Routing and Wavelength Assignment Strategy in Distributed

Multi-domain DWDM Network

Ke Wang
Department of Communication Engineering, School of
Information Engineering
University of Science and Technology in Beijing,
Beijing, P.R. China
E-mail: keminming@163.com

Jianping Wang
Department of Communication Engineering, School of
Information Engineering
University of Science and Technology in Beijing,
Beijing, P.R. China
E-mail: jpwang@tsinghua.org.cn
AbstractAs the distributed multi-domain DWDM optical
network has been advocated to be the next generation optical
network, there is a pressing need to address the inter-domain
RWA (Routing and wavelength assignment) problem. Thus, we
propose a set of new inter-domain RWA schemes, including a
MLP (Most leisure path) routing strategy based on the Hybrid
abstraction and a ID-MU (Inter-domain most used) wavelength
assignment algorithm based on the MU assignment algorithm.
The proposed schemes are tested by a simulation network which
is very close to practical distributed DWDM network. The result
proves that the combination of MLP and the ID-MU could
effectively reduce both the intra and the inter domain blocking
probability, and the ID-MU could also optimize the wavelength
utilization.
Keywords-Distributed multi-domain network; Topology
abstraction; Inter-domain routing; Wavelength assignment

I. INTRODUCTION
To date, DWDM (Dense wavelength division multiplexing)
has been regarded as the most suitable transmission
technology for the next generation network which is
characterized by multi-domain and large scale [1]. DWDM
technology efficiently utilizes the spectrum resources to
transmit multiple channels at extremely high speed. Much
effort has been made in the framework for the multi-domain
DWDM network. For instance, the generalized multi-protocol
label switching (GMPLS) which designed by IETF provides
no-packet circuit-switched connections via label abstractions
for wavelength, timeslot, etc [2]. Meanwhile, the ITU-T
proposed a broadbased automatic switched optical network
(ASON) framework [3]. And, the OIF has developed a
generic network-to-network (NNI) specification to deal with
the multi-domain lightpath provisioning problem. However,
the implementation of these frameworks has not been unified.
Most of the previous works relating to the RWA (Routing
and wavelength assignment) problem focused on the single
domain problem. However, the administrative and the
technological boundaries make it much involved to provision
a lightpath in distributed multi-domain networks. In this case,
there is a pressing need to develop more advanced RWA
algorithms and strategies to handle the multi-domain network
lightpath provisioning problem. Some studies which have
been made quite recently discussed the multi-domain scenario.
However, most of them suffer more or less deficiencies and
weaknesses. Clearly, these works need to be reconsidered and
further studied to gain better performance.
With the rapid expansion of the DWDM network, it is
impossible for a single entity to maintain the entire link state
resources of the whole network. As a result, many tasks once
belonged to the unique management entity in the single
domain network need to be assigned to the management nodes
of different domains. Each of these nodes maintains a
synchronized virtual topology of the upper routing layer for
the LR (loose route) calculation. The virtual topology is
generated by the information aggregation and topology
abstraction process. The aggregation and topology abstraction
technique can be derived from the packet switching IP
networks, but it need to be modified for the special needs of
the DWDM network.
This paper focuses on the inter-domain lightpath
provisioning problem in distributed multi-domain optical
network including the topology abstraction strategy and RWA
algorithm. To improve the performance of the RWA algorithm,
the topological feature, the wavelength resources factor and
the blocking probability of different domains are considered.
Accordingly, a Hybrid topology abstraction strategy is
adopted, which uses the domain topological feature to choose
the most suitable abstraction strategy and makes a trade-off
between the abstraction accuracy and the routing overhead.
Moreover, an inter-domain routing strategy MLP (Most
leisure path) is proposed, which selects the path with
maximum available wavelengths to reduce the blocking
probability. Finally, a wavelength assignment algorithm called
ID-MU (Inter-domain most used) is also proposed to optimize
the wavelength usage by taking the blocking probability
factor into account.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 is
a background review. In section 3, we present the proposed
inter-domain RWA algorithm and the lightpath provision
scheme. The simulation results are discussed in section 4. In
This research was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation Project of P.R. China (NO: 60872047) and
the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (FRF-TP-09-015A).

