Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Overview of Four-Fiber Ring Network and TwoFiber Ring Network Protection Plan
The Four-fiber ring network is a network architecture adopted usually when the two-fiber ring network cant meet the network transmission capacity requirement. The four-fiber ring network also includes four-wa e ring network! because in these days when dense wa elength di ision multiple"ing #$%$&' technology is tending to maturity day by day! planning using a large number of fiber resource becomes less and less! while planning using $%$& technology to e"pand the optical fiber(s usage bandwidth becomes more and more common. )o! the so-called the four-fiber ring network from the point of iew of the )$* transmission equipment! in fact! is four separate wa elengths e"ploited on a pair of physical fibers ia $%$& technology. +ecause the number of optical fibers pairs in the network and network node equipment are different in two-fiber &)-)pring #&ultiple"ing )ection-)hared Protection ring' and four-fiber &)-)Pring! there is no comparability between them. Therefore on the basis of four-fiber &)-)Pring! we o erall compare dual two-fiber &)-)Prings with a four-fiber &)-)Pring on a network built with ,-)&./0120013/00 transmission equipment4
./0120013/00! and at the same time output the ser ice signals needed to enter the network to the optical line processing board ia a tributary board and transmit to the optical fiber ia the wa e-combined unit of the $%$& equipment. 6f the dual two-fiber &)-)Prings are adopted! then it needs to compute the concrete add1drop ser ice capacity of the site. 6f the add1drop ser ice capacity of each optical fiber direction of the dual two-fiber &)-)Prings e"ceeds 9-:C;! then its configuration will be same as that of the four-fiber &)-)Pring< if it doesn(t e"ceed 9-:C;! then there are two plans for choice! one is the plan of in estment by stages! that is to only configure two optical line processing units and corresponding tributary units! and the other two optical line signals are directly connected ia the $%$& equipment! i.e.! wa e-di ided signals are directly connected to where the wa e signals are combined without the need of )$* equipment. The )$* optical line processing unit will be added only when the add1drop ser ice capacity of this site needs increasing! and in that case! the $%$& wa e-di ided1wa e combined signals are connected to the new-added optical line processing unit. 5nother plan is to configure the dual two-fiber &)-)prings! same as that of the four-fiber &))Pring! but these two optical line-processing units without add1drop ser ices adopt R=> optical link mode. )o! if the initial ser ice doesn(t need to meet the full capacity of the system! fourfiber &)-)Pring needs a large number of initial in estments! and the comple"ity of the system will additionally increase.
Networking fle!ibility
7nly 5$& nodes take part in the network ser ice protection in both two-fiber ring network and the four-fiber ring network. Then the equipment applied in the networking of a four-fiber ring network with a four-fiber &)-)Pring protection mode must be four-fiber 5$& equipment or four-fiber R=> equipment! and the network node type is single. +esides the restriction of the total number of 5$& nodes! for four-fiber 5$& equipment of some network nodes! insufficient processing ser ice may also come out. 7n the contrary! dual two-fiber networks with &)-)Pring protection mode can pre ent the abo e defects4 according to the signal capacity for the network node to process! determine to assign a two-fiber 5$& equipment or four-fiber 5$& equipment! that is! the 5$& nodes in dual two-fiber &)-)Prings can not be at the same place! so the total 5$&(s number of the whole network increases and in turn promotes the networking fle"ibility. The fle"ibility of dual two-fiber o erlapped rings can be seen from figure .4
Furthermore! the con enience of the e"pansion discussed abo e also appears in dual two-fiber rings! three two-fiber rings! four two-fiber rings! etc. %hile the fourfiber ring has an e en larger upgrading step length and insufficient fle"ibility. 6n addition! the topology structure of the present transmission network is becoming more and more complicated! the ring-intersecting- network structure is fairly pre alent. 5imed at the inter-ring ser ice protection! 6T8-T recommendation >.9;3 brings forward the technical specification of the $N6 dual-node interconnection protection which makes a detailed standardi?ed presentation of the cross-ring ser ice protection for the two-fiber ring network interconnection! fa orable for the two-fiber ring networks interconnection built with equipment from different endors. +ut there is one thing needed to point out! this specification has no discussion on how to protect ser ice in the four-fiber ring network intersection! and this will ine itably occur the problem in technical standardi?ation aspect when the ring networks built by multiple endors respecti ely interconnects.
"
Transmission ca#acity
5s we all know! a four-fiber &)-)Pring has a ma"imum processing capacity of )T&-N@A #A4 total number of 5$& nodes'! a two-fiber &)-)Pring has a ma"imum processing capacity of )T&-N@A13! dual two-fiber &)-)Prings ha e a ma"imum processing capacity of 3@)T&-N@A13! that is! a four-fiber &)-)Pring has the same ma"imum processing capacity with dual two-fiber &)-)prings! making no distinction between the good and the bad ! and only difference between these two plans is in the allocation of working channels and protection channels.
&
&(1
equipment. +ecause each node in a four-fiber ring uses a four-fiber 5$&! while dual two-fiber rings adopt two two-fiber 5$&s in the same frame or different subframe! the conclusion that the four-fiber ring is more reliable is unilateral! and there are many other factors affecting the reliability of the whole network. 6ntuiti ely speaking! if one of the dual two-fiber rings can(t work! the other one might work. This situation will be difficult to Cudge by &T+F.
