1 / 30

Electrical and Computer Engineering University of Alberta 2nd Floor, 9107 – 116 Street

Factors Affecting the Efficiency of Demand-wise Shared Protection Brian Forst, Wayne D. Grover Contact: bforst@trlabs.ca, grover@trlabs.ca. Electrical and Computer Engineering University of Alberta 2nd Floor, 9107 – 116 Street Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2V4. Network Systems Group TRLabs

Download Presentation

Electrical and Computer Engineering University of Alberta 2nd Floor, 9107 – 116 Street

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Factors Affecting the Efficiency of Demand-wise Shared ProtectionBrian Forst, Wayne D. GroverContact: bforst@trlabs.ca, grover@trlabs.ca Electrical and Computer Engineering University of Alberta 2nd Floor, 9107 – 116 Street Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2V4 Network Systems Group TRLabs 7th Floor, 9107 – 116 Street Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2V4

  2. Overview • Background • 1+1 APS • DSP • Methodology & Network Families • Design Results • Practical Methods to Increase Efficiency • Conclusion

  3. Overview • Background • 1+1 APS • DSP • Methodology & Network Families • Design Results • Practical Methods to Increase Efficiency • Conclusion

  4. 1+1 Automatic Protection Switching (APS) • Oldest and simplest protection architecture • Minimum 100% redundancy • Fastest protection X A B Working path

  5. Why Demand-wise Shared Protection (DSP)? • Renewed interest in 1:N DP APS as a network protection architecture • Promising aspects include: • Fast failure-response times • Full pre-failure cross-connection of backup paths • No fault localization required • Conceptually simple to understand • Technically possible to operate in current networks • Possibility of low redundancy/high efficiency protection • Motivation for this study: • In recent studies DSP is not exhibiting the low redundancy we expected it could achieve

  6. A B DSP Working paths

  7. A B DSP X

  8. A B DSP X

  9. Overview • Background • 1+1 APS • DSP • Methodology & Network Families • Design Results • Practical Methods to Increase Efficiency • Conclusion

  10. Methodology • Obtain DSP and APS design results • Hop-based costs • Distance-based costs • Analyze route-cost statistics • New ILP model and method to calculate route-cost statistics

  11. Network Topologies • Two families of networks: • Degree 3 • Degree 4 America Europe Germany 15 Node 20 Node 25 Node

  12. Overview • Background • 1+1 APS • DSP • Methodology & Network Families • Design Results • Practical Methods to Increase Efficiency • Conclusion

  13. Design Results • Hop-based costs • Degree 3 Networks: 1%, 1% and 7% savings relative to APS • Degree 4 Networks: 11% - 12% savings relative to APS • Distance-based costs • Degree 3 Networks: 0.3%, 2.5% and 5.5% savings relative to APS • Degree 4 Networks: 8% - 9% savings relative to APS • Here, hop-based costing gives greater reductions

  14. Overview • Background • 1+1 APS • DSP • Methodology & Network Families • Design Results • Practical Methods to Increase Efficiency • Conclusion

  15. What to do? • Small savings over 1+1 APS found • Nowhere near SBPP values. • Six areas of concern have been identified

  16. 1: Average Network Nodal Degree • Degree 4 networks have higher savings than degree 3 • Greater amounts of disjoint routes

  17. dAB = 2 A B dAB = 1 A B 2: Demand Splitting Restrictions (Magnitude) • Integer amounts of demand • Cannot be further sub-divided

  18. w1 = 4 w1 = 3 w1 = 2 A A B B A B w2 = 1 dAB = 3 s= 3 s= 4 s= 2 Cost = 6 Cost = 5 w1 = 2 A B dAB = 4 w2 = 2 s= 2 Cost = 8 Cost = 6 3: Demand Splitting Restrictions (Divisibility) APS DSP

  19. 50% reduction in spare capacity 17% further reduction in spare capacity 4: Diminishing Returns of Greater Splitting

  20. 1.5% Savings 6% Savings 5: Degree 2 Nodes and Chains • Europe: 32% (9 of 28) • Germany: 41% (7 of 17) • America: 15% (2 of 14) A Germany

  21. 5: Degree 2 Nodes and Chains Europe Germany

  22. 6: Rapid Cost Increase of Higher Order Routes • Remember this equation? • We are fighting against it • Two important ratios

  23. Degree 3 Families Degree 4 Families 100% R2/R1 = 1.95 100% R2/R1 = 1.55 6: Rapid Cost Increase of Higher Order Routes • First ratio: Rn/R1 • Approximately 600 O-D pairs in each family

  24. Degree 3 Families Degree 4 Families 100% R2/R1 = 1.95 100% R2/R1 = 1.55 50% R3/R1 = 3.55 100% R3/R1 = 2.31 1% R4/R1 = 3.55 40% R4/R1 = 3.23 0% R5/R1 = N/A 6% R5/R1 = 4.85 0% R6/R1 = N/A <1% R6/R1 = 9.10 6: Rapid Cost Increase of Higher Order Routes • First ratio: Rn/R1 • Approximately 600 O-D pairs in each family

  25. dAB = 2 A B R1 : 2 work R2 : 2 spare Cost = 2R1 + 2R2 If R3 = R1 + R2 R1 = 1 work R2 = 1 spare Cost = R1 + R2 + (R1 + R2) = 2R1 + 2R2 R3 = 1 work 6: Rapid Cost Increase of Higher Order Routes • Second ratio: Rn/(R1 + R2) • R3 Case:

  26. Degree 3 Degree 4 6: Rapid Cost Increase of Higher Order Routes • Second ratio: Rn/(R1 + R2)

  27. 6: Rapid Cost Increase of Higher Order Routes • 6 disjoint routes A B 25 Node

  28. 6: Rapid Cost Increase of Higher Order Routes • Only 2 used in optimal solution! First two routes: 400 km Third route: 410 km R3/(R1+R2) > 1 B A 25 Node

  29. Conclusion • New ILP model • Identified important factors • Higher order route costs • Degree 2 nodes • Unit capacity (single-channel) demands • Guideline for the application of DSP • 3-way splits • These are new insights that give us an understanding of what limits the attainable efficiency of DSP

  30. Questions?

More Related