978-1-4244-6554-5/11/$26.00 2011 IEEE
section 5, the conclusion is drawn.
II. BACKGROUND
Many proposals referring to the framework of distributed
multi-domain optical network have been made by the
standardization organizations. For example, the ASON
network which is proposed by ITU-T defines a comprehensive
multi-level routing hierarchy consisting of areas [4]. Various
IETF proposals have also tabled traffic engineering extensions
to inter-area protocols and inter-domain border gateway
protocol (BGP) to propagate resource state information [4,5].
And the OIF has developed a generic network-to-network
(NNI) specification to deal with multi-domain lightpath
provisioning problem [6,7]. Nonetheless, detailed
inter-domain routing and provisioning schemes in
multi-domain DWDM network have not been fully discussed
and described.
Some literature relating to DWDM network routing and
signaling problem have been presented in [8-11].For example,
[8] details a hop-by-hop routing and signaling scheme in
which domain gateways maintain complete (alternate) route
state. However, related resource propagation (path
dissemination) is not considered and hence this setup is more
favorable to BGP-type implementations. On the other hand, [9]
proposes a hierarchical inter-domain solution for ASON using
a simple-node abstraction policy. However, this abstraction
policy will cause inaccuracy in certain domain with complex
topology. Moreover, [11] proposed a set of light path
provision and signaling schemes that still suffered from some
flaws and problems. For example, the topology abstraction
strategy failed to reconcile the conflict between routing
overhead and abstraction accuracy. In addition, the
inter-domain wavelength assignment algorithm used by [11]
indiscriminately imitated the single domain form, which cant
be appropriately applied to the multi-domain scenario. Hence,
we propose an improved lightpath provision scheme. Details
of this scheme will be discussed right now.
III. INTER-DOMAIN LIGHTPATH PROVISION
Routing and wavelength assignment (RWA) is the crucial
problem in distributed multi-domain DWDM network. Here,
two different network structures are assumed. One is
transparent network which contains only all-optical nodes.
The other is translucent network in which only border nodes
are wavelength convertible and all the interior nodes remain
all-optical. The proposed scheme involves several key steps
for inter-domain RWA, including the topology abstraction,
the routing strategy and the wavelength assignment algorithm.
Details of these steps are presented below.
1. Topology abstraction
The topology abstraction is mainly use to deal with two
problems. One is to summarize the low level topology to
generate a high level abstract topology and hide the domain
details. The other is to calculate the link cost of the high level
links to make it more precisely represents the original link
cost. Generally, the cost could be get from several link
attributes, such as hops, bandwidth, delay, etc. In this paper,
the wavelength count attribute is used to calculated the link
cost.
In the topology aggregation procedure, one of border
nodes is commonly designed as the speaker (RC) node to
execute the abstraction, which summarized the topology
information at its routing level and send it to the upper level
speaker node. Then the upper level speaker node will flood
this information to other upper level nodes to keep a
synchronized view. If there are more than two levels, the
above procedure will be repeated until the topology
information reached the top level. Later in the routing
procedure, the speakers in each level will compute the routing
table according to the topology database.
Here, three kinds of topology abstraction strategies have
been studied: Simple Node abstraction, Full Mesh abstraction
and the Hybrid abstraction.

