact, by fragmentation of demands into rithm. If the shortest path can be found, two states may happen:
multiple lower-rate demands, available spectral gaps can be allo- (i) If the hop number of this path is equal to the hop number of the
pre-calculated shortest path in the physical network, the com-
cated. In addition, using TSPs in the source and destination nodes
puted path in the auxiliary graph and the evaluated set of FSs are
makes the fragmentation of incoming call possible and simple.
selected as the route and spectrum assignment, respectively, and
then the algorithm nishes. (ii) Otherwise, add the route and the
3.2.3. Adaptive Unconstrained Routing-Exhaustive Spectrum Search
evaluated FSs to set (L). After that, AUR-ESS searches in L to nd a
(AUR-ESS) algorithm
route with the lowest number of hop counts and selects it as the
The AUR-ESS solves the RSA subproblems jointly. Algorithm 6
route and choose the FSs of the selected route as spectrum that
shows the procedure of AUR-ESS. Let NFSR be the number of FSs
has to be assigned [30].
required by a light-path and S be the whole number of existing
FSs. First, AUR-ESS determines feasible routes in the given physical Algorithm 6. AUR-ESS [30]
network. Then, AUR-ESS determines the rstSlot and lastSlot

1: Set the list of feasible routes and spectrum assignments, L = .

2: Determine feasible routes in a physical network.
3: for i 0 to S NFSR do

Determine the firstSlot and lastSlot available FSs according to NFSR.

Build an auxiliary graph of the network.
Search for the shortest path in the auxiliary graph using the Dijkstra Algorithm.
if A shortest path is available then
if the number of hops of the path in the auxiliary
graph is equal to the number of hops of a
precalculated shortest path in the physical
Select that path computed in the auxiliary
graph as the route .

then Select the evaluated set of frequency slots as

the spectrum assignment .

Finish the algorithm.

Add the route and the evaluated frequency
slot set to L.

4: if L = then
Reject the light path establishment request.
Search L for the route with the lowest number of

Select this combination as the route and spectrum

assignment to be used.
5: End the algorithm.
F. Shirin Abkenar, A. Ghaffarpour Rahbar / Optical Switching and Networking 23 (2017) 539 17

Performance evaluations in [30] show that AUR-ESS can im- As mentioned before, MCAP uses the HC-MCAP and CA-SA al-
prove blocking probability compared with FR Most Used (MU) gorithms as routing and spectrum assignment algorithms, re-
algorithm, FR Least Used (LU) algorithm, FR FF, and so on. spectively. These algorithms are expressed in the following.
However, AUR-ESS has more computing time compared with the Most Common Available Patterns Routing Algorithm with Hop
mentioned algorithms (i.e., FR MU, FR LU, FR FF, etc.). On the Constraint (HC-MCAP): The aim of MCAP is to nd the path with
other hand, AUR-ESS and FAR Least Unusable Spectrum First maximum available patterns. MCAP uses the best-rst and
(LUSF) algorithm have the same performance. However, compu- breadth-rst searches in order to provide more options for the
tation time in FAR LUSF is more than AUR-ESS. spectrum allocation (SA) approach to reduce the potential colli-
sion. It uses the best rst because the vertex with the most
3.2.4. The Most Common Available Patterns (MCAP) algorithm Common Available Patterns (CAPs) from the source in the new
The MCAP algorithm is based on GMPLS, where the GMPLS- frontier (it is based on BFS, and therefore, uses frontier to check
enabled service is according to resource reservation protocol adjacent nodes) is selected to be processed next. The breadth-rst
(RSVP). There are three types of service blocking in GMPLS-en- search is used because the new frontier consists of vertices that
abled optical network as [31]: can be tried next and these vertices are one edge away from the
explored vertices. In addition, the connectivity of source and
 Routing Blocking (RB): If a path cannot be found between a destination nodes in each pattern layer will be checked before CAP
source and destination pair in the route computation phase, the searching. Moreover, CAP is used to indicate the set of available
RB occurs [31]. patterns (see Algorithm 7 [31]).
 Forward Blocking (FB): The next phase after nding the ap- In Algorithm 7, a hop counter H is considered to avoid selecting
propriate route phase is forwarding phase. If in the forwarding a long path than a shortest-hop path. The value of H is set to
phase from a source to a destination, the resources on the min(hmin + h, N 1), where hmin is the hops of the shortest path
computed route are not available, the FB occurs [31]. between node pair (m , n) and h is the allowable number of extra
 Backward Blocking (BB): If the outdated information or re- hops, which should optimally be a function of hmin . In addition, for
servation collision occurs in backward phase, the BB occurs [31]. a given set of links (E), the number of elements in CAP is calcu-
lated as |CAP[e|e E]| = l e E cle . According to the HC-MCAP
All the previous dynamic RSA algorithms focus on reducing the algorithm, rst the existing graph G is transformed to PLG ac-
RB or FB without considering the BB. However, MCAP tries to re- cording to the required bandwidth of request (i.e., bst ). After that,
duce the BB. The MCAP involves two schemes: (i) Most Common the algorithm checks all available paths hop by hop. In fact, the
Available Patterns routing algorithm with Hop Constraint (HC- HC-MCAP starts from the source node and checks all of its
MCAP), which is a pattern-layered and graph-based algorithm; neighbors according to the breadth-rst search algorithm. The HC-
MCAP re-iterates this checking to achieve the destination node.
and (ii) Collision-Aware Spectrum Allocation (CA-SA) scheme. The
Finally, HC-MCAP selects the path with the most CAP and no
basic idea of MCAP is to nd the route with the most available
longer than H. If there is no path with mentioned conditions, the
patterns for a specic request and select the pattern with mini-
request is blocked [31].
mum backward collision probability [31].
The graph G = (V , E ) shows the topology of network, where V Algorithm 7. HC-MCAP [31].
and E are the set of nodes and the set of edges, respectively. The
matrix A = (amn)|E || E| is the adjacency matrix of G. There are some Input: G (V , E ) .
other notations described as follows [31]: Request (s, t , bst ).
Spectrum Utilization.
 Pattern (Pt.): An allocation of the required FSs for a connection Output: Route with the most CAP and no longer than H hops.
request. For example, for a request requiring b FSs, we have
Pt. i = {fi , fi + 1 , , fi + b 1}. Hence, there are |F | b + 1 candidate 1: PLG Generation
patterns [31]. Transform G to PLG according to bst .
 Pattern Layered Graph (PLG): the layered graph is a copy of the Check the connectivity of PLGl through Eq. (6) to simplify the LCM.
physical topology instantiated in each candidate pattern. For 2: Initialization
example, link e presents in PLGl only if the Pt. l in e is available. N {s}, Q V {s};
The matrix Al = (amn )|E || E| is the adjacency matrix of PLGl [31]. 3: Iterative Searching
 Link Coexistence Matrix (LCM) of PLG: The L E matrix to
while Q is not empty do
present the PLG, where L is the number of patterns, with the
Check all available paths hop by hop by using BFS
entry dened in the following equation:
1, where e exists in PLG
cle = l end
0, otherwise (5) 4: if the route is not found then
Block this request.
 Connectivity matrix (R): This matrix is used to check the con-
nectivity of a given node pair, which could be derived from the
powers of the adjacency matrix (A) of the graph as in the fol- return the route.
lowing equation [31]: end

R = (rmn)N N (6)

where Collision-Aware Spectrum Allocation (CA-SA) Algorithm: According

to the HC-MCAP routing algorithm, a path with the greatest number
1, if and only if N 1a (k) > 0;
of available patterns is chosen under HC. In CA-SA, the collision
rmn = k = 1 mn

0, otherwise (7) probability of pattern (FSs) is checked. If the collision probability of
that pattern is high, the pattern is not selected and the request is
(k ) N (k 1)
where amn = h = 1 amh ahn . blocked. Otherwise, that pattern is reserved for the request [31].
18 F. Shirin Abkenar, A. Ghaffarpour Rahbar / Optical Switching and Networking 23 (2017) 539

Fig. 6. An example of CA-SA [31].

Fig. 6 illustrates an example of CA-SA. As seen in this gure, there bandwidth. Hence, making fairness conditions for demands is so
are two vectors which are FSCV and PCV that show the collision level important. One solution to address theses issues is to classify the
of FSs and patterns, respectively. Each link between nodes i and j is trafc into different classes according to the number of FSs they re-
illustrated by eij . Parameter fk shows FS k. Parameter FSCVk ij shows quire. Therefore, two important factors are expressed as Normalized
the collision level of fk on link eij . Notation Pt. k represents Pattern k. Blocking Probability (NBP) and Fairness Index (FI) [32]:
i i
PCVPt . k and PCVPt . k are the collision level and updated collision level  Normalized Blocking Probability: to achieve trafc service fair-
of Pt. k for request i (Req. i), respectively. Each pattern equals to the
ness, the blocking performance of a request of size n should be
number of required FSs that a request needs. The value of 0 re-
equal to the blocking performance of n requests of size 1 [32]:
presents that there is no collision. Parameter Amax shows that there is
collision. Finally, each value between 0 and Amax determines that 1 (1 p1)n = pn (8)
there may be a collision. According to Fig. 6, the third FS of existing
link between nodes 2 and 3 (i.e., f 3e23) has been occupied because its where pi is blocking probability (BP) of trafc with size i.
FSCV equals to Amax , while the other FSs are free. When Req. 1 re- Therefore, the Normalized Blocking Probability (NBP) of class n
quiring two FSs arrives at time (t1), there are three available patterns is calculated by the following equation [32]:
in e12, which have equal probability to be reserved (i.e., Pt. 1{f1, f2},
pn = 1 n 1 pn (9)
Pt . 2 = {f2 , f3 }, Pt . 3 = {f3 , f4 }) with probability 1 for each one.
Hence, we have = = 1
PCVPt .1
= 0 . After leaving the
PCVPt .2
PCVPt .3
 Fairness Index: the Fairness Index (FI) can be redened as Eq.
Path. message of Req. 1 from node 1, FSCV is updated as FSCV1e12= ( (10), where N is the number of classes. FI is a number between
0 and 1; and the closer to 1, the better the fairness is [32].
, FSCV2e12 =
, FSCV3e12 =
, FSCV4e12 =
3 ).After leav-
ing the Path. message of Req. 1 from node 2, parameter PCV is up- (in= 1p i )2
FI = , i = 1, 2, N
1 1 1 N (in= 1p i 2 )
dated as PCVPt. 1= 0 and PCVPt . 2 = PCVPt . 3 = Amax , because (10)

1 1
PCVPt . 2 = max{PCVPt . 2, max{FSCV2e23, FSCV3e23}}. Parameter
PCVPt.3 is
calculated in the same way. This procedure is continued. Finally, Pt. There are two fairness-aware schemes that are described as
1 because of its minimum PCV is chosen and locked by Resv. message, follows [32]:
which implies lower collision probability. The mentioned procedure Progressive Allocation and Dynamic Reallocation (PADR) scheme:
is performed within time period between t1 and t5. In addition, Req. The PADR scheme rst divides the whole spectrum into C equal
2 requiring one FS from node 2 to 3 arrives at t3. Pt. 1 (f 1e23 ), Pt. 2 (f 2e23 ), Spectrum Blocks (SBs). A SB is a block of a few available contiguous
2 2
and Pt. 4 (f 4e23 ) are available with PCVPt . 1 = 1, PCVPt . 2 = 1 and subcarrier slots in the optical spectrum. When a request with class
PCVPt. 4 = 0, respectively. Then, FSCV e23 are updated as i arrives, the PADR searches for available SBs among C SBs. If ap-
FSCV1e23 = 1 +
. So, after arriving the Path. at node 3, Pt. 4 is propriate SBs are found, the PADR selects one of them according to
3 3
a predened selection policy (e.g., FF). Otherwise, if there are SBs
chosen and FSCV e23 are updated [31].
that have not been dedicated to any class, the PADR assigns one SB
Performance evaluation results in [31] show that MCAP pro-
to class i. Otherwise, the request is blocked. Then, PADR calculates
vides good load balancing and reduces backward blocking prob-
the NBP. If the gap between the minimum NBP (corresponding to
ability under a network at light-load and heavy-load trafc under
class m) and the maximum NBP (corresponding to class n) is larger
highly dynamic trafc [31].
than a given threshold, the PADR reallocates one SB, which is
currently dedicated to class m, to class n. Algorithm 8 shows the
3.2.5. Fairness-aware dynamic spectrum allocation algorithm
PADR scheme [32].
The users' trafc demands grow signicantly. In addition, as dis-
cussed before, the spectrum fragmentation reduces the possibility of Algorithm 8. PADR scheme [32].
nding available allocation for contiguous FSs that require larger
F. Shirin Abkenar, A. Ghaffarpour Rahbar / Optical Switching and Networking 23 (2017) 539 19

