Patent Grant
7869344
The present invention relates to network protection. More specifically, the present invention relates to network protection which is fast and efficient.
Protection techniques are either 1+1, where a single session is protected by duplicating the resources required by the session which are used to send a second copy of the signal, and hence recovery from failures is instantaneous, or 1:N, where resources for a single session are shared between N sessions, but this requires the detection of the failure, and determining which session should use the backup facilities. The first technique is fast, but requires at least 100 percent extra resources. The second technique is more efficient, but slow since the management and control planes must be involved.
What is needed is a protection method that uses less resources such as the 1:N method, but which has the speed of the 1+1 method.
The present invention provides a method to provide transparent non-stop service in communication networks. If a communication link such as, but not limited to an optical fiber, fails, communication can proceed in a transparent manner such as without the network management or control planes having to be aware of the failure or intervene to divert data to backup links. The bandwidth requirement for providing this service is on the order of that required by a single communication session, therefore a significant saving in resources is achieved.
The methodology collects information from different ongoing communication sessions, codes this information in two different ways, and transmits the coded information in two different directions on a cycle that goes over all nodes (transmitters and receivers) whose communication sessions are to be protected. The coding operation is implemented using a simple addition operation. The coding results in a significant reduction in the bandwidth, since only bandwidth requirements on the order of that required by a single communication session are needed. Receivers in each communication session receive the two coded signals. These signals, together with a simple addition operation, allow the receivers to recover the transmitted signal. This applies to all receivers in sessions with data encoded using this technique. Therefore, if there is a failure on the working paths, the signal can still be recovered without invoking any special data rerouting technique. Moreover, even if there are no failures, since two copies of the same signal are received by a receiver, one on the working path and one on the backup paths, this provides an error detection and correction technique. This added functionally comes at no additional cost. Some of the advantages provided by this method include (1) transparent protection against single link failures, (2) fast protection since no failure detection or switching are involved, (3) reduced bandwidth and resource requirements, since multiple communication sessions will be using the same resources required to protect a single session, (4) simpler control and management planes, and (5) error detection and correction.
The methodology can be used in any communication network in order to guarantee non-stop service, and transparent recovery from any single link failure without involving the control or management plane. It also provides a method for error detection and correction. Hence, the methodology may be used to provide both error control and protection against link failure.
Protection techniques are either 1+1, where a single session is protected by duplicating the resources required by the session which are used to send a second copy of the signal, and hence recovery from failures is instantaneous, or 1:N, where resources for a single session are shared between N sessions, but this requires the detection of the failure, and determining which session should use the backup facilities. The first technique is fast, but requires at least 100 percent extra resources. The second technique is more efficient, but slow since the management and control planes must be involved.
According to one aspect of the present invention, a method for protecting a network having a plurality of bidirectional connections is provided. The method includes combining data units from a plurality of bidirectional connections using network coding to form a protection signal, transmitting the protection signal over a protection circuit to thereby protect the plurality of bidirectional connections, wherein the bidirectional connections are link disjoint, and wherein the bidirectional connections are link disjoint from the protection circuit.
According to another aspect of the present invention, a system is provided which includes a plurality of bidirectional connections and a protection circuit for protecting the plurality of bidirectional connections. The plurality of bidirectional connections are link disjoint. The protection circuit is link disjoint from the plurality of bidirectional connections. The protection circuit is adapted to convey a protection signal formed by combining data units from the plurality of bidirectional connections using network coding to thereby protect the plurality of bidirectional connections.
According to another aspect of the present invention, a system is provided which includes a plurality of bidirectional connections, and a protection circuit for protecting the plurality of bidirectional connections. The protection circuit is implemented by a p-Cycle. The plurality of bidirectional connections are link disjoint. The protection circuit is link disjoint from the plurality of bidirectional connections. There is a means for forming a protection signal by combining data units from the plurality of bidirectional connections using network coding to thereby protect the plurality of bidirectional connections.
According to another aspect of the present invention, a system is provided which includes a plurality of bidirectional connections, and a protection circuit for protecting the plurality of bidirectional connections. The protection circuit is implemented by a protection path. The plurality of bidirectional connections are link disjoint. The protection circuit is link disjoint from the plurality of bidirectional connections. There is a means for forming a protection signal by combining data units from the plurality of bidirectional connections using network coding to thereby protect the plurality of bidirectional connections.