Figure 1. Physical topology before abstraction

Before discussing these abstraction strategies in details,
we should first make some indispensable declarations.
Consider a DWDM network containing M domains, and the
i-th domain has n
i
nodes and b
i
border nodes (1<i<M).
Sub-domain graph is ) , (
i i i
L V G , where
{ }
i
n
i i
i
v v V , ,
1
= is the set of physical domain nodes and
{ }
i
n
i i
i
l l L , ,
1
= is the set of intra-domain links in domain
i.
i
B represents the border nodes of domain i,
} , , {
1
i
b
i i
i
v v B = . For multi-domain routing, a higher-level
of topology containing border nodes and inter-domain links is
) , ( E W H , where

i
i
B W = is the set of border nodes
and } {
ij
km
e E = ( j i )is the set of physical inter-domain
link (e
km
ij
) is the inter-domain link connects the border node k
in domain i and the border node m in domain j . Either the
intra-domain or the physical inter-domain link carries a
wavelength available vector in which the various wavelengths
are marked by 1or 0, which means whether the wavelength is
available or not. The graph ) , ( E W H does not have the full
connectivity of the network and the link cost depends on
abstraction strategy which is to be discussed below.
Simple Node (SN): this method condenses a domain to a
simple virtual node hiding all physical intra-domain links [12].
For example, as it show in the Fig. 2. The three domains in
Fig. 1 collapsed to three single nodes v1, v2, v3. All the
intra-domain links are not visible and just remain the physical
inter-domain links between the v1, v2, v3 and the costs of
these links are just ignored. This is the simplest abstraction
method meanwhile would have the worst routing
performance.
Full mesh abstraction (FM): this method preserve more
inside domain details than the simple node do [12]. It uses the
border nodes and the virtual links connecting them to
represent an abstracted virtual topology. The scheme will run
K-shortest path for each border node pairs (k,m) in domain i
to generate a set of paths } {
ij
km
i
e E = (i=j). Each path e
km
ij
between k and m maintain an available wavelength vector
which is gathered from the wavelength available vector in
every physical link along this path. The number of available
wavelengths C(e
km
ij
) in each e
km
ij
is counted. The path with
)) ( max(
ij
km
e C would be chosen as the intra-domain virtual
link between node pair (k,m). And the number of available
wavelengths of an inter-domain physical link is marked with
C(e
km
ij
) (ij) as the link cost. This abstraction strategy is
shown in Fig. 2. It shows a significant higher abstraction
complexity than the simple node method but would lead to a
better routing performance.
Hybrid abstraction (TH): The simple node scheme
provides no visibility into domain and has low abstraction
accuracy. Meanwhile, the full-mesh scheme provides more
accurate description of inner domain topology, albeit at the
cost of significant computational complexity. The hybrid
abstraction method is derived from the above two methods
[13]. To be specific, a domain will be represented by FM
abstraction, if the number of its intra domain links is less than
(b(b1)); otherwise, SS is abstraction is adopted as it shows
in Fig. 2. The computation complexity is between
( ) E O and ( ) ) (
2

+
i
i
n E O .
1
1
V
3
1
V 3
2
V
2
1
V
2
2
V
2
3
V
1
1
V
3
1
V
3
2
V
2
1
V
1
V
2
V
3
V

Figure 2. Topology abstraction




2. Inter-domain routing strategy
The multi-domain network supports the hierarchical
routing to block the information interchange among different
domains. Generally, three or above levels model will
significantly undermine the routing performance, so it is more
practical to adopt the two level routing model. The
inter-domain routing procedure in multi-domain network is
more complex than the single domain case, because the route
selection must rely on the topology of each routing level.
However, in the two level model, the routing procedure could
be simplified and divided into two steps: First, the candidate
LR (Loose route) is computed according to the high level
abstracted topology. Second, the LR will be expanded by the
ingress border node according to the low level physical
topology to get the ER (Explicit route).
The LR is computed using K-shortest path algorithm
based on the abstracted virtual topology. When the calculation
is finished, a set of LR sequences between the source and
destination called candidate LRs will be generated and later a
optimum LR among them will be further selected as the final
result. Traditionally, two similar selection schemes are mostly
used to select the final LR. One is minimum hop, the other is
minimum converters. However, both of them cant provide
best blocking performance for inter-domain lightpath. As a
result, more advanced selection scheme is needed, which is
discussed below:
Considering the wavelength constraint, there must be at
least one available wavelength in all links along the LR.
Assuming that the wavelength states in each hop are mutually
independent and the numbers of available wavelengths in the
adjacent hops are i and j, then the probability that the two
hops share n common wavelength is:

( )
j s
s
i
s
j
i s
C
C C
n
P P B
j
s
n j
i s
n
i

= =

=
0 0
2
(1)

Here S is the total number of wavelengths, P
s-i
is the
probability that the first hop has i available wavelengths
and P
s-i
is the probability that the second hop has j ava
ilable wavelengths. Moreover, the probability that the l h
ops link share n common wavelengths is:

( ) ( )
j s
l
i
s
i
s
j
C
C C l
n
P B B
j
s
n j
i s
n
i

= =

=
1
0 0
(2)

The probability that no common wavelength is shared
by the l hops is:

( ) ( )
j s
l
i
s
i
s
j
C
C l
P B B
j
s
j
i s

= =

=
1
0 0
0
(3)
B
0
(l)
also represents the blocking probability of the l hops link.
According to the recurrent formula shown in (3), the
blocking probability is not only decided by the hops l, but also
by the probability of the number of available wavelength that
a link possesses, in other words, the extent to which a link is
leisure or idle.
In this case, MLP (most leisure path) is proposed to take
both the hops factor and the available wavelength factor into
consideration. First, the MLP routing algorithm will find out a
sequence of candidate LR by using K-shortest paths. Then,
each LR will inspect its own links to find out
the )} ( { min
ij
km
LR e
e C
i
km

, which has been discussed in the

topology abstraction scheme section and represents the
possible number of available wavelengths a LR might have.
Finally, the MLP will choose the LR with the
)}} ( { min { max
ij
km
LR e
e C
i
km

in the candidate LR sequences for

the route expansion. This process is illustrated in Fig. 3,
where the minimum number of available wavelengths of
lightpath A and B are five and three, so lightpath A is chosen.
Figure 3. MLP routing strategy
3. Wavelength assignment algorithm
The distributed multi-domain wavelength assignment is
quite different from the conventional single domain
wavelength assignment algorithm because of the boundary
restriction that link state resource could not be share among
domains. Generally, the following single domain assignment
algorithms have been studied and can be found in literature:
RANDOM, FF, LU, MU, MP, LL, M, RCL, WR and PT
[14-20]. As the fifth and the sixth algorithms are used in
multi-fiber network, and the last two algorithms are designed
to reduce the blocking probability for long path only, they are
not considered here [21]. In single-fiber network, the MU
outperforms RANDOM, FF and LU. Meanwhile, MU is less
expensive than M and RCL. As a result, MU is chosen as
the base of the inter-domain wavelength assignment
algorithm.
In single domain network, a global wave array is
maintained, where wave [i] is the number of links in which
wavelength i is assigned. The MU wavelength assignment
algorithm chooses a wavelength for which wave[i] is maximal
[14]. However, in distributed multi-domain networks, each
domain has its own wave vector, which is different from other
domains. And a global wave vector is not supported in
distributed network, because it is inconsistent with the
principal of distributed network that to disseminate link state
resource to domains to reduce the burden of the control plane.
Therefore, some ineluctable modifications for MU are needed.
Note that the inter-domain lightpath will increase the
inter-domain traffic load and the blocking probability of the
domains it has traveled through, because it seized the link and
wavelength resources in these domains. Moreover, the
increment is particularly obvious in the pivotal domains
which are in the topological center of the network, since most
of the inter-domain lightpath need to pass through them. So
the inter-domain wavelength assignment algorithm should be
able to reduce the blocking probability caused by
inter-domain lightpath requirement in the pivotal domains.
Moreover, the inter-domain wavelength assignment algorithm
should also be able to reduce the blocking probability cause
by intra-domain requirement in domains with heavy
intra-domain traffic load in order to balance the performance
of every domains in the network. For convenience, domains
with heavy inter/ intra domain traffic load are all referred to as
busy domains.
To take the above factors into consideration, a new
inter-domain wavelength assignment algorithm ID-MU
(Inter-domain most used) is proposed, which is designed to
uses the wave array from every domain along the lightpath
instead of the global one. And the blocking probability of
these domains is also used to judge if a domain is busy.
Before discussing the ID-MU, some important definitions and
assumptions are present below:
(1) { }
s a
, ,
1
= is the set of available wavelengths
in a lightpath.
(2) { }
n l
D D D , ,
1
= is the set of domains along the
lightpath.
(3)
i
is defined as the blocking probability of domain i.
) ( 1 totoal success
i
= (4)
(4) 1 S
j
W is the wavelength utilization rank array in
domain j.
T j
s
j j
S
j
w w w W ) (
2 1
1 = , where
j
i
w (1is) is the
wavelength utilization rank of wavelength i in domain j,
(5)
N S
W