1: Divide the whole spectrum into C equal SBs. segmentation are used to allocate the spectrum segments ef-
2: When a request belonging to class i arrives: ciently to demands.
Find available SBs that are dedicated to class i Sorted Feasible Paths Searching (SFPS): There is a container to
3: if available allocations are found then save the feasible paths as Q. The main objective is to nd feasible
Select one among them according to FF paths from source node s to destination node d. Hence, SFPS
else if there are no SBs that have been dedicated to any class then searches the feasible paths starting at s and saves these paths in a
Assign one SB to class i. container as Q. Initially, Q stores only one path Pss and then, the
else other paths are checked and added to Q. In each iteration, a fea-
Request is blocked. sible path Psu is extracted from Q. If node u is not d, adjacent links
of node u are explored to generate new feasible paths by in-
creasing the size of Psu with these links and the newly generated
4: Calculate NBP. 5: Check the gap between minimum NBP and
feasible paths are inserted into Q; otherwise, return to feasible
maximum NBP.
path Pst . To speed up the searching process and guarantee the
optimality of the solution, the paths in Q are sorted in increasing
order of their estimated cost. The estimated cost of a path Psu is
Partial Sharing, Progressive Allocation and Dynamic Reallocation dened as in the following equation:
(PSPADR) scheme: Since the spectrum block dedication happens in
PADR, the resource utilization is low in PADR. The PSPADR can f (Psu) = cost (Psu) + MCut , (11)
solve this issue. The basic idea of PSPADR is to divide the whole where cost (Psu) is the actual cost of path Psu , and MCut is the cost of
spectrum into two parts. One for PADR of each class and the other the shortest path from u to t without considering any constraint
for sharing among all classes. When a request arrives, the PADR [33].
and sharing parts are scanned and blocking occurs when available Fig. 7 shows an illustration of SFPS. A new trafc demand (TD)
resources cannot be found in both parts. Algorithm 9 shows the is routed from source node A to destination node E through data
PSPADR scheme [32]. rate (d 100 Gb/s). The cost, distance, and available spectrum
Algorithm 9. PSPADR scheme [32]. segments of a link are labeled on the link in Fig. 7a. The maximum
signal transmission distance of the trafc demand is 1500 km.
1: Divide the sharing part into C equal SBs. Initially and according to Fig. 7b, path PAA is added to set Q. Fig. 7c
2: When a request belonging to class i arrives: shows the rst iteration, which PAA is extracted from Q, the
Find available SBs that are dedicated to class i neighbor links of node A are checked to nd feasible path. Then,
3: Search for available allocation in the sharing part. these feasible paths (i.e., PAB and PAC ) are added to Q. In the second
4 - 6: Same as 35 in PADR. iteration, since PAC has the minimum estimated cost, it is extracted
from Q and augmented by exploring the neighboring links of node
A, and the feasible paths PAB = A C B and PAE = A C E are
inserted into Q (i.e., Fig. 7d). Finally, the desired shortest path
Performance evaluation results in [32] show that both PADR
PAE = A C E is selected and the algorithm terminates [33].
and PSPADR can improve blocking probability.
Fixed Segmentation (FS): There is a new description in FS called
spectral window ( W ). Spectral window is shown by the starting
3.2.6. Dynamic RSA with mixed line rates
and ending slots (i.e., fstart , fend ). The basic idea of FS is to partition
Dynamic RSA is one of the most important issues in RSA. To
the W of all links into several spectrum segments sets. Each
solve this problem efciently, the proposed approach in [33] is
spectrum segments set ( WSbr ) is used to serve the demand of
divided the RSA problem into its subproblems. A new approach,
called Sorted Feasible Paths Searching (SFPS), nds the shortest bandwidth requirement of br . When a special request with bri
feasible paths for dynamic trafc demands. Finally, two spectrum arrives, FS rst searches WSbr . If the appropriate resource is not
allocation methods named xed segmentation and adaptive found, FS tries to nd the feasible spectrum segment in the other

Fig. 7. Illustration of SFPS [33].

20 F. Shirin Abkenar, A. Ghaffarpour Rahbar / Optical Switching and Networking 23 (2017) 539

WSbr s. Hence, the partitioning in FS is performed in a xed way. It of available slots [34].
means that each WSbr has a xed spectrum bandwidth [33]. Fig. 8 depicts an example of FLF. Fig. 8a and b show the physical
Adaptive Segmentation (AS): As mentioned, FS has a xed topology of sample network and its virtual topology, respectively.
spectrum bandwidth while this is not suitable for dynamic trafc. There are three connection groups (CGs) as CG 1 on link 1, CG 2 on
Hence, AR improves the performance of FS. With the arrival of links 1 and 2 and CG3 on links 1 and 3. CG 1, CG 2 and CG 3 need 3,
trafc demands, AS partitions the spectrum of all links adaptively 2 and 1 slots, respectively. As seen in Fig. 8c, FLF rst begins with
into different portions. Let BS show the blank spectrum set. In- the lowest index in partition 1 (i.e., slot 1) and assigns it and slot
itially BS = fstart , fend and WSbr = . When a trafc demand with a 2 to CG 2. Then, it selects the highest slot in partition 2 (i.e., slot 6)
bandwidth requirement of TDbr arrives, AS searches WSTDb , BS, and and allocates slots 68 to CG 1. Finally, FLF chooses the lowest
available index in partition 3, which is slot 9, for assigning to CG 3.
WSbr ( br TDbr ) sequentially to nd a feasible spectrum segment.
At the end, it is seen that three contiguous slots have not been
When a trafc demand leaves, AR will rst release the spectrum
assigned and can be used for the next incoming requests [34].
segment used by trafc demand and then update the BS [33].
According to the acquired results in [34], FLF has better per-
Required results from [33] show that SFPS FS and SFPSAR
formance than non-partitioned procedures. In addition, FLF could
reduce spectrum fragmentation related to SFPS FF. In addition, at
improve the spectrum usage even more than the best resource
light-load trafc FS has better performance than AR but, under
assignment mechanism (i.e., FF).
heavy-load trafc it is vice versa. This is because at light-load
trafc, the network resource is enough and FS uses only the
spectrum segments assigned to the trafc type. But, as the trafc
4. Routing, Modulation level and Spectrum Allocation (RMSA)
load becomes heavy, FS assigns the spectrum segments that do not
in EON
belong to the trafc demand. Moreover, FS and AR have better
blocking probability than FF. In comparison between SFPS FS,
As mentioned before, impairment-aware RSA is essentially a
SFPS AR, Spectrum-constraint Path Vector searching algorithm
Routing, Modulation-level, and Spectrum Assignment (RMSA)
(SPV), Modied Shortest Path algorithm (MSP) and k Shortest Path
problem [4]. Some algorithms have been proposed for RMSA. The
algorithm (KSP) (see Section 4.2.1), it has been shown that at light-
RMSA algorithms are categorized into the algorithms that support
load trafc, the SFPS-based algorithms have better blocking
static trafc and the algorithms that support dynamic trafc.
probability. But, at heavy-load trafc all algorithms have the same
performance. In addition, KSP has the lowest computational time.
4.1. RMSA algorithms that support static trafc
The MSP, SFPS-based algorithms and SPV are in the next ranks,
As mentioned before, the algorithms that are based on static
trafc nd the appropriate routes according to the given static
3.2.7. First-Last Fit spectrum allocation
trafc matrix, and then assign the appropriate resources to the
The First-Last Fit spectrum allocation is another RSA algorithm
demands according to this given matrix.
that supports dynamic trafc. We refer to this algorithm as FLF
for simplicity. The main goal of FLF is to minimize the number of
4.1.1. Routing and Modulation Level and Spectrum Allocation
used subcarrier slots. Hence, FLF divides the whole existing slots
(RMLSA) algorithm
into multiple sub slots and calls them partitions. Partitioning is
RMLSA is used for resource allocation in EON. The RMLSA
performed by the largest degree rst (LDF) algorithm which is
supports static trafc and is appropriate for unicast trafc. There
based on graph coloring method. Partitioning phase is the rst
are three kinds of RMLSA [35]:
phase of FLF and is called partitioning phase. The second phase
refers to partition assignment. This mechanism is called FLF and  Joint RMLSA algorithm: This algorithm pre-calculates K paths by
selects the available lowest index slots in the odd number par-
using the K-shortest path algorithm, selects an appropriate
tition from the list of available slots. For an even number parti- modulation level for each path, and allocates spectrum. Note
tion, it attempts to choose the highest indexed slots from the list that some joint RMLSA algorithms do not need to pre-calculate
paths, but joint RMLSA in [35] needs to calculate it. All of these
routing, modulation level and spectrum allocation processes are
according to integer linear programming (ILP) formulation that
are performed simultaneously [35,36].
 Decomposing the (RMLSA) problem: This algorithm rst nds
the best path set for each connection and its modulation level
according to an ILP formulation and then allocates spectrum
similar to the joint RMLSA algorithm [35,36].
 Heuristic RMLSA: Since both of the above algorithms cannot be
solved efciently for large networks, it is necessary to design a
heuristic RMLSA. A heuristic RMLSA could be based on a meta-
heuristic algorithm such as Simulated Annealing, called SimAn.
The SimAn nds an order of demands and then allocates re-
sources according to their costs and requests [35,36].

For small networks, both joint and decomposed RMLSA algo-

rithms are good enough. But which one of these two RMLSA al-
gorithms performs well depends on the network situation. In fact,
the performance results of both joint and decomposed algorithms
Fig. 8. An example of FLF [34]: (a) physical topology of the sample network;
are similar to each other, but only the decomposed RMLSA reduces
(b) virtual topology of the sample network; and (c) performing FLF on the sample the average running time. For large networks, heuristic RMLSA is
network. appropriate and other algorithms cannot be used [35].
F. Shirin Abkenar, A. Ghaffarpour Rahbar / Optical Switching and Networking 23 (2017) 539 21

4.1.2. Multicast-capable RMSA while the size of population is kept constant during evaluation.
Trafc multicasting is widely used in different applications The last phase is mutation phase. In the mutation phase, some of
such as teleconferencing, IP television, and stock exchanges. There the genes are modied randomly. Similarly, the number of genes
is recently a growing demand to support scientic applications to mutate in each individual is calculated as |I|pm , where pm is the
that can transfer huge amounts of data to a few geographically mutation rate. In fact, a gene is mutated by modifying its RMSA to
dispersed users. Since multicasting can reduce repeated optical- other feasible ones randomly [4].
electrical-optical conversions, all-optical multicasting leads to One amazing feature of heuristic RMSA is that this algorithm
more transparent and power-efcient solutions compared with supports both static and dynamic trafc. Performance evaluation
conventional IP multicasting. Since the multicasting plays an im- results in [4] indicate that GA can reduce request blocking prob-
portant role in different types of networks, three algorithms are ability. In addition, GA optimizes the RMSA solutions.
explained in the following that can support trafc multicasting in
EON. All of these three algorithms are based on Slot Block (SB). 4.1.3. Routing and Spectrum Allocation with Joint Anycast and Uni-
Note that a SB is a block of a few available contiguous subcarrier cast routing (RSA-JAU) algorithm
slots in the optical spectrum [4]: In order to appearing signicant network services such as grid
computing, cloud computing, video streaming, etc., anycast trafc
 Joint RMSA algorithm: The joint RMSA considers all multicast (one-to-one-of-many transmission technique) has gained popu-
requests together and tries to optimize them together. The ob- larity. Anycasting can signicantly reduce the network trafc,
jective of the joint RMSA is to minimize the maximum ending compared to the unicast transmission (a typical one-to-one tech-
slot index of all multicast requests. In addition, the routing nique). For example, in these mentioned network services the
mechanism in joint RMSA is light tree. A light tree is the com- content prepared by the provider is uploaded to replica servers
bination of the routing paths from source si to each destination spread geographically in the network. Thus, users can access the
as a multicast path set. It is noticeable that the light tree con- data using shorter paths and with lower delay [38].
siders modulation level changes in nodes [4]. Two algorithms have been introduced for anycast trafc that
 Separate RMSA algorithm: Unlike the joint RMSA, separate RMSA are: (1) ILP-based RSA-JAU; and (2) Heuristic RSA-JAU is called
optimizes one request at a time and handles the requests se- Adaptive Frequency Assignment Joint Anycast and Unicast
quentially. The objective of separate RMSA is to minimize the routing (AFA-JAU) [38].
maximum ending slot index of all multicast requests, just like ILP-based RSA-JAU: Light-paths are divided into FSs in ILP-based
the joint RMSA. In separate RMSA, the multicast requests are RSA-JAU. The optimization problem concerns the minimization of
rst sorted in a descending order according to their capacities, spectrum resources required in the network. There are two kinds
and then these requests are optimized separately one by one. of requests to be routed in the network: anycast and unicast. The
The routing mechanism in separate RMSA is similar to the joint unicast request is dened as a single demand with two end nodes
RMSA (i.e., light tree) [4]. and the given volume in bps. In contrast, the anycast request is
 Heuristic RMSA algorithm: Joint and separate RMSA algo- dened by one client node and the given volume in bps. Therefore,
rithms are based on ILP formulation, and therefore, their ac- to realize the anycast request two demands are needed: (1) up-
curacies are high. However, the computational complexities of stream (from the client node to the replica server); (2) and
these algorithms are high. In addition, ILP formulations are not downstream (from the replica server node to the client node). Two
scalable to large problems. Hence, a heuristic algorithm can demands (downstream and upstream) realizing the same anycast
reduce the computational complexity and solve the large pro- request are called associated. Both associated demands must be
blem with less accuracy. Heuristic RMSA is based on genetic connected to the same replica server [38].
algorithm (GA) [37]. In fact, a feasible RMSA solution for all It is assumed that there are R replica servers already located at
multicast requests is encoded as a set of genes, called an some nodes of the network. Every replica server provides the
individual chromosome (or individual). In order to encode the same content so each anycast client (demand) can be assigned to
genes for multicast requests, the requests are decomposed into any of the replica servers. For each demand, the candidate paths
multiple unicast requests. In a GA, a gene refers to a feasible are calculated by link-path modeling approach [39]. In more detail,
solution to a subproblem, while an individual (i.e., a set of all for each pair of end nodes k candidate paths are given. Thus, in the
genes) represents a feasible solution to the problem. The case of unicast demands, there are k candidate paths for each
objective function of GA is the same as that of the joint RMSA demand. Since the anycast demand can be assigned to any replica
[4]. server, the number of candidate paths for each anycast demand is
Rk. The selection of a replica server for a particular anycast de-
The GA involves selection, crossover and mutation operations mand is made according to the selection of a candidate path. In
in iteration to optimize a problem. In heuristic RMSA, selection addition, according to the half distance law, the modulation level
operation has been changed to tournament selection to select selected for a path depends on the path length lp and it is equal to
pairs of individuals (e.g., parents) from the current generation for 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively, for lp exceeding 1500 km, 750 km,
crossover. Tournament selection involves running several tourna- 375 km, and below 375 km [38].
ments among a xed number of individuals that are randomly In particular, slices are labeled with s, where s = 1, 2, , S . For
chosen from the population. The winner of each tournament, i.e., demand d a set of candidate optical channels, indexed as
the ttest one in the group, is selected. The next operation is s = 1, 2, , Cdp , is considered for each candidate path p. Each
crossover to generate offspring. The crossover is a multipoint op- channel consists of a subset of ndp adjacent slices providing just
eration on the gene level in which a few genes in the parents are enough spectrum to support given volume hd . Then, RSA concerns
selected randomly and swapped. The actual number of genes to selecting a route and assigning a channel to a demand while
swap is calculated by |I|pc , where I and pc are multicast requests minimizing the width of spectrum, in terms of the number of
and the crossover rate, respectively. After that, |P | ttest individuals slices, required in the network [38].
are selected from parents and offspring as the new generation, Adaptive Frequency Assignment Joint Anycast and Unicast
22 F. Shirin Abkenar, A. Ghaffarpour Rahbar / Optical Switching and Networking 23 (2017) 539