I. INTRODUCTION
With the use of optical fibers in network backbones, which are usually configured as arbitrary mesh topologies, large amounts of bandwidth are provided on a single fiber, and huge amounts of traffic are carried on the fiber, especially if wavelength division multiplexing (WDM) is used. The failure of a single fiber, which is not uncommon, can therefore affect a large number of users and connections, and the effect of the failure can be catastrophic. It is therefore imperative that when any part of the network fails that the network will continue to operate. This is referred to as network survivability.
Research on techniques to provide optical network survivability has received special attention. Techniques for optical network survivability can be classified as Predesigned Protection and Dynamic Restoration techniques [1]. In predesigned protection, which is a proactive technique, bandwidth is reserved in advance so that when a failure takes place, backup paths (note that protection can also be applied to protect fiber lines, and is therefore called line protection; here, we consider circuit protection, where a circuit can be a full wavelength on a lightpath, or a transport capacity unit, such as, but not limited to Ds-3) which are pre-provisioned, are used to reroute the traffic affected by the failure. These techniques include the 1+1 protection, in which traffic of a lightpath is transmitted on two link disjoint paths, and the receiver selects the stronger of the two signals; 1:1 protection, which is similar to 1+1, except that traffic is not transmitted on the backup path until failure takes place; and 1:N protection, which is similar to 1:1, except that one path is used to protect N paths. A generalization of 1:N is the M:N, where M protection paths are used to protect N working paths. Protection techniques are widely used in SONET ring architectures [1]. Under dynamic restoration, which is a reactive strategy, capacity is not reserved in advance, but when a failure occurs spare capacity is discovered, and is used to reroute the traffic affected by the failure. Protection techniques can recover from failures quickly, but require significant amounts of resources. On the other hand, restoration techniques are more cost efficient, but are much slower than their protection counterparts.
Recently, the concept of p-Cycles has been introduced in [2], [3], [4], to emulate the protection techniques of SONET ring networks, and they provide 1:N protection to connections with the same transport capacity, e.g., DS-3. p-Cycles provide protection against single link failures to a connection with its two end nodes being on the cycle. However, under p-Cycles, and because of the shared protection, failures must still be detected, and traffic must be rerouted on the cycle. This can add to the failure recovery time.
The present invention provides a methodology for using p-Cycles to provide 1+N protection against single link failures in optical mesh networks. That is, to transmit signals from N connections on one common channel, such that when a failure occurs, the end nodes of the connection affected by the failure will be able to recover the signals affected by the failure. To be able to achieve this, computation is traded for communication. That is, by performing additional computations within the network, in the form of network coding, the present invention is able to achieve the desired protection. Hence, to provide survivability, failures need not be detected explicitly, and rerouting of the signal is not needed. Both the management and control planes in this case is simpler, as they only need to detect the failure for the purpose of repairing it. This strategy can be implemented at a number of layers.
The present invention provides two copies of the same signal on two disjoint paths. One path is the primary working path. The second path, however, is in fact a virtual path, which is still disjoint from the first primary path. What is meant by a virtual path is a set of paths on which the signal is transmitted with other signals, but there is enough information to recover the target signal from those transmissions. This methodology has the following properties:
In addition, and as a byproduct, in the absence of failures, this methodology provides a distributed encryption strategy that uses other data units as encryption keys. It also provides an error recovery functionality in the absence of failures. These advantages will be discussed in Section V.
Here, we introduce the basic concepts and theoretical bases of the strategy, and how it can be used to provide 1+N protection using p-Cycles against single link failures. We discuss the implementation of this scheme in a number of technologies and layers in Section VI.
The rest of the detailed description is organized as follows. In Section II we provide a brief background on p-Cycles and network coding. In Section III we introduce a few operational assumptions. We illustrate the basic concept of our strategy by giving an example of using network coding to provide protection against a single link failure in Section IV. In Section V we show the general strategy for encoding and decoding data units on p-Cycles in order to provide protection for bidirectional unicast connections using one bidirectional p-Cycle. We illustrate this procedure using an example. We also outline the advantages of this scheme, as well as other uses for this scheme, especially in error control. In Section VI we discuss the issue of timing and synchronization of encoded and decoded data, and we show that the outage time, which is the time between the loss of the direct signal, and the recovery of the same signal on the protection path, is limited to no more than twice the delay on the p-Cycle. Some notes on the implementation of this strategy in different technologies and protocols will also be discussed. Section VII shows some extensions to the proposed strategy which enables it to work with multipoint sessions. Moreover, a hybrid 1+N and 1:N protection scheme is introduced in order to enable the p-Cycle to protect connections which are provisions on the links used by the cycle itself. In Section VIII we introduce an empirical comparison between 1+1 and 1+N protection. We also introduce a comparison between 1+1 and the hybrid scheme. The comparison is based on the cost of the network in terms of the number of links, and optimal formulations. In Section IX, an alternative technique is provided in which a protection path, rather than a p-cycle, can be used to carry the backup information. Finally, in Section X we conclude.
