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

net/publication/237020093

Shared Backup Path Protection in Elastic Optical Networks: Modeling and

Optimization

Conference Paper · March 2013

CITATIONS READS

35 375

2 authors:

Krzysztof Walkowiak Miroslaw Klinkowski

Wroclaw University of Science and Technology National Institute of Telecommunications
274 PUBLICATIONS 2,263 CITATIONS 170 PUBLICATIONS 2,413 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

NCN OPUS 11 "Modeling and optimization of space division multiplexing (SDM) elastic optical networks" View project

Special Issue "Novel Algorithms and Protocols for Networks" in Applied Sciences (IF: 2.474) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Miroslaw Klinkowski on 19 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Shared Backup Path Protection in Elastic
Optical Networks: Modeling and Optimization
Krzysztof Walkowiak, Member, IEEE and Mirosław Klinkowski
Abstract— Elastic Optical Network (EON) architectures are
considered as a very promising solution for both huge bandwidth
and flexible connection provisioning in next generation optical
networks. In EON, a basic problem in network design and
operation is the problem of Routing and Spectrum Allocation
(RSA). In this article, we focus on offline RSA in a survivable
EON scenario with shared backup path protection (SBPP). We
formulate RSA/SBPP as an Integer Linear Programming (ILP)
problem. Since RSA is a difficult problem itself, we propose
several heuristic algorithms including both new proposals called
Adaptive Frequency Assignment with Shared Backup Path
Protection (AFA/SBPP) and Most Subcarriers and Average
Longest Path First (MSALPF) as well as existing RSA methods
adapted to the SBPP scenario. We investigate the efficiency of all
algorithms for a set of network scenarios and we show that the
proposed new algorithms outperform other reference algorithms.
Moreover, numerical experiments show that the shared backup
path protection approach enables reduction of the spectrum usage
up to 28% comparing to the dedicated path protection approach
without sharing of backup capacity. However, the difference
between these scenarios strongly depends on the network
topology and other parameters.
I. INTRODUCTION
T HE evolution of optical communication networks leads
toward elastic optical networks (EONs) in which advanced
single-carrier modulation formats (such as m-PSK, m-QAM)
and multi-carrier modulation techniques (such as O-OFDM)
are applied for adaptive and mixed-line-rate transmission and
where spectrum resources are allocated within flexible
frequency grids [1]. These components will allow EON to
utilize the spectrum more efficiently and will support elastic
and on-demand bandwidth provisioning [2]. Due to space
limitations, we refer to [3]-[5] for more details on EON
architectures and proof-of-concept EON experiments.
ITU-T has recently revised the G.694.1 recommendation
and included the definition of a flexible DWDM grid (we call
it flexgrid) [6]. According to [6], the frequency spectrum in an
optical fiber link is divided into narrow frequency segments
(we refer to them as slices). The optical path (lightpath) is
determined by its routing path and a channel, which consists of
a flexibly (ad-hoc) assigned subset of slices around a nominal
Krzysztof Walkowiak is with Wroclaw University of Technology, Wybrzeże
Wyspianskiego 27, PL-50-370 Wroclaw, Poland (phone +48713203539;
e-mail: krzysztof.walkowiak@pwr.wroc.pl).
Mirosław Klinkowski is with National Institute of Telecommunications, 1
Szachowa Street, 04-894 Warsaw, Poland. (e-mail: M.Klinkowski@itl.waw.pl).
The work of K. Walkowiak was supported in part by the statutory funds of the
Department of Systems and Computer Networks, Wroclaw University of
Technology. The work of M. Klinkowski was supported in part by NCN under
Grant DEC-2011/01/D/ST7/05884.
central frequency. The channel covers both the frequency
range occupied by the optical signal and a guard band required
for the roll-off filters.
In EON, the problem of finding unoccupied spectrum
resources so that to establish a lightpath is called the Routing
and Spectrum Allocation (RSA) problem. RSA concerns
assigning a contiguous fraction of frequency spectrum to a
connection request subject to the constraint of no frequency
overlapping in network links. The RSA optimization problem
is NP-hard [7] and it is more difficult than the Routing and
Wavelength Assignment (RWA) problem in fixed grid
wavelength division multiplexing (WDM) networks. Offline
RSA has been addressed with both Integer Linear
Programming (ILP) [7]-[10], meta-heuristics [8], [11], and
heuristic algorithms [7], [8].
So far, there have been proposed several solutions for
survivable EON in the literature. Regarding offline network
design, survivable RSA algorithms for dedicated path
protection (DPP) and shared backup path protection (SBPP)
in a ring network have been studied in [12]. DPP in a network
with generalized connectivity has been addressed with both
ILP formulation [13], metaheuristic [14], and heuristic
algorithms [13], [15]. Concurrently, an ILP formulation [16], a
metaheuristic algorithm [17], and an heuristic algorithm [16]
have been proposed for SBPP. Besides, in [18] a MILP
formulation and an heuristic algorithm have been presented for
the so-called squeezed protection scheme in which the
protection of a lightpath may not cover its entire bandwidth
but it is allowed to be partial. Eventually, dynamic survivable
EON scenarios have been studied in [19]. All these solutions
assure network survivability under single link failures.
In this work, we focus on optimization of routing and
spectrum assignment in survivable EON which is protected
using the shared backup path protection approach called
RSA/SBPP. The objective is to minimize the width of
spectrum resources required in the network. As a failure
scenario we consider a single link failure. We address two
possible cases of SBPP, namely with and without stub release.
We propose a novel ILP formulation of the problem, which is
less complex than the one presented in [16]. Moreover, we
propose effective heuristic algorithms to solve the problem
including an extension of our original proposal for solving
RSA called AFA (Adaptive Frequency Assignment) and
MSALPF (Most Subcarriers and Average Longest Path First)
as well as a set of heuristics developed for the classical RSA
and modified for the RSA/SBPP problem. Obtained results
show that AFA provides the best results – on average the
results are about 4.71% and 2.14% from optimal solutions
yielded by CPLEX for two reference networks. However, the