Routing (AFA-JAU): The main idea of the AFA method is to adap- considered, where each channel consists of a subset of adjacent
tively select a sequence of processed demands in order to mini- FSs. By these means, the contiguity constraint has been removed
mize the width of spectrum, in terms of the number of slices, re- in RSA-DPP. Link-path modeling approach has been used in RSA-
quired in the network. An additional function applied in the al- DPP in routing phase and it is assumed that a set of candidate
gorithm is a collision metric indicating potential collision of links. routing paths has been given. Primary and backup paths are sorted
It means, selecting paths without including links that can be po- in different sets. The main objective of RSA-DPP is to reduce the
tentially selected in a large number of demands. Anycast and width of spectrum which is in terms of the number of FSs. There
unicast trafc are considered, separately. Anycast demands are are two ILP-based RSA-DPP, where primary/backup channel con-
processed rst, as one end node of each anycast demand must straint selection is different in them. One is called RSA-DPP-SC and
terminate at relatively small number of nodes hosting the replica the other is called RSA-DPP-DC [40].
server. Consequently links adjacent to replica server nodes can There are common constraints for both of the RSA-DPP-SC and
become congested and consume large number of slices [38]. RSA-DPP-DC ILP models which are spectrum contiguity, spectrum
First, minimum value of requested number of slices are calcu- continuity and spectrum capacity. Spectrum capacity means that a
lated for each demand d as nd = ndp , p = 1, 2, , Pd . Then, demands slice in a link can be allocated to one demand at most. But, there is
(separately anycast and unicast) are processed in decreasing order a special constraint for RSA-DPP-SC, called the same channel
of nd . Function MinFS (d ) returns the lowest indexed and accessible which means both of primary and backup lightpaths should allo-
slice for demand d. In the case of unicast demand d, MinFS (d ) cate the same subset of slices for each demand while this con-
examines all candidate paths and selects the path the guarantees straint is not applied for RSA-DPP-DC. As mentioned in the pre-
the lowest slice index allocation. In the case of anycast demands, vious paragraph, the main objective of both ILP models is to
the processing is more complicated. If for a particular anycast minimize the width of spectrum in terms of FSs number [40].
demand d the associated demand (d ) is not yet allocated in net- TS-based RSA-DPP: The basic idea of TS is to search through a
work, MinFS (d ) examines all candidate paths and again selects the neighborhood of the current solution in order to improve nal
path the guarantees the lowest slice index allocation. However, if result. The TS uses two key elements: (1) Tabu Move (TM) and
(d ) is already allocated in the network, for demand d the MinFS (d ) (2) Tabu List (TL). The TM denotes a move from one solution to
function analyzes only candidate paths connected to the replica another (neighbor) solution. The TL is a form of memory structure
server already selected in the case of (d ). Using MinFS (d ), demand to save TMs. The algorithm starts with an initial (reference) solu-
d with the lowest index of the slice is selected. If there are more tion. Next, the TM is applied and the reference solution is slightly
than one demand with the same slice index, metric ld (i.e., the changed. It means that if the neighbor solution is better than the
average length of candidate paths of demand d) is used as an reference solution, the neighbor one is selected as the reference
additional criterion. The next function MinFSPath(d ) returns the solution and the TM which has led to the improvement is added to
index of a candidate path selected to allocate demand d in order to TL. Then, the next iteration of the algorithm is run [40].
minimize the main idea of AFA-JAU. The same processing as de- According to the above paragraph, TS-based RSA-DPP has to be
scribed above is applied again in the case of unicast and anycast begun with generating an initial solution. Since the initial solution
demands. If for more than one of the candidate paths the same has strong inuence on the nal result, three different methods
minimum value of the slice index is obtained, we select a path are used [40]:
with a lower value of the lp metric [38].
According to obtained results in [38], AFA-JAU provides on  First Assign Allocation (FA): demands are processed according to
average results about 78% from ILP solution, but with signicantly their initial order [40].
lower execution time and with radically better scalability.  Random Allocation (RND): demands are processed in random
order [40].
4.1.4. Routing and Spectrum Allocation with Dedicated Path Protec-  SoRTed Allocation (SRT): demands are processed in a specic
tion (RSA-DPP) algorithm order. In fact, demands are sorted according to decreasing value
Network paths are divided into two main categories: of their size [40].
(1) working (primary) paths and (2) backup (secondary) paths.
When a working path fails, existing requests on this working path After that, the pair of paths and the set of FSs have been de-
have to be transferred on an appropriate backup path to improve termined for each demand. Each solution is determined by two
the efciency of network. One protection scenario is called Dedi- elements: (1) demand processing queue which determines the
cated Path Protection (DPP), where each connection has its own order of processed demands with the solution and (2) index of
backup resources. RSA-DPP is based on channel and its main ob- candidate pair paths and the set of FSs selected for each demand.
jective is to minimize the width of spectrum resources. The RSA- According to these elements, there are two TMs [40]:
DPP uses two alternative scenarios for EON with path protection
capability, namely: (1) with the Same Channel (SC) allocation and  Demand Swap: two randomly chosen demands placed in the
(2) with Different Channel (DC) allocation, to achieve its goal. processing queue are swapped and their processing order is
According to SC, transponders are shared between working and changed [40].
backup demands and a demand allocates the same channel on its  Path Change: a pair of paths is changed for a particular demand
primary and backup path. In contrast, in DC, a demand can allocate [40].
different channels on its primary and backup path. As a result, SC
is cost-effective in related to DC. According to these mentioned As mentioned in TS denition, in each iteration of the algo-
scenarios, ILP-based RSA-DPP has two kinds as RSA-DPP-SC and rithm, TM is applied to nd a better solution and add to TL. In fact,
RSA-DPP-DC. In addition, a heuristic algorithm that is a Tabu demands are processed sequentially according to processing
Search-based (TS) algorithm exists to implement the RSA-DPP al- queue. For each demand, all candidate pairs of paths are examined
gorithm for huge networks [40]. and the algorithm tries to nd the best allocating FSs and assigns
ILP-based RSA-DPP: As mentioned before, RSA-DPP is based on them to the demand [40].
channel. It means that a set of candidate optical channels is Performance evaluations in [40] shows that the ILP-based RSA-
F. Shirin Abkenar, A. Ghaffarpour Rahbar / Optical Switching and Networking 23 (2017) 539 23

DPP outperforms the TS-based one in small networks. But, the ILP- appropriate routes and assign the appropriate resources to demands.
based RSA-DPP is not suitable for large networks and the TS-based
RSA-DPP can address this issue. 4.2.1. m-Fixed and m-adaptive RSA algorithms
The exibility feature of EON originates from using the OFDM
4.1.5. RMSA optimization model methodology. OFDM enables a network to use different modula-
This optimization model is for unicast and anycast trafc. tion formats with different modulation levels (m) according to
Unicast trafc is related to point-to-point transmission, while the different Transmission Distance (TD) constraints. Two related al-
anycast trafc refers to network trafc served by data centers, e.g., gorithms are m-xed RSA algorithm and m-adaptive RSA algo-
cloud computing trafc. The main idea before RMSA-optimization rithm based on spectrum segment representation [42].
model is minimizing maximum spectrum usage, network cost and There are three spectrum operations (spectrum algebra) based
power consumption. This method comprises two algorithms de- on segment representation. Spectrum algebra follows the Com-
scribed in the following [41]: mutativity law and De Morgan low. The spectrum operations are
ILP-based RMSA optimization: This algorithm separates max- described in the following [42]:
imum spectrum usage, network cost and power consumption as
three separated ILP formulation as [41]:  Spectrum intersection ( ): calculates the spectrum in conjunct
part of two spectrums.
 RMSA/Maximum Spectrum (RMSA/MS): The main objective of  Spectrum union ( ): calculates the spectrum in either of two
RMSA/MS is to minimize the maximum spectrum usage. Spec- spectrums.
trum usage is dened as the largest index of an occupied slot in  Spectrum complement (S ): calculates the spectrum in the whole
the network. First, k paths are selected according to link-path spectrum window but not in spectrum S. For example, available
modeling approach. For each demand (both unicast and any- (blank) spectrum is complement spectrum of unavailable (oc-
cast) exactly one candidate path, one modulation format and cupied) spectrum.
one candidate channel are selected. Finally, FSs are allocated to
demands according to ILP formulation [41]. In addition there are three basic RSA algorithms as follows [42]:
 RMSA/Cost (RMSA/Cost): The main objective of this algorithm is
to minimize the cost of network. Network cost means the cost 1. Spectrum-constraint Path Vector (SPV) searching algorithm: SPV is
function includes the cost of equipment (transponders and re- a heuristic algorithm that includes routing and spectrum ag-
generators) and the cost related to ber leasing [41]. gregation. Algorithm 10 shows the procedure of the SPV
 RMSA/Power Consumption (RMSA/PC): The main objective of algorithm. All candidate paths are searched in SPV and are
RMSA/PC is to minimize the power consumption. The power stored in the Path Vector Searching Tree (PVST), where path
consumption is dened as sum of the power requirements of all vectors are examined by aggregated spectrum. The root of PVST
transponders and regenerators, taking into account the spec- is source node (i.e., s). After that, the rst path is found and its
trum usage. The models of RMSA/PC and RMSA/C are similar to length is saved as DR . Then, the distance of all available paths in
each other [41]. each level L (i.e., DL ) are compared with DR to nd the shortest
path. When all feasible paths are found in PVST, the SPV can nd
Adaptive RMSA (ARMSA): Since above algorithms are NP-hard optimum solutions for RSA [42].
and are not suitable for large networks, a heuristic algorithm is 2. k Shortest Path (KSP) algorithm: KSP is a two-step algorithm that
dened named Adaptive RMSA (ARMSA). The ARMSA is based on performs routing and spectrum aggregation step by step. First k
the AFA algorithm [38] with a modication related to the selection shortest paths, which are sequenced based on TD are calculated.
of modulation formats. The main objective of ARMSA is to select a Then, KSP employs spectrum intersection and spectrum detec-
sequence of processed demands, adaptively in order to minimize tion operations to calculate aggregated spectrum and check the
the objective function. ARMSA combines a dedicated heuristic availability of spectrum path. Finally, the KSP returns the
method and TS metaheuristic approach. In fact, ARMSA denes a shortest path with available spectrum [42].
metric as ad = DIV , where nd is the minimum number of required 3. Modied Shortest Path (MSP) algorithm: MSP is the modied
FSs, pd is the minimum number of hops included in the candidate algorithm of the classic Dijkstra and introduces spectrum in-
lightpath and DIV is a predened constant value. Then, ARMSA tersection and detection operations. In addition, MSP considers
divides demands into subsets named Ba which is a group of de- routing and spectrum aggregation steps [42].
mands with the same value of metric ad = a , where a is the
Algorithm 10. The SPV algorithm [42].
maximum value of ad . Finally, ARMSA nds the optimal resources
in each iteration of implementation and allocates them to appro- Input: G (N , E ) .
priate demands so that the maximum spectrum usage, network Demand (s, d ) and Signal bandwidth B (guard
cost, and power consumption are minimized [41]. band G).
Accessed results from [41] show that using distance-adaptive
The available spectrum Sij, ij E .
modulation formats can improve network performance in terms of
The distance on each link Dij, ij E .
all considered metrics. In fact, when only the spectrum efcient
Output: The shortest path from s to d: PR; with aggregated
modulation format is used, the network cost and power con-
available spectrum SR.
sumption are increased. But, when all objectives have to be con-
sidered, the results are better for the network.
1: Initialize s as the root of PVST at level 0.
2: forall links that are connected to the root do
4.2. RMSA algorithms that support dynamic trafc
Add a new leaf into PSTV level = 1.
As mentioned before, these algorithms have to update their in- end
formation and adapt themselves with new conditions to select 3: for PSTV level L 1 to |N | 1 do
24 F. Shirin Abkenar, A. Ghaffarpour Rahbar / Optical Switching and Networking 23 (2017) 539

forall the leaves in level L do problem. The m-xed RSA algorithm runs the basic RSA algorithm
if DL < DR then only once, and hence, it cannot nd the optimal solutions [42].
Update the shortest path and spectrum.  The m-adaptive RSA: Parameter m is not xed in the adaptive
end RSA algorithm. The basic RSA algorithm is one part of the m-
adaptive RSA algorithm. When m changes, the m-adaptive RSA
forall the link nv from node n to node v do calculates spectrum bandwidth, solves the basic RSA problem
if DL + Dnv < DR and there is no loop then and checks whether trafc TD exceeds the maximum TD. Failure
Add v as a new leaf into PVST level = L + 1. in basic RSA step is dened as routing blocking. This determines
that spectrum resources are insufcient for new demands [42].
According to the performance evaluations in [42], if m is xed
end or adaptive, the SPV and MSP algorithms almost have the same
performance, i.e., they obtain the lowest blocking probability un-
der light-trafc load conditions, whereas KSP has the most
end blocking probability. However, at heavy-load trafc situations, KSP
4: if DR < , PR , SR then has less blocking probability than both SPV and MSP.
return Success
else 4.2.2. Spectrum Reallocation (SPRESSO) algorithm
return Blocking SPectrum REaLLOcation (SPRE (LLO )(SSO )) is dened for spec-
end trum defragmentation. Whenever there are insufcient resources for a
connection request, SPRESSO follows the path triggered spectrum
defragmentation in ex-grid optical networks [43]. First, each available
The m-xed RSA algorithm and the m-adaptive RSA algorithm link in k shortest paths are checked to know whether there are suf-
use the above basic RSA algorithms described as follows. cient FSs to a new incoming connection request (i.e., the number of
available FSs are equal or more than required for an incoming con-
 The m-xed RSA algorithm: If m is a xed parameter, basic RSA al- nection request). If there are enough FSs in one of the shortest paths,
gorithms and TD constraint are used directly to solve the RSA the SPRESSO mechanism is run to nd the already established path

Fig. 9. An example of SPRESSO [43].

