1 / 38

Workpackage 5 Transmission and Physical Aspects

WP5 Meeting – D13 December 6/7, 2004 Kista. Outline Achievements to date, activities Ongoing work, status D13 Outline & schedule for D19 Annual Report / Audit NOBEL 2 vision & implementation. Workpackage 5 Transmission and Physical Aspects. Herbert Haunstein.

lev-fletcher
Download Presentation

Workpackage 5 Transmission and Physical Aspects

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. WP5 Meeting – D13 December 6/7, 2004 Kista Outline Achievements to date, activities Ongoing work, status D13 Outline & schedule for D19 Annual Report / Audit NOBEL 2 vision & implementation Workpackage 5 Transmission and Physical Aspects Herbert Haunstein

  2. WP5 meeting Kista, 6./7.12.2004 Monday Dec 6, 9.30-18.00 D13: Sections will be discussed consecutively starting with section 3. Coffee breaks at 10.30 and 15.00 Lunch break 12.30-13.30 Tuesday Dec 7, 9.00-14.30 9.00 D19: Update on discussion within WP5 - Operators Group. PMD, discussion on how to define a proper margin. D19 ToC 10.45 Coffee break 11.00 The O-E-O cost study (RFI to WP2) 12.00 Lunch break 13.00 Wrap-up 14.30 End of meeting Annual report: Review of latest version - Bernd to send Audit slides requested from Partners

  3. WP5 meeting Kista, 6./7.12.2004 Start with 6.3 Q factor budget for link design (BT) Requires simplified rules OSNR margin allocation table OSNR is correlated to Tx power Design phase: set of light path design formulae, which will be fixed during deployment. Later on these formula will be used to calculate the light path margin table. Matthias‘ slides: OSNR limited system: Linear dependence on span loss Distortion limited system 1:2 degradation on no of spans. Sum-up average effects from amplifiers / linear degradation

  4. WP5 meeting Kista, 6./7.12.2004 • 6.2: • Describe the design procedure in each subsection. • Technology flow chart: • Network design phase: • Common design procedure ? Not convinced of this approach • No summary in 6.2. nor 6.3. !! • Deployment phase: • Transfer Matthias‘ work flow into a decision flow chart for transparent networks. • Later on network operation D26: • Dominic‘s work, for online route calculation • 6.3: • Yu Rong: define what format should be used to present results , well suited to support derivation of design rules in D19.

  5. WP5 meeting Kista, 6./7.12.2004 D19: Could probably ICCS work on different modulation formats for LH transmission Review D13 line by line. LU: Re-work chapter 3 !!! ICCS: ch4.1  Anders B. will inform Chris Sie: minor rework for 4.2. Conclusion section required Pi: 4.3 LU: Rework ch 5.1 combine ASEl & LU contribution Ch 5.2 / 5.3 LU: Rework ch 6.2.1 Short Haul network

  6. WP5 meeting Kista, 7.12.2004 • Operator‘s group readout: • discussion on Q factor definition based on BER calculation • -margin allocation will be done based on relative Q variation • Gottfried summary • - Reference networks • - Design procedure •  Transparent domain • O-E-O discussion: 2-5-7 (together with O.Leclerc) • Problem statement: A.Lord • Reference networks to Infinera  get back network cost (to what level of detail ?) • Go through the document to update everybody: • RFI to WP2: Collect relevant questions, derived from D15 model. • Point of contact: Sandrine Pascalini (Siemens) • Copy WP2 leader.

  7. WP5 meeting Kista, 7.12.2004 • D19 / O-E-O • Questions to be answered: • Design procedure: • 1) Most critical path defines dispersion map • 2) other paths have to use this design now • 3) further constraints will come into the network design procedure • Publication of D19 results in ComMag ?