It should be pointed out that our use of p-Cycles is different from that proposed in [2], [3], [4] in the sense that we use p-Cycles to protect paths rather than links.
II. BACKGROUND
A. Background on p-Cycles
The p-Cycle concept [2], [3], [4] is similar to the Bidirectional Line-Switched Ring (BLSR), since both of them have a cyclic structure. However, the p-Cycle concept has a higher protection coverage, since the spare capacity reserved on the cycle covers working capacity on the cycle, as well as working capacity on straddling links (see
There are two types of p-Cycles: link p-Cycles, which are used to protect the working capacity of a link, and this is the type shown in
p-Cycles are embedded in mesh networks, and several algorithms have been introduced in the literature to select the p-Cycles which consume the minimum amount of spare capacity, e.g., see Chapter 10 in [4]. p-Cycles are very efficient in protecting against link failures, and the protection capacity reserved by p-Cycles achieves an efficiency that is close to that achievable in mesh-restorable networks. However, the preprovisioning of spare capacity makes p-Cycles much faster to recover from network element failures. p-Cycles can be used at a number of layers including the Optical layer, the SONET layer, or the IP layer [5].
Here, we use p-Cycles to protect against failures in a 1+N manner, rather an 1:N. That is, our approach is to allow two transmissions of the same signal. One transmission is on the working path, and the second one is on a protection circuit, implemented by a p-Cycle. Multiple connections transmit their signals simultaneously on the p-Cycle in a bandwidth efficient manner. The receivers receive these two copies, and select the better of the two signals. The backup signals are transmitted simultaneously and on the same protection circuit using the technique of network coding. Our approach can also be used at any layer that transmits encapsulated data units including the SONET layer, especially Next Generation SONET, ATM, MPLS/GMPLS and the IP layer.
B. Background on Network Coding
Network coding refers to performing linear coding operations on traffic carried by the network at intermediate network nodes. In this case, a node receives information from all, or some of its input links, encodes this information, and sends the information to all, or some of its output links. This approach can result in enhancing the network capacity, hence facilitating the service of sessions which cannot be otherwise accommodated. This is especially true when service mode is multicast. An example of the use of network coding is shown in
The concept of network coding for multicast sessions was introduced in the seminal paper by Ahlswede et al. [5]. The problem of network coding was formulated as a network flow problem in [6] and a link cost function was included in the formulation in [7]. Reference [8] introduced an algebraic characterization of linear coding schemes that results in a network capacity that is the same as the max-flow min-cut bound, when multicast service is used. The authors show that failures can be tolerated through a static network coding scheme under multicasting, provided that the failures do not reduce the network capacity below a target rate. Reference [9] introduced deterministic and randomized algorithms for the construction of network codes, which had polynomial time complexity. The algorithms could be used for multiple multicast sessions, where intermediate nodes may decode, and re-encode the received information. Reference [10] includes an introduction to network coding principles.
Here we provide for the use network coding with a group of unicast sessions in order to provide protection for such connections.
III. OPERATIONAL ASSUMPTIONS
In this section we introduce a number of operational assumptions. Most of these assumptions are satisfied in practice, and they do not impose any significant constraints on the operation of our strategy.
In this work we deal with connections. A connection may consist of a circuit on a single link, or may consist of a sequential set of circuits on multiple links, e.g., a lightpath. Therefore, link protection is a special case of this technique.
The term link is used to refer to, for example, a fiber connecting two nodes. Each link contains a number of circuits, e.g., wavelength channels, or even channels with smaller granularities, e.g., DS3.
A p-Cycle protecting a number of connections passes through all end nodes of such connections. In doing so, the p-Cycle protects connections with the same transport capacity unit, e.g., DS-3. Therefore, the p-Cycle links themselves have the same transport capacity.
The p-Cycle is terminated, processed, and retransmitted at all end nodes of the connections.
We assume that all connections are bidirectional.
It is assumed that data units are fixed in size (the case of variable size data units will be discussed in Section VI.)
The scheme presented is designed to protect against a single link failure. That is, when a link fails, it will be protected, and will be repaired before another link fails.
When a link carrying active circuits fails, the tail node of the link will receive empty data units.