F. Shirin Abkenar, A. Ghaffarpour Rahbar / Optical Switching and Networking 23 (2017) 539 25

reallocations. In this way, it makes a sufcient room for the connection dist[i] dist[sus[i]] seg[i]
request in the selected path. Otherwise, the connection request is if dist[i] < 0 not enough subcarriers
blocked [43].
between last marked regenerated node and node i then
Fig. 9 illustrates reallocation procedure of SPRESSO. There is a
network topology shown in Fig. 9a. According to Fig. 9b, four FSs Mark node sus[i] to regenerate the signal
between links 47 are not assigned. Hence, SPRESSO reallocates dist[i] D[m] seg[i]
both paths P4 and P5 to make enough room for the new optical end
connection newP (Fig. 9c). As seen, SPRESSO tries to use available
Partition the path into segments according to the selected
resources efciently [43].
According to the mentioned explanations, SPRESSO has been pro- regenerator node .
posed to allocate already established paths in the spectrum. According Allocate subcarriers in each segment .
to the performance evaluations in [43], SPRESSO can improve the gain
of using spectrum in OFDM networks from 20% to 31%.
4.2.3. Impairment-Aware Routing and Subcarrier Allocation (IARSA)
One problem in a translucent EON (where some nodes re- Let (u, v ) be the link between nodes u and v. First, the LARA
generate signals) is how to choose a feasible path from a source algorithm calculates the link utilization w (u, v ) according to the
node to a destination node and allocate subcarriers by using an following equation [44]:
appropriate modulation format. This problem is called the IARSA
problem. The aim of IARSA is to nd the shortest feasible path, w (u, v) = ,
A(u, v) (12)
where the availability of free subcarriers along the path de-
termines the feasibility of the path by considering impairment where is the number of requested subcarriers and A(u, v ) is the
levels and use of regenerators. In fact, the IARSA nds the path number of free subcarriers. Then, LARA weights the links of a
that does not violate the QoT threshold. Maximum distance is network according to different modulation formats. After that, the
considered as an impairment constraint [44]. MSP algorithm is run to nd the path with the lowest weight.
The IARSA comprises three algorithms as: the LARA algorithm Finally, the GraphAdjust algorithm is run to adjust the topology of
(which is the main body of IARSA), the MSP algorithm, and the network and allocate subcarriers and regenerators. The Gra-
Graph Adjustment algorithm. Algorithms 11 and 12 show the phAdjust considers whether the subcarrier assignment constraint
procedures of LARA and Graph Adjustment algorithms, respec- is satised or not [44].
tively. Note that dist[i] indicates the remaining impairment slake in Performance evaluation results in [44] reveal that LARA can
terms of distance at node i. In addition, sus[i] indicates the i-th achieve the lowest blocking rate. The reason originates from the
susceptible node for regenerating the signal [44]. applied weight allocation mechanism in this algorithm. This
weight allocation mechanism tries to strike a balance between
Algorithm 11. LARA (G, r) [44].
load levels and path lengths.
for i 1 to M do
4.2.4. Fragmentation-and alignment-aware RMSA algorithm
The fragmentation-and alignment-aware Routing, Modulation
Allocate link weights .
and Spectrum Allocation (fragmentation-and alignment-aware
M[i] ModifiedDijkstra(G, r , i). RMSA) algorithms try to alleviate the fragmentation due to service
if All M[i] equal NULL then provisioning. By this way, dynamic provisioning can create spec-
Block request . trum fragments on the links and spectrum misalignments along
else routing paths. Hence, fragmentation-and alignment-aware RMSA
algorithms consider both fragmentation and alignment as two
Return the path P and modulation format m
main factors [45].
corresponding to Min(M[i]). One important denition in fragmentation and alignment-
Call GraphAdjust (G, r , P , m) to allocate aware RMSA algorithms is Cut value which accounts for the
number of spectrum blocks that the provisioning scheme will
subcarriers .
break. The number of Cuts is considered as the cost of a provi-
end sioning. If the value of Cut is zero, it is mostly preferred from
fragmentation perspective. The minimum number of Cuts is al-
ways candidate to assign to requests. According to this allocation
procedure, more available FSs will remain to be assigned to future
coming requests. Fig. 10 shows an illustration of the mentioned
Algorithm 12. GraphAdjust (G, r, p, m) [44]. algorithm on the presented topology in Fig. 10a. As seen in Fig. 10b,
1: Partition the path into s segments based on the set R of the value of Cut is zero on path ADE. It means that this path is a
regenerator nodes on the path. good option for fragmentation. On the other hand, the alignment
2: Calculate the physical distance of each segment. of the available spectrum blocks on two neighbor links creates
3: Record them (via seg[i]) in the R regenerator nodes and commonly available spectra and is valuable for future connection
destination node. requests. For example, the candidate provisioning on path ADE on
slot 8 will inuence the alignment between the neighboring links
4: dist[source] = D[m]
as shown in Fig. 10c. The provisioning on link AD on slot 8 reduces
5: foreach regenerator node i in set R do
the commonly available spectra by one slot and this is calculated
26 F. Shirin Abkenar, A. Ghaffarpour Rahbar / Optical Switching and Networking 23 (2017) 539

Fig. 10. An example of spectral assignment status on the links with fragmentation-and alignment-aware RMSA [45].

as misalignment for link BA. Hence, the alignment-aware algo- slots assigned to the candidate route considering the distance
rithm should minimize this cost when doing the RMSA provi- adaptive modulation format assignment. Parameters Fcut and
sioning [45]. Malign represent the number of Cut and alignment increase,
The fragmentation-and alignment-aware RMSA algorithms are respectively, and C is the number of available spectral slots on
divided into three algorithms as following [45]: the current path. The P-CF combines shortest path routing,
fragmentation-and alignment-aware routing and balanced load
 Fragmentation-aware RMSA algorithm: The fragmentation-aware spectrum assignment in one step. In addition, when there is
RMSA calculates the number of cuts caused by all RMSA can- more than one RMSA candidates that have the same minimum
didates and chooses the one with the minimum number of cuts. A, the algorithm uses the rst-t rule to assign spectrum [45].
If the number of appropriate RMSA candidates with minimum A = (H S + Fcut + Malign)/C (13)
number of cuts is more than one, the algorithm uses the
shortest path and rst t rule to choose the best solution [45].
 Alignment-aware RMSA algorithm: The alignment-aware RMSA Performance evaluation results in [45] reveal that P-CF, align-
minimizes the increasing of the misaligned available spectral ment-aware, and fragmentation-aware algorithms can reduce
slots when provisioning the connection requests. If more than blocking probability. The results of algorithms are very close to
one RMSA candidate can satisfy the misalignment increase each other. However, P-CF has the best performance. The perfor-
constraint, the algorithm uses the shortest path and rst t rule mances of fragmentation-aware and alignment-aware are similar
to choose the best solution [45]. to each other, but alignment-aware has a little better performance
 P-CF algorithm: The P-CF supports both fragmentation and than fragmentation-aware at high trafc load.
alignment costs together. In fact, P-CF preselects all the candi-
date routes that have one spectral block to accommodate the 4.2.5. Dynamic RMSA algorithms for High-Throughput Service
incoming request. Note that preselecting means that the algo- Provisioning
rithm calculates all the candidate paths rst, and then pre- There are two algorithms described in the following for dy-
selects the k-shortest routes which have at least one spectral namic RMSA [46]:
block available for the incoming request. The P-CF calculates the
cost of each RMSA candidate using Eq. (13), where H is the Dynamic RMSA using Online Path Computation: This algorithm
number of hops for candidate path, S is the number of spectral dynamically updates link metrics based on their spectrum
F. Shirin Abkenar, A. Ghaffarpour Rahbar / Optical Switching and Networking 23 (2017) 539 27

utilization statuses, and performs RMSA with online routing calculated by the following equation:
path computation for each request. If the algorithm cannot nd

a spectrum assignment to serve the request, it is blocked. Note N= + Ng ,
that the modulation level has been considered as BPSK [46]. M Cslot t (16)
Dynamic RMSA using Path-Set Updates: This algorithm pre-
where is the capacity of request in Gb, M is the modulation level,
computes K shortest routing paths as the path-set for each
Cslot is the size of a slot and Ng is the number of guard-band slots.
sourcedestination pair in the network topology, performs
Then, MTLT searches for the available SBs which can accommodate
RMSA based on different path-selection policies during dynamic
the trafc demand as candidate block set (i.e., BP = {B1BiBn}).
provisioning, and updates the path-set by adding a new path
For each Bi , the sum of TSC on all links along the path are calcu-
(found according to the mentioned policies) when there is no lated through multiplying percentage of available FS along fre-
available path in the set for the request. In fact, it sorts the paths quency axis and time axis in the average joint numbers in each
in the path-set based on a path-selection policy. Then, it pro- free SB. Finally, the block which has the maximum TSC is selected
cesses the paths one by one. If one or more paths in the set is and assigned to the demand. Algorithm 13 shows the procedure of
unavailable for the request due to spectrum resource limitation, MTLT.
the algorithm tries to calculate an equal number of new path
(s) and update the set with them. Note that there are four path- Algorithm 13. MTLT [48].
selection mechanisms as follows [46]:
1: Find K-shortest paths using KSP algorithm.
Shortest Path First (SPF): the path with the lowest distance
2: foreach Demand do
Most Slots First (MSF): the path with the most available slots
[46]. Find the number of required FSs through Eq. (16)
Largest Slots-over-Hops First (LSoHF): the following metric is Construct BP as the available SBs set for demand.
calculated for each path according to Eq. (14), and then the
path with the maximum value of the metric is selected [46]: foreach Slot Block in BP do

BW (Rs, d ) foreach Link do

asoh(Rs, d ) = , Calculate the sum of TSC on link.
hop(Rs, d ) (14)
where Rs, d is the route between source s and destination d,
BW (Rs, d ) and hop(Rs, d ) represent the available slots on route R
Select the SB with maximum TSC .
and the length of R based on the number of hops, respectively.
Largest Slots-over-Square-of-Hops First (LSoSHF): this me-
chanism is similar to the previous method. However, the end
metric is computed by the following equation [46]:
Maximum Heaviest Link TSC (MHLT): MHLT uses the similar
BW (Rs, d ) method to nd the candidate SBs, but MHLT chooses the block
asosh(Rs, d ) =
hop(Rs, d ) (15) which can maximize the heaviest payload link TSC. Algorithm 14
indicates the procedure of MHLT [48].

The First-Fit Spectrum Assignment (FFSA) and Best-Fit Spec- Algorithm 14. MHLT [48].
trum Assignment (BFSA) are the allocation mechanisms used in
1: Find K-shortest paths using KSP algorithm.
the assignment procedure. The major drawback of dynamic RMSA
2: foreach Demand do
using online path computation is the high computation com-
plexity. Performance evaluation results in [46] indicate that the
Dynamic RMSA using Online Path Computation mechanism is Find the number of required FSs through Eq. (16)
better than Dynamic RMSA using Path-Set Updates method. Note Construct BP as the available SBs set for demand.
that the modulation-level of subcarrier channels can be adaptively
changed to accommodate various transmission reaches and QoT. foreach Slot Block in BP do
Hence, it is assumed that the modulation-level can be 1, 2, 3 and Select the link that has the heaviest pay load.
4 for BPSK, QPSK, 8-QAM and 16-QAM, respectively. The mod- Calculate the sum of TSC on link.
ulation-level is determined according to distance-adaptive con-
cept [1] and the proposed mechanism in [47].
Select the SB with maximum TSC .

4.2.6. Time-Spectrum Consecutiveness (TSC) algorithms

In this section, three Time-Spectrum Consecutiveness (TSC) end
based algorithms are reviewed. These algorithms are used to al-
locate the spectrum efciently by defragmenting it along fre-
quency axis and time axis. The TSC-based algorithms retain the Maximum Path TSC (MPT): MPT behaves as MTLT in nding the
TSC as much as possible when establishing a light-path and reduce candidate SBs. In particular, MPT evaluates the maximum path
the spectrum fragmentation. The aim of these three algorithms is TSC, and nally it selects the SB with maximum TSC. Algorithm 15
to alleviate the blocking probability [48]. demonstrates the procedure of MPT [48].
Maximum Total Link TSC (MTLT): MTLT algorithm rst nds K-
Algorithm 15. MPT [48].
shortest paths using the KSP algorithm. For each candidate path,
the start time (i.e., ts ) and duration time (i.e., t ) is traversed from 1: Find K-shortest paths using KSP algorithm.
the beginning to the end. Then, the number of required FSs are 2: foreach Demand do
28 F. Shirin Abkenar, A. Ghaffarpour Rahbar / Optical Switching and Networking 23 (2017) 539

Find the number of required FSs through Eq. (16) paths in both F1 and F2 in a descending order of useable band-
Construct BP as the available SBs set for demand. width. Usable bandwidth means the number of slots. The ob-
jective of MUB is to minimize the bandwidth of sub-connections
foreach Slot Block in BP do
so that the number of consumed BVT is minimized. When the
foreach Path do bandwidth of each sub-connection is increased, the spectrum
Calculate the sum of TSC on link. ratio of the guard bands to data transmission is reduced [51].
end  Largest Spectrum Saving (LSS): LSS sorts spectrum paths in set F1
in a descending order of spectrum saving ratio (r) which is
end Bandwidth can be saved from guard bands
dened as, r = . When r 0 in F2,
Select the SB with maximum TSC . Total bandwidth of this spectrum path
the spectrums in F2 are sorted through MUB [51].

end Algorithm 16 shows the procedure of MPTG [51].

Algorithm 16. MPTG [51].

