Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
Table 5 sh
hat SLP-ARL
igure14) since
32]. Moreover
nd SLR-ARL
pare capacity w
OPP-PRL and S
ows that OPP
has lower blo
e the SLP-AR
r, Figure14 sh
because avera
when backup
SLR-ARL.
P-PRL and SL
ocking percen
RL algorithm
hows that bloc
age cost of MP
path is derive
LP-ARL have
ntage than OP
uses the link
cking probabil
PSP is smaller
d. However, t
the same com
PP-PRL when
ks with least
lity of MPSP
r, and therefor
the complexity
mplexity, but w
traffic load is
number of w
is lower than
re, MPSP is ab
y of MPSP is h
we can see
s high (see
wavelengths
n OPP-PRL
ble to share
higher than
th
Fi
[3
an
sp
O
Fi
se
igure 14. Block
et to 32 and 10,
king probability
respectively.
vs. traffic load
when the numb
ber of waveleng
gths and session
n size are
If a multic
ASSP uses som
dentify segmen
W
(see Table 6
lgorithms.
ast tree has so
me circles to
nts in advance
6). However, T
ome circles, it
enhance its
e. Therefore, A
Table 6 show
t can result in
performance.
ASSP can redu
s that the com
n better perform
. Moreover, A
uce blocking p
mplexity of AS
mance [36]. T
ASSP does n
probability by
SSP
is higher
This is why
not need to
y increasing
r than other
A
id
W
al
Table 6. B
Blocking prob
bability vs. tr
affic load (Er
rlang)
Traffic l
load (Erlang)
70
A
Algorithm
N
W
30
4
40
50
60
80
90
100
16
22
3
37
46
54
62
65
68
71
A
ASSP
10
32
0.5
3
7.2
16.9
26
32
40
44.8
64
0
0
0
0
0.5
0.8
2.6
4.9
S
SSPR
15
64
0
0
0.8
1
3
7.5
14.8
30
42
Table
e 7. Blocking
probability v
vs. session siz
ze
Traf
load
(Erl
ffic
d
lang)
S
Session size
A
Algorithm
W
2
6
10
12
14
16
18
S
M
SLPP
80
64
0.2
2 19.2 25
2
26.1 28
7
29.6 30.9
17.1 19.6
MPSP
100
64
0
4.8
13.2