The present invention provides for using network coding on p-Cycles to achieve 1+N protection. It is to be noted that this strategy can be implemented using a number of layers and protocols, including the Generic Framing Procedure (GFP) [11] protocols of Next Generation SONET/SDH (NGS), where data units are to be treated like packets by GFP. The strategy can also be implemented using asynchronous transfer mode (ATM), Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) or Internet Protocol (IP).
It should be pointed out that all addition operations (+) described herein are modulo two additions, i.e., Exclusive-OR (XOR) operations.
IV. AN ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE
In this section we illustrate the invention using a simple example. The objective is to provide each destination with two signals on two link disjoint paths, such that the network can withstand any single link failure. For the sake of exposition, we first consider unidirectional connections, and then extend it to bidirectional connections.
The example is shown in
On the p-Cycle, the following takes place:
Based on the above, it is obvious that in the absence of failures, each destination node, Ti, for i=1, 2, 3, receives two copies of di:
which it receives on the clockwise p-Cycle to
which it receives on the counter-clockwise cycle. This is what we refer to a virtual copy of di.
In this case, timing considerations have to be taken into account, as will be discussed in next section.
When a failure occurs, it will affect at most one working path, e.g., working path i. In this case, we assume that Ti will receive an empty data unit on the working path.
Therefore, Ti will be able to recover di by using the second virtual copy described above, i.e., by adding
A failure on the p-Cycle will not disrupt communication.
The case in which information is sent in the opposite direction, i.e., from Di to Si is shown in
We refer to a bidirectional p-Cycle as a full cycle, and a one directional cycle is a half p-Cycle. In each of the above two examples, less than a full p-Cycle is used. In order to support bidirectional communication, the two approaches above have to be combined. In this case, less than three half p-Cycles, or 1.5 full p-Cycles are used. That is, one half p-Cycle (the outer one) is shared by both dir and uir data units. However, this can be accomplished because of the ordering of Si and Ti that we enforced in this example. In the general case, combining the two bidirectional sessions would require two full p-Cycles. However, by combining ui and dj signals on the same link, it is possible to reduce the number of p-Cycles to one cycle, hence the name 1+N protection. This will be illustrated in the next section.
V. NETWORK CODING STRATEGY ON P-CYCLES
In this section we introduce our general strategy for achieving 1+N protection in mesh networks using p-Cycles.
A. The Strategy
In the examples shown in the previous section, we presented a special case in which the working connections were ordered from left to right. However, in this section we introduce a strategy for general connections. We assume that there are N bidirectional unicast connections, where connection i is between nodes Ai and Bi. We define the sets ={Ai|1≦i≦N} and
={Bi|1≦i≦N} (Note that the choice of the labels Ai and Bi is arbitrary, as long as Ai and Bi communicate with each other). We denote the data units transmitted from nodes in
to nodes in
as d units, and the data units transmitted from nodes in
to nodes in
as u units.
Before describing the procedure, it should be pointed out that the basic principle for receiving a second copy of data unit, e.g., uil by node Ai, is to receive on two opposite directions the signals given by the following two equations:
for some ′⊂
, Ai∉
′, where data unit ujl is the one to be received by Aj, and the sum is modulo 2. In this case, Ai can recover uil by adding equations (1) and (2) using modulo 2 addition also.
Our procedure goes through the following steps:
A.1 p-Cycle Construction and Node Assignment to Cycles:
and
=
= ( ); // initialize empty sequences
=
∪
1 = A1
, and traverse p-Cycles
=
−{A1};
The transmissions occur in rounds, such that dit data units which are encoded together and transmitted on the p-Cycle must belong to the same round. Rounds can be started by the S1 node, and are then followed by other nodes. All nodes in and
must keep track of round numbers. The same round number conditions apply to rounds in which sums of uit data units are transmitted, as well as rounds for transmitting sums of dir, and sums of uir data units.
A.2 Encoding Operations:
The network encoding operation is executed by the nodes in and
as follows (assuming no link failures):
Now, the above procedure can be explained as follows, with the help of the example in
A.3 Recovery from Failures:
The strategy presented herein recovers from a single link failure on any of the N primary paths. Suppose that a link on the path between nodes Si and Tj fails. In this case, Si does not receive uj on the primary path. However, it can recover uj by adding
Similarly, node Tj can recover di by adding
B. Advantages of the Proposed Strategy
The proposed strategy has a number of advantages, which can be summarized as follows:
VI. IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS
In this section we consider issues that need to be taken into account for implementing the above strategy. These include timing considerations, security issues, and protocol implementation.
