See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/356345728

Towards an all New Submarine Optical Network for the Mediterranean Sea:
Trends, Design and Economics

Conference Paper · October 2021

DOI: 10.1109/NoF52522.2021.9609879

CITATIONS READS

3 228

2 authors:

Konstantinos Paximadis Charalampos Papapavlou

University of Patras University of Patras
10 PUBLICATIONS   36 CITATIONS    8 PUBLICATIONS   30 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Konstantinos Paximadis on 11 February 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Towards an all New Submarine Optical Network for
the Mediterranean Sea: Trends, Design and
Economics
Konstantinos Paximadis
Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering
University of the Peloponnese
Patras, GR 26334 Greece,
k.paximadis@go.uop.gr
Abstract—Optical networks are seeking for extra
bandwidth from the time they were born. The reason for that
lies to vast number of users in both internet and private
networks and, of course, to bandwidth hungry applications.
Space Division Multiplexing (SDM) aims to meet future needs
by incorporating multiple spatial channels in Multi-Core
Fibers (MCFs) and/or Multi-Mode Fibers (MMFs). Although
SDM has already been applied to terrestrial networks, the
submarine SDM territory is currently under investigation. As
submarine networks carry almost all intercontinental traffic
it is straightforward that employing SDM in these networks is
of critical importance. In this paper we survey on new trends
for optical submarine networking and we propose an all new
SDM optical network for the Mediterranean Sea. The
proposed network is based on rules and objectives applied in
terrestrial networks: redundancy, cost efficiency,
performance and quick failure recovery. We analyze relative
network costs considering most of the equipment needed and
indicate minimum cost cases.
Keywords—Space Division Multiplexing (SDM), Wavelength
Selective Switch (WSS), Colorless Directionless Contentionless
Reconfigurable Optical Add-Drop Multiplexers (CDC-
ROADMs), Independent Switching (Ind.Sw), Fraction Joint
Switching (FrJ.Sw), Joint Switching (J.Sw), Erbium Doped
Fiber Amplifier (EDFA), Erbium and Ytterbium Doped Fiber
Amplifier (EYDFA), Fiber Pairs (FPs), Single-Mode Fiber
(SMF), Multi-Core Fiber (MCF), Multi-Mode Fiber (MMF).
I. INTRODUCTION
As both private and public networks are seeking for
extra bandwidth, new multiplexing optical networking
technologies are urgently needed. Current optical networks
use single-mode fiber links that have specific upper limits,
and so, they seem unable to cope with future needs.
Space Division Multiplexing (SDM) is a new
multiplexing technology for optical networks which will
support terabit Ethernet, Internet of Things (IoT) and 5G
mobile communications ([1], [2], [3]). SDM deploys
multiple spatial channels in Multi-Core Fibers (MCFs)
and/or Multi-Mode Fibers (MMFs) to provide the so wanted
extra bandwidth.
As SDM is evolving in the terrestrial area, new
techniques and technologies that will allow SDM to be fully
deployed in the submarine area are investigated. Moreover,
as submarine costs are high, a detailed cost analysis (as the
one carried out for terrestrial networks in [4]), is required
before applying new underwater technologies.
978-1-6654-2434-9/21/$31.00 ©2021 IEEE
Charalampos Papapavlou
Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering
University of Patras
Rio, Patras, GR 26500, Greece
c.papapavlou@upatras.gr
Recent research focuses on both plants of a submarine
network: the Dry Plant (that is the network part supporting
the submerged network and located at land) and the Wet
Plant. As the main volume of electrical power to submarine
transmission systems can be supplied only from coast, the
number of amplifiers and so the number of fiber pairs that
can be used are limited ([5]). Network components will be
underwater positioned for their lifetime. Therefore, as they
are facing not only moisture but also high pressures, they
need to meet certain high quality specifications. Apparently
these components are expected to be more expensive than
the ones used in terrestrial networks. As so, submarine
network cost becomes a critical issue.
In this work we comment on issues and problems of
expanding undersea networks. We focus on SDM
technology and we present all new trends that have been
proposed and joined with SDM for submarine networks.
Until now there does not exist an optical network
specifically designed for the Mediterranean Sea. The
present situation (Figure 1, [6]) does not seem like a
network. It seems more like a series of cables crossing the
Mediterranean coming from the Red Sea, most of them
directed to Marseille and the rest exiting Mediterranean to
Atlantic Ocean (and mainly to UK). Several providers from
various cities are connected to them in any suitable spot and
means. Apparently no network design rules have been
applied, and so, no redundancy is guaranteed. Moreover, the
owners of all these cables could be dozens, resulting in
fuzzy logistics and complicated operation and maintenance
procedures. This is an infrastructure that definitely has to
change.
The Mediterranean Sea is a closed sea. Unlike Oceans,
like Pacific or Atlantic, where connections can be
implemented only by long cables, we claim that designing a
backbone optical submarine network for the Mediterranean
Sea is not only feasible but also essential. A real network,
consisted of interconnected rings in a mesh topology, will
provide the necessary redundancy and be easy to operate,
manage and support. Submarine networks can act as
supplement or backup to terrestrial ones (i.e. Confluence I,
[13]). Acting as a supplement network, a new
Mediterranean submarine network could provide better load
balancing between neighboring countries, while acting as a
backup network, could provide increased redundancy.