AFA needs significantly lower execution time and provides
radically better scalability (CPLEX solves only small problem
instances). Using the heuristic, we conduct extensive
numerical experiments to investigate the problem of SBPP in
EON.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. In
Section 2, we present the details of our SBPP scenario and we
formulate the optimization problem. In Section 3, we describe
heuristic algorithms. In Section 4, we present numerical
results. Finally, in Section 5 we conclude the work.
II. OPTIMIZATION MODEL
In this Section, we present an ILP model of an offline
problem of Routing and Spectrum Allocation with Shared
Backup Path Protection (RSA/SBPP) in an EON with static
traffic demands and subject to single-link failures. First, we
discuss the considered path protection scenario and then we
formulate the model. The model will be used as a reference in
the evaluation of heuristic algorithms proposed in Section III.
A. SBPP scenario
Among network survivability schemes, connection recovery
through path protection, in which backup network resources
are provisioned in advance for each connection, is preferred
due to its quick recovery time. In EON, network resources
correspond to spectrum resources in optical fiber links and
path protection is equivalent with provisioning backup
lightpaths for working lightpath connections.
In SBPP, backup resources can be shared between the
demands whose primary paths are not likely to fail at the same
time, on the contrary to DPP, in which each connection has its
own backup resources. Thanks to this property, resource
requirements in SBPP are usually lower than in DPP [20].
Regarding SBPP, the resources on the failure-affected paths
can be either: a) left without use or b) released and used as
spare resources for backup connections - the latter concept is
called stub release. In this paper, we focus on both scenarios,
that is without and with stub release; they are denoted,
respectively, as NS and SR.
In [13] and [15], there are distinguished two alternative
scenarios for EON with path protection capability, namely: a)
with Same Channel (SC) allocation and b) with Different
Channel (DC) allocation. Case SC is a cost-effective scenario
in which the transponders are shared between primary
(working) and backup connections and a traffic demand has
allocated the same segment of optical frequency spectrum (i.e.,
channel) on its primary and backup path. Such a solution
reduces the network cost and alleviates the connection
switching time [15]. In the DC case, the SC constraint of
having the same operating channel in both primary and backup
connections is relaxed, at the cost of installing either tunable
or dedicated (for both working and backup lightpaths)
transponders. In [13], it is shown that DC allows to reduce
spectrum requirements in the network when comparing to SC.
Therefore, in this work, we focus on modeling and
performance assessment of SBPP in the more efficient DC
scenario. However, presented below algorithms can be easily
adapted to the SC approach.
In the following, we present ILP formulations of RSA/SBPP
with NS and SR under the DC constraint, which are denoted,
respectively, as RSA/SBPP/NS/DC and RSA/SBPP/SR/DC.
B. ILP formulation
The considered network is modeled as a directed graph.
Links are labeled with e, where e = 1,2,…,E. In EON, the
number of slices to be allocated to a connection is a function
of the requested bandwidth, the modulation technique applied,
the slice width in the flexgrid, and the guard band introduced
to separate two spectrum adjacent connections, among others.
For a given network scenario, where both the transmission
parameters and flexgrid definitions are given, there is a direct
relation between the requested spectrum and the requested
bandwidth (e.g., see Sec. II in [8]). For instance, assuming the
QPSK modulation format with spectral efficiency 2 bit/s/Hz
and the slice width equal to 6,25GHz, a 100Gbit/s demand will
occupy a 50GHz spectrum segment consisting of 8 slices.
Therefore, without loss of generality, in this work the volume
of demands is expressed in terms of the number of slices.
Apart from that, we assume that the requested number of slices
is the same for both working and backup connections. It
corresponds to an EON scenario in which either a pair of
dedicated working and backup transponders operates with the
same modulation level, or a tunable transponder without
modulation adaptation capability is used. RSA/SBPP model
extensions which account for selection of different modulation
levels on working and backup paths are left for further study.
Taking the above into account, demands are labeled with d,
where d = 1,…,D, and each demand corresponds to a lightpath
request with two end nodes and the volume nd expressed in
terms of the number of slices.
We apply the link-path modeling approach [21] and we
consider that for each demand d a set of candidate pairs of link
disjoint routing paths indexed p = 1,2,…,Pd is given. In more
detail, for each pair of end nodes we have k candidate pairs of
link disjoint paths given. Thus, there are k candidate pairs of
paths for each demand (i.e., Pd = k).
We take a similar approach as in [10] and [13] for
formulating the RSA/SBPP problem as an ILP problem. In
particular, slices are labeled with s, where s = 1,2,…,S. Then,
for demand d a set of candidate optical channels c = 1,2,…,Cd
is considered, where each channel consists of a subset of
adjacent slices of size nd slices, and RSA concerns selecting a
path and assigning a channel to a demand. As shown in [10],
this modeling approach is simple and computationally more
efficient when comparing with alternative ILP formulations of
RSA [7]-[9]. Consequently, the ILP formulation of RSA/SBPP
presented in this paper is more efficient than the previous
formulation in [16], since [16] makes use of [7].
In total, there are seven sets of binary decision variables in
the presented models. First, xdpc and zdpc denote the selection of
channel c for demand d, respectively, on a working and a
backup routing path p. The third variable is wes, which is 1, if
slice s on link e belongs to a working lightpath and 0
otherwise. Next, wegs says if slice s is occupied on link e for a
working lightpath and the selected working lightpath is not
using link g. Similarly, begs denotes if slice s is occupied on
link e for restoration in the case of link g failure. The sixth
variable is yes, which is 1, if slice s is occupied on link e and 0
otherwise. Finally, variable ys denotes if slice s is occupied on
any network link. The objective is to minimize the width of
