Fiber and Integrated Optics, 26:321–334, 2007
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0146-8030 print/1096-4681 online
DOI: 10.1080/01468030701595597
Optical Packet Switch Architectures:
A Comparative Analysis for Bursty Trafficand Optical Cost
RAJAT KUMAR SINGH
Department of Electrical Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur
Kanpur, India
RAJIV SRIVASTAVA
Department of Electrical Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur
Kanpur, India
YATINDRA NATH SINGH
Department of Electrical Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur
Kanpur, India
Abstract In this article, we present the comparative analysis of various opticalpacket switch architectures. The comparison is done on the basis of bursty traffic
arrival and the optical cost of various optical components used to build that switch.The architectures chosen for the analysis were previously proposed by us and their
performance was evaluated only for the uniform random traffic arrival. Hence, thisarticle can be considered as the cumulative and effective extension of the previous
works. The computer simulations are performed to obtain the packet loss probabilityand average delay in presence of bursty traffic.
Keywords bursty traffic, loop buffer memory, optical cost, optical packet switching
1. Introduction
All-optical packet switching is one of those optical technologies that have a major impact
over electronic domain for transmission of high-speed data. Here, the data remain in the
optical form throughout the transmission while the control operation is done electronically
[1–3]. This switching is classified in terms of node architecture, scalability, arriving traffic,
component costs, and control complexity.
In this article, we have compared four architectures in terms of optical cost and
realistic traffic (bursty). The analysis is done in view of architectural similarity and
Received 12 March 2007; accepted 25 June 2007.Address correspondence to Rajat Kumar Singh, ACES 301B, Electrical Engineering Depart-
ment, IIT Kanpur, Kanpur 208016, India. E-mail: [email protected]
321
322 R. K. Singh et al.
buffering technique. We have chosen the staggering switch [4], its modified version [5],
feed-forward shared buffer switch [6], and feedback shared buffer switch architecture
[7] for comparison, and these are named as A1, A2, A3, and A4. All are examples
of “almost-all” optical packet switches incorporating fiber delay lines for contention
resolution. In almost-all optical packet switches, the control of switching operation is
done electronically while the data path is fully optical. These architectures extract the
header information from the packets, process it electronically, and route the packets
according to their destination by following the scheduling algorithm defined for the
respective architecture. The architectures A2, A3, and A4 are already proposed by us,
but their performance was analyzed considering uniform random traffic to verify the
existence and proper functioning of these switches. This article can be viewed as the
cumulative extension of the works done in past.
The arriving traffic is considered as the realistic one, also known as the bursty traffic.
For this analysis, we have considered a two states Markov chain model to describe the
behavior of bursty data. In order to verify the switch performance, we have assumed the
condition of uniformly distributed packets for the sake of simplicity. In this condition,
packets are equiprobable to select any of the destination ports. In skewed traffic distribu-
tion, few destinations may dominate others. This will flood the switch with packets for
the same destination within a few slots. It is expected that more buffers will be required
in such a case. If buffering capacity is kept the same, the packet loss probability will
become very high for skewed traffic.
It has been assumed that the packets used in all of the compared architectures are of
fixed size and are equal to one slot. The main issue involved in the case of fixed/variable
length packets is synchronization because if the packets are of fixed length and equal to
one slot duration, then the controller can easily identify the arrival/departure of all the
packets in the same time slot. Further, the longer packet can be fragmented into smaller
ones equal to one slot duration at the ingress nodes. Thus, our study will remain valid
in such a scenario. If the packets are not of fixed length, the switch will require higher
control complexity. Also, the longer length packets will tend to dominate short length
packets in bandwidth usage, thus making the system unfair.
The architectures are simulated and analyzed for bursty traffic arrival to obtain packet
loss probability and average delay. The cost estimation for any switch architecture com-
prises optical cost as well as electronic cost [8]. The optical cost estimation deals with the
count of optical components used to build that architecture, whereas the electronic cost
is obtained by counting the number of optical-electronic-optical (OEO) conversion cir-
cuits used for header reading. The architectures considered here use various techniques
to resolve the contention among the packets and hence they incorporate different sets
of optical components. In this article we compare only their optical cost because the
extraction process of header information is considered the same for each one.
The organization of the rest of the article is as follows. The description and working
of the architectures are described briefly in section 2. Bursty traffic analysis is done in
section 3 and the overall optical cost is calculated in section 4. Conclusions are given in
section 5.
2. Brief Description of the Switch Architectures
2.1. Staggering Switch Architecture (A1)
The architecture A1 (Figure 1) consists of two stages: the scheduling stage .N �S/ and the
switching stage .S�N / where S � N . The scheduling stage is connected to the switching
Optical Packet Switch Architectures: A Comparison 323
Figure 1. Staggering switch architecture (A1).
stage by S delay lines. The delay line di provides a delay of i slots .1 � i � S/. Each
stage may be implemented as a reconfigurable and rearrangeable nonblocking switch [4].
The scheduling is done by using a well-defined scheduling algorithm. This algorithm
tries to allocate each incoming packet into the appropriate delay line and thus avoids the
packet contention at the input of switching stage. The scheduling algorithm considers
two conditions: (1) no previous packet was inserted in the delay line in same time slot
and (2) no other packet to the same destination exists in the column in which the packet
is to be inserted.
2.2. Modified Staggering Switch Architecture (A2)
In the modified architecture A2 (Figure 2), we have increased the dimension of scheduling
switch to .N C R/� .S C R/ by adding extra delay lines (R) from output to input at the
scheduling stage [5]. Each extra line provides one packet (slot) delay; i.e., for each value
of R these extra lines will provide maximum of one packet delay. These extra delay
lines are used to carry those packets, which are going to be lost in the current slot due
to nonavailability of suitable direct delay line (S ). In the next slot, priority for choosing
the appropriate line will be given to the packet stored in these extra delay lines.
Figure 2. Modified architecture for staggering switch (A2).
324 R. K. Singh et al.
Figure 3. Feed-forward shared buffer switch architecture (A3).
2.3. Feed-Forward Shared Buffer Architecture (A3)
The basic building block of the architecture A3 (Figure 3) consists of three sections:
(i) scheduling section, (ii) combined section for routing the packet through either M
direct paths or m buffer modules, and (iii) switching section [6]. The size of scheduling
and switching stage are N � K and K � N , respectively, where K D M C m � D. Here,
D is the number of input/output ports assigned to each loop buffer module (Figure 4).
The capacity of each buffer module, indexed 1 to m (Figure 3), is equal to B (�D)
where B is the number of different wavelengths at which the packets are stored in the
buffer [9, 10]. The packets to be buffered are converted to the wavelengths available in
the buffer; if the buffer is full, then packets are dropped. When a packet is forwarded
for buffering