Fig.1. Present Mediterranean Submarine Cable Map [6].
This work has a two-fold contribution. First we design
an all new optical submarine network for the Mediterranean
Sea. All backbone network design rules ([7]) and most up to
date technologies have been applied. Second, we derive an
analytic equipment cost analysis. So, the proposed new
network is not only analytically mapped but also cost
analyzed in full detail. Finally, we focus on specific
network configurations that minimize the total cost.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: Section II
discusses new progress and trends for submarine optical
networking. Section III presents the proposed all new
Mediterranean submarine SDM optical network. The SDM
network cost model comes in Section IV. In Section V we
present the cost analysis of the proposed network and
indicate minimum cost cases. A conclusion and some
thoughts for future work come in Section VI.
II. PROGRESS ON SUBMARINE OPTICAL NETWORKS
In experimental research the transmission capacity
over a single-mode fiber had reached its fundamental limit
of around 100 Tb/s due to the maximum input power and
nonlinear Shannon limit. So, submarine networks will have
to deploy more Fiber Pairs (FPs) and new multiplexing
techniques to meet the upcoming capacity needs.
SDM submarine network systems like Dunant
(Google), 2Africa and CX (Caribbean Express) that use 12,
16 and 18 Fiber Pairs (FPs) respectively, have been
recently announced. Dunant cable system has recently been
released to service [8]. Pacific Light Cable Network
(PLCN) ([17]) connects Hong Kong, Taiwan, the
Philippines and the US. PLCN is the first direct submarine
connection ever used between Hong Kong and Los
Angeles, travelling about 13,000 km. PLCN is also the first
submarine transmission system that deployed C+L band
optical technology, which almost doubles the per fiber pair
capacity ([17]).
Confluence-1 ([13]) is a new 16 FPs, 2,571km
submarine cable deployed from Miami to New York, “as a
diverse, more direct and more secure alternative to current
linkages via existing terrestrial routes between Miami and
New York”.
A new arrival in the submarine era is the SDM based
Equiano, invested by Google ([24]). Equiano connects
Portugal and South Africa, running along the West Coast
of Africa. It will be the first subsea cable to incorporate
optical switching at the fiber-pair level, instead of the
traditional wavelength-level switching ([24]). Latest news
regarding the number of underwater used FPs come from
NEC in March 2021 ([14]). NEC announced that they
“have completed full qualification of subsea repeaters and
optical cable containing up to 24 FPs”, aiming not only to
Petabit scale transmission but also to a reduced cost/bit.
Echo ([15]) and BiFrost ([16]) are new announced
subsea cable systems and will be very soon ready for
service (2023 and 2024 respectively).
SDM transmission technology utilizes the extra fiber
pairs by performing the transmission across spatially
diverse pathways (multiple fibers in this case). Therefore,
as part of the SDM design, pump lasers and related optical
components are shared among multiple fiber pairs as
opposed to being dedicated supporting only a single fiber pair.
Analytical tables depicting the characteristics of SDM
optical cable systems versus the traditional ones and
surveying on the cable lengths, the number of landing
points and the number of operators for the optical
submarine systems deployed until now can be found in
[10].
Figure 2 shows the evolution of submarine cable
systems achieved bandwidth through time.
Fig.2. Evolution of submarine cable systems bandwidth through time
One of the latest advancements in submerged repeater
technology is the Repeater Pump Farming which aims to
provide maximum redundancy and flexibility. The Repeater
Pump farming is, as its name suggests, a farm (a group) of
repeaters cross connected to each other, supporting the same
group of fiber pairs. So, we have a pool of pumps to support
a pool of Fiber Pairs. This serves the obvious: redundancy,
and consequently, reliability, even in the case of multiple
repeater failures.
All up to date available pumping schemes of amplified
SDM systems can be found in [10], [25].
Authors in [11] discuss recent past and future of
