Analysis of Signaling in GMPLS-Based WSONs:

Distributed Wavelength Assignment in

Bidirectional Lightpath Provisioning
Sugang Xu and Hiroaki Harai
Photonic Network Research Institute
National Institite of Information and Communications Technology

WTC2012 Miyazaki

Outlines
Introduction
Requirement for enhancing distributed wavelength assignment (WA)
support with signaling
Performance measures and selected Findings
Some constraints in consideration
Candidates of distributed WA approaches
Numerical results
Summary

WTC2012 Miyazaki
National Institute of Information and Communications Technology

Introduction

Lightpath services in wavelength switched optical network (WSON)

Unidirectional lightpath
Bi-directional lightpath
Current topics in IETF: extensions of GMPLS for better WSON support
Focus of this talk:
Efficient Signaling support for distributed wavelength assignment (WA) in the GMPLSbased control plane of WSON
Co-routed bi-directional LSP provisioning support, per RFC 3945, RFC 3473
Is the current standard RSVP-TE per RFC 3473 enough?
What perspective can be improved further?
WSON
Any other cost-efficient signaling schemes?
Conduct protocol analysis and share
Control Plane
Edge
Transit
Edge
the findings
Out of the scope of this talk (other perspectives)
x
Physical impairment concern
Date Plane
3R concern
y OXC
Wavelength conversion concern
Co-routed bidirectional lightpath
OXC: optical cross connect

National Institute of Information and Communications

Technology
WTC2012
Miyazaki

Architectures for Co-Routed Bi-directional Lightpath Provisioning

cf) RFC 6163
Architecture Categories:
1. Combined RWA (R&WA) computation + Signaling
2. Separated RWA (R+WA) computation + Signaling
3. Routing + Signaling-based distributed wavelength assignment (R+DWA)

Three phases in R&WA and R+WA architectures

Routing (or NMS) collects the up-to-date
wavelength availability information
PCE, or C-SPF performs RWA calculation
A simple signaling performs the wavelength
allocation which is specified by RWA
optimization

R&WA, R+WA TED

Wavelength assignment
is strictly dependent on
up-to-date network Info
Specify
RWA for
signaling

GMPLS

Wavelength availability
info (by NMS or
routing)

GMPLS

GMPLS

Current standard RSVP-TE is applicable in R&WA, R+WA modes

(Single RWA solution: specify one wavelength in the Upstream Label obj, per RFC
3471, RFC 3473)
WTC2012 Miyazaki
National Institute of Information and Communications Technology

R&WA and R+WA WSONs Also Needs Robust Distributed WA

RSVP-TE only supports single RWA solution
Support with Signaling
specification
R&WA, R+WA TED
Wavelength assignment
is strictly dependent on
up-to-date network Info

Specify
RWA for
signaling

GMPLS

GMPLS

Wavelength availability
info (by NMS or
routing)

feasible WA solution highly depends on

the up-to-date info
acquiring the up-to-date info leads to the
increased information dissemination,
resulting in heavy load in control plane

GMPLS

Restrict the scalability of WSON

Limit the possibility for dynamic lightpath
service in WSON

Needs robust Distributed WA support with Signaling (not highly relying on up-to-date info)

Already standardized novel DWA mechanisms in RFC 3471, 3473

Unidirectional lightpath
Label Set obj CAN convey the multiple wavelengths (labels) assignment solutions in the
downstream direction (Increasing the possibility of successful lightpath provisioning)
Bidirectional lightpath with Upstream Label (UL) ?
Upstream Label obj conveys only one specified wavelength in the upstream direction
Acceptable Label Set conveys the available wavelengths in case the upstream label in
the Upstream Label obj is blocked
Relies on crank-back (a second time signaling)
Any other possibilities to provide moreWTC2012
cost-efficient
bidirectional lightpath provisioning?
Miyazaki
National Institute of Information and Communications Technology

Performance Measures and Selected Findings Highlight

# of Restored

After restoration

25

20

F=1

Significant improvement
brought by extensions of
the current standard
1st and 2nd time signaling

15

10

0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6
p

UL(1st)
UL(2nd)
# of affected paths

Blocking
10
Bl o c k in g p r o b a b i li ty

What measures do we use in signaling evaluation?