A. Timing Considerations
For the above procedure to work properly, ui units added and removed at a node should be the same as those carried by the p-Cycle. For this reason, nodes operate in rounds, where in round n, ui units belonging to this round are added or deleted. The same thing applies to di units.
Node S1 can start the first round (The start of rounds can be indicated in different ways depending on the protocol) on T, and the remaining nodes and
follow. When data in the first round arrives at node T1 on the working circuits, it starts transmitting data received in round 1 on R, and all the nodes in
and
follow. Since primary paths are usually chosen as the shortest paths, therefore, data arriving at a destination node over the primary path will do so before data sent over the p-Cycle will arrive. Moreover, the primary path will have a delay which does not exceed τ, where τ is the propagation delay around the p-Cycle. Otherwise, the primary path will choose the shorter path over the cycle.
There is a number of timing and delay issues that need to be considered:
1) Failure-Free Operation:
Under the above assumption of the primary path being shorter than any secondary backup path, nodes in S and T will respectively receive their ui and di data units on the primary paths before they receive them on the backup paths. In this case, data units can be added to, and removed from the corresponding half p-Cycles without delay (In case the working path is longer than the backup path on the p-Cycle, the signals on the T half cycle can be delayed until the corresponding ui and di data units are received).
2) Operation Under Working Path Failure:
Assume that the working path between nodes Si and Tk has failed. All other nodes will not be affected by this failure. Let us first consider the case of receiving di data units by Tk. Nodes in S can transmit their di data units on T in the corresponding cycles, and di data units must be removed by their corresponding receivers in T. This can be done by all nodes similar to case 1 above.
However, for node Tk, di data units in cycle n received on T may have to be delayed at Tk until di data units in cycle n on R arrive at Tk. An example of this case is shown in
Delay at Tk=ψ*+τT
where ψ* is the maximum delay over working paths, τT
Delay at Tk<2τ
On the other hand, ui signals on the T cycle need not be delayed. A delay, if introduced, should be at node S1. However, if the delay at T5 is qual to 1τ, then an additional delay may need to be introduced at node S1. In order to overcome the problem of distributing the delays between Sj and Tk, it is easier to introduce a delay of 2τ at one of the nodes only, either Sj or Tk. Therefore, the maximium outage time, i.e. the delay to receive the backup copy of the data transmitted when the primary working path fails, is 2τ. MSPP devices which can accommodate a 128 ms differential delay can support this implementation.
B. Security Issues
One of the issues which may arise in this strategy is security. Since all receivers receive copies of all other transmissions, there is a concern that nodes may be able to retrieve data units from other transmissions. However, when the number of transmission sessions is greater than two, this is not possible. The reason is that if there are N transmissions, each data unit is encoded using N−1 other data units. Hence, if N>2, it is not possible for a node to recover another data unit without knowing the other N−2 data units. The condition of N>2 is a necessary and sufficient condition for the security of this mechanism. This, however, requires that no trivial data units, e.g., empty data units, be transmitted. In order to prevent this from happening, when no data units are available for transmission, random bits are generated and transmitted, with an indication to the receiver that such a data unit is actually an empty one.
C. Implementation Notes
The present invention can be implemented in a number of technologies and at a number of layers. For example, it can be implemented at layer 1 using NGS protocols, and in particular the GFP protocol. Since data units from different higher layer protocols are encapsulated in the payload field of GFP frames, the payload field can be used to accommodate the encoded (added) data units. It can also be implemented at layer 2 using ATM, where a special VCI/VPI can be reserved for a p-Cycle that protects a given set of VCCs or VPCs. The payloads of the ATM cells to be protected are therefore added and transmitted on the p-Cycle VCC. Moreover, it can be implemented at layer 3, and in particular using the IP protocol. With IP, the sum of data units (packets in this case) can be encapsulated in another IP packet. The encapsulating IP packet header would include the IP numbers (on two different interfaces) of the node that starts a round, e.g., S1, as both the source and destination. Source routing may have to be used to make sure that this packet will traverse the p-Cycle.
Note that the proposed methodology uses four mechanisms:
In order to implement the first mechanism, and if data units cannot be made fixed in size, e.g., under IP, a number of ways can be used to circumvent this problem. One option would be that each node would concatenate (or block) its own data units and then segment them into fixed size segments (see
Providing round number can be also accommodated in a number of technologies. For example, when using GFP, a new extension header can be defined to include the round sequence number. With IP, the sequence number of the encapsulating IP header can act as the sequence number.