spectrum resources (denoted as Φ) required in the network,
similarly as in [7]-[9], [13], and [16]. In particular, Φ
corresponds to the largest slice index among all slices
allocated in network links and it determines the width of
spectrum that the network should support in a green-field
network design [9].
To present the models we use notation as in [21].
RSA/SBPP/NS/DC (Without Stub Release)
indices
s = 1,2,…,S slices
d = 1,2,…,D demands
p = 1,2,…,Pd candidate pairs of link disjoint paths for
demand d
c = 1,2,…,Cd candidate channels for demand d
e,g = 1,2,…,E network links
constants
δedp = 1, if link e belongs to working path p realizing
demand d; 0, otherwise
βedp = 1, if link e belongs to backup path p realizing
demand d; 0, otherwise
nd number of slices required for demand d
γdpcs = 1, if channel c associated with demand d on working
path p uses slice s; 0, otherwise (calculated according
to nd)
αdpcs = 1, if channel c associated with demand d on backup
path p uses slice s; 0, otherwise (calculated according
to nd)
variables
xdpc = 1, if channel c on working path p is used to realize
demand d; 0, otherwise (binary)
zdpc = 1, if channel c on backup path p is used to realize
demand d; 0, otherwise (binary)
wes = 1, if slice s is occupied on link e for working flows;
0, otherwise (binary)
begs = 1, if slice s is occupied on link e for restoration in the
case of link g failure; 0, otherwise (binary)
yes = 1, if slice s is occupied on link e; 0, otherwise
(binary)
ys = 1, if slice s is occupied on any network link; 0,
otherwise (binary)
objective
minimize Φ = ∑s ys (1)
subject to
∑p∑c xdpc = 1, d = 1,2,…,D (2)
∑d∑p∑c γdpcsδedpxdpc = wes e = 1,2,…,E s = 1,2,…,S (3)
∑d∑p∑c δgdpαdpcsβedpzdpc = begs e = 1,2,…,E g = 1,2,…,E
g ≠ e s = 1,2,…,S (4)
wes + begs ≤ yes e = 1,2,…,E g = 1,2,…,E
g ≠ e s = 1,2,…,S (5)
∑e yes ≤ Eys s = 1,2,…,S (6)
∑c xdpc = ∑c zdpc d = 1,2,…,D p = 1,2,…,Pd (7)
The objective (1) is to minimize the width of spectrum, in
terms of the number of slices, required in the network.
Equation (2) assures for each demand d exactly one candidate
path and exactly one candidate channel are selected. To find
the allocation of slices to working paths and to meet the
guarantee that a slice on a particular link can be allocated to at
most one lightpath, we add equation (3) to the model.
Constraint (4) denotes the allocation of slices to backup paths.
A single link failure (denoted as index g) is considered. Only
demands affected by the failure (i.e., δgdpzdpc = 1) are taken
into account. Next, the slice allocation following from
activation of backup paths is included in the definition of begs.
To meet the guarantee that a slice on a particular link can be
allocated to at most one lightpath considering both working
and backup paths as well as sharing of backup resources, we
add equation (5) to the model. Constraint (6) defines that slice
s is used in the network (ys = 1) only when there is at least one
link on which the slice s is allocated. Constraint (7) allows to
assign different channels to working and backup path of a
particular demand, however the same pair of paths (associated
with index p) must be used for the demand.
RSA/SBPP/SR/DC (With Stub Release)
variables (additional)
wegs = 1, if slice s is occupied on link e for working paths
and the selected working path is not using link g; 0,
otherwise (binary)
objective (1)
subject to (2), (4), (6-7) and
∑d∑p∑c γdpcs(1–δgdp)δedpxdpc = wegs e = 1,2,…,E g = 1,2,…,E
g ≠ e s = 1,2,…,S (8)
wegs + begs ≤ yes e = 1,2,…,E g = 1,2,…,E
g ≠ e s = 1,2,…,S (9)
Equation (8) defines variable wegs, which is 1, if slice s is
occupied on link e by working paths excluding working path
that use link g. Therefore – comparing to (3) – on the left-hand
side of (8) an additional term (1 – δgdp) is added.
Consequently, when link g fails, the slices allocated to serve
working paths of demands affected by the failure (i.e., selected
working paths of these demands use link g) are released and
can be used to serve for backup paths. Constraint (9) is a new
definition of variable yes and together with (8) guarantees the
stub release mode.
Note that, similarly as in the RSA/DPP model [13], the
above RSA/SBPP models can be extended to the SC scenario
by substituting constraint (7) with the following constraint: paths). Next, all allocated demands for which the selected
xdpc = zdpc d = 1,2,…,D p = 1,2,…,Pd c = 1,2,…,Cd (10) working path shares at least one link with path p are identified
and slices allocated to backup paths of these demands are also
However, the evaluation of the SC model is out of scope of
excluded from the residual network. Let Allocate_W(d,p,s)
this paper.
denote a function that allocates in the network demand d to
working path p starting from slice s. Similarly,
III. HEURISTIC ALGORITHMS
Allocate_B(d,p,s) allocats the demand to a backup path. Let
In this Section, we describe heuristic algorithms for solving Sort_ALG(B) denote a sorting operation applied to a set of
the RSA/SBPP problem. The algorithms are based on demands B according to the selected ordering method ALG,
previously proposed RSA algorithms: e.g., in the case of the LPF method demands are sorted
− FF a Fixed-alternate routing and First-fit frequency according to the decreasing values of the length of routing
assignment algorithm [22]; paths.
− LPF (Longest Path First) algorithm based on a greedy Each algorithm presented in this Section is formulated in
sequential processing of demands according to the two versions. In the former one – called SA (separate
decreasing values of the length of routing paths [8]; assignment) – first only working paths of each demand are
− MSF (Most Subcarriers First) algorithm based on a greedy allocated in the network and next backup paths are analyzed.
sequential processing of demands according to the In the latter version – named JA (joint assignment) in the same
decreasing number of requested slices [8]; run both working and backup paths are allocated jointly.
− LPMSF (Longest Path and Most Subcarriers First) Below, we present the pseudocode of FF/SBPP/SA and
algorithm based on a greedy sequential processing of FF/SBPP/JA algorithms, which simply process all demands
demands according to the decreasing length of a routing without any special sorting and assigns the demand to the first
path, as an additional criterion the decreasing number of candidate path.
requested slices (demand size) is taken into account [16];
− AFA (Adaptive Frequency Assignment) algorithm Algorithm 1 FF/SBPP/SA
adaptively selects a sequence of processed demands in order 1: for d = 1 to D do begin
2: s ← MinFS_W(d, 1)