Blocking performance (efficiency measure)
Single lightpath
Multiple lightpaths Restoration
Number of the successfully reestablished lightpaths by signaling
(with evenly distributed re-routing)
Long-term view of performance potential
(future-proof signaling solution)
Upgrade WSON with more
wavelengths, fibers
Protocol cost (cost measure)
Total number of traversed Hops in one set
of signaling
Accumulated label-processing times

After upgrading

F=6

10 - 2

ULS/LS/T U(1st)
ULS/LS/T U(2nd)

F=1

10 - 1

0.8

Utilization rate

Current standards gain

10 - 3

Remarkable gain of extensions

10 - 4
10 - 5
10 - 6
20

40

60

80

100

120

# of Wavelengths

WTC2012 Miyazaki
National Institute of Information and Communications Technology

UL(2nd)F1
ULS/LS/T U(2nd)pF1
Pbwave(2nd)F1

UL(2nd)F6
ULS/LS/T U(2nd)F6
Pbwave(2nd)F6

High utilization rate

p=0.8
6

Constraint Concerns in Protocol Behavior Analysis

CI-Incapable
Co-routed bi-directional lightpath
Is it necessary to use the same wavelength in both directions?
Yes. Either initiator or terminator are the colored edge
(with the port/wavelength restriction at edges)
No. Both initiator and terminator are the colorless edge

1
1
1
2

Terminator
Initiator

Colored edge

Colorless edge

Colored edge

Same wavelength use

Same wavelength use

Colorless edge

Same wavelength use

Different wavelengths use

Scenarios and corresponding Signaling candidate schemes

Same wavelength use scenario
UL, ULS, TU, LS
Different wavelengths use scenario
UL, ULS, TU
WTC2012 Miyazaki
National Institute of Information and Communications Technology

Upstream Label Approach (UL) RFC 3473 s Behavior

- Needs 2nd Time Signaling (Crank-back) (Same Wavelength Use)
Path
Upstream Label
Label Set
PC
C

1st time signaling

PA

PA~PE: Probabilities of
individual cases

Path
A
Upstream Label

PA+PB+PC+PD+PE=P

Label Set

PathErr
Acceptable Label Set
Upstream Label
Label Set

PathErr
Acceptable Label Set

PB

P: total blocking
probability

Upstream Label
Label Set
D, E
Label

Label

PD, PE

Different blocking situations in 1st time signaling result in different blocking probability in 2nd time signaling
Blocking situations in UL (1st time signaling)
Forward blocking
A: The specified upstream label has been occupied by other
lightpath
B: The specified upstream label is not appeared in final Label
Set (cannot use the same wavelength)
C: Initiator receives an empty Acceptable Label Set, indicating
that no wavelength is available along this path, resulting in
rerouting

Backward blocking
D: Upstream label is successfully reserved in the
upstream direction, and is in Label Set (available in
downstream), however, the label is firstly reserved
by other concurrent competitive lightpath request.
This label happens to be the last available
wavelength. No support in RSVP-TE per RFC 3473 can
indicate this situation, resulting in useless crank-back
E: Similar to D, but there still are other available
wavelengths
WTC2012 Miyazaki
8

National Institute of Information and Communications Technology

Upstream Label Approach (UL) RFC 3473 s Behavior

- Needs 2nd Time Signaling (Crank-back) (Diff Wavelength User)
Path
Upstream Label
Label Set
PC
B