submarine networking cables. As current systems using
WDM seem to be run out of bandwidth soon, new
multiplexing technologies will be required. Furthermore, as
more Fiber Pairs (FPs) are needed, problems associated
with the amplifiers/repeaters setup, cost and the total power
needed arise. [11] reports an 38% capacity increment when
employing 24 FPs in an 4-core MCF [12]. Moving from
single cores to MCFs means that we will have to release
many single core EDFA amplifiers in favor of multi-core
amplification, thus MC-EDFA.
[19] focuses on the design issues and construction
processes of submarine optical transmission systems. The
authors in [18] specify all steps for setting up a submarine
optical network: route selection, cables, topology design,
undersea housing for repeaters and branching units
selection, defining of proper repeater spacing, selecting
Power Feed Equipment (PFE) and the proper powering
architecture, organizing ship operations, selection of the
proper control, monitor and terminal equipment.
Terrestrial ROADMs switching capabilities are based
on Wavelength Selective Switches (WSSs) ([4], [9]). WSSs
for submarine applications were recently announced for
commercial use. Recently developed WSSs can subdivide
the whole fiber spectrum into Optical Add-Drop Syria (Tartous), Cyprus (Yeroskipos), Turkey
Multiplexers (OADM) sub channels at a 3.125 GHz (Konstantinoupoli). Furthermore, we use 10 × 3-degree
granularity ([20]). Incorporating WSSs in terrestrial nodes at Algeria (Algiers), Tunisia (Tunis), Libya (Tripoli),
ROADMs and submarine OADMs has many design Turkey (Izmir), Greece (Athens, Corfu), Malta (Valletta),
advantages which are in detail presented in [9] and [18] Italy (Bari), France (Marseille, the network center), and
respectively. Usually the submarine OADMs contain a finally 2 × 4-degree nodes at Greece (Crete) and Italy
Branch Unit (BU) and a Wavelength Management Unit (Sardinia-Olbia).
([10]). In our network scenario, we implement all 29 R-degree
[22] surveys on past, recent and future submarine cable network nodes with one add/drop port connected to four
technology. It concludes that the maximum number of TRxs, combined with the necessary in line amplifiers (one
Fiber Pairs (FPs) that can be efficiently positioned in a E(Y)DFA amplifier per 70 Km) to cover the submarine
submarine cable is around 30. cable (fiber span of 16.400 km) of the proposed submarine
Optical amplifiers play a crucial role in submarine network. We remind that the add/drop part handles traffic
networks. Although cladding pumping EDFAs are being originated from/destinated at the node‟s local premises or to
tested, their efficiency is still under investigation. As power other IP networks connected to that node.
energy to the amplifiers is supplied by land-located PFE
units, their efficiency in supporting thousands of kilometers
of optical fibers needs to be examined. Regarding cladding
pumping, amplification efficiency depends on core density
(thus the ratio of the number of cores by the cladding area).
Regarding core pumping, amplifiers efficiency is expected
to improve by using the pump light to support multiple
optical fiber cores.
Another future promising technique described in [23] is
the pump recycling, which re-uses part of the pump
amplification light (after its separation from the signal light)
and manages to achieve higher amplification efficiency.
Regarding submarine architectures and topologies we
have three options: point-to-point, trunk and branch, and
ring connecting ([10]). The proper selection of the suitable
Fig.3. A new 29-node Optical Submarine SDM network for the
architecture depends from the distances between land Mediterranean Sea.
stations and of course affects costs.
The initial placement of submarine links is a
complicated and costly procedure. Costs include ship cost,
labor cost and of course fibers‟ cost. So, installing Multi-
Core Fiber (MCF) cables seems to be a cost effective
policy. Several possible network architectures using Branch
Units (Bus) supporting MCFs, routing examples and pros
and cons of the BUs deployment are analytically discussed
in [5].
As noticed before, in the Mediterranean Sea case we
study, the use of BUs may be rather limited, due to
relatively short distances between candidate land stations.
So, as noted in [5], we can have no switching elements