is the wavelength utilization rank matrix of s
wavelengths in n domains.

|
|
|
|
|
.
|

\
|
= =

n
s
n
n
s s
n
N S
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
W W W W

2
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
2 1
) , , , ( (5)
(6)
T
n N
d d d D ) (
2 1 1
=

is the blocking probability

rank array of the s domains, where d
i
(1in) is the blocking
probability rank of domain i.
(7)
1
'
S
W is the inter-domain wavelength utilization
rank array,
i
w' is inter-domain wavelength utilization rank of
wavelength i.


( )
=

= =

l
l N N S T
s S
D
D D W
w w w W
0
' ' ' '
1
2 1 1
(6)


ID-MU, the wavelength utilization rank array is generated
from the wave array. The available wavelengths in the wave
array will be sorted according to their utilization frequency in
descending order and each of them will attain a rank that
equals to their position in the sorted array. For example, the
most used wavelength will be given the rank number 1, the
second will be given 2 and so on. Besides, every domain
along the lightpath will be ranked in an identical manner to
generate the blocking probability rank array.
Then the inter-domain wavelength utilization rank array
will be calculated by the equation (6), where a new factor
i
w' called inter-domain wavelength utilization rank is defined
to represent the assignment priority of the available
wavelengths. The ID-MU will choose the wavelength with
minimum rank among the available wavelengths.
According to equation (6) , busy domains will be given
precedence over other domains when assigning the
wavelength to reduce their blocking probability. If D
l
is empty,
which means that the lightpath contains only an inter-domain
link where the inter-domain wavelength utilization rank array
is zero and all the available wavelengths have the same
priority.
Finally, the complete process of ID-MU is presented
below: First, the selected light path L is divided into N+1
sub-path
m
sub
L (1<m<N+1) by N converters which are
actually used. In transparent network, as there is no converter
(N=0), the light path will not be divided. Later, each available
wavelength vector belongs to virtual links and physical
inter-domain links along the lightpath will perform a logical
ADD operation to generate a new available wavelength vector
for the entire lightpath and
1
'
S
W should be calculated.
Then, a wavelength with maximal
i
w' in
1
'
S
W will be
assigned to the lightpath. In the translucent network, the
logical ADD operation is performed in each sub-path
m
sub
L ,
and the
N S
W

' is computed respectively in these sub-paths.
Then, each sub-path selects its own wavelength according to
1
'
S
W . Finally, the converters will work, if the adjacent
sub-link selected different wavelength.
Compared with the Random and the FF algorithm, this new
wavelength assignment algorithm has several advantages. First,
it can prevent the deterioration of block situation in the busy
domains and make full use of its wavelength resources.
Second, the average blocking probability in a network is lower
by using ID-MU than Random or FF. Third, the blocking
probability of inter-domain lightpaths is lower as well. Fig. 4
shows the ID-MU algorithm in translucent network, where the
lightpath is divided into two sub-path and each one chooses its
own wavelength according to
1
'
S
W .