VII. EXTENSIONS
A. Multipoint Connections
If a node acts as a source or a destination of multiple connections, the same scheme described above can still be employed as follows:
1) One-to-Many Sessions: We illustrate the procedure for handling one-to-many, or multicast, sessions by considering the case of the transmission of di units from node Si in to multiple destination nodes in
. A similar procedure can be implemented for transmissions from a node on
to nodes in
. We denote by Tc and Tf the destinations in the session that are, respectively, the closest and the farthest from the session source in
on the T cycle in the clockwise direction. These two nodes have the following responsibilities:
Based on the above, in the case of failure all destination nodes in the multicast session will receive Σj,Sj∈B,J≠1 dj+di on cycle T, and Σj,sj∈B,j≠i dj on cycle R, where B is a subset of S. This enables such destinations to recover the di units in case of failure. This is shown in the example in
The above may require buffering data on the T cycle at Tf until data in the corresponding round arrives from upstream on the R cycle. Or, it may require buffering data on the R cycle at Tc until data in the corresponding round arrives from upstream on the T cycle. Buffering at both nodes is not required.
Note that the above strategy can tolerate the failure of multiple links on the multicast tree from Si to its destinations in .
2) Many-to-One Sessions: In the case of many-to-one sessions, the adaptation of the proposed strategy is straightforward. In this case, the destination node can be regarded as multiple destinations, and it applies the basic strategies m times, where m is the number of sources in the session. For this strategy to work, all paths from the sources to the destination must be link disjoint.
B. Hybrid 1:N and 1:N Protection
Unlike p-Cycles used for 1:N protection, the 1+N protection scheme proposed in this paper does not protect circuits which share links with the p-Cycle. The reason is due to the use of network coding on the p-Cycle. However, the 1+N protection scheme can be combined with a 1:N protection scheme for circuits sharing links with the p-Cycle. In case a working link on the p-Cycle failes, in the case network coding is disabled, and the circuits sharing links with the p-Cycle can be rerouted on the p-Cycle, hence providing 1:N protection for such circuits. We refer to this strategy as a hybrid 1+N and 1:N protection. It should be noted that in the worst case, this hybrid strategy degenerates to the 1:N protection, and therefore it is guaranteed not to be worse than 1:N protection.
VIII. COST EVALUATION OF 1+N PROTECTION
In this section we evaluate the cost of 1+N protection using p-Cycles, and compare it to the cost of 1+1 protection, as well as 1:N protection using p-Cycles. The cost evaluation of 1+1 and 1+N protection is based on optimal interger linear programming formulations. These will be used to carry out an empirical comparison between the cost of implementing both strategies.
We compare the cost of implementing 1+1 and 1+N protection strategies using random graphs, while assuming that there is no upper bound on the number of links per span. In our experiments, we allowed the use of non-simple cycles. Therefore, and due to the complexity of the problem, we ran our experiments using 8-node networks. The networks were generated randomly such that each sample network contained a given number of edges, and that the network is at least bi-connected. For the generated network, we provisioned a given number of connections, such that the end points of the connections were uniformly selected from all the nodes in the network. For each experiment, we generated 10 sample networks, and calculated the average of the number of protection and working circuits over all the runs. In the examples below, we show the total number of wavelength links, and between parentheses we show the number of protection and working circuits, respectively.
In the first example, shown in Table I, the network has 8 nodes, and 12 edges. The average nodal degree in this case is 3. In the examples, we show the total cost of protection, and the cost of primary and protection paths are, respectively shown between parentheses. Table shows that 1+1 protection performs better than 1+N protection, both in terms of the number of working and protection circuits. Notice that when the number of connections is equal to the number of links in the graph (the case referred to as link), i.e., link protection was, the number of working circuits is exactly the same in both cases, but the number of protection circuits is about 15% more in the case of 1+N. That is, 1+N protection has no advantages in this case. However, as the network becomes denser, 1+N protection will require fewer circuits than 1+1 protection. This is shown in Table II, where the nodal degree in this case is 4. Although the number of protection circuits exceeds the number of working circuits under 1+N protection, but the cost of protection circuits under 1+N protection is at least 30% lower than that under 1+1 protection. In Table III we show the cost of 1+1 and 1+N protection when link protection for all links in the network is provided. Four networks were considered, two six node networks, with 10 and 12 edges respectively, and two eight node networks, similar to those in Tables I and II with 12 and 16 edges, respectively. In these examples, and similar to the conclusion drawn from the above two examples, it is shown that the cost of 1+N protection becomes less than the cost of 1+1 protection as the network density increases. It is to be noted that there is a large number of networks with a high nodal degree, i.e., 4 or more. Examples of which include the NJ-LATA with a nodal degree of 4, and the Pan-European COST239 network with a nodal degree of 4.7. Such networks may be regarded as candidates for the use of the proposed strategy.
It is to be noted, however, that the maximum number of links per span under 1+N protection is less than under 1+1 protection. For example, for a network of 8 nodes and 12 edges, protecting 10 connections using 1+1 protection required several spans to be provisioned with 5 links on the same span. With 1+N protection, however, only one span needed to be provisioned with 4 links, and the rest were provisioned with either 1 or 2 spans. This means that restricting the number of links per span to a certain upper bound may change the cost significantly. This is the subject of future study. We also illustrate the cost of the Hybrid 1+N/1:N protection, and compare it to the cost of 1+1 protection. The cost of the Hybrid 1+N/1:N protection is based on using an ILP formulation, which is similar to that in [16]. However, we modified the formulation in [16] in order to also maximize the number of links which are protected using 1+N protection, without resulting in increasing the number of protection circuits. The experiments considered a number of networks where the number of nodes assumed two values, 8 and 14 nodes. We allowed the graph density for each network to assume one of four values, namely, 1, 1.5, 2 and 2.5. The graphs were generated randomly, but we made sure that all graphs were at least bi-connected. For each network, 8 different random graphs were generated, and we took the average of the results.
In Table IV, we show the cost of the protection circuits required for both 1+1 and Hybrid 1+N/1:N protection. For the Hybrid 1+N/1:N protection, the number of links which are protected as straddling links is also shown.
Under 1+1 protection, the worst case cost of protection circuits is always when the nodal degree is 2, i.e., the network has a ring topology. There is exactly one way of choosing the protection path, namely, the entire ring topology excluding the protected link. However, under Hybrid 1+N protection, the problem reduces to p-Cycle protection, where all the protected links are on-cycle links, and the cycle corresponds to the entire graph. This results in the largest percentage of protection circuits, 100%. Note that in this case, for the Hybrid 1+N protection, there are no 1+N protected links, and it is 1:N protection. As the number of edges increases, and consequently the nodal degrees, the cost of 1+1 protection remains high, which is always around 200% of the cost of working links. Under Hybrid 1+N protection, the ratio of the protection circuits to the working circuits decreases. Notice also that as the number of edges increases, the number of links which are 1+N protected, i.e., straddling links, also increases. For example, with a graph density of 4, at least 50% of the links are protected using 1+N protection, since they are straddling links. The remaining links are 1:N protected.
IX. REVISED TECHNIQUE FOR 1+N PROTECTION
The present invention contemplates variations in the strategy for implementing network coding-based protection in arbitrary mesh networks. The approach described in this section provides protection against single link failures using a protection path rather than a p-cycle.
communicates with a node in
and
, respectively
P
S,
T
A. Operational Assumptions
In this section we introduce a number of operational assumptions.
The symbols used in this section are listed in Table III. More symbols will be introduced later, and as needed.
It should be pointed out that all addition operations (+) in this paper are over the GF(2) field. That is, addition is modulo two, i.e., XOR operations.
B. The Strategy
We assume that there are N bidirectional unicast connections, where connection i is between nodes Si and Tj. Nodes Si and Tj belong to the two sequences and
, respectively, as will be defined below. Data units are transmitted by nodes as will be defined below. Data units are transmitted by nodes in
and
in rounds, such that data units transmitted from Si to Tj, in round n are denoted by di(n) units, and data unit transmitted from Tj to Si in the same round are denoted by uj(n) units. The data units received by nodes Si and Tj are denoted by ûj and {circumflex over (d)}i respectively, and can be zero in the case of failure.
Considering the connection between nodes Si and Tj, then under normal conditions, the working circuit will be used to deliver di and ui data units from Si to Tj and from Tj to Si, respectively. The basic idea for receiving a secondary copy of data uj(n) by node Si, for example, is to receive on two opposite directions the signals given by the following two equations, where all data units belong to the same round, n:
where A and B are subsets of nodes in the sequence of nodes S and T, respectively, and a node in A communicates with a node in B, and vice versa. As stated above, the sum is modulo 2. In this case, Si can recover uj by adding equations (3) and (4) using modulo 2 addition also.
Our procedure goes through the following steps:
A.1 Protection Path Construction and Node Enumeration:
A.2 Encoding operations:
The network encoding operation is executed by the nodes in and
. Assume that nodes Si and Tj are in the same connection. Therefore, the encoding operations works as follows (assuming no link failures), where all data units are assumed to belong to the same round, n:
An example of this procedure in shown in
To understand the sums of data units generated by the procedure, we define the following:
Similarly, node Tj will receive the following on S and T, respectively:
Dσ(T
Uj−1+{circumflex over (D)}j−1 (8)
A.3 Recovery from Failures
Suppose that a link on the path between nodes Si and Tj fails. In this case, Si does not receive uj on the primary path, and it receives ûj=0 instead. However, it can recover uj by adding equations (5) and (6), in addition to di. Similarly, Tj can recover di by adding equations (7) and (8), in addition to uj. For example, at node S2 in
Notice that the reception of a second copy of u2 and d2 at S2 and T2, respectively, when there are no failures, requires the addition of the d2 and the u2 signals generated by the same nodes, respectively.
As a more general example, consider the case in
d1+û2+d3+û1+d4+û4 (9)
and will receive the following on T:
u1+{circumflex over (d)}3+u2+{circumflex over (d)}1+u3+{circumflex over (d)}5+u4+{circumflex over (d)}4 (10)
If the link between S5 and T3 fails, then {circumflex over (d)}3=0, and adding equations (9) and (10) will recover u3 at S5.
X. CONCLUSIONS
The present invention includes a method for achieving 1+N protection against single link failures by using network coding on p-Cycles. Data units are coded at sources and destinations, and transmitted in opposite directions on p-Cycles, such that when a link on the primary path fails, data can be recovered from the p-Cycle using simple modulo 2 addition. The strategy allows fast and graceful recovery from failures. It also simplifies the management and control planes, and can also provide a mechanism for error detection and correction. The scheme can be implemented at a number of layers and using a number of protocols including IP, or GFP in NGS. In order to protect on-cycle links, a hybrid 1+N/1:N strategy was presented in which on-cycle links are protected using 1:N protection. A performance evaluation study showed that as the density of the graph increases the efficiency of the proposed 1+N protection scheme improves in terms of decreasing the ratio of the required protection circuits compared to the working circuits. Moreover, the 1+N protection becomes more efficient than 1+1 protection under the same conditions. Therefore, the proposed strategy can be a candidate for use in networks with high average nodal degrees, such as NJ-LATA and the Pan-Eurpoean COST239 networks.
Thus, a method has been described which provides for an approach similar to the 1+1, except that one backup circuit is shared between N sessions, and data from all N sessions is transmitted on the backup circuit, but in a specially encoded way. The use of the networking coding technique results in a significant saving over the 1+1 method, namely using the same resources required by the 1:N method, but at the speed of the 1+1 method.
The method described provides advantages which include:
It should be apparent that the present invention provides for protection of multiple communication sessions using the bandwidth resources on the order of those required to protect a single communication session. This is facilitated through the use of network coding on a protection cycle. Protection cycles, as well as preconfigured cycles (p-Cycles) have been used to provide 1:N protection. That it, it protects N communication sessions but the failed session must be detected, and switching must take place to switch traffic from the failed connection to the backup oath. In the methodology provided herein, there is no need to detect the failure, or switch the failed connection. Transmissions from all connections are coded together and transmitted in two different directions on a cycle, so that the signal can be recovered by the receiver in two ways: on the working path, and on the protection (cycle) path. This is faster, requires only the resources needed to protect a single circuit, and provides error detection and correction as a by-product.
The methodology may be used in communication networks. It may be used by network service providers. It may be implemented in network equipment as well. Thus, the methodology can be implemented in any number of means. The present invention contemplates there may be other uses as well. That which has been disclosed is merely exemplary. The present invention contemplates numerous additional variations, options, and embodiments may fall within the broad spirit and scope of the invention.
All references set forth are herein incorporated by reference in their entirety.
This application claims priority under 35 U.S.C. §119(e) to provisional application Ser. No. 60/990,183 filed Nov. 26, 2007, herein incorporated by reference in its entirety.
| Number | Name | Date | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5257261 | Parruck et al. | Oct 1993 | A |
| 6404734 | Stamatelakis et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
| 7308198 | Chudak et al. | Dec 2007 | B1 |
| 7398321 | Qiao et al. | Jul 2008 | B2 |
| 7609624 | Alicherry et al. | Oct 2009 | B2 |
| 7620322 | Sparks et al. | Nov 2009 | B2 |
| 20050198524 | Benvenuti et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
| 20060164976 | Grover et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
| 20070153674 | Alicherry et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
| 20090046572 | Leung | Feb 2009 | A1 |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 60990183 | Nov 2007 | US |