  8. WP5 Transmission engineering Modulation format FEC OEO vs. Transparency Optical Performance Monitoring Network Design Rules Regeneration Technology Cost Building blocks Control & Management Transmission effects Optimization of Transport network Multi-dimensional optimization

  9. Consistent work program for WP5 D3 Review of building blocks D13 Models and simulation methodology, engineering rules for static p-t-p links D19 Design of the networks • For deployment & operation D26 Design tool – set of equations & dynamic modelling D28 Specifications for all-optical switchable transport network D13 p-t-p links D19 Design of the networks • For deployment & operation • D28 Specifications for all-optical switchable transport network 2004 2006 2008 Year 1 Year 2 Year 1 Year 2 NOBEL 1 NOBEL 2 FP 7

  10. Consistent work program for WP5 D3 Review of building blocks D13 Models and simulation methodology, engineering rules for static p-t-p links Provide the required capabilities for network design D19 Design of the networks • deployment (prepare for real-time operation) • operation (real time switching) D26 Design tool – set of equations & ongoing dynamic modelling D29 Specifications for all-optical switchable transport network 2004 2006 2008 Year 1 Year 2 Year 1 Year 2 NOBEL 1 NOBEL 2 FP 7

  11. How to describe performance ? • Receiver sensitivity – power budget (example 10Gb/s) • Tx: 0dBm (+OA 15dBm), Rx: -16dBm (PIN), -24dBm (APD) • OSNR requirement (at particular BER, e.g. 10-3, 10-5, 10-10 ) • E.g. 9dB, 11dB, 16dB • Dispersion tolerance, residual dispersion (linear case) • PMD tolerance • first order • higher order • Dispersion tolerance (non-linear case) • Single span • Multiple spans (Pmax law) • Complexity • Sensitivity regarding implementation tolerances • Relative cost (estimates)

  12. WP leader meeting Stuttgart, 24.11.2004 NOBEL 2 • Status: what is available today ? • Available draft WP and Part B descriptions, minutes of conf call • Partners of the consortium? • Two objectives: • Common vision together • Innovation in separate task forces • Collect required skills, identify partners to cover those. • Define horizontal activities first • Network vision (architectures, roadmap) • Technology perspective (control, management, data) • Provider‘s perspective (services, traffic volumes, etc.) • Research perspective • (Preparation for) Standardization activities (e.g. control plane, strategies for task forces) • Demonstration activities (referring to functionalities described in the network vision) to be destinguished from experimental/research verification

  13. WP leader meeting Stuttgart, 24.11.2004 NOBEL 2 – (2) • Horizontal activities. • Network vision • Consensus standardization • Experiments • Focused activities (rows) • Detailed network solutions (WP1/3/5/6/8) • WP5 for dynamic transparent networks • Survivability multi-layer • Traffic Engineering • Socio-techno economic studies: WP5 cost efficiency of transparancy • Traffic characterization, modelling, emulation/generation • Routing (L1 constaint routing) • Integrated control plane • Service and resource management • Cross-layer management of integrated networks • HW / SW and emulators implementation • Technology assessment • Local experiments

  14. WP leader meeting Stuttgart, 24.11.2004 NOBEL 2 – (3) • Tried a couple of matrices: Multi-Domain / multi-Layer core-metro, L1/L2/L3 • Network solutions (columns) • Metro • L3 • L2 • L1 • Core • L3 • L2 • L1 • New L2 metro (Ethernet/(G)MPLS) • New L2 core (burst solutions) • GMPLS (peer/overlay CP models and multi-domain, layer interworking) • Over what type of network ? • Transparent core ? • Also check NOBEL Expected Innovation Table

  15. WP leader meeting Stuttgart, 23.11.2004 Annual report v06-bis: Antonio, Gert, Gert, Stefan, Jörg, Gottfried, Monika, Carlo, HHN, Jesus? Introduction by Antonio GE: contributions by each partner ? No, but keep them aside, if required for further discussion, may be required for vision and future FP7. Updates from WP6&7: Annual report v07_Stuttgart How to report standardization contributions ? From each partner Self assessment: Achieved the goals, added 2 activities for correlation to other WPs, reference networks. Walkthrough ch. by ch. JE: Do we also consider to transport lower layer (L1) services over higher layer (L3) network functions ??? WP1/2/3/4/ how to report implementation results? Want to support testbed activities, implementation is required, summary of manpower, achievements, will be requested (Siemens, CTTC, TILab). WP5: add references ? - shall be more oriented to achievements Identify contribution to Standardardization bodies. Delivery date is 30th December to Antonio ! Prepare pieces for the AUDIT 7-11 February: Slides per work package until Dec. 15th 1st draft  key messages and WP interactions 22nd December  either comments 2nd draft