Wave Rank Rank'
1 1 1

2
2 2

3
3 3

4
4 4

5
5 5

6
6 6

7
7 7

8
8 8
B
1
B
2
B
3
Most used wavelength is 1 Most used wavelength is 2
Lsub
1
assigned with 2
Lsub
2
assigned with 3
Most used wavelength is 3
3 has the minimum rank in W' Convert from 2 to 3
Wave Rank'
D1 D2
1 1 4 6
2 2 1 5

3
3 2 8

4
4 3 11

5
5 5 15

6
6 6 18

7
7 7 21

8
8 8 24
Rank Dom Rank
D1
2
D2
1
The wavelength utilization rank
matrix of domain-1 and
domain-2 and the inter-domain
wavelength utilization rank
array W'
2 has the minimum rank in W'
The blocking
probability rank
array of domain-1
and domain-2
The wavelength utilization
rank array of domain-3 and
the inter-domain
wavelength utilization rank
array W'
D1 D2
D3
Figure 4. ID-MU algorithm in translucent network

4. Inter-domain light path setup procedure
In the previous section we have discussed several key
steps in inter-domain lightpath setup procedure, including
topology abstraction, routing and wavelength assignment
algorithm. Now, the entire inter-domain light path setup
procedure will be demonstrated below.
First of all, the inter-domain lightpath provisioning in
multi-domain networks adopts RSVP-TE [22] signaling
system which is designed for resources reservation in
circuit-switching networks. Meanwhile, the topology
abstraction scheme is hybrid scheme to make a trade-off
between the computation complexity and the abstraction
accuracy. When an interior OXC node originates an
inter-domain light path setup requirement, this node first
sends a query message to the nearest border node. Then, a set
of loose route (LR) sequences will be computed according to
virtual topology and a candidate LR is chosen using certain
scheme such as minimum hops and proposed MLP. This LR
sequence involves the egress border node in source domain,
all egress and ingress border nodes in intermediate domains,
final ingress border in destination domain. If the source node
is a border node, some of the above step will only be
performed logically.
Next, the LR is packaged into a RSVP-TE PATH signaling
and sent downstream for further route expansion. Here ingress
border nodes in intermediate domains carry out the explicit
route expansion to resolve the link to the egress border nodes
in their domain. And the ingress border nodes in the
destination domain work out the explicit route to the
destination OXC node. If the path is fully expanded, a
wavelength is chosen by particular wavelength assignment
algorithm. Here ID-MU algorithm is recommended to solve
the assignment problem in transparent or translucent network.
Finally, the wavelength information is packaged into an
upstream RSVP-TE RESV message and sent back to the
source OXC node. All OXC nodes receiving a RESV message
will check and reserve the required wavelength on each link
and terminate setup if the wavelength is unavailable. The
procedure is shown in Fig. 5.



Figure 5. Flow chart of inter-domain lightpath setup procedure
IV. SIMULATION AND ANALYSIS
The testing network, which is built on NS2 simulation
software, contains seven domains with fifteen pairs of
unidirectional inter-domain links and fifty eight pairs of
intra-domain link. The number of wavelengths per fiber is set
to be sixteen .The average amount of inter-domain links is
4.28, which shows a good inter-domain connectivity. The
average amount of intra-domain links is 16.6. To ensure the
blocking probability varies from domain to domain, the traffic
load in each domain is different. First the simulation program
tests the performance of the network only with intra-domain
connection requirement. Then the intra/inter-domain
requirements are launched simultaneously at a ratio of 5/5 to
test the inter-domain performance. The blocking probability
including the inter, intra, and average will be measured
together. Total requirements are average over 10
5
attempts and
the traffic load is increasing from 0 to 300 Erlang.
In Fig. 7, different kinds of topology abstraction, Simple
node, Full mesh and Hybrid are compared. The routing and
wavelength assignment strategies are fixed to be MLP and
ID-MU. The result in Fig. 7 shows that Simple node method
has the worst performance among the tree strategies, in
contrast, the Full mesh method shows the lowest blocking
probability. Because the Full mesh abstraction can provide
more accurate topology to the routing strategy to gain better
routing performance. The performance of Hybrid method is
better than the simple node method but worse than Full mesh
method as expected, for it makes a trade-off between the
routing accuracy and the calculation complexity or routing
overhead. When the traffic load is light, the performances of
the three methods are very similar to each other. However,
when the traffic load grows, the performance varies a lot.
In Fig. 8, the proposed MPL routing strategy is compared
with the minimum hop count strategy. The topology
abstraction is supposed to be Hybrid abstraction. The ID-MU
is chosen as the wavelength assignment strategy. The curves
in Fig. 8 show that the MLP gets better performance than the
minimum hop only when the traffic load is heavy. Because
when the load is light, both the long paths and short paths
have enough available wavelength resources and the MLP
prefers to choose short path just like the minimum hop does.
However, when the load grows, different from the minimum
hop strategy, the MLP will give up some short but busy path
to avoid block.