According to the obtained results from [48], MTLT, MHLT and 1: Find K-shortest paths using KSP algorithm.
MPT have similar time complexity. In addition, MTLT and MPT 2: foreach Demand do
achieve the lowest and highest blocking probability, respectively.
The reason is that MTLT and MHLT only consider the link TSC while
MPT is based on the whole routing path TSC. Moreover, initial Find shared spectrum paths between demand and existing demands
delay is high in these TSC algorithms because for a pending re- (F1).
quest, these algorithms consider time dimension to improve the
Find available spectrum paths for demand (F2).
reuse of fragmentation while allocating spectrum resources. In
addition, spectrum efciency is high in the TSC algorithms. Sort F1 and allocate spectrum paths in F2 according above policies .
Revert unallocated spectrum resources . If no sufficient slots
4.2.7. Dynamic Multipath Routing Algorithm with Trafc Grooming
allocated, block the request
EON can groom multiple sub-wavelength services into a
bandwidth variable transponder (BV-Transponder) and switch end
them together. All trafc in EON uses the same BV-Transponder
type that may not be appropriate for sub-wavelength services
because the high capacity of a transponder may not be used
completely. Moreover, to switch each sub-wavelength light-path, Table 4
guard bands between contiguous light-paths will be required. To Required variables for RWSA formulation [19].
solve this issue, it is ideal to groom multiple sub-wavelength
Variables Description
services to a BV-Transponder and switch them together [49,50]. It
is noticeable that continuity and contiguity constraints must be A Set of anycast requests
guaranteed in grooming mechanisms. C Set of channels
MPTG is based on the grooming concept. The objective of MPTG Cd Set of candidate channels for demand d
D Number of demands
is to reduce the blocking probability. It tries to groom different
E Set of links
requests to achieve this objective. The available resources in MPTG Set of online links which are changed according to any incoming
E (d )
are called spectrum slots. In fact, the spectrum path is formed by demand d
several contiguous spectrum slots which are available on all ber F Set of FSs
links along a candidate routing path. Hence, one candidate path HMax Maximum number of parts that a demand can be split
I Number of multicast requests
consists of spectrum paths which locate at various spectrum ran-
K Number of candidate paths
ges [51]. L Set of link rates
In the MPTG algorithm, there are two sets called F1 and F2. F1 is M Set of modulation format
the set of found spectrum path that are shared between new ar- MMax Maximum modulation level
riving demand and existing demands and F2 is the set of found N Set of nodes
spectrum paths for the new arrived demand. According to one NFSR Required number of FSs by a lightpath
Nd Number of destinations in manycast trafc
division, routing methods are divided into multipath routing and
O Set of candidate solutions
hybrid routing. Multipath routing does not rstly provision single P Set of paths
path routing by searching the entire candidate path set. In fact, Pd Set of candidate paths for demand d
multipath routing takes the order of F1 F2. In addition, this PMax Maximum number of path
method consumes additional guard bands and BVT. On the other Rd Bit rate of demand d
hand, hybrid routing assigns spectrum paths in set F1 and F2 in the S Set of subcarriers
order of F1 F2 F1 F2, where rst F1 F2 is for searching pos- SB Set of SBs
SEG Set of segments
sible single path routing. Hence, Dynamic MPTG uses trafc
T Maximum time unit
grooming and new policies named Shortest Path First (SPF), TSPd Number of destination transponders
Maximum Usable Bandwidth (MUB) and Largest Spectrum Saving TSPs Number of source transponders
(LSS) for both hybrid and multipath schemes to reduce the guard W Set of wavelength slots
band allocation, utilize BVT bandwidth and alleviate the impact of Wp Set of wavelength slots in each partition
multipath routing. The SPF has been introduced in Section 4.2.5. Z Average capacity of all service requests
The MUB and LSS are detailed in the following [51]: Real positive number in the interval (0.5, 1)
Maximum data rate
Number of consecutive wavelength slots
 Maximum Usable Bandwidth (MUB): MUB sorts the spectrum
F. Shirin Abkenar, A. Ghaffarpour Rahbar / Optical Switching and Networking 23 (2017) 539 29

Performance evaluations in [51] show that the multipath  Phase 3: This phase is called solution evaluation that checks
routing has better performance than the hybrid one. It is shown whether the solution of MILP is empty or not. If not empty,
that trafc grooming can alleviate the blocking probability. Among therefore an optimal solution exists that satises the incoming
three above policies, LSS has the lowest blocking probability be- demand. Otherwise, the incoming demand has to be blocked
cause it tries to allocate less guard bands to improve the spectrum [52].
efciency. In addition, since MUB utilizes BVT bandwidth, it is
more efcient than SPF. Heuristic SSRSMLA (H-SSRSMLA): Since SSRSMLA has sub-sec-
ond execution times and its scalability is limited to address large
4.2.8. Optimal Route, Spectrum and Modulation Level Assignment networks, a Heuristic SSRSMLA (H-SSRSMLA) is introduced to
(RSMLA) algorithm address SSRSMLA drawbacks. H-RRSMLA is based on a greedy
One kind of EON is Split-Spectrum (SS)-enabled networks. iterative mechanism that precalculates a set of solution and nally,
Demands that face blocking situation in SS-enabled EON may be selects the best solution element from this set in each iteration.
split to be t in the available FSs. One important applied algorithm Then, the precalculated set is updated and the mechanism pro-
in SS-enabled EON is Route, Spectrum and Modulation Level As- ceeds with the next iteration, until the demand is fully allocated or
signment (RSMLA) that tries to nd the most appropriate physical
the candidate set becomes empty. The H-SSRSMLA comprises four
route, spectrum portion and modulation level to satisfy the in-
phases [52]:
coming demand at minimum cost for the operator. To achieve this
objective, RSMLA has two main sub-objectives that: (1) minimize  Phase 1: This phase is similar to Phase 1 in SSRSMLA [52].
the number of resources to serve the incoming demand and  Phase 2: H-SSRSMLA builds all candidate sets. In fact, it assigns
(2) minimize the spectrum fragmentation in the network. RSMLA to each of these candidate sets a candidate path, modulation
comprises two algorithms which are described as follows [52]: format and set of spectral gaps. Then, H-SSRSMLA orders the
Split-Spectrum-Enabled RSMLA (SSRSMLA): SSRSMLA is based on solution elements according a comparison method called
a Mixed ILP (MILP) formulation which is suitable for both single- CompareProcedure. In fact, CompareProcedure sorts the ele-
path and multi-path approaches as well as BV-transponders (BV- ments according to their qualities in a descending order [52].
TSPs) and Multi-Flow TSPs (MF-TSPs). Under the BV-TSPs im-  Phase 3: In this phase, the elements which address the fol-
plementation, a demand is sent through the splitting process and lowing criteria are added to complete the solution: (1) all the
the resulted splits are transmitted using independent BV-TSPs. On demand's bit rate is served, (2) no more candidates exist, (3) the
the other hand, MF-TSPs transmit the split demand. A MF-TSP is number of parts has reached its limit (i.e., the maximum
capable to transmit and receive multiple elastic optical channels number of splits (Hmax)), (4) there are not enough free TSPs at
(ows), operates at independent bit rates that can be routed in- source or destination to support such number of parts (BV-TSPs
dependently. This algorithm comprises three phases [52]: case), or (5) the number of parts has reached the number of
maximum ows (MF-TSPs case) [52].
 Phase 1: All candidate paths are found by K link-distinct  Phase 4: This phase is evaluation phase that checks whether the
shortest path strategy, where K is an input parameter. After that, entire bit rate of the demand has been served or not. In addi-
an appropriate modulation level is determined for each calcu- tion, it checks if a feasible RSMLA has been found for that par-
lated path in the previous phase [52]. ticular demand. If yes, the demand is allocated successfully.
 Phase 2: In this phase, the MILP formulation is executed to nd Otherwise, it will be blocked [52].
the optimal RSMLA for the incoming demand. The MILP for-
mulation consists of multiple objectives that are: (1) minimiz- According to required results from [52], it can be seen that the
ing the number of splits of a demand, (2) minimizing the performances of SSRSMLA and H-SSRSMLA are close to each other.
spectral gaps in the candidate paths, (3) minimizing the number But, the time complexity of H-SSRSMLA is better than SSRSMLA. In
of FSs that the demand use, and (4) minimizing the difference addition, SSRSMLA is not appropriate for large networks.
between the allocated and the requested bit rates [52].

Table 5
Comparison of RSA techniques.

Algorithm Routing mechanism Spectrum Assignment (SA) mechanism Basis Trafc type

Greedy-RWSA BFS Greedy-RWSA Wavelength Static

KPaths-RWSA KSP KPaths-RWSA Wavelength Static
SP-RWSA KSP, (k 1) SP-RWSA Wavelength Static
SPSR SP MRSA Subcarrier Static
BLSA KSP MRSA Subcarrier Static
SM-RSA Bhandari's link-disjoint path SM-RSA Subcarrier Static
MI-RSA Dijkstra FF Subcarrier Static
MI-PRSA-FF Dijkstra FF Subcarrier Static
QPS FloydWarshal FF and R FS Semi-static
QPF FloydWarshal FF and R FS Semi-static
Routing based on spectrum segment representation FR, FAR, AR FF, RS, MR Spectrum segment Dynamic
AUR-ESS Dijkstra AUR-ESS FS Dynamic
PADR FF SB Dynamic
FS-SFPS SFPS Fixed Segmentation (FS) Spectrum Segment Dynamic
AS-SFPS SFPS Adaptive Segmentation (AS) Spectrum Segment Dynamic
FLF FLF Wavelength slot Dynamic
30 F. Shirin Abkenar, A. Ghaffarpour Rahbar / Optical Switching and Networking 23 (2017) 539

4.2.9. Energy-Efcient Manycast RSA (EEM-RSA) spectrum interval in all constituting links, whereby the source and
Energy-Efcient Manycast RSA (EEM-RSA) is an algorithm that destination nodes are its roots and leaves, respectively [53].
supports both static and dynamic trafc. EEM-RSA is performed on The main objective of EEM-RSA is to minimize the number of
cloud computing environment. In this environment, a source node activated elements. In fact, turning on the elements of network
might be connected to several destinations and this is the meaning increases its energy consumption. The power consumption of
of manycast trafc. Manycast routing, which is a point-to-multi- network elements is modeled by considering a constant overhead
point paradigm is utilized in EEM-RSA. In manycast routing, the for the element activation and a variable trafc-dependent term
route is established between the source and a subset of destina- for the element operation. In EONs, the power consumption of IP
tion candidates. The connecting paths between source and desti- routers, Bandwidth Variable-Optical TransPonders (BV-OTPs), BV-
nations, referred to as lightpaths, have the same modulation level Cross Connect Switches (BV-WXC) and optical Erbium Doped Fiber
and spectrum intervals. These lightpaths form a spanning tree Ampliers (EDFA) are considered the main sources of power
connecting source to a subset of candidate destinations (selected consumption. To address this issue, EEM-RSA introduces three
destinations) as light-tree. Thus, a light-tree is a point-to-multi- algorithms which are ILP-based EEM, Pure-EEM (P-EEM) and
point connection with the same assigned modulation level and Blocking Aware-EEM (BA-EEM). The two latter algorithms are

Table 6
Features of each RSA algorithm.

Algorithm Features State

RWSA 1-Improving spectrum utilization, cost and energy consumption of network Static
AFA-CA Reducing the number of FSs of occupied frequency spectrum Static
SPSR (1) Reducing the overall path overlapping Static
(2) Without load balancing in the network
BLSA (1) Increasing the overall path overlapping Static
(2) Achieving load balancing in the network
SM-RSA (1) Minimizing the utilized spectrum Static
(2) Reserving more subcarriers than required
MI Reducing ow blocking probability (FBP) Static
QoS-based RSA Reducing blocking probability (BP) Semi-Static
Routing based on spectrum segment representation (1) Low spectrum utilization and high signaling blocking rate in light trafc Dynamic
(2) High spectrum utilization and low signaling blocking rate in heavy trafc
LFA Improving average blocking bandwidth, average transponder utilization and blocking probability Dynamic
AUR-ESS Improving blocking probability Dynamic
Fairness-aware dynamic spectrum allocation Reducing blocking probability Dynamic
Dynamic RSA with mixed line rates Reducing spectrum fragmentation and blocking probability Dynamic
FLF Reducing ow blocking probability and minimizing used number of wavelength slots Dynamic

Fig. 11. Performance evaluation of RSA algorithms.

F. Shirin Abkenar, A. Ghaffarpour Rahbar / Optical Switching and Networking 23 (2017) 539 31

Table 7 of a network elements. To alleviate the energy consumption of the

Comparison of computational complexity of RSA algorithms. network, EEM establishes an auxiliary graph which has the same
number of nodes and links as the physical network topology graph.
Algorithm Computational complexity
However, the weight of links is the amount of power added to the total
Greedy-RWSA O(K ( + 1)|E| + |N | + |L| + |D|log|D|) power consumption. Therefore, the cost functions assigned to the links
KPaths-RWSA O(|E| + |N |log|N | + K |W E| + K (|W | ) + |L| + |D|log|D|) of the auxiliary graph are updated after each network alteration. Each
SP-RWSA O(|E| + |N |log|N | + |W E| + (|W | ) + |L| + |D|log|D|) node and each link has its Power Consumption Function (PCF) which
AFA-CA O(|D P F E|) is related to its element. If a connection is routed along the working
SPSR O(|N |2 + |S E|(|D|2 + 1))) nodes and links, only the variable trafc-dependent cost is added to
BLSA O(|E| + |N |log|N | + K + |D P | + |S E|(|D|2 + 1)) the PCF of the corresponding links and nodes. However, if it turns on
SM- RSA O(K |D|(|S E| + log(K |D|)))
some idle network elements, the additional power consumption (cost)
MI-RSA O(N2 + |S D|) corresponding to constant-offset should be added to their respective
MI-PRSA-FF O(2|S|2) PCFs. Similarly, if termination of a connection results in some idle
QPS O((|E| + (1 )|E|[(1 )|E| + F ])|D| + |N |3) nodes or links, the idle components are turned off. In this scenario,
QPF O((|E| + (1 )|E|[(1 )|E| + F ])|D| + |N |3) both the variable trafc-dependent costs and the constant-offset costs
Routing based on O(|N |2|SEG|) (i.e., additional power consumptions corresponding to trafc-depen-
spectrum seg-
ment dent and constant-offset, respectively) are subtracted from the PCF of
representation inactive elements [53].
LFA O(K |N |log|N |) Pure-EEM (P-EEM): P-EEM is used to nd a light-tree for a given
AUR-ESS O((|F | NFSR + 1)(|F E| + N2)) manycast request. In this algorithm, the main route is determined
MCAP O(|N |2 + |E|2) using the Dijkstra algorithm for all demands of that manycast re-
PADR O(|D SB|) quest and this path is added to the corresponding light-tree. Then,
k destinations of whole manycast destinations are selected ran-
FS-SFPS O(K |E|log (K |E|))
domly and the shortest path from each of these selected destina-
AS-SFPS O(K |E|log (K |E|))
FLF O((|W Wp| + |N |)|D|)
tions to the main route is added to light-tree. Finally, the obtained
light-tree is inserted into the set of candidate light-trees. The cost
function of each link in P-EEM is calculated as in the following
heuristic algorithms which can solve the problem for large net- equation [53]:
works. However, ILP-based EEM does not work for large networks.
PClink mn = A mn PCOA Q mn + PCOXC (m) Pm + PCOXC (n) Pn
Each of these mechanisms are described in the following [53]:
ILP-based EEM: The ILP-based EEM models the power consumption + L mn, (17)

Fig. 12. Computational complexity of RSA algorithms.