1st time signaling

c
PA

PA~PD: Probabilities
of individual cases

Path
A
Upstream Label

PA+PB+PC+PD=P

Label Set

PathErr
Acceptable Label Set
Upstream Label
Label Set

PB

PathErr
Acceptable Label Set

Upstream Label
Label Set
C, D
Label

Label

PD, PE

Different blocking situations in 1st time signaling result in different blocking probability in 2nd time signaling
Blocking situations in UL (1st time signaling)
Forward blocking
A: The specified upstream label has been occupied by other
lightpath
B: Initiator receives an empty Acceptable Label Set,
indicating that no wavelength is available along this path,
resulting in rerouting

Backward blocking
C: upstream label is successfully reserved in the
upstream direction, and Label Set (available in
downstream) is not empty, however, the label
(downstream) is firstly reserved by other concurrent
competitive lightpath request
This label happens to be the last available
wavelength (a rare case)
D: Similar to C, but there still are other available
wavelengths
WTC2012 Miyazaki
9

National Institute of Information and Communications Technology

Upstream Label Set Approach (ULS)s Behavior (Same Wavelength Use)

cf) E. Oki et al., vol.E87-B, no.6, June 2004.
c

PA~PC: Probabilities of
individual cases
Path
Upstream Label
Upstream Label Set
Label Set

PA+PB+PC=P
Path
Upstream Label Set
Label Set

PA

1st time signaling

Resv
Label
Upstream Label

Resv
Label
Upstream Label
B, C
PB, PC

Different blocking situations in 1st time signaling result in different blocking probability in 2nd time signaling
Blocking situations in ULS (1st time signaling)
Forward blocking
A: There is not any common wavelength in Upstream Label Set
and Label Set at terminator. This includes the situation which
either Label Set obj is empty during the Path message
processing

Backward blocking
B: Upstream label (upstream) or label (downstream)
is firstly reserved by other concurrent competitive
lightpath request. This label happens to be the last
available wavelength (a rare case)
C: Similar to B, but there still are other available
wavelengths

We can extend ULS by adding a new object to inform the initiator

the number of available wavelengths. Initiator can correctly
decide if a new route should be employed, in case no wavelength is
available.
National Institute of Information and Communications
Technology
WTC2012
Miyazaki
10

Upstream Label Set Approach (ULS)s Behavior (Diff Wavelength Use)

cf) E. Oki et al., vol.E87-B, no.6, June 2004.

Path
Upstream Label
Upstream Label Set

PA

Label Set

PA~PD: Probabilities of
individual cases
PA+PB+PC+PD=P

Path
Upstream Label Set
A
Label Set

1st time signaling

Resv
Label

Resv
Label
Upstream Label

Upstream Label
B, C, D
PB, PC, PD

Different blocking situations in 1st time signaling result in different blocking probability in 2nd time signaling
Blocking situations in ULS (1st time signaling)
Forward blocking
A: There is not any wavelength in either Upstream Label Set or
Label Set

We can extend ULS by adding a new object

to inform the initiator the number of
available wavelengths.

Backward blocking
B: Either upstream label (upstream) or label
(downstream) is firstly reserved by other concurrent
competitive lightpath request. This label happens
to be the last available wavelength (a rare case)
C: Both upstream label (upstream) and label
(downstream) are blocked by other concurrent
competitive lightpath request(s), but there are other
available wavelengths left to use
D: One direction is blocked, the other direction is not
blocked, but there are other available wavelength to
use

Initiator can correctly decide if a new route

should be tried, in case no wavelength is
National Institute of Information and CommunicationsWTC2012
TechnologyMiyazaki
available.

11

Two Unidirectional Lightpaths Approach (TU) s Behavior

(One set signaling for two directions)
Different Implementation Different Performance !!