Table 1 Unavailability of the MS-SPring )hort-span network #./km! &TTRF;hours' Gong-span network #&TTTF2hours' )panF90km case %orst case )panF.20km %orst una ailability #&T+F' case
Transmission system
%orst
Two-fiber &)-)Pring
Four-fiber &)-)Pring
6t is generally considered that with the increase of the span distance! the reliability of the four-fiber ring will accordingly enhances. +ut! the issue will be so simple. Get us first consider the case with a erage span of 90km. The una ailable time of an interconnected point-to-point system is 2.93minutes1year! and those of the twofiber ring and the four-fiber ring are respecti ely /.B;minutes1year and B./3minutes1year. That is the four-fiber ring is only ;0E better than the two-fiber ring. 6f considering a .20km link! the ser ice una ailability of a two-fiber ring has rapidly reduced to .D.9minutes1year! and that of the four-fiber ring to .2.0minutes1year and only impro es 30E than the two-fiber ring. %ith the increase of the distance! the una ailability of both the four-fiber ring and the two-fiber ring also approaches gradually! which indicates that in long-distance network! the higher
initial in estment may not obtain high reliability impro ement. This mainly because that in short-span network! the maintenance always limits to a scope! and the daily maintenance is easy to control as well as coordinate. %hile in the long-span network! because of the wide area! the maintenance acti ities become more frequent and complicated! and need to coordinate in long distances so as to reduce the superiority of the four-fiber &)-)Pring. )o! network maintenance becomes a key factor that affects the network e"istence performance.
&(
&("
the two-fiber ring are all less than that of the four-fiber ring! so its protocol processing comple"ity is lower than that of 5P) protocol processing of the fourfiber ring. The promotion of software comple"ity means the reduction of the software reliability. This is the difference between the dual two-fiber ring and the four-fiber ring. 5ccording to the 6T8-T recommendation >.9;. specification! 5P) protocol utili?es A. and A3 bytes of )$* multiple"ing section o erhead! in which A. byte is defined as shown in table 3I.J! A. definition is based on bit! and its first four bits are the bridge request code! and the last four bits are the destination node identifier. 6n the .2 bridge request codes! codes containing K)pan( are defined specially for the four-fiber &)-)Pring.
Table 2 Definition of K1 byte Bridge Request Code (Bits 1-4) bit 1 .... bit 2 bit 3 bit 4 Destination Node Identification (Bits 5-8) bit 5 bit bit ! bit 8
...0 ..0.
)ignal Fail #)pan' )F-) )ignal Fail #Ring' )F-R )ignal $egrade #Protection' )$-P
.00.
.000
R 0... &anual )witch #)pan' &)) 0..0 &anual )witch #Ring' &)R 0.0. 0.00 00.. 00.0 %ait-To-Restore %TR ="erciser #)pan' =-=R-) ="erciser #Ring' =-=R-R Re erse Request #)pan' RR-) 000. Re erse Request #Ring' RR-R 0000 No Request NR
6t can be seen that only 9 of the .2 signaling codes in the abo e table needs to be processed by the two-fiber &)-)Pring! so the computation of the two-fiber &))Pring protocol processing is far less than that of the four-fiber &)-)pring. Thus its software reliability is naturally higher than that of the four-fiber &)-)Pring. )o! to constitute an optical transmission network! it will be more practical to adopt dual two-fiber &)-)Prings than to adopt a four-fiber &)-)Pring! as the former is more preponderant for the promotion of network e"istence capability and enhancement of the networking fle"ibility. 6f the in estment by stages is adopted! the construction cost in the initial phase can be effecti ely reduced! so we propose deploying dual two-fiber &)-)Prings and the in estment by stages in the network construction. 6t can be seen from the abo e discussion that when e"panding and upgrading from the two-fiber ring to the four-fiber ring! the adopted ser ice protection plan may not always change from two-fiber &)-)Pring to the four-fiber &)-)pring. 6t is necessary to weigh carefully in estment economic performance! network e"istence performance reliability! upgrading e"pansion cost and other aspects to search for
optimal solutions. 8nder the condition the four-fiber &)-)pring(s superiority ha e not manifest itself! it is superior to adopt the plan of the dual two-fiber &)-)Pring bi-directional multiple"ing section shared protection ring o er four-fiber bidirectional multiple"ing section shared protection ring plan. This is because when the network operator e"pands its network capacity! the network is always in the formal operation state! and if it is e"panded from the twofiber ring to the four-fiber ring! and the ser ice protection mechanism is adCusted. 6n fact! it is equi alent to rebuild a new transmission network! so it will be necessary to reconfigure all the node(s equipment! and all protection relations! ser ice time slot allocation! and so on will also need to update. For a large-si?e transmission network! this e"pansion will result in long-time network ser ice interrupt! e en to affect the future normal operation of the network! and the cost to reorgani?e a network will be huge. 7n the contrary! the dual two-fiber &)-)Pring ser ice protection mechanism adopted in the e"pansion from the two-fiber ring to the four-fiber ring can basically reali?e the network smooth upgrading! that is to say! on the basis of the e"isting network configuration! directly organi?e a network with new-added ser ices! including the protection relation! the equipment configuration! and the route time slot allocation of new-added ser ices. 5s far as the performance of the present )$* equipment is concerned! all the abo e operations could be implemented without interrupt of the running of the )$* equipment! including the hot plug of the ser ice processing units of the equipment.