  16. WP leader meeting Stuttgart, 24.11.2004 WP coordination issues: Alignment of the project on NOBEL network vision ? Joint Task forces or activities ? Red Flags ? Potential risks or delays ? WP8: interaction with each partner, who is going to contribute to experiments WP7: WP5 overlap of Gottfried WP6: WP3 overlap on WP5: OPM WP4/WP7, transparency/cost WP7/WP2, WP3 loose („optical“ BS), WP6 adaptive interfaces, double-check on WP1 (D11) architectures. Contact also by common partners WP4: interworking with MUPPET – experiments & avoid overlapping, WP1 scenarios, WP2 traffic engineering, WP5, RFI to WP6 (mgmt. of control plane), WP8 low interaction year1 WP3: Summary slide: WP1(comment on D11)/(2/4UPC)/(6FSnode)/(7inD16) WP2: D12 delay, internal separategroups WP1: needs to join task force on VPN, use cases (mgmt. Plane objectives, does it need to know everything?) D11 section drafts available. Requested input from WPs. Short term (T-systems), midterm (ASEL), long term (TILAB) Dissemination issues: WP2/4 Traffic engineering for multilayer networks. Paper for BBEurope. Taskforce on VPN next year.

  17. Achievements • Delivered D3 • Overview on state-of-the art optical transmission, building blocks • Provided list of reference networks • Reference networks / physical layer part (from BT, DT, and TI) • Dynamic optical network – a review paper • Third round of D13 preparation (Draft 3) • Chapter3, 4, 5, 7: close to final • Chapter 6: a) Summary of simulation activities on light paths b) Preliminary conclusions and analysis of scenarios • Activity on optical monitoring with WP4 • Problem statement and task description close to final • Started to organize cost study on O-E-O vs. transparency

  18. Ongoing work • Continue D13 preparation (Draft 3) • Continue D19 preparation (Draft 1) • OPM • OEO vs. transparency • Annual Report • NOBEL2 preparation

  19. Updated schedule for D13,Lead: Anders D., Acreo Organize the work towards deliverables D13/(M12) (sets basis for D19) • Define contributions from partners (now): done • Send suggestions for critical/typical light paths (parameters) to Anders by done • Reference links derived from topology: (Anders/Ralph) Andrew/Albert • Generic reference model: Alex/Herbert, done • Agree on parameter range for simulations & metrics for comparisonQ / OSNR / Eye opening, June 18th… and on common reference networks (together with carrier‘s group) • Have we achieved this ? feedback from other WPs ? • More details on TOC for D13 (working assumptions) by end of June • Discuss first results and define further work mid of September (ECOC) • Face-to-face meeting (NBG) 7./8. October • Start writing chapter 6.2 22nd of November conference call 2-4pm • Start writing chapter 6.3 end of November • Tentative date for final D13 & D19 f-t-f-meeting, December 6/7location: Kista • Target date for final version December 20 (depends on decision end od Nov.) We are here

  20. Schedule for D19 (M15), Lead: Andrew, BT Coordinate with deliverable D13 • First TOC (and bullet items list), Andrew Oct 04 • Face-to-face meeting (NBG) 7./8. October • Define links to D13, align contributions from partnersContinue to support design rules, organize „supplier‘s group“ ? • Agree on reference network for simulations & metrics for comparison, would involve economics, hard to be covered in WP5Traffic distribution and dynamics required (carrier‘s group)Q factor • Path calculation algorithms group • Discuss first results and define further work mid of Decemberalso at Kista meeting December 6/7 • First draft (D19), before Christmas • All results by end of February • Finalize document end of March We are here

  21. Ongoing activitiesWP4/5 action on optical monitoring Team: Bela Berde, Olivier Leclerc, Jürgen Rahn, Abdel Hajjaoui, Bernd Bollenz, Monika Jäger, Herbert Haunstein Draft document: “Integrating Physical Constraints into the Overall Control and Management Plane” Current assumption: Control plane & management information comes out of the electronic domain at light path termination point. Problem Statement: In transparent networks this information may not be sufficient to for fault localization especially when switching is considered on a longer time scale Required actions identified: • WP4 provides requirements on Performance and QoS monitoring and poses them to WP5 and WP6 • WP4 provides requirements for fault localization & fault management as well • WP5 provide state-of-the-art options to extract measures for optical PM & fault detection • WP5 Derive link performance parameter based on this information Open issues: Editor for a first document (Herbert interim), staffing (not covered yet in current WP activities), timeline