Figure 6. Simulation network


Figure 7. Inter-domain Bp with different topology abstraction scheme


Figure 8. Inter-domain Bp with different routing strategy
Finally, two wavelength assignment algorithms are tested,
which are the proposed ID-MU algorithm and FF algorithm.
Fig. 9 demonstrates the blocking probabilities in the domain
with heavy traffic load ranging from 120 to 300 Erlang with
and without inter-domain lightpath requirement. As it shows,
blocking probability grows after the inter-domain connection
requirement appeared. However, the growth is less significant
by using the ID-MU method than by FF, because the ID-MU
can optimize the wavelength utilization in domain with heavy
traffic, which is helpful to reduce the blocking probability.
Fig. 10 shows the average blocking probability and the
blocking probability of inter-domain lightpath in transparent
network by using different wavelength assignment strategy.
As it shows, with the same traffic load, the inter-domain
blocking probability is higher than the average, because the
number of inter-domain links is generally less than number of
intra-domain links, which makes the routing process harder.
However, in both cases, the ID-MU shows better performance
than the FF.
In translucent network, as it shows in Fig.11, the blocking
probability is lower because of the use of wavelength
converter, and the ID-MU also shows better performance.

Figure 9. Bp in domain with heavy traffic

Figure 10. Bp in transparent network


Figure 11 . Bp in translucent network
V. CONCLUSION
In this paper, the inter-domain RWA for distributed
DWDM network is discussed. In addressing the inter-domain
lightpath setup problem, a topology abstraction strategy
named Hybrid is adopted which is derived from the FM and
SS strategy. Besides, considering both the hops and the
wavelength resources factor, a new inter-domain routing
strategy called MLP is proposed. In addition, to reduce
blocking probability, a new inter-domain wavelength
assignment algorithm called ID-MU is proposed as well,
which extends the MU algorithm to the inter-domain scenario.
The result shows that the Hybrid abstraction successfully
made a trade-off between routing overhead and the abstraction
accuracy and the MLP showed a better performance than the
previously used minimum hops method when the traffic load
grew. Finally, the ID-MU can effectively reduce both the intra
and inter domain blocking probability.
REFERENCE
[1] N. Ghani. J. Pan, X. Cheng, Metropolitan optical networks, Optical
Fiber Telecommunications IV, Academic Press, London, March 2002,
pp. 329403 (Chapter 8)
[2] G. Bernstein, B. Rajagopalan, D. Saha, Optical Network
Control-Architecture, Protocols and Standards, Addison Wesley,
Boston, 2003.
[3] ITU-T Rec.G8080/Y.1304, Architecture for the Automatically
Switched Optical Network(ASON), Novemeber 2001.
[4] J.Vasseur, Inter-Area and Inter-AS MPLS Traffic Engineering, IETF
Draft draft-vasseur-ccamp-inter-area-as-te-00.txt, 2004.
[5] B. St. Arnaud et al., BGP optical switches and lightpath route arbiter,
Optical Networks Magazine 2 (2), pp.7381, 2001.
