102

J. Opt. Commun. 31 (2010), 102-104

Journal of Optical Communications 31 (2010) 2

Performances Comparison of Two Bufferless Contention Resolution Schemes in Optical Burst Switching Networks
Rui Hou

Summary

In this paper, we evaluate two bufferless contention resolution schemes for optical burst switching (OBS) networks. Three performances evaluating models have been proposed and been compared. Several results and discussions are useful for the design of OBS test-bed.

drop the entire contending burst to resolve the contention. But based on BS scheme, the core router will drop only the overlapping part of contending bursts and will continue transmitting the remainder part of the contending bursts. In the next section, we will give three analytical models to evaluate the performance of an OBS blocking system.

Introduction

Optical burst switching (OBS) is a novel paradigm, which has the switching granularity between the optical circuit switching and the optical packet switching [1]. An OBS network is consist of edge routers, core routers and WDM links. Edge routers create optical bursts and burst control packet (BCP). Under single-direction resource reservation protocols, a burst and its corresponding BCP use out-of-band model to come into the OBS core switching network [2]. If a wavelength resource has been satisfied, a burst can full-optically passing through the core routers, otherwise, it will be blocked

Contention evaluating models

3.1 M/M/k/k model When an OBS network applies JET protocol to implement resource reservation, the blocking system in core routers can be applied with M/M/k/k queuing model [2]. If gives a specified output-port, the bursts arriving process is Poisson with rate , and the bursts length obey exponential distributed with average value 1 / , then, the packet loss probability could be expressed as Erlang B equation [2]:

k Recent research on contention resolution schemes mainPErlang (k. A) = A k / k! A j / j! (1) ly focus on burst dropping (BD) [3], buffering and burst j =0 segmentation (BS) [3-4]. BD is a simple realized bufferless scheme but it may cause large data loss. Buffering where A = / is the traffic load. (1) also could be exscheme will cause noise and routers structure complexipressed as an iterative format: ty. BS is an effective bufferless scheme for its high netPErlang (0, A) = 1 work resource utilization. In this paper, we give three an alytical models to evaluate the performance of BD and n PErlang (n, A) = (A PErlang (n 1, A) ) ( + A PErlang (n 1, A) ) BS in contention under different network(0, A) = 1 PErlang scenarios, and give the comparative results of them. A) ) (n + A P n = 1,2,..., k (2) Erlang ( n 1, A) ) PErlang (n, A) = (A PErlang (n 1,

n=

BD and BS schemes

3.2 M/G/ model According to BS scheme, when a contention occurs, core routers only drop the part of burst. Such blocking system can be applied M/G/ queuing model to evaluate as shown in the follow [5]:
PBSInf ( k , A ) = E [ L ] / A

In OBS core routers, when several bursts come from input data channels attempt to be outputted by one output data channel, contention will occurs. Based on BD scheme, when a contention occurs, the core router will

(3)

Address of author: South-Central University for Nationalities College of Computer Science Wuhan, Hubei, 430073, P. R. China Email: ruis005@hotmail.com Received 20 October 2009; accepted 5 January 2010

where E[L] is the average packet loss probability, which can be written as follows:

E [ L ] = j A k + j
j =1

e A (k + j )!

(4)

Journal of Optical Communications 31 (2010) 2

103
the number of input wavelength and output wavelength is 21 and 18, respectively, and wavelength conversion is available. In Figure 2, the number of input and output wavelength is 9 and 7, respectively, and wavelength conversion is unavailable in this case. Here Erlang denotes the M / M / k / k model and BSInf denotes the M / G / model. From this graph we could observe that in the two cases the packet loss probability become large with the increasing traffic load. The benefits of BS scheme over BD scheme also been presented and proved. Under the same load condition the packet loss probability got by OBS/BS is lower than it is got by M / G / model, in some cases the difference could reach several quantity degree.

Fig. 1: Packet loss probability versus normalized traffic load per channel with the wavelength conversion

on the same, we can write the iterative expression of (4) as follows: PBSInf (0, A) = e A PBSInf (n, A) = (APBSInf (n 1, A) ) n n = 1,2,...k ,... (5) 3.3 OBS/BS model When the number of the input data channel is different from the output data channel, the bursts arriving process will obey an On-Off model, such blocking system will be analyzed by the OBS/BS model [6]. In this model, the packet loss probability can be written as follows [6]:

Figure 3 gives the packet loss probability versus the number of output channels. In this case, we set the number of input channel is 50, and the normalized traffic load is 0.8. From the graph we could observer that, packet loss probability will decrease with the increasing number of output channels. We also could observe that, the decrement range of packet loss probability got by OBS/BS is larger than that got by M / M / k / k and M / G / , particularly under the condition that the number of input channels and output channels are almost the same.

POBS / BS = E [ X K ] + / E [ X ]

(6)

In (6), X is the output wavelengths occupied random variable for bursts, which obey the binomial distribution with parameter ( A, M ) , where A can be expressed as follows:
A = /( + ) .

(7)

Given a specified time, the bursts being transmitted prob ability for each input wavelength is A , on the while, the idle probability is 1 A . Thus, we can get the following equations:
M E [ X K ] = ( j K ) A (1 A) M j j j = K +1 + M j

Fig. 2: Packet loss probability versus normalized traffic load per channel without the wavelength conversion

(8) (9)

E[X ] = A M
where E ( X ) has been called as planning load [7].

Analytical results

In this section, we give the comparison of the three contention models in core routers. Here, we use E [ X ] as the traffic load for the M / M / k / k model and the M / G / model. Figures 1 and 2 gives the packet loss probability versus the normalized traffic load per channel. In Figure 1,
Fig. 3: Packet loss probability versus different number of output channels

104
5 Conclusion
[2] [3]

Journal of Optical Communications 31 (2010) 2

In this paper, the performances of two bufferless contention resolution schemes have been analyzed. Three analytical models have been compared and discussed. From the results we could observe that BS scheme has the benefit over BD scheme on the data loss reducing in contention resolutions for OBS networks.

[4] [5]

Acknowledgement

[6]

This work has been supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under grant of 60841001.
[7]

References
[1] C. Qiao: Labeled Optical Burst Switching for IP-over-WDM integration; IEEE Communication Magazine 38 (2000) 9, 104 114

K. Dolzer, C. Gauger, J. Spath, S. Bodamer: Evaluation of reservation mechanisms in optical burst networks; AEU Int. Journal of Electronic Communication 55 (2001) 21, 18 A. Detti, V. Eramo, M. Listanti: Performance evaluation of a new technique for IP support in a WDM optical network: optical composite burst switching (OCBS); IEEE Journal of Lightwave Technology 20 (2002) 2,154165 V. M. Vokkarane, J. P. Jue, S. Sitaraman: Burst segmentation: an approach for reducing packet loss in optical burst switched networks; Proceedings IEEE ICC2002 (2002), 26732677 M. Neuts, Z. Rosberg, H. L. Vu, J. White, M. Zukerman: Performance analysis of optical composite burst switching; IEEE Communications Letters 6 (2002) 8, 346348 M. Zukerman, E. W. M. Wong, Z. Rosberg, G. M. Lee, H. L. Vu: Teletraffic modeling of optical burst switching ; Proceedings of 5th International conference on Transparent Optical Networks ICTON 2003 (2003) 1, 8286 J. Hui: Switching and traffic theory for integrated broadband networks; Kluwer (1990)