32 F. Shirin Abkenar, A. Ghaffarpour Rahbar / Optical Switching and Networking 23 (2017) 539

where PClinkmn is the cost assigned to the corresponding link be- available spectrum, the light-tree will be eliminated from the list
tween nodes m and n; Amn is the number of optical ampliers on of candidate light-trees [53].
link (m, n); and Q mn is a binary variable determining the idle 1 and Performance evaluation in [53] shows that ILP-based EMM has
active 0 states of link (m, n). Parameter Pn is a binary variable better energy consumption than two other ones in small networks.
specifying the idle 1 and active 0 states of optical switching ele- However, its time complexity is more than P-EEM and BA-EEM.
ments in node n, and L mn is the length of link (m, n). It should be However, ILP-based EEM does not work in large networks. It is
noted that the last term L mn indicates that if all links and nodes seen that P-EEM has the best energy consumption. However, BA-
are active, the cost function values will be directly proportional to EEM considers both energy consumption and BP.
the length of link (m, n). The total cost function of P-EEM is cal-
culated using the following equation [53]: 4.2.10. Multi Population Pattern Searching EON (MuPPetS-EON)
Multi Population Pattern Searching EON (MuPPetS-EON) tries
PCost (T ) = PCip o NUip(s) + PCip t + PCotp o NUotp(s)
to alleviate the complexity of RSA-JAU according to MuPPetS
concept. MuPPetS is a type of Genetic Algorithm (GA). The k-
+ PCotp t + (PCip o NUip(dj) + PCip t shortest path (KSP) is used as routing mechanism. Each demand
has its weight and candidate path. MuPPetS considers the requests
+ PCotp o NUotp(dj) + PCotp t ) + PClink mn, as genes and sorts them as their weights. Then, MuPPetS selects
mn T (18)
the path with low index FS based on its GA basic [54].
where PCip o and PCotp o are constant-offset power consumption of According to achieved results in [54], in most cases, MuPPetS-
IP router and BV-OTP, respectively. In addition, ( PCip t and PCotp t ) EON is less vulnerable to its parameter settings than other meth-
are trafc-dependent power consumption of IP router and BV-OTP, ods. However, in some cases, TS outperforms MuPPetS-EON.
respectively. The coefcient is the amount of processed trafc in
Gb/s; and NUip(k ) and NUotp(k ) are binary variables indicating the
active/idle 0/1 states of the IP router and BV-OTP components in 5. The comparison of RSA algorithms
node k, respectively [53].
Blocking Aware-EEM (BA-EEM): In BA-EEM, the bandwidth In this section, the RSA and RMSA algorithms are compared
usage is considered in the path computation algorithm to reduce separately. The algorithms are divided into two groups from trafc
the BP. The path calculating in BA-EEM is similar to P-EEM. Then, type of view point. Some algorithms support static trafc that
spectrum availability of each of the calculated paths (CPs) is means the initial situations are specied at rst according to a
checked. Then, by using the modied auxiliary graph and con- given trafc demand matrix. The others support dynamic trafc
sidering the cost function calculated through Eq. (17), the next CP that means the conditions are changed along the time. From basis
with the lowest energy consumption is obtained and its spectrum viewpoint, the algorithms are divided into ve groups that are
availability is checked. This procedure is continued until nding a subcarrier, FS, wavelength, slot block (SB) and spectrum block (SB),
light-tree with enough available spectrum to serve the demand R. where each of them has some features explained in the following.
If this algorithm could not nd any suitable path with enough According to the routing mechanism, the complexity of the RSA

Table 8
Comparison of RMSA techniques.

Algorithm Routing mechanism Spectrum Assignment (SA) mechanism Basis Trafc Type

Joint RMLSA KSP ILP model Subcarrier Static

Decomposed RMLSA ILP model ILP Spectrum Assignment (SA) Subcarrier Static
Heuristic RMLSA KSP Simulated Annealing Subcarrier Static
Joint RMSA Light tree ILP model SB Static
Separate RMSA Light tree ILP model SB Static
Heuristic RMSA Random selection Genetic Algorithm (GA) SB StaticDynamic
ILP-based RSA-JAU Link-path modeling ILP model FS Static
AFA-JAU Link-path modeling AFA FS Static
ILP-based RSA-DPP Link-path modeling ILP model Channel Static
TS-based RSA-DPP Link-path modeling TS Channel Static
ILP-based RMSA optimization Link-path modeling RMSA/MS, RMSA/C and RMSA/PC FS Static
ARMSA Link-path modeling ILP model FS Static
m-Fixed and m-adaptive SPV, KSP, MSP ILP model Spectrum Segment Dynamic
SPRESSO KSP ILP model FS Dynamic
IARSA MSP LARA Subcarrier Dynamic
Fragmentation-aware RMSA SP FF SB Dynamic
Alignment-aware RMSA SP FF SB Dynamic
P-CF SP FF SB Dynamic
Dynamic RMSA 1-Online path computation FFSA, BFSA FS Dynamic
2-Path-set updates
MTLT KSP Maximum total link TSC SB Dynamic
MHLT KSP Maximum heaviest link TSC SB Dynamic
MPT KSP Maximum path TSC SB Dynamic
H-SSRSMLA SP Greedy iterative mechanism FS Dynamic
ILP-based EEM Link path modeling ILP model FS Static
P-EEM Dijkstra P-EEM FS Dynamic
BA-EEM Dijkstra BA-EEM FS Dynamic
MuPPetS-EON KSP MuPPetS FS Dynamic
F. Shirin Abkenar, A. Ghaffarpour Rahbar / Optical Switching and Networking 23 (2017) 539 33

algorithms are different. In addition, there are different spectrum Spectrum Segment is segment-based algorithm. In segment-based
assignment mechanisms, where each of them has its own in- algorithms, the computational complexity depends on the seg-
dividual performance that differs from other types. Finally, the ment amount, whereas in slot-based algorithms it depends on the
algorithms of each group are compared through their computa- slot numbers. Integers, oating-point numbers, or double-preci-
tional complexity. All of these aspects are expressed in the fol- sion numbers can be employed to represent spectrum segments.
lowing briey. Table 4 indicates the required variables to calculate Therefore, the complexities of segment-based algorithms are
the computational complexity of all algorithms. lower than that of slot-based algorithms [42]. On the other hand,
since the complexity of FF is less than MR, the total complexity of
5.1. The comparison of RSA algorithms (AR FF) in Routing based on Spectrum Segment is less than
(AR MR).
This comparison of RSA algorithms is divided into two sub- Other types of subcarrier-based algorithms like SPSR, BLSA and
sections. In the rst, the performance of algorithms are compared SM-RSA are based on ILP formulation and their complexities could
according to their main objective(s). Second subsection represents be similar. On the other hand, SPSR is usually compared with BLSA.
the qualitative comparison of the algorithms, according to a spe- In this view, SPSR cannot achieve load balancing in the network,
cic parameter which these mechanisms consider. In the third but BLSA can do. Moreover, SPSR and BLSA use the shortest path
subsection, the computational complexities of the algorithms are routing and the longer path routing, respectively. Hence, the
assessed. Performance comparison is completely a qualitative overall path overlapping in BLSA is more than SPSR. In addition,
comparison, while computational comparison is a quantitative when the MI-RSA and the MI-PRSA-FF algorithms are compared
one. with each other, since the MI-PRSA-FF constructs multiple pattern
layers, MI-PRSA-FF can provide better blocking probability than
5.1.1. Qualitative performance evaluation MI-RSA.
Table 5 displays a summary of RSA techniques along with Since the slot-based algorithms have better granularity than
routing mechanism, spectrum assignment, basis of each technique, the subcarrier-based algorithms, the efciency of the slot-based
and the trafc type that each algorithm can support. Moreover, algorithms is better than the subcarrier-based algorithms. The
Table 6 briey shows the features of each algorithm. slot-based algorithm like AFA-CA is based on ILP formulation and
The efciency of an algorithm depends on the granularity of its its complexity is less than the LFA and AUR-ESS algorithms. On the
basis. As mentioned before, a slot has ner granularity than a other hand, the LFA tries to congure TSP, but AUR-ESS tries to
subcarrier, and the subcarrier has ner granularity than a wave- congure an auxiliary-graph. Hence, the complexity of LFA is less
length. The subcarrier-based algorithms have better complexity than AUR-ESS. According to Table 5, MCAP is based on FSs. MCAP is
than the slot-based algorithms because the number of subcarriers compared with HC-MCAP FF. The MCAP provides better load
is less than the number of slots. However, the slot-based algo- balancing than HC-MCAP FF. In addition, MCAP can achieve
rithms have ner granularity than subcarrier-based ones because a better backward blocking probability at light and heavy load
subcarrier comprises many FSs. Hence, the number of subcarriers trafc. This is because at light or heavy trafc load, the reservation
is less than FSs, but a subcarrier does not show details as well as sessions run concurrently. Hence, the probability of collision is
FSs. increased. QPS and QPF are two FS-based algorithms which try to
The segment-based algorithms have better complexity than provide QoS. These algorithms try to separate HQ and LQ trafc
other algorithms because the complexity of slot-based algorithms and alleviate the BP of HQ one.
and segment-based algorithms are based on the number of slots Some algorithms in Table 5 are based on spectrum blocks (SBs)
and segments, respectively. Since the number of segments is less that are PADR and PSPADR. As mentioned in the denition of SB in
than the number of slots, segment-based algorithms have better Section 4, a SB comprises multiple contiguous subcarriers. Hence,
complexity than other algorithms. The combination of AR and MR the number of SBs is less than the number of subcarriers. As a
can provide optimal solutions at high trafc load, and after that, result, the SB-based algorithms have better complexity than the
the combination of AR and FF can result in optimal solutions. In subcarrier-based algorithms, but a SB does not involve details
addition, spectrum utilization of FR, RS and MR are low and high at within a subcarrier. In addition, PADR and PSPADR are compared
heavy and light trafc loads, respectively. Hence, the signaling with each other. Since PSPADR uses shared resources among all
blocking rates of mentioned algorithms increase and decrease trafc classes, it can obtain better blocking probability than PADR.
at light and heavy trafc, respectively. The Routing based-on Finally, RWSA based on the wavelength concept provides least

Table 9
Features of each RMSA algorithm.

Algorithm Features State

RMLSA Improving spectrum utilization of network Static

RMSA (1) Reducing the request blocking probability StaticDynamic
(2) Optimizing the RMSA solution
RSA-JAU Minimizing spectrum slices Static
RSA-DPP Minimizing spectrum width Static
RMSA-Optimization Reducing maximum used spectrum, cost and power consumption Static
m-Fixed and m-adaptive (1) The lowest blocking probability of SPV and MSP and the most blocking probability of KSP in light trafc Dynamic
(2) The most blocking probability of SPV and MSP and the lowest blocking probability of KSP in heavy trafc
SPRESSO Improving the gain of using spectrum Dynamic
IARSA The lowest blocking rate Dynamic
Dynamic RMSA Reducing blocking probability Dynamic
Time-Spectrum Consecutiveness (TSC) Reducing spectrum fragmentation and blocking probability Dynamic
MPTG Reducing blocking probability and BVT usage Dynamic
RSMLA Minimizing blocking probability Dynamic
EEM-RSA Improving energy efciency Static-Dynamic
MuPPetS-EON Improving spectrum usage Dynamic
34 F. Shirin Abkenar, A. Ghaffarpour Rahbar / Optical Switching and Networking 23 (2017) 539

efciency than other types of RSA algorithms because the granu- BP

larity of wavelength is more than slot, segment, and subcarrier. Load |N| |L| |S| (19)
The concept of wavelength is more rigid than the spectrum con-
cept. Among the RWSA algorithms, SP-RWSA has less complexity Spectrum Utilization
than KPaths-RWSA because SP-RWSA computes the xed shortest Q SRSAS =
Load |N| |L| |S| (20)
path while KPaths-RWSA calculates k-shortest paths. The com-
plexity of KPaths-RWSA is similar to Greedy-RWSA because both
of them search k-shortest paths. However, since the Greedy-RWSA
is based on the greedy method, the results of Greedy-RWSA is less Table 10
trusty than KPaths-RWSA. Since each demand in SP-RWSA is Comparison of computational complexity of non-ILP RMSA techniques.
routed on a xed shortest path, SP-RWSA cannot use the available
Algorithm Complexity
spectrum optimally. Hence, KPaths-RWSA is more efcient than
other types of RWSA algorithms. In addition, RWSA algorithms AFA-JAU O(|A F E|)
improve spectrum utilization, cost and energy consumption of ARMSA O(|D P E M F |)
OFDM networks compared with WDM networks. FLF is another m-Adaptive O(MMax|N |2K3)
algorithm of this group which divides the slots to partitions and m-Fixed O(|N |2K3)
nd the partition with the lowest index. IARSA O(|M N |log |N | + |M S E|)
Fragmentation- O(|E| + |N |log|N | + K + |SEG E M|)
5.1.2. Quantitative performance evaluation aware RMSA
Alignment-aware O(|E| + |N |log|N | + K + |SEG E M|)
As mentioned in Table 6, RSA algorithms are divided into static RMSA
and dynamic mechanisms. A number of static algorithms target to P-CF O(|E| + |N |log|N | + K + |SEG E M|)
alleviate the BP, while others try to improve spectrum utilization. Dynamic RMSA-on- |D E (d )| + |N |log|N | + K + |F E (d ) D| + |F E (d ) M D|
Besides, all dynamic algorithms target to reduce BP. Hence, there line path
Dynamic RMSA- |N |(log|N | + K ) + (|F M| + 1)|E| + K
will be three groups: Static RSA reducing BP; static RSA improving SetPath
spectrum utilization; and dynamic RSA alleviating BP. To compare MTLT O(K + |N |2lg|N | + T 2(|F | + |F |2|E|T 2))
existing algorithms in each group together, we dene a specic Q- MHLT O(K + |N |2lg|N | + T 2(|F | + |F |2|E|T 2))
factor, separately (i.e., Q SRSAB , Q SRSAS and Q DRSA for the rst group, MPT O(K + |N |2lg|N | + T 2(|F | + |F |2|E|T 2))
the second group and the third group, respectively). Since all of Heuristic MPTG O(K |N |3(Z (|N | + |SB|) + K |N |))
the studied algorithms in each group have the same simulation H-SSRSMLA (|E| + |N |log|N | + K ) + 2|Pd|(|M| + 1)+
conditions (e.g., all of them have been simulated on NSFNET to- (Rd + |O| + HMax + TSPs + TSPd + |F |PMax 1)|O|
pology (see Fig. 16), or the trafc load is based on Erlang dis- P-EEM O(|C E| + |C |Nd|N |2log|N |)
tribution), these factors can be calculated through Eqs. 19 to 21, BA-EEM O(2|F E N |log(2|F |))

Fig. 13. Performance evaluation of RMSA algorithms.