  22. New activity:Cost study O-E-O vs. transparency (WP1-2-5-7) Initial Team: Andrew Lord, Gottfried Lehmann, Herbert Haunstein Meanwhile joined: Olivier Leclerc, Andreas Gladisch, Anders Berntson, Matthias Gunkel Current assumption (NOBEL annex): Optical transparency will help reducing CapEx (by reduction of O-E-O) and by switching lightpaths Problem Statement: There is no proof, if transparent optical networks will really be more cost effective than opaque networks considering latest technology achievements. Draft document: Detailed Cost Study of a Reference Network for various Network Scenarios Added detailed task description and suggested workplan (version from Nov. 12) Next steps: Contact WP1 & WP2 for support and to avoid overlapping activities (WP leader meeting, Nov. 23)

  23. “NOBEL 2 WP5 proposal Workpackage 5 description -NOBEL2.doc Scenarios (by Antonio) mind mapping for Nobel_BB_WP5_added.xls

  24. NOBEL Long Term Scenario: GMPLS Transparent Core Network Core GMPLS OXC (Lambda SC) Metro PoP: GMPLS LSR (L1SC-L2SC-L3SC) Application Server Metro Network Hub-Node GMPLS LSR L2SC, L1SC Access Node: E-LSR Access Node: E-LSR Access Network Customer with E-LSR L1 Services L3 and L2 Services Customers (e.g. Corporate, ASP, ISP) Peer-to-peer Model Customers (e.g. Residential, SOHO, etc)

  25. Copied from medium term scenario Core Nodes: Layer 1 transparent switching: OXC (optical switching fabric) Metro PoPs: Layer 1 switching: ODXC (SDH and/or ODU switching fabric) and OXC (lambda switching fabric) Layer 2 switching: Ethernet switches Layer 3 switching: IP/MPLS Hub Nodes: Layer 1 ADMs, OADMs Layer 2 switching: Ethernet switches Network Services (permanent, soft-permanent, switched) L3 and L2 via Ethernet (L2 switch access nodes) L2 (Ethernet/GFP) over SDH circuits (ADM) L1 (SDH circuits, ODU and Lambda) (OADM) Bandwidth on Demand (e.g. access vs metro, metro vs core) Bandwidth on Request (e.g. Customer) Long Term Scenario: GMPLS over what ? (added by Herbert) Overlay Model

  26. Future optical networks • Engineering rules (Metro, LH, ULH) • Optical Transparency • Analogue frequency transfer function • Bit transparency (time-discrete), optical regeneration • Opaque (digital, O-E-O) – several alternatives • Transponder (single channel) • Banded (integrated) • Dynamic Optical Networks, switching • Optical (performance) MonitoringPre-engineeredFault management by correlation ?

  27. Work structure • Dynamic Networks • Networking (meshed) • Engineering rules - point-to-point (Metro, LH, ULH) • Modulation format • Fiber parameters • Available OSNR • Reference light path • Reference Networks

  28. WP5 Deliverable D19 – bullet items • D19: Get design rules out of D13 results • Reference networks and topology • Operator group (Andrew) • Communication with WP1 • Link topology/configuration? • Design rules • Starting from existing design rules? • Relation margin vs. failure probability • Max transparency, max node count, max distance, channel count etc • ONSR degradation + fixed penalty • Accurate penalty calculation • What are the design rules used for: • Network dimensioning: initial planning, network growth, • Control-plane light-path calculation (execution time important) • Evaluation of design rules

  29. Schedule for D26 (M21), Lead: Dominic, SIE Coordinate with deliverable • Very first TOC (and bullet items list), Dominic 7 /8 Oct 04 • Face-to-face meeting (NBG) 7./8. October • Request for comments, drfine contributions We are here

  30. Deliverables

  31. WP5 Deliverable D3 D3 - Definition and description of physical layer function for transparent optical networks (M4) Lead editor: BT To deliver future broadband services, operators need to reduce the unit cost of core bandwidth - operational cost and capital cost. Implementing a control plane on traditional SDH networks is now recognised as a means to reduce operational costs (e.g. mesh restoration). Implementing transparent all-optical (photonic) core networks is recognised as a means to reduce capital costs. However putting the two together by implementing a control plane on a photonic core network remains largely a research topic since it requires some fundamental technical challenges to be addressed:- the analogue nature; the transparent nature; and the lack of wavelength conversion. This deliverable will define how the remainder of WP5 will address these challenges for core networks scaling to at least 100 nodes.