to minimize Φ [7].
3: Allocate_W(d, 1, s)
Moreover, we introduce a following algorithm similar to 4: end
LPMSF, however using another sorting method: 5: for d = 1 to D do begin
6: s ← MinFS_B(d, 1)
− MSALPF (Most Subcarriers and Average Longest Path 7: Allocate_B(d, 1, s)
First) algorithm is based on a greedy sequential processing 8: end
of demands according to decreasing number of requested
slices, in the case of a tie, demands are sorted according to Algorithm 2 FF/SBPP/JA
decreasing value of an average length of candidate paths. 1: for d = 1 to D do begin
Note that all algorithms except AFA are based on the same 2: s ← MinFS_W(d, 1)
3: Allocate_W(d, 1, s)
scheme consisting in sequential processing of demands which
4: s ← MinFS_B(d, 1)
are sorted according to a selected criterion.
5: Allocate_B(d, 1, s)
Now we introduce several functions and operators necessary 6: end
to describe all algorithms. Let MinFS_W(d,p) return the lowest
indexed and accessible slice when demand d is assigned to
Now, we focus on methods LPF, MSF, LPMSF and
working path with index p. In analogous way, MinFS_B(d,p)
MSALPF. All four methods process demands in a similar
returns the lowest indexed and accessible slice when demand d
greedy way, however, various ordering of demands is applied.
is allocated to a backup path with index p. Both functions
As an example pseudocode, we describe the LPF methods both
work in a residual network, i.e., all previously allocated
for SA and JA scenarios.
demands are taken into account and only available slices (not
allocated) are available for a new demand. In more detail, in
Algorithm 3 LPF/SBPP/SA
the case of working paths all previous allocations of working
1: B ← {d : d = 1,2,…,D}
and backup paths must be considered to find the residual
2: B ← Sort_LPF(B)
network. In the case of backup paths – according to the SBPP
3: for each demand d ∈ B do begin
approach – the residual network is calculated as follows. 4: smin ← Large_number
Without loss of generality, let assume that we consider that 5: for p = 1 to Pd do begin
demand d is assigned to path pair p. First, all slices allocated 6: s ← MinFS_W(d, p)
to working paths are excluded from the residual network (in 7: if s < smin then path(d) ← p and smin ← s
the case of the stub release scenario, the slices allocated to 8: end
working paths of all failed demands are available for backup 9: Allocate_W(d, path(d), smin)
10: end avoid potential collisions.
11: for each demand d ∈ B do begin Let B denote a set all demands. Set Bn contains all demands
12: p ← path(d) from B with requested nd equal to n, i.e., Bn = {d : d ∈ B,
13: s ← MinFS_B(d,p) nd = n}. For each link e = 1,2,…,E, the collision metric is
14: Allocate_B(d,p,s)
defined as ce = ∑d∑p δedpnd. Notice that ce estimates the number
15: end
of slices that might be allocated to link e taking into account
all candidate paths (both working and backup). Let lp = ∑e∈p ce
First, algorithm LPF/SBPP/SA sorts demands according to
denote the length of path pair p (both working and backup)
selected ordering (line 2). Since working and backup paths are
calculated according to metric ce. Metric ld = |Pd|-1 ∑p lp
examined in separate runs, there are two main loops in the
denotes the average length of candidate path pairs of demand d
algorithm: lines 3-10 and lines 11-15. In the first loop, for each
according to link metric ce.
demand d all candidate paths are analyzed to find the one
For the sake of notation simplicity, we introduce the
guaranteeing selection of the lowest slice. Since the candidate
following functions. Let MinDemandFS_W(d) return the
path is chosen in the context of the working path, for the
lowest accessible slice for allocation of demand d and the
backup path only slice selection is made (line 13).
index of a working path guaranteeing the lowest slice
alocation. The processing of MinDemandFS_W(d) is
Algorithm 4 LPF/SBPP/JA
analogous to lines 4-8 of the LPF/SBPP/SA algorithm. Let
1: B ← {d : d = 1,2,…,D}
MinDemandFS(d) return the lowest accessible slice for
2: B ← Sort_LPF(B)
allocation of demand d to both working and backup paths and
3: for each d ∈ B do begin
the index of the candidate path pair – similarly to lines 4-10 of
4: smin ← Large_number
5: for p = 1 to Pd do begin
LPF/SBPP/JA algorithm.
6: s1 ← MinFS_W(d, p)
7: s2 ← MinFS_B(d, p) Algorithm 5 AFA/SBPP/SA
8: s ← max(s1, s2) 1: B ← {d : d = 1,2,…,D}, n ← max{nd : d ∈ B}, i = 1
9: if s < smin then path(d) ← p, smin ← s, sw ← s1, sb ← s2 2: Bn ← {d : d ∈ B, nd = n}
10: end 3: for each d ∈ Bn do (sd, path(d)) ← MinDemandFS_W(d)
11: Allocate_W(d, path(d), sw) 4: d* ← arg min (sd). If more than one demand yields the
12: Allocate_B(d, path(d), sb) minimum value of sd, use metric ld as a tie-breaker
13: end 5: Ci ← d*, i ← i + 1
6: Allocate_W(d*, path(d*), sd*)
The JA version of the LPF/SBPP algorithm analyzes all 7: Bn ← Bn \ {d*}; if Bn = ∅, go to step 8, otherwise go to step 3
demands in a single run, thus there is only one main loop (lines 8: n ← n – 1; if n < 1 go to step 9, otherwise go to step 2
3-13). Again all candidate pair of paths are examined to find 9: for i = 1 to D do begin
10: d ← Ci
the one with the lowest slice index. When we compare SA
11: p ← path(d)
approach against JA approach the key difference is the number
12: s ← MinFS_B(d,p)
of function MinFS_B(d, p) calls. In the former algorithm this 13: Allocate_B(d,p,s)
function is called D times, while in the second case it is called 14: end
kD, where k denotes the number of candidate paths. Recall that
function MinFS_B(d, p) among others calculates the residual The AFA/SBPP/SA algorithm analyzes demands divided
network including available slices according to the SBPP into subsets according to the value of the number of slices
approach. Therefore, the JA approach on average needs more required for a demand. The process of generating the subsets is
computational time to find the solution comparing to the SA given in lines 1, 2 and 8. Each subset of demands is processed
approach. to allocate working paths (lines 3-7), next using the same order
Note that in the case of algorithms LPMSF and MSALPF in of demands the backup paths are selected (lines 9-14). In a
line 6 of SA version and line 8 of JA version as the tie-breaker currently analyzed subset, all remaining (not allocated)
the summary length of working and backup path is applied as demands are processed to find the lowest slice allocation (lines
in [16]. Consequently, algorithm LPMSF/SBPP/JA is the same 3 and 4). Afterwards, the selected demand d* is assigned to a
as the algorithm proposed in [16]. path guaranteeing a selection of the lowest possible slice. The