F. Shirin Abkenar, A. Ghaffarpour Rahbar / Optical Switching and Networking 23 (2017) 539 35

BP EEM, P-EEM and BA-EEM are the other type of FS-based algo-
Load |N| |L| |S| (21) rithms. ILP-one perform appropriately for small networks but is
not proper for big ones. Hence, P-EEM and BA-EEM have pre-
Here, |N |, |L| and |S| are the number of nodes, links and sub- sented. P-EEM tries to improve energy efciency of network, while
carriers, respectively. Parameter Load represents the trafc load in BA-EEM considers both energy efciency and BP. The last FS-based
Erlang, where simulations have been performed based on this algorithm is MuPPetS-EON. This mechanism is a type of GA and its
load. Moreover, BP and Spectrum Utilization show the blocking main goal is to improve the spectrum usage.
probability and spectrum utilization, respectively. We have used Since the slot-based algorithms have better granularity than
the measured values of both BP and spectrum utilization para- the subcarrier-based algorithms, the efciency of the slot-based
meters, which have been shown in the corresponding diagrams of algorithms is better than the subcarrier-based algorithms. SPRES-
the related papers. Fig. 11 shows the result of Q-factors. Fig. 11a SO is a sample of slot-based algorithm. However, the complexity of
represents the comparison of static RSA algorithms which try to IARSA is more than SPRESSO.
reduce BP. Lower value of Q SRSAB under these algorithms involves The m-xed and m-adaptive are segment-based algorithms
their better performances. As seen in Fig. 11a, QPS has better
such as Routing based-on Spectrum Segment algorithm in RSA.
performance than the other algorithms. Fig. 11b indicates the
Hence, their complexities are less than slot-based algorithms. In
spectrum utilization of static RSA algorithms. More value of Q SRSAS addition, the m-adaptive algorithm has better operation than m-
denotes that the AFA-CA mechanism has better performance. After
xed algorithm. Moreover, if m is xed or adaptive, SPV and MSP
that, SM-RSA is the second appropriate algorithm. Finally, the
have the lowest blocking probability at light trafc, whereas KSP
comparison result of dynamic RSA algorithms has been shown in
has the highest blocking probability. While, at heavy trafc, KSP
Fig. 11c. As seen in this gure, since MCAP has the lowest Q DRSA , it
has the smallest blocking probability than SPV and MSP.
is the best algorithm in this comparison.
Some algorithms in Table 8 are based on slot blocks (SBs) as
joint RMSA, separate RMSA, heuristic RMSA, fragmentation-aware
5.1.3. The comparison of computational complexity
RMSA, alignment-aware RMSA and P-CF. Since a SB is a block of a
Table 7 shows the computational complexity of each studied
few available contiguous subcarrier slots in the optical spectrum,
RSA algorithm. The complexity of each mechanism has been cal-
culated according to Table 7 for different values of each variable
Table 11
(see Fig. 12). Since, the range of complexities is different, the re- Comparison of computational complexity of ILP-based RMSA techniques.
sults have been divided into four categories. Algorithms in Fig. 12a
have the highest complexity. Fig. 12b, c and d show the next lower Algorithm
complexities, respectively. According to these gures, the com-
Joint RMLSA Number of |N |4 + (K + 1)|N |2
plexities of BLSA and SPSR are so close together and these algo- variables
rithms have the highest complexity. In addition, MI-PRSA has the Number of 2|N |4 + 2|N |2
lowest complexity. constraints
(RML SA) Number of |N |4 + (K + 1)|N |2
5.2. The comparison of RMSA algorithms Number of 2|N |4 + 2|N |2
Similar to RSA algorithms, the RMSA algorithms are compared Joint RMSA Number of 2I 2 + (|P D| + |E| + 3)I
together in three ways: quality performance, quantitative perfor- variables
Number of (|E| + 3)I 2 + (|P D E| + |P D| + |D| + 4)I
mance and computational complexity. Each of these aspects are constraints
assessed in three separate sections as follows. Separate RMSA Number of (|P D| + 1)I + (K + 1)|E| + 2
5.2.1. Qualitative performance evaluation Number of (|P D| + |D|)I + (2K + |P | + 2)|E| + |P | + 2
Table 8 displays a summary of the RMSA techniques along with
ILP-based RSA- Number of |D P C |(1 + |F |) + |E D P | + |F |(|E| + 1)
the routing mechanism, spectrum assignment, basis of each JAU variables
technique, and the trafc type that each algorithm can support. Number of |D| + |F |(|E| + 1) + |A|
Table 9 briey shows the features of each algorithm. constraints
As mentioned before, the subcarrier-based algorithms have ILP-based RSA- Number of 2|Pd Cd D| + 2|Pd E| + |E F |
DPP variables
better complexity than the slot-based algorithms. The (RML SA) Number of |Pd Cd D| + (|E| + 1)|F |
algorithm does not always lead to similar results as the joint constraints
RMLSA algorithm. However, the heuristic RMLSA algorithm always ILP-based Number of |C M P D| + (|E| + 1)|F |
results in better performance than (RML SA) and joint RMLSA RMSA variables
Number of (|E| + 2)|F | + (|A| + 1)|D|
algorithms in large networks. In fact, the (RML SA) algorithm is
proposed to reduce the computation complexity of the RMLSA SPRESSO Number of |P M C |
algorithms, but RMLSA and (RML SA) result in similar results. In variables
addition, the RMLSA algorithms improve the spectrum utilization Number of |P M C | + |E S |
of OFDM-networks compared with WDM networks. The IARSA,
ILP-based Number of |N |4 + (K2 + 1)|N |3 + (K + 2)|N |2
the other type of subcarrier-based algorithms, is based on ILP MPTG variables
formulation such as RMLSA. The IARSA uses three algorithms Number of |N |4 + (K2 + 1)4|N |3 + (K + 4)|N |2
based on the graph theory that support dynamic trafc, and the constraints
SSRSMLA Number of |P |(|F |2 + 2|F | + |C | + 3)
complexities of these three algorithms are more than RMLSA.
As mentioned before, a channel comprises a set of adjacent FSs. Number of |3|D| + |E F | + |Pd|(|C | + 2) + |P |(3|F | 1)
Hence, a FS has a ner granularity than a channel, but the com- constraints
plexity of a channel is less than a FS. In addition, spectrum con- ILP-based EEM Number of (2|E F | + |N |)|D| + |N | + |E|
tiguity constraint is inherent in the channel. Hence, channel-based variables
Number of (2|E F | + 2|N F | + 2|N | + 2|F |)|D|
algorithms (such as RSA-DPP) have lower computational com- constraints
plexity than the FS-based algorithm (such as RSA-JAU). ILP-based
36 F. Shirin Abkenar, A. Ghaffarpour Rahbar / Optical Switching and Networking 23 (2017) 539

the SB-based algorithms have lower complexity than the sub- 5.2.2. Quantitative performance evaluation
carrier-based algorithms, but a SB does not involve details within a The same comparison for RSA algorithms is applied for RMSA
subcarrier. The computational complexity of ILP algorithms (i.e., ones. To compare all of the existing algorithms together, a specic
joint and separate RMSA algorithms) is more than the heuristic Q-factor is dened for each group of RMSA algorithms, separately
RMSA. However, the accuracy of joint and separate RMSA algo- (i.e., Q SRMSAS , Q DRMSAB and Q DRMSAS for spectrum utilization of static
rithms is better than the heuristic algorithm. According to Table 8, RMSA, BP comparison of dynamic RSA and spectrum utilization of
the fragmentation-aware RMSA, alignment-aware RMSA, P-CF al- dynamic RSA, respectively). In addition, these factors are calcu-
gorithms are based on spectrum block (SB) that are compared with lated through Eqs. 22 to 24, respectively:
each other. The P-CF performs the best in reducing blocking Spectrum Utilization
probability compared with two other algorithms. This is because Load |N| |L| |S| (22)
P-CF considers the fragmentation and misalignment factors, the
shortest path, and load balanced routing. Hence, there is a trade- BP
off between minimizing the fragmentation and minimizing the Load |N| |L| |S| (23)
overall resource consumption. In addition, the alignment-aware
RMSA achieves better blocking probability than the fragmenta- Spectrum Utilization
tion-aware RMSA algorithm. Load |N| |L| |S| (24)

Fig. 14. Computational complexity of RMSA algorithms.

Fig. 15. Computational complexity of ILP-based RMSA algorithms.

F. Shirin Abkenar, A. Ghaffarpour Rahbar / Optical Switching and Networking 23 (2017) 539 37

The number of both variables and constraints of mentioned

algorithms in Table 11 have been calculated and the results have
been shown in Fig. 15. To prevent the overlapping of diagrams, the
results have been shown in two gures. Fig. 15b and a contain the
algorithms with the highest and lowest number of parameters,
respectively. According to Fig. 15b, DPP has the highest number of
both variables and constraints, and Joint RMSA has the second
highest number of both variables and constraints. However, the
number of variables in Separate RMSA is so close to Joint one but
its constraints number is lower than Joint RSA. In addi-
tion, SPRESSO yields the lowest number of both variables and
Fig. 16. The NSFNET topology [54]. constraints.
To compare metaheuristic-based algorithms (i.e., Heuristic
RMLSA, Heuristic RMSA, TS-based RSA-DPP), we use their time
complexities which have been calculated in their corresponding
papers. According to [35,4,40], all the mentioned mechanisms
have been evaluated in NSFNET topology which is shown in Fig. 16.
Since there are different initial values in this simulations, we de-
ne a quality factor (Q) as in the following equation:
Q= ,
ND (25)

where RTAvg is the average run time of algorithm and ND equals the
number of incoming requests. Note that the algorithm with
smaller Q has better performance. Fig. 17 shows the calculated Q
for each algorithm. According to this gure, RMSA has the best Q
(near to zero), and after that, RSA-DPP and RMLSA have better
performances, respectively.
Fig. 17. Comparison of time complexity.

Fig. 13 shows the result of Q-factors. Fig. 13a represents the 6. Future works
comparison of static RMSA algorithms which try to improve
spectrum utilization. More value of Q SRMSA in these algorithms As expressed in this paper, RSA and RMSA play important roles
involve their better performances. As seen in Fig. 13a, TS-based in EON. However, there are many challenges in EON. One of the
DPP has better performance than the other algorithms. Fig. 13b most important issues in EON is the security of network. All of the
indicates the BP of dynamic RMSA algorithms. Lower value of existing algorithms try to improve the important parameters such
Q DRMSAB denotes that the MPTG mechanism has better perfor- as BP or even utilizing the amount of used resources, but none of
mance. Finally, the comparison result of spectrum utilization re- them considers security aspects of data transmission such as in-
lated to dynamic RMSA algorithms has been shown in Fig. 13c. As tegrity, condentiality, availability and so on. While, nowadays,
seen in this gure, since MPT has the highest Q DRSA , it is the best hackers steal the important data such as banking or counting in-
algorithm in this comparison. formation through very simple methods such as tapping. There are
many different solutions to beat this problem such as stegano-
5.2.3. The comparison of computational complexity graphy, cryptography (symmetric and asymmetric), using SDH
The studied RMSA algorithms are compared together based on system and so on. However, none of them has been applied to
their computational complexity. Since some of these algorithms EON.
are ILP-based and the ILP-based problems are NP-hard, we calcu-
late the number of both variables and constraints of these algo-
rithms to compare them. In addition, some algorithms are based 7. Conclusion
on meta heuristic ones such as GA, SA, TS and MuPPetS and cal-
culation of their computational complexity is so hard. Hence, we In this paper, we have studied and analyzed both categories of
use their average time complexity which are obtained from related Routing and Spectrum Allocation (RSA) (i.e., RSA and RMSA algo-
papers. Therefore, Table 10 and Table 11 indicate the comp- rithms), and separately compared the algorithms of each category.
utational complexity of non-ILP and ILP-based algorithms, Totally, the main objective of both RSA and RMSA is to allocate
respectively. resources to demands efciently and exibility. There are many
Fig. 14 indicates the comparison of categorized algorithms in issues in EON such as cost, BP, energy efciency, efcient resource
Table 10. To show the results clearly, the results have been shown management, QoS provisioning and so on. Totally, the main ob-
in three gures, where the complexity decreases from Fig. 14ac. jective of both RSA and RMSA is to allocate resources to demands
According to Fig. 14a, the complexities of MLTL, MHTL and MPT are efciently and exibility. All of these parameters are related to-
similar together and these mechanisms have the highest com- gether. Hence, some algorithms just consider one of these para-
plexity. On the other hand, Fig. 14c shows that the complexities of meter and try to alleviate it. For example, P-EEM tries to reduce
Fragmentation-Aware (FA) RMSA, Alignment-Aware (AA) RMSA energy consumption, while BA-EEM improves both BP and energy
and P-CF are almost equal, where they have the lowest complexity. efciency. This review has tried to study all existing RSA and RMSA
Note that, since the situation of dynamic RMSA-online path de- and compare them through their both efciency in resource
pends on the incoming trafc and changes over the time, it is management and computational complexity. According to this
impossible to calculate its complexity. viewpoint, different tables have been provided to show each
38 F. Shirin Abkenar, A. Ghaffarpour Rahbar / Optical Switching and Networking 23 (2017) 539