[6] W. Alanqar, A. Jukan, Extending end-to-end optical service
provisioning and restoration in carrier networks: opportunities, issues,
and challenges, IEEE Communications Magazine, pp.5260, 2004.
[7] I.Iliadis, Optimal PNNI complex node representations for restrictive
costs and minimal path computation time, IEEE/ACM Transactions on
Networking 8 (4), 2000.
[8] X. Yang, B. Ramamurthy, Inter-Domain Dynamic Routing in
Multi-Layer Optical Transport Networks, IEEE GLOBECOM 2003,
San Francisco, CA, December 2003.
[9] S. Sanchez-Lopez, et al, A Hierarchical Routing Approach for
GMPLS-Based Control Plane for ASON, IEEE ICC 2005, Seoul,
Korea, June 2005.
[10] P. Ho, H.T. Mouftah, A novel survivable routing algorithm for
segment shared protection in mesh WDM networks with partial
wavelength conversion, IEEE Journal of Selected Areas on
Communications 22 (8), pp.15391548, 2004.
[11] Q. Liu et al., Hierarchical Inter-Domain Routing in Optical DWDM
Networks, IEEE INFOCOM 2006 High-Speed Networking Workshop,
Barcelona, Spain, April 2006.
[12] T. Korkmaz and M. Krunz, Source oriented Topology Aggregation
with Multiple QoS Parameters in Hierarchical Networks, IEEE/ACM
Transactions on Modeling and Computer Simulation, vol. 10, pp.
295325, Oct. 2000.
[13] Guido Maier, Chiara Busca, Achille Pattavina, Multi-Domain Routing
Techniques with Topology Aggregation in ASON Networks, 2008
International Conference on Optical Network Design and Modeling
(ONDM), pp.1-6, March 2008.
[14] I. Chlamtac, A. Ganz, and G. Karmi, Purely Optical Networks for
Terabit Communication, Proc., IEEE INFOCOM 89,Washington, DC,
vol. 3, pp. 887-896, April 1989.
[15] R. A. Barry and S. Subramaniam. The MAX-SUM Wavelength
Assignment Algorithm for WDM Ring Networks, Proc., OFC 97, Feb.
1997.
[16] A. Birman and A. Kershenbaum, Routing and Wavelength Assignment
Methods in Single-Hop All-Optical Networks with Blocking, Proc.,
IEEE INFOCOM 95, Boston, MA, vol. 2, pp. 431-438, April 1995.
[17] G. Jeong and E. Ayanoglu, Comparison of Wavelength-Interchanging
and Wavelength-Selective Cross-Connects in Multiwavelength
All-Optical Networks, Proc., IEEE INFOCOM 96, San Francisco, CA,
vol. 1, pp. 156-163, March 1996.
[18] E. Karasan and E. Ayanoglu, Effects of Wavelength Routing and
Selection Algorithms on Wavelength Conversion Gain in WDM
Optical Networks, IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, vol. 6, no.
2, pp. 186-196, April 1998.
[19] S. Subramaniam and R. A. Barry, Wavelength Assignment in Fixed
Routing WDM Networks, Proc., ICC 97, Montreal, Canada, vol. 1, pp.
406-410, June 1997.
[20] X. Zhang and C. Qiao, Wavelength Assignment for Dynamic Traffic in
Multi-fiber WDM Networks, Proc., 7th International Conference on
Computer Communications and Networks, Lafayette, LA, pp. 479-485,
Oct. 1998.
[21] H. Zang, J. Jue, B. Mukherjee, A review of routing and wavelength
assignment approaches for wavelength- routed optical WDM networks,
Optical Networks Magazine 1 (1), 2000.
[22] The Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) Working Group decision
on MPLS signaling protocols, RFC3468, L. Andersson and G. Swallow,
February 2003