Finally, we present the AFA algorithm based on the method procedure to assign slices for backup paths is comparable to
that we have proposed in [7]. The key idea behind the AFA algorithm LPF/SBPP/SA.
algorithm is to adaptively divide demands into subsets and
process each subset individually. Moreover, a special collision
Algorithm 6 AFA/SBPP/JA
metric is used to select the best paths. In particular, we want to
1: B ← {d : d = 1,2,…,D}, n ← max{nd : d ∈ B
select paths that do not include links that can be potentially
2: Bn ← {d : d ∈ B, nd = n}
selected in a large number of demands and consequently to
3: for each d ∈ Bn do begin
4: (sdw ,sdb ,path(d)) ← MinDemandFS(d)
5: sd ← max(sdw ,sdb)
6: end
7: d* ← arg min (sd). If more than one demand yields the
minimum value of sd, use metric ld as a tie-breaker
8: Allocate_W(d*, path(d*), sd*w)
9: Allocate_B(d*, path(d*), sd*b)
10: Bn ← Bn \ {d*}; if Bn = ∅, go to step 11, otherwise go to step 3
11: n ← n – 1; if n < 1 stop, otherwise go to step 2
Algorithm AFA/SBPP/JA works analogously to
AFA/SBPP/SA, however both working and backup paths are
processed in the same run. As in the case of algorithms LPF,
MSF, LPMSF and MSALPF, also the JA version of AFA is
requires larger number of residual network constructions
comparing to the SA version.
All heuristic algorithms presented in this section are
polynomial time algorithms. Due to space limitations, we skip
the detailed discussion on their complexity.
IV. RESULTS
In this Section, we present and discuss the results of
computational experiments. Four networks topologies are
examined, namely: SIMPLE6 (6 nodes, 16 links), INT9 (9
nodes, 26 links), NSF15 (15 nodes, 46 links) and UBN24 (24
nodes, 86 links), all shown in Fig. 1. We compare heuristic
algorithms presented in Sec. III and, besides, for small
networks, we provide optimal results obtained by solving ILP
models presented in Sec. II. Our main focus is on the occupied
spectrum width (Φ), in terms of the number of slices, and
computation time (T). The numerical experiments were
performed on an Intel i5 3.3GHz 16GB computer.
INT9
SIMPLE6
UBN24
NSF15
Fig. 1. Network topologies used in simulations: SIMPLE6, INT9, NSF15, and
UBN24.
Candidate pairs of primary-backup paths are link disjoint
and they are calculated (and ordered) as shortest paths, taking
into account the overall length of both paths; we consider
k∈{2,3,5,10,30}. As discussed in Sec. II.B, demands are
expressed in terms of the number of requested slices. In
details, the requested spectrum nd is an even number generated
with a uniform distribution and for randomly selected source
and destination pair of nodes. We assume the ITU flexgrid
definition [6], which requires to have the spectrum allocated
symmetrically around a central frequency. Therefore, in the
evaluation, nd is considered to be an even number, in
particular, nd∈{2,4,..., nmax}, where nmax∈{8,16}.
We have used the same set of network and traffic scenarios
as in the evaluation of dedicated path protection in our recent
paper [13]. In particular, for all networks but INT9, the results
are averaged over 100 randomly generated demand sets. The
results for INT9 are averaged over 88 demand sets since the
ILP solver could not attain the optimality for some of DPP
scenarios (see [13]). The use of common scenarios allows us
to compare the efficiency of DPP and SBPP in EON.
All results presented below in subsections A, B and C refer
to the scenario without stub release. Only subsection D
includes results with stub release.
A. Comparison of Algorithms
The first goal of experiments is to evaluate performance of
heuristic algorithms. For smaller networks (SIMPLE6 and
INT9) optimal results were provided by IBM ILOG CPLEX
12.4 (with default settings) [23]. When solving ILP problems,
it was more difficult to find the solution of SBPP than of the
corresponding DPP problem (see the relevant results for DPP
in [13]). To speed up the computation of SBPP, we set the
solution of DPP as an upper bound (UB) on Φ. As a result, the
computation time of SBPP has been reduced significantly,
from more than tens of minutes to some seconds (see Table I).
In Table I, we report performance of heuristics in
comparison to optimal results. We present results of SA and
JA approaches for each heuristic. Average value of optimality
gap and corresponding values of lengths of 95% confidence
intervals are presented (the results are averaged over 100
demand sets for SIMPLE6 and 88 demand sets for INT9). The
execution time of each heuristic was always below 30ms in
small networks. We can easily notice that AFA outperforms
other algorithms for both tested networks and provides results
close to optimal ones. Moreover, the JA approach yields better
results comparing to the SA approach for each method except
the FF algorithm.
For larger networks (NSF15 and UBN24) the CPLEX is not
able to provide optimal results in reasonable times, therefore
we compare only heuristics. In Table II, we show the average
values of Φ, average execution time, average distance to
minimum results and corresponding lengths of 95% confidence
intervals (the results are averaged over 100 demand sets for
each topology) To find the distance to minimum results, for
each unique demand set we run all algorithms and next for
each algorithm we calculate a percentage gap to the best
(minimum) obtained result among all tested methods. Again,
the AFA method provides the best results, while the MSALPF
algorithm always is the second. Recall that both these methods
are original algorithms proposed in this paper. The potential
drawback of the AFA method is much larger execution time
comparing to other methods, especially in the JA approach.
The MSALPF algorithm needs computation time similar to
other greedy methods LPF, MSF, LPMSF, while yields better
results. As in the case of smaller networks, the JA approach
provides better results than the SA approach. However – as it
was pointed out in the previous section – the JA approach
requires more operations what is reflected in higher values of
 TABLE I
OPTIMALITY GAP OF HEURISTICS FOR SMALLER NETWORKS
Scenario ILP FF MSF LPF MSALPF LPMSF AFA
Network Heuristic Φ Time [sec] Average optimality gap
SA 22.00 3.7 12.81% 10.00% 10.80% 9.95% 10.45% 7.90%
SIMPLE6
JA 22.00 3.7 14.46% 6.55% 11.12% 5.76% 9.82% 4.71%
SA 31.75 6.3 7.06% 4.22% 4.92% 4.31% 4.48% 3.40%
INT9
JA 31.75 6.3 7.45% 3.30% 5.21% 2.78% 4.84% 2.15%
Lengths of 95% confidence intervals
SA - - 2.34% 2.20% 2.11% 2.18% 2.13% 1.91%
SIMPLE6
JA - - 2.54% 1.97% 2.23% 1.89% 2.29% 1.68%
SA - - 1.91% 1.51% 1.43% 1.44% 1.37% 1.38%
INT9
JA - - 1.86% 1.36% 1.63% 1.27% 1.56% 1.22%