Example

a
Path
Bi-dir Flag
Label Set

Path
Bi-dir Flag

Resv
Label

Resv
Label

Label Set

Label Set

Label Set
Label

Label

Label Set

Label Set

Resv
Label

Resv
Label

Association

Association

Because TU is of the most flexibility in implementation, in principle, in both

Same Wavelength Use and Different Wavelength Use scenarios,
TU may reach the same blocking level as that of ULS
WTC2012 Miyazaki
National Institute of Information and Communications Technology

12

Label Set + LSP_ATTRIBUTES Approach (LS)s Behavior

(Same Wavelength Use Only)
cf) G. Bernstein et al., draft-ietf-ccamp-wson-signaling-01.txt

Path
LSP_ATTRIBUTES
Label Set
1st time signaling
Resv
Label

PA

Path
LSP_ATTRIBUTES
A Label Set

PA~PC: Probabilities
of individual cases
PA+PB+PC=P

Resv
Label
B, C
PB, PC

Different blocking situations in 1st time signaling result in different blocking probability in 2nd time signaling
Blocking situations in LS (1st time signaling)
Forward blocking
A: There is not any wavelength in Label Set

Backward blocking
B: Upstream label (upstream) or label (downstream) is
firstly reserved by other concurrent competitive
lightpath request. This label happens to be the last
available wavelength (a rare case)
C: Similar to B, but there still are other available
wavelengths

We can extend LS by adding a new object to inform the initiator the

number of available wavelengths. Initiator can correctly decide if
a new route
should be tried, in case no wavelength is available.
National Institute of Information and Communications
Technology

Network Model
H hops

Initiator

Terminator

F pairs of fibers

W
W

For each wavelength i in one fiber

- Average utilization rate (the cause of forward blocking): p
- Competition rate (the cause of backward blocking): b

Exist available disjoined route in case of rerouting

Blocking probability P is the function of p, b, H, F, W.

WTC2012 Miyazaki
National Institute of Information and Communications Technology

P(p, b, H, F, W)
14

Probabilistic AnalysisBlocking Probability (1st Time Signaling)

2nd Time Signaling (crank-back) Analysis is not shown here, due to time limitation. Please refer to Proc.
Scenarios
Approaches

Same Wavelength Use

Different Wavelength Use

1) UL
Upstream Label
+ Acceptable Label
Set
2) TU
Associated two uniLSPs
3) ULS
Upstream Label Set
+ Label Set
4) LS
Label Set
+LSP_ATTRIBUTES

not support

H : number of hops
W : number of wavelengths F: number of fibers
p: wavelength utilization rate per fiber link b: competition rate

Blocking Probabilities after the 1st and 2nd Signaling

UL

UL

10

-1

10

-2

10

-3

10

-4

10 0

Blo c k in g p r o b a b ility

Blo c k in g p r o b a b ility

10 0

ULS/LS/TU

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

-1

10

-2

10

-3

10

-4

ULS/TU

p
UL(1st)
UL(2nd)
Pbwave(1st)

10

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

ULS/LS/T U(1st)
ULS/LS/T U(2nd)
Pbwave(2nd)

UL(1st)
UL(2nd)
Pbwave(1st)

(a) Same-wavelength-use

ULS/TU(1st)
ULS/TU(2nd)
Pbwave(2nd)

(b) Different-wavelength-use

(F=1, W=64, H=4, b=0.001)

WTC2012 Miyazaki
National Institute of Information and Communications Technology

16

Signaling-caused extra forward blocking

Sig n alin g -cau sed ex tra fo rward b lock in g

The Signaling Caused Extra Forward Blocking vs. the

Number of Hops in UL (after the 2nd signaling)
10 0

10

-1

10

-2

10

-3

10

-4

2
p0.2

5
H
p0.4

10 0

10

-1

10

-2

10

-3

10

-4

p0.6

p0.2

(a) Same-wavelength-use

5
H
p0.4

p0.6

(b) Different-wavelength-use

(F=1, W=64, b=0, p=0.2, 0.4 and 0.6)

WTC2012 Miyazaki
National Institute of Information and Communications Technology

17

Blocking Probability in the Restoration Scenarios

- ULS/LS/TU can successfully recover most of paths, outperforming UL significantly.
- In particular, if recover time needs to be kept short, and reduce the burst control overhead,
only 1st time signaling might be preferred.
40