under water as the optical links can be switched and Fig.4. Node diagram of the Mediterranean Sea SDM network.
reconfigured from the land based ROADMs.
III. AN ALL NEW SUBMARINE SDM OPTICAL NETWORK IV. MEDITERRANEAN SDM NETWORK COST MODEL
FOR THE MEDITERRANEAN SEA The proposed network cost model takes into account
As the current networking structure in the the above costs:
Mediterranean Sea is not exactly a network (Fig. 2), we  Marine Deployment & Survey cost (CDEPLOY)
propose an all new optical backbone network incorporating  Cable cost without fiber (CCABLE)
SDM technology. The design was based on backbone  Fiber cost (CFIBER*)* (assuming fiber PSCF 110)
network design rules ([7]) to ensure redundancy even in the
 Optical amplifier cost (CEDFA | CEYDFA)
extreme case of multiple failures. As one of the main design
rules is that we always place network nodes in big cities  Transponder cost (CTRANS)
(and never in the middle of nowhere), we place network  Total ROADM cost (CROADM)
nodes at large Mediterranean cities. This design rule almost  Amplifiers cost (CAMP)
forbids the use of optimization models for node placement
and for number of nodes/links definition. Other crucial parameters taken into consideration (also
Our proposal for a Mediterranean submarine SDM used in [4] and [21]) are:
network employs 29 add/drop nodes with nodal degree
 Nodal Degree of ROADM (D)
varying from 2 to 4, 36 bi-directional links and is shown in
 Add/Drop ports (P)
Figures 3 & 4. We use 17 × 2-degree nodes located at
 Extra amplifiers per link (R)
countries of Portugal (Lisbon), Morocco (Tangier),
 Number of Spatial Dimensions (S)
Gibraltar (U.K), Spain (Valencia), Monaco (Monaco), Italy
 Number of Spatial Dimensions per Group (G)
(Genoa, Mazaradel Vallo), Albania (Durres), Croatia
 Number of Transponders (T)
(Dubrovnik), Libya (Benghazi), France (Corsica-Ajaccio), Furthermore, all numbers of cost are normalized to the
Egypt (Alexandria), Israel (Tel-Aviv), Lebanon (Beirut), cost per 1×9 WSS (Cost ≈1). So, all costs are relative costs
and are based on the cost of the 1×9 WSS, which is an
approach well used in the literature ([4], [21]).
Table I shows the number of WSS (1st column), the
number of ports that each WSS has (2nd column) and the
ROADM cost derived from the previous numbers (3rd
column).
Table II shows the cost of the Add/Drop modules used
in every ROADM node. This cost is added to the WSS
ROADM cost and derives the total ROADM cost (thus the
cost for both “internal” WSS elements plus the Add/Drop
part cost).
Tables III and IV show the cost of the EDFA and MC-
EYDFA inline amplifiers respectively.
Table V shows the normalized per km cost of the
submarine fibers, the submarine cables, the cables‟
deployment, and the 100G coherent transponders.
TABLE I: PASS-THROUGH WSS AND ROADM COST
Pass-through WSS ROADM Cost (CROADM)
# Number of WSS WSS Port Count
minPEz{2 ∙ D ∙ ( S / G) ∙
2∙D∙(S/G) G × [1 ×( D + P -1)] CwssG×[1×((D+P -1)]}
TABLE II: ADD/DROP MODULES COST, NEW TOTAL COST
network Fr.J.Sw. is more preferable than Ind.Sw., achieving
a cost saving of 5,20% for all spatial dimensions (S=4, 8,
12, 16). J.Sw. is also more cost effective than Ind.Sw,
outperforming also Fr.J.Sw. except for the case where S=4.
Beyond the S=4 “threshold”, J.Sw. achieves a maximum
cost saving of 8,06% for number of spatial dimension equal
to twelve (S=12). TRNC including all network components‟
cost plus site survey costs is shown in Figure 7.
Moving a step ahead, we enrich our previous scenario
by replacing the single-EDFAs in-line amplifiers with the
state-of-the-art SDM-technology components, MC-
EYDFAs, based on the cost model described in table IV. In
this case we have an extra cost saving due to pump-sharing
between n-cores of MC-EYDFA, as each single-EDFA
needs its own pump. Considering the new technology well-
known rule saying that a technology can replace the
previous one when its cost is only 2.5-fold the previous
generation one while its throughput progresses by factor 4
([26]), we calculate the MC-EDFA amplifiers cost.
Figure 8 shows a cost comparison of the two different
amplifiers‟ technologies. Results show that we can have a
cost benefit of about 37% by the use of SDM-based
technology MC-EYDFA (compared with costs for single-
EDFAs).