TABLE II
COMPARISON OF HEURISTICS FOR LARGER NETWORKS
Scenario Φ Execution time [s]
Net. Heur. FF MSF LPF MSALPF LPMSF AFA FF MSF LPF MSALPF LPMSF AFA
SA 393.7 308.2 318.6 293.0 301.8 283.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.6
NSF15
JA 417.9 272.9 294.5 263.3 283.4 256.2 0.2 5.4 5.3 5.3 5.4 70.9
SA 918.6 651.4 640.8 632.3 632.9 585.4 2.6 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.9 7.8
UBN24
JA 942.6 567.0 559.5 542.9 550.3 521.3 2.0 49.2 47.7 48.3 47.4 1048.9
Average distance to minimum result Lengths of 95% confidence intervals
SA 28.64% 9.13% 12.05% 4.47% 7.18% 1.30% 1.02% 0.86% 0.92% 0.78% 0.94% 0.49%
NSF15
JA 38.90% 6.66% 13.50% 3.31% 10.11% 0.60% 0.69% 0.63% 0.75% 0.55% 0.75% 0.27%
SA 36.16% 10.12% 8.68% 7.44% 7.51% 0.11% 0.73% 0.81% 0.71% 0.82% 0.65% 0.09%
UBN24
JA 44.79% 8.20% 7.11% 4.20% 5.59% 0.41% 0.51% 0.97% 0.63% 0.81% 0.57% 0.18%