ULS/LS/TU

25

20

ULS/TU

30

15
20

10
10

0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

0.2

0.4

0.8

p
UL(1st)
UL(2nd)
# of affected paths

0.6

UL(1st)
UL(2nd)
# of affected paths

ULS/LS/T U(1st)
ULS/LS/T U(2nd)

(a) Same-wavelength-use

ULS/T U(1st)
ULS/T U(2nd)

(b) Different-wavelength-use
(F=1, W=64, H=4, b=0.001)
WTC2012 Miyazaki

National Institute of Information and Communications Technology

18

Blocking Probability in the Upgrade Scenarios

-UL cannot effectively take advantage of expended resource (fiber/wavelength)
-Even p=0.8, multifiber WSON has the perfect performance (if ULS/LS/TU is employed)
All, F=1
10

10

-1

10

-2

10

-3

10

-4

-5

10

-5

-6

10

-6

10

-1

10

-2

10

-3

10

-4

10
10

F=6

ULs gain, F=1 ~6

Remarkable gain of ULS/LS/TUs

upgrading to F6

20

40

60

80

100

Blo c k in g p r o b a b ility

Blo c k in g p r o b a b ility

10

All, F=1

ULs gain, F=1 ~6

F=6

120

Remarkable gain of ULS/TUs

upgrading to F6, p=0.8

20

40

W
UL(2nd)F1
ULS/LS/T U(2nd)pF1
Pbwave(2nd)F1

60

80

100

120

UL(2nd)F6
ULS/LS/T U(2nd)F6
Pbwave(2nd)F6

UL(2nd)F1
ULS/T U(2nd)pF1
Pbwave(2nd)F1

(a) Same-wavelength-use

UL(2nd)F6
ULS/T U(2nd)F6
Pbwave(2nd)F6

(b) Different-wavelength-use

(H=4, p=0.8, b=0.001, F=1 and 6)

WTC2012 Miyazaki
National Institute of Information and Communications Technology

19

Protocol Cost Issue-1: Total Number of Traversed Hops in

One Set of Signaling

ULS

LS

TU

Same-wave-use

3H

3H

11H

Different-wave-use

3H

N/A

9H

Cost of TU is implementation dependent

WTC2012 Miyazaki
National Institute of Information and Communications Technology

20

Protocol Cost Issue-2: Accumulated Label-processing

Times for ULS and LS (Same Wavelength Use)
1000

800

Lfor e

ULS independently operates two Label Sets

600

400

LS operates only one Label Set

200

0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

p
ULS-H4

LS-H4

ULS-H8

LS-H8

Lfore stands for the labels amount in singling of forwarding direction

(F=1, W=64, b=0.001, H=4 and H=8)

WTC2012 Miyazaki
National Institute of Information and Communications Technology

21

Major Findings Summary

Focused on the signaling- based wavelength assignment needs and performance analysis for corouted bi-directional lightpath provisioning

Single RWA solution specification approach in simple current signaling (RSVP-TE per RFC3471,
RFC3473 highly relies on the up-to-date info dissemination (resulting in a heavy load of routing on
control plane)
Needs robust distributed WA support with signaling even in centralized RWA architectures
(relaxing the strict dependency on the up-to-date info and frequent routing)

Review the questions again. How about the capability of Signaling schemes on Distributed WA?:
Q: Is the current standard RSVP-TE enough?
Finding: Upstream Label (UL) approach is of poor performance in terms of distributed WA capability

Q: Are there any possibilities for service providers to provide more cost efficient lightpath service?
Finding: Three signaling-based WA approaches are available
Two-Uni has the highest flexibility but the performance depends on implementation
ULS extends the idea of Label Set in upstream direction
LS reuses the Label Set (optimizes signaling in the same-wavelength-use scenario)
Q: How about the possible gain by employing the extension?
Finding: The candidate approaches outperform the UL significantly (blocking performance)
Especially, in restoration scenario and a long-term view (in case of future WSON upgrading)
WTC2012 Miyazaki
National Institute of Information and Communications Technology

22

Thank you !

WTC2012 Miyazaki

23