  32. WP5 Deliverable D13 D13 Physical feasibility of transparent optical networks (M12)Lead editor: ACREO Assessment of physical constraints (like power levels, bandwidth, switching speed, adaptation speed, implementation/manufacturing) for transmission systems over optical fiber links.

  33. WP5 Deliverable D19 D19 Specification of interface requirements, design rules and optimisation criteria for dynamic transparent optical networks (M15) Lead editor: BT A dynamic transparent all-optical (photonic) network involves implementing a control plane on a photonic core network. In a typical European deployment, such a network needs to scale to at least 100 nodes. When routing wavelength circuits across such a network, key technical challenges are accounting for the analogue nature of the network (e.g. under restoration conditions paths could be >1000 km even in a European network) and the lack of wavelength conversion. This workpackage will therefore identify design rules and path computation algorithms to route wavelength circuits across a ~100 node photonic core network. The work will address the full range of physical layer functionality including different modulation formats and bitrates, as well as the role for key enabling components such as adaptive dispersion (GVD and PMD) compensators for both circuit and burst switching. Pragmatic solutions for wavelength conversion and selective regeneration will also be identified. The performance of the algorithms identified in this deliverable will be modelled in D26.

  34. WP5 Deliverable D26 & D28 (plan ahead) D26 Network simulation ready for dynamic transparent optical network (M21) Lead editor: Siemens Develop flexible simulation package, which allows solving optimization at various levels of detail. Experimental verification of building blocks. Identify most critical (and time consuming) blocks. D28 Specifications for network elements and components to support experimental demonstration (M24) Lead editor: Lucent In order to support subsystem and component development for flexible optical networks, simulation results as well as experimental verification are combined to generate a set of key parameters, which can be used for optimization. Based on the simulation capabilities and details of component performance, revised specifications for improved subsystems (building blocks) will be provided.

  35. Backup

  36. Network Services Application Testbeds & Trials Transport Services Network Control & Management Physical Transmission Node Architecture Enabling Technologies Work structure – requirement flow

  37. Hx(w) [Hx]-1(w) Ex Hy(w) Electronics [Hy]-1(w) ETx 2 2 Ey Receiver Data modulation Introduction (OFC 2004) • Chromatic dispersion & PMD • Both effects describe linear (phase) distortions to the electrical field propagating through the fiber • Thus can be compensated by ‘inverse transfer function’

  38. WP5 Deliverable D13 - TOC 3. Modelling optical transmission Co-ordinating partner: Lucent. Contributions from: ICCS, Acreo. 4. Propagation effects and impact of nodes 4.1 Optical node components - AWGs, OADMS, OXCs, wavelength converters and optical monitoring Co-ordinating partner: ICCS. Contributions from: Lucent, Pirelli 4.2 Amplifiers - transients and spectral properties. Co-ordinating partner: Siemens. Contributions from: ACIT, Marconi, T-systems. Might be more spectral properties than transients, Transients in EDFAs is dependent on ACIT. 4.3 PMD eye closure Co-ordinating partner: Pirelli 5. Emerging technologies. 5.1 Electronic equalisation Co-ordinating partner: ASEL. Contributions from: Acreo, Lucent. 5.2 Optical equalisation Co-ordinating partner: Pirelli. Contributions from: Acreo, ASEL. 5.3 Modulation formats Co-ordinatng partner: Acreo. Contributions from: Lucent, Pirelli, Siemens 6. Ref link modelling 6.1 Definition of ref light paths Co-ordinating partner: BT. Contibutions from: operators (ref networks document). 6.2 Summary of simulation activities on ref light paths Note: will contain both 10G and 40G simulations. Co-ordinating partner: Acreo Contributions from all. 6.3 Preliminary conclusions and analysis of scenarios Proposal: this point can be the bridge to D19. Could contain preliminary strategies for different scenarios e.g. one cheap metro with? without? DCFs, one expensive (ULH) Co-ordinating partner: BT Contributions from all

More Related