A/D Module Cost (CA/D) Total ROADM Cost (CROADM)

minPEz{CA/D+2∙ D ∙ ( S / G) ∙
2∙P∙(S/G) CwssG×[D×(T/P)]
CwssG×[1×((D+P -1)]}

TABLE III: EDFA INLINE AMPLIFIERS COST

Amplifier EDFA Cost (CEDFA) Total Amplifiers Cost (CAMP)

≈ 1.6 {2 ∙ S ∙ (D + R ) ∙ (CEDFA)}

TABLE IV: MC-EYDFA INLINE AMPLIFIERS COST

Amplifier MC-EYDFA Cost (CMC-EYDFA) Total Amplifiers Cost (CAMP)

Fig.5. Total ROADM cost (all switching strategies, S=4, 8, 12, 16).
<={1.6 ∙ 2.5 ∙ (S / 4)} {2 ∙ S ∙ (D + R ) ∙ (CMC-EYDFA)}

TABLE V: SUBMARINE CABLES, FIBERS, CABLE DEPLOYMENT, 100G

COHERENT TRANSPONDERS COSTS

Deployment Cost Cable Cost Fiber Cost Transponder Cost

(CDEPLOY) km (CCABLE) /km (CFIBER) /km (CTRANS)

≈ 0.56 ≈ 0.4 ≈ 0.004 ≈ 0.8

Total Relative Network Cost (TRNC) is derived by:

( )
( )
Fig.6. Total ROADM cost (all switching strategies, S=4, 8, 12, 16).
Where l depicts the total length of the submarine system
and S depicts the number of spatial dimensions used.