algorithm property in the best and detailed way. As a consequence [26] R. Bhandari, Survivable Networks: Algorithms for Diverse Routing, Springer,
of these comparisons, the algorithms have a close competition to US, 1999.
[27] F. Yi, B. Guo, C. Xin, Y. He, Z. Li, Enhanced minimum interference routing al-
achieve the best performance in resource assignment in EON with gorithms for elastic optical networks, in: Proceedings of the OECC/PS, June
high exibility and efciency. July 2013, pp. 12.
[28] F.S. Abkenar, A.G. Rahbar, A. Ebrahimzadeh, Providing quality of service (QoS)
for data trafc in elastic optical networks (EONs), Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 41 (March
(3)) (2016) 797806.
References [29] A. Pages, J. Perello, S. Spadaro, Lightpath fragmentation for efcient spectrum
utilization in dynamic elastic optical networks, in: 16th International Con-
ference on Optical Network Design and Modeling (ONDM), April 2012, pp. 16.
[1] M. Jinno, B. Kozicki, H. Takara, A. Watanabe, W. Imajuku, Y. Sone, T. Tanaka, [30] R.J. Durn, I. Rodrguez, N. Fernndez, I. de Miguel, N. Merayo, P. Fernndez, J.
A. Hirano, Distance-adaptive spectrum resource allocation in spectrum-sliced C. Aguado, T. Jimnez, R.M. Lorenzo, E.J. Abril, Performance comparison of
elastic optical path network, IEEE Commun. Mag. 48 (August (8)) (2010) methods to solve the routing and spectrum allocation problem, in: 14th In-
138145. ternational Conference on Transparent Optical Networks (ICTON), July 2012,
[2] O. Gerstel, M. Jinno, A. Lord, and S.J. Ben Yoo, Elastic optical networking: a new pp. 14.
dawn for the optical layer, IEEE Commun. Mag. (February) (2012) 512520. [31] B. Guo, J. Li, Y. Wang, S. Huang, Z. Chen, Y. He, Collision-aware routing and
[3] G. Zhang, M.D. Leenheer, A. Morea, B. Mukherjee, A survey on OFDM-based spectrum assignment in GMPLS-enabled exible-bandwidth optical network,
elastic core optical networking, IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. 15 (1) (2013) IEEE Opt. Commun. Netw. 5 (June (6)) (2013) 658666.
6587. [32] S. Ma, Y. Wang, B. Guo, X. Chen, J. Li, Z. Chen, Y. He, A fairness-aware dynamic
[4] L. Gong, X. Zhou, X. Liu, W. Zhao, W. Lu, Z. Zhu, Efcient resource allocation for spectrum allocation scheme in elastic optical networks, in: Proceedings of the
all-optical multicasting over spectrum-sliced elastic optical networks, IEEE OECC/PS, JuneJuly 2013, pp. 12.
Opt. Commun. Netw. 5 (August (8)) (2013) 836847. [33] X. Wang, K. Kuang, S. Wang, S. Xu, H. Liu, G.N. Liu, Dynamic routing and
[5] I. Tomkos, E. Palkopoulou, M. Angelou, A survey of recent developments on spectrum allocation in elastic optical networks with mixed line rates, IEEE
exible/elastic optical networking, in: 14th International Conference on Opt. Commun. Netw. 6 (December (12)) (2014) 11151127.
Transparent Optical Networks (ICTON), July 2012, pp. 16. [34] W. Fadini, B.C. Chatterjee, E. Oki, A subcarrier-slot partition scheme with rst-
[6] B.C. Chatterjee, N. Sarma, E. Oki, Routing and spectrum allocation in elastic last t spectrum allocation for elastic optical networks, J. Comput. Netw. 91
optical networks: a tutorial, IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. 17(May (3)), (2015), pp. (November) (2015) 700711.
1776-1800. [35] K. Christodoulopoulos, I. Tomkos, E.A. Varvarigos, Elastic bandwidth allocation
[7] S. Talebi, F. Alam, I. Katib, M. Khamis, R. Salama, G.N. Rouskas, Spectrum in exible OFDM-based optical networks, J. Lightw. Technol. 29 (May (9))
management techniques for elastic optical networks: a survey, Opt. Switch. (2011) 13541366.
Netw. 13 (February) (2014) 3448. [36] K. Christodoulopoulos, I. Tomkos, E.A. Varvarigos, Routing and spectrum al-
[8] G. Zhang, M.D. Leenheer, S. K. Bose, Survivable elastic optical networks: survey location in OFDM-based optical networks with elastic bandwidth allocation,
and perspective (Invited), Photonic Network Communications, 31(February in: Global Telecommunications Conference (GLOBECOM), December 2010, pp.
(1)), 2016, pp. 71-87. 16.
[9] M. Jinno, H. Takara, B. Kozicki, Y. Tsukishima, Y. Sone, Sh. Matsuoka, Spectrum- [37] J. Koza, Genetic Programming: On the Programming of Computers by Means of
efcient and scalable elastic optical path network: architecture, benets, and Natural Selection, MIT, Cambridge, MA, 1992.
enabling technologies, IEEE Commun. Mag. 47 (November (11)) (2009) 6672. [38] K. Walkowiak, M. Klinkowski, Joint anycast and unicast routing for elastic
[10] N. Maluf, K. Williams, An Introduction to Microelectromechanical Systems optical networks: modeling and optimization, in: IEEE International Con-
Engineering, 2nd ed., Artech House, Boston-London, 2004. ference on Communications (ICC), June 2013, pp. 39093914.
[11] H. Ren, S.-T. Wu, Optical switch using a deformable liquid droplet, Opt. Lett. 35 [39] M. Pioro, D. Medhi, Routing, Flow and Capacity Design in Communication and
(November (22)) (2010) 38263828. Computer Networks, Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, 2004.
[12] E. Palkopoulou, M. Angelou, D. Klonidis, K. Christodoulopoulos, A. Klekamp, [40] K. Walkowiaka, M. Klinkowskib, B. Rabiegaa, R. Goscien, Routing and spectrum
F. Buchali, E. Varvarigos, I. Tomkos, Quantifying spectrum, cost, and energy allocation algorithms for elastic optical networks with dedicated path pro-
efciency in xed-grid and ex-grid networks [Invited], IEEE Opt. Commun. tection, IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. 13 (February) (2014) 6375.
Netw. 4 (November (11)) (2012) 4251. [41] R. Goscien, K. Walkowiak, M. Klinkowski, Distance-adaptive transmission in
[13] M. Jinno, H. Takara, B. Kozicki, Concept and enabling technologies of spec- cloud-ready elastic optical networks, IEEE Opt. Commun. Netw. 6 (October
trum-sliced elastic optical path network (SLICE), in: Communications and (10)) (2014) 816828.
Photonics Conference and Exhibition (ACP), November 2009, pp. 12. [42] X. Wan, N. Hua, X. Zheng, Dynamic routing and spectrum assignment in
[14] B. Kozicki, H. Takara, M. Jinno, Enabling technologies for adaptive resource spectrum-exible transparent optical networks, IEEE Opt. Commun. Netw. 4
allocation in elastic optical path network (SLICE), in: Communications and (August (8)) (2012) 603613.
Photonics Conference and Exhibition (ACP), December 2010, pp. 2324. [43] A. Castro, L. Velasco, M. Ruiz, M. Klinkowski, J.P. Fernndez-Palacios,
[15] B. Kozicki, H. Takara, Y. Tsukishima, T. Yoshimatsu, T. Kobayashi, K. Yonenaga, D. Careglio, Dynamic routing and spectrum (re)allocation in future exgrid
M. Jinno, Optical path aggregation for 1-Tb/s transmission in spectrum-sliced optical networks, J. Comput. Netw. 56 (May) (2012) 28692883.
elastic optical path network, IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett. 22 (September (17)) [44] S. Yang, F. Kuipers, Impairment-aware routing in translucent spectrum-sliced
(2010) 13151317. elastic optical path networks, in: 17th European Conference on Networks and
[16] B. Kozicki, H. Takara, A. Watanabe, Y. Sone, T. Tanaka, A. Hirano, K. Yonenaga, Optical Communication (NOC), June 2012, pp. 16.
M. Jinno, Distance-adaptive spectrum allocation in SLICE considering optical [45] Y. Yin, M. Zhang, Z. Zhu, S.J.B. Yoo, Fragmentation-aware routing, modulation
ltering effects, in: 15th OptoElectronics and Communication Conference and spectrum assignment algorithms in elastic optical networks, in: Pro-
(OECC), July 2010, pp. 9899. ceedings of the OFC/NFOEC, March 2013, pp. 13.
[17] X. Wan, N. Hua, H. Zhang, X. Zheng, Study on dynamic routing and spectrum [46] L. Zhang, W. Lu, X. Zhou, Z. Zhu, Dynamic RMSA in spectrum-sliced elastic
assignment in bitrate exible optical networks, Photon. Netw. Commun. 24 optical networks for high-throughput service provisioning, in: Proceedings of
(May) (2012) 219227. the ICNC, 2013, pp. 380384.
[18] L. Velasco, M. Klinkowski, M. Ruiz, J. Comellas, Modeling the routing and [47] A. Bocoi, M. Schuster, F. Rambach, M. Kiese, C. Bunge, B. Spinnler, Reach-de-
spectrum allocation problem for exgrid optical networks, Photon. Netw. pendent capacity in optical networks enabled by OFDM, in: Proceedings of the
Commun. 24 (April) (2012) 177186. OFC/NFOEC, March 2009, pp. 13.
[19] A.N. Patel, P.N. Ji, J.P. Jue, T. Wang, Routing, wavelength assignment, and [48] H. Chen, Y. Zhao, J. Zhang, R. He, W. Wang, J. Wu, Y. Wang, Y. Ji, H. Zheng, Y. Lin,
spectrum allocation algorithms in transparent exible optical WDM networks, B. Hou, Time-spectrum consecutiveness based scheduling with advanced re-
J. Opt. Switch. Netw. 9 (February) (2012) 191204. servation elastic optical networks, IEEE Commun. Lett. 19 (January (1)) (2015)
[20] M. Klinkowski, K. Walkowiak, Routing and spectrum assignment in spectrum 7073.
sliced elastic optical path network, IEEE Commun. Lett. 15 (August (8)) (2011) [49] G. Zhang, M.D. Leenheer, B. Mukherjee, Optical trafc grooming in OFDM-
884886. based elastic optical networks [Invited], IEEE Opt. Commun. Netw. 4 (No-
[21] Y. Wang, X. Cao, Y. Pan, A study of the routing and spectrum allocation in vember (11)) (2012) B17B25.
spectrum-sliced elastic optical path networks, in: Proceedings IEEE INFOCOM, [50] Y. Zhang, X. Zheng, O. Li, N. Hua, Y. Li, H. Zhang, Trafc grooming in spectrum
April 2011, pp. 15031511. elastic optical path networks, in: Optical Fiber Communication Conference
[22] Y. Wang, X. Cao, Q. Hu, Y. Pan, Towards elastic and ne-granular bandwidth and Exposition (OFC/NFOEC), and the National Fiber Optic Engineers Con-
allocation in spectrum-sliced optical networks, IEEE Opt. Commun. Netw. 4 ference, March 2011, pp. 13.
(November (11)) (2012) 906917. [51] Z. Fan, Y. Qiu, C.K. Chan, Dynamic multipath routing with trafc grooming in
[23] W. Lu, X. Zhou, L. Gong, M. Zhang, Z. Zhu, Dynamic multi-path service pro- OFDM-based elastic optical path networks, J. Lightwave Technol. 33 (January
visioning under differential delay constraint in elastic optical networks, IEEE (1)) (2015) 275281.
Commun. Lett. 17 (January (1)) (2013) 158161. [52] A. Pags, J. Perell, S. Spadaro, J. Comellas, Optimal route, spectrum, and
[24] A. Das, C. Martel, B. Mukherjee, A partial-protection approach using multipath modulation level assignment in split-spectrum-enabled dynamic elastic op-
provisioning, in: Proceedings of the ICC IEEE, June 2009, pp. 15. tical networks, IEEE Opt. Commun. Netw. 6 (February (2)) (2014) 114126.
[25] L. Ruan, N. Xiao, Survivable multipath routing and spectrum allocation in [53] A. Fallahpour, H. Beyranvand, J.A. Salehi, Energy-efcient manycast routing
OFDM-based exible optical networks, IEEE Opt. Commun. Netw. 5 (March and spectrum assignment in elastic optical networks for cloud computing
(3)) (2013) 172182. environment, J. Lightwave Technol. 33 (October (19)) (2015) 40084018.
F. Shirin Abkenar, A. Ghaffarpour Rahbar / Optical Switching and Networking 23 (2017) 539 39

[54] M. Przewozniczek, R. Goscien, K. Walkowiak, M. Klinkowski, Towards solving Akbar Ghaffarpour Rahbar is a Professor in Electrical
practical problems of large solution space using a novel pattern searching Engineering Department at Sahand University of
hybrid evolutionary algorithm an elastic optical network optimization case Technology, Sahand New Town, Tabriz, Iran. Dr. Rahbar
study, J. Expert Syst. Appl. 42 (June) (2015) 77817796. received his B.Sc. and M.Sc. degrees in computer
hardware and computer architecture both from Iran
University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran, in
1992 and 1995, respectively. He received his Ph.D. de-
gree in computer science from University of Ottawa,
Forough Shirin Abkenar received her B.Sc. degree in Canada in 2006. He is the Director of Computer Net-
information technology from Azarbaijan Shahid Ma- works Research Lab at Sahand University. Dr. Rahbar is
dani University, Azarshahr, Tabriz, Iran. She received a Senior Member of the IEEE. He is currently on the
her M.Sc. degree in information technology from Sa- editorial board of Wiley Transactions on Emerging
hand University of Technology, Sahand New Town, Telecommunications Technologies Journal, Interna-
Tabriz, Iran. She is interested in optical networks tional Journal of Advances in Optical Communication and Networks, and Journal of
(especially Elastic Optical Networking, EON), switching Convergence Information Technology. His main research interests are optical net-
and routing in high speed networks. works, optical packet switching, scheduling, PON, IPTV, VANET, network modeling,
analysis and performance evaluation, the results of which can be found in over 110
technical papers (see 13).