TABLE III
PERFORMANCE OF HEURISTICS AS A FUNCTION OF THE NUMBER OF CANDIDATE PATHS
Scenario Φ Execution time [s]
Net. k FF MSF LPF MSALPF LPMSF AFA FF MSF LPF MSALPF LPMSF AFA
2 417.9 371.4 392.0 368.2 381.9 366.7 0.2 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 5.7
3 417.9 364.5 382.8 358.2 372.1 356.2 0.2 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 8.9
NSF15 5 417.9 348.2 360.3 342.1 351.4 340.6 0.2 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.2 13.5
10 417.9 310.6 316.7 299.4 305.7 292.6 0.2 2.0 2.1 2.0 2.1 25.3
30 417.9 272.9 294.5 263.3 283.4 256.2 0.2 5.4 5.3 5.3 5.4 70.9
2 942.6 813.4 826.9 794.4 817.3 792.6 2.2 6.8 6.6 6.8 6.6 103.0
3 942.6 756.1 762.9 741.4 755.7 730.5 2.3 9.0 8.7 9.0 8.8 151.0
UBN24 5 942.6 681.7 684.0 664.7 675.1 639.3 2.3 12.7 12.4 12.7 12.6 237.3
10 942.6 605.8 604.9 586.6 595.1 560.1 2.3 21.3 20.9 21.2 21.1 429.7
30 942.6 567.0 559.5 542.9 550.3 521.3 2.0 49.2 47.7 48.3 47.4 1048.9