V. MEDITERRANEAN SDM NETWORK COST ANALYSIS

Based on the cost model described above, we derive the
Total Relative Cost (TRC) of each ROADM design for the
three SDM switching strategies, for all spatial dimensions
(of 4, 8, 12, 16), the number of add/drop (A/D) nodes and
the number of in line amplifiers (EDFAs). Note that most
recent SDM submarine systems (Dunant, 2Africa) use 12
and 16 FPs respectively. The TRC for the Mediterranean
network is shown in Fig.5.
Our study reveals (Fig.6) that for Mediterranean SDM Fig.7. TRNC for S=4, 8, 12 16.
 [13] https://www.submarinenetworks.com/en/systems/north-
america/confluence-1, 2021.
[14] https://www.submarinenetworks.com/en/vendors/nec/nec-qualifies-
24-fiber-pair-subsea-telecom-cable-system, 2021.
[15] https://www.submarinenetworks.com/en/systems/trans-pacific/echo,
2021.
[16] https://www.submarinenetworks.com/en/systems/trans-
pacific/bifrost, 2021.
[17] https://www.submarinenetworks.com/en/systems/trans-pacific/plcn,
2021.
[18] A. Pilipetskii, O. Sinkin, A. Turukhin, M. Bolshtyansky, and D.
Foursa, “The Role of SDM in Future Transoceanic Transmission
Systems”, in Proc. Eur. Conf. Opt. Commun. 2017, Paper Tu.1.E.1.
[19] L. Garett, „Design of Global Submarine Networks”, Journal of
Fig.8. Single-EDFA vs. MC-EYDFA relative costs for S=4, 8, 12, 16. Optical Comm. Netw., vol. 10, no 2, Feb 2018.
[20] “TE SubCom and Nistica Announce Availability of Undersea
Qualified Wavelength Selective Switch Modules”,
VI. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK https://www.subcableworld.com/newsfeed/technology/te-subcom-
In this paper we survey on new trends for submarine and-nistica-announce-availability-of-undersea-qualified-wavelength-
selective-switch-modules.
optical networking. We focus on the deployment of SDM [21] B. Shariati, P. S. Khodashenas, J. M. Rivas-Moscoso, S. Ben Ezra,
technology and spot on cases where SDM can efficiently D. Klonidis, F. Jiménez, L. Velasco, I. Tomkos, “Evaluation of the
provide additional bandwidth to submarine networks. impact of different SDM switching strategies in a network planning
Furthermore we propose an all new optical network for the scenario”, Optical Fiber Communication Conf. and Exhibition,
paper Tu2 H.4, Anaheim, California, Mar. 2016.
Mediterranean Sea, based on backbone network design [22] Hitoshi Takeshita, Masaki Sato, Yoshihisa Inada, “Past, Current and
rules and current optical technology. As cost is a crucial Future Technologies for Optical Submarine Cable”, IEEE/ACM
factor for submarine networks, we derive an analytical cost Workshop on Photonics - Optics Technology Oriented Networking,
Information and Computing Systems (PHOTONICS), 2019.
benefit analysis and focus on cases where costs can be [23] H. Takeshita, et al, “Improved Optical Amplification Efficiency by
minimized, using state-of-the-art SDM network components using Turbo Cladding Pumping Scheme for Multicore Fiver Optical
and techniques. networks”, IEICE Transactions on Communications, Vol. E102-b,
We are currently working on the development of a No.8, pp.1579-1589, Aug. 2019.
[24] https://www.submarinenetworks.com/en/systems/euro-africa
dynamic network planning design protocol to dynamically /equiano, 2021.
adjust the Mediterranean network operating parameters. [25] Pascal Pecci, Ljupcho Jovanovski, Michele Barezzani, Valey
Such a dynamic design protocol could improve operating Kamalov, Jean-François Marcerou, Mattia Cantono, Matteo Gumier,
efficiency, avoid problems with physical layer impairments Olivier Courtois, Vijay Vusirikala, “ Pump Farming as enabling
while preserving network‟s redundancy and reliability. factor to increase subsea cable”, ASN, Route de Villejust, 91700,
Nozay, France, SubOptic, 2019.
[26] J. Thouras, E. Pincemin, D. Amar, P. Gravey, M. Morvan and M.
Moulinard, “Economic Impact of Multicore Erbium-Ytterbium
REFERENCES doped Fiber Amplifier in Long-Haul Optical Transport Networks”,
2018 Photonics in Switching and Computing (PSC), Limassol,
[1] Takayuki Mizuno, Hidehiko Takara, Akihide Sano, Yutaka Cyprus, 2018.
Miyamoto, “Dense Space-Division Multiplexed Transmission
Systems Using Multi-Core and Multi-Mode Fiber”, Journal Of
Lightwave Technology, Vol.34, No.2, Jan. 2016.
[2] C. Papapavlou, K. Paximadis, G.Tzimas, “Progress and demonstrations
of Space Division Multiplexing”, 11th Int. Conf. on Information,
Intelligence, Systems and Applications, July 2020.
[3] T. Lagkas, D. KLonidis, P. Sarigiannidis, I. Tomkos, “5G/NGPON
Evolution and Convergence: Developing on Spatial Multiplexing of
Optical Fiber Links for 5G Infrastructures”, Fiber and Integrated
Optics, vol.39. 2020.
[4] C. Papapavlou, K. Paximadis, “ROADM Configuration,
Management and Cost Analysis in the Future Era of SDM
Networking”, in Proc. of the 11th Int. Conf. on the Network of the
Future (NoF 2020), France, Oct.2020.
[5] M. Nooruzzaman, T. Morioka, “Multicore Fibers for High Capacity
Submarine Transmission Systems”, J. Optical Communications &
Networking, Vol. 10, No. 2, Feb. 2018.
[6] https://www.submarinecablemap.com
[7] K. Paximadis, G. Tzimas, A. Galanopoulou, P. Kalpakioris and Z.
Sabic, “Multiple path load balancing for TCP large scale networks”,
in Proc. of the 10th Int. Conf. on Information, Intelligence, Systems
and Applications (IISA 2019), July 2019.
[8] “Ocean Networks Launches Caribbean Express (CX) Cable
Project”, https://www.submarinenetworks.com/en/systems/brazil-
us/cx/ocean-networks-lauches-caribbean-express-cx-cable-project,
2021.
[9] C. Papapavlou, K. Paximadis, G.Tzimas, “Analyzing ROADM cost
in SDM networks”, 11th Int. Conf.on Information, Intelligence,
Systems and Applications (IISA 2020), July 2020.
[10] C. Papapavlou, K. Paximadis, G.Tzimas, “Design and Analysis of a
new SDM submarine optical network for Greece”, 12th Int. Conf. on
Information, Intelligence, Systems and Applications (IISA2021),
July 2021.
[11] R.Dar, P.Winzer, A..Chraplyvy, S.Zsigmond, H. Fevrier, S. Grubb,
“Cost Optimized Submarine Cables using Massive Spatial
Parallelism”, Journal of Lightwave technology, Vol. 26, No. 18,
Sept 2018.
[12] H. Takakashi, D.Soma, T.Tsuritani, “Promising Technologies for
Future Submarine Cable Systems”, Opto-Electronics and
Communications Conference (OECC), 2020.

View publication stats