execution time.
B. Impact of the Number of Candidate Paths
Our next goal was to analyze the impact of parameter k
(number of candidate paths) on the objective function Φ. In
Table III, we report the average results and execution time of
all heuristics as a function of k for large networks NSF15 and
UBN24. Obviously, for the FF algorithm there is no impact of
different values of k since the algorithm always selects the first
candidate path. The improvement in Φ for other algorithms
between k = 2 and k = 30 is in the range 24%-30% and 30%-
34% for NSF15 and UBN24, respectively. However, the
execution time of algorithms grows approximately in a linear
way with the increase of k what is in harmony with the greedy
approach applied in the algorithms. The execution times are
still on acceptable levels and we can conclude that it is
beneficial to use a large set of candidate paths since it has a
great impact on Φ.
C. SBPP versus DPP
The last goal of experiments is to examine the benefits
following from the sharing of backup path resources.
Therefore, we compare the SBPP approach against DPP
(Dedicated Path Protection) scenario. For comparison we use
the results of the DPP evaluation in our recent paper [12]. In
Table IV, we present the results obtained with both
approaches, for smaller networks the results are optimal, for
larger networks the results of AFA/SBPP/JA are reported. We
can easily notice that the gap between DPP and SBPP depends
on network topology and the number of candidate paths. The
general trend observed for larger networks is that with the
increase of the number of candidate paths, the gap between
both approaches also increases.
D. Stub Release
Up to now, all presented results were obtained for the
scenario without stub release. However, ILP solver as well as
all heuristics were also run for the stub release approach.
Nevertheless, the results with stub release were almost the with constructive methods proposed in this work. Besides, we
same as without stub release. In more detail, only in two of would like to examine other objective functions, e.g., to
388 demand sets considering all four tested networks, there minimize the total maximum spectrum index of all links.
was a slight difference between two investigated scenarios. In
our opinion such results follow mainly from two facts. First, REFERENCES
the objective function Φ is a min-max function, what means [1] O. Gerstel et al., "Elastic optical networking: A new dawn for the
that in many cases some changes in network routing and slice optical layer?," IEEE Comm. Mag., vol. 50, no. 2, 2012.
[2] M. Klinkowski et al., "Elastic spectrum allocation for time-varying
allocation can have no impact on the objective. Second,
traffic in flexgrid optical networks," IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., 2013
comparing to classical survivability models formulated in the (accepted for publication).
context of MPLS and similar protocols, our EON models [3] M. Jinno et al., "Spectrum-efficient and scalable elastic optical path
include additional slice continuity constraint, which makes network: Architecture, benefits, and enabling technologies," IEEE
Comm. Mag., vol. 47, no. 11, 2009.
quite difficult using of slices released by working paths after a [4] D. J. Geisler et al., "The first testbed bemonstration of a flexible
single link failure. bandwidth network with a real-time adaptive control plane," in Proc. of
ECOC, Geneva, Switzerland, Sep. 2011.
TABLE IV [5] F. Cugini et al., "Demonstration of flexible optical network based on
SBPP VS. DPP path computation element," J. Lightw. Technol., vol. 30, no. 5, 2012.
[6] ITU-T Recommendation G.694.1 (ed. 2.0), "Spectral grids for WDM
Average 95% applications: DWDM frequency grid," Feb. 2012.
Network k DPP SBPP [7] M. Klinkowski and K. Walkowiak, "Routing and spectrum assignment
Gap Conf. Int.
in spectrum sliced elastic optical path network," IEEE Commun. Lett.,
SIMPLE6 3 25.28 22.00 12.64% 2.4%
vol. 15, no. 8, 2011.
INT9 2 33.61 31.75 5.56% 1.8% [8] K. Christodoulopoulos et al., "Elastic bandwidth allocation in flexible
2 449.6 366.7 18.4% 0.9% OFDM based optical networks," IEEE J. Lightw. Technol., vol. 29, no.
3 432.5 356.2 17.6% 0.9% 9, 2011.
NSF15 5 432.5 340.6 21.2% 1.0% [9] Y. Wang et al., "Towards Elastic and Fine-granular Bandwidth
10 382.2 292.6 23.4% 1.0% Allocation in Spectrum-sliced Optical Networks," OSA/IEEE J. of Opt.
30 358.1 256.2 28.3% 0.9% Commun. and Netw., vol. 4, no. 11, 2012.
2 970.0 792.6 18.2% 0.7% [10] L. Velasco et al., "Modeling the routing and spectrum allocation
3 882.1 730.5 17.1% 1.0% problem for flexgrid optical networks," Phot. Netw. Commun., vol. 24,
no. 3, 2012.
UBN24 5 882.1 639.3 27.4% 0.8%
[11] L. Gong et al., "A two-population based evolutionary approach for
10 737.8 560.1 24.0% 0.6%
optimizing routing, modulation and spectrum assignments (RMSA) in
30 677.8 521.3 22.9% 1.0% O-OFDM networks," IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 16, no. 9, 2012.
[12] T. Takagi et al., “Algorithms for maximizing spectrum efficiency in
elastic optical path networks that adopt distance adaptive modulation,”
in Proc. of ECOC, Torino, Italy, Sep. 2010.
V. CONCLUSIONS [13] M. Klinkowski and K. Walkowiak, "Offline RSA algorithms for elastic
In this paper, we have focused on optimization of shared optical networks with dedicated path protection consideration," in Proc.
of RNDM, St. Petersburg, Russia, Oct. 2012.
protection in elastic optical networks. New ILP models of [14] M. Klinkowski, "A genetic algorithm for solving RSA problem in elastic
routing and spectrum assignment in EONs protected against optical networks with dedicated path protection," in Adv. in Intell. Syst.
single link failures were introduced. To the best of our and Comput. series, vol. 189, 2013.
[15] A. N. Patel et al., “Survivable transparent flexible optical WDM
knowledge, the models are the first ones that use the notion of (FWDM) networks,” in Proc. of OFC, Los Angeles, USA, Mar. 2011.
channels in the context of SBPP protection in EONs. Since the [16] A. Eira et al., "Optimized design of shared restoration in flexible-grid
ILP modelling can be applied efficiently only for relatively transparent optical networks," in Proc. of OFC, Los Angeles, USA,
2012.
small problem instances, we proposed several heuristic [17] A. Castro et al., "Path-based recovery in flexgrid optical networks," in
algorithms. Through extensive numerical experiments we Proc. of ICTON, Coventry, England, Jul. 2012.
showed that the best heuristic (original algorithm called AFA) [18] K. D. R. Assis, R. C. Almeida, and H. Waldman, "MILP formulation for
provides results very close to optimal results for small network squeezed protection in spectrum-sliced elastic optical path networks," in
Proc. of SPECTS 2012, Genoa, Italy, Jul. 2012.
topologies. Furthermore, we run tests for larger networks to [19] X. Shao, Y.-K. Yeo, Z. Xu, X. Cheng, and L. Zhou, "Shared-path
verify performance of algorithms as a function of number of protection in OFDM-based optical networks with elastic bandwidth
candidate paths and compare SBPP protection against non- allocation," in Proc. of OFC, Los Angeles, USA, 2012.
[20] K. Walkowiak, J. Rak, “Shared Backup Path Protection for Anycast and
sharing DPP. The main conclusions are: (i) increasing the Unicast Flows Using the Node-Link Notation,” in Proc. of ICC, Kyoto,
number of candidate paths can significantly improve the Japan, 2011.
objective function and (ii) benefit of SBPP over DPP is about [21] M. Pióro and D. Medhi, Routing, flow and capacity design
in communication and computer networks. Morgan Kaufmann, 2004.
28% and 22% for NSF15 and UBN24 networks, respectively. [22] M. Jinno, et al., "Distance-adaptive spectrum resource allocation in
Additionally, we discovered that SBPP with stub release spectrumsliced elastic optical path network," IEEE Comm. Mag., vol.
approach provides practically no additional savings comparing 48, no. 8, pp. 138–145, 2010.
[23] ILOG AMPL/CPLEX software: www.ilog.com/products/cplex/
to the SBPP without stub release.
In future work, we plan to develop soft optimization
algorithms (e.g., evolutionary, tabu search, simulated
annealing) to obtain results closer to optimal when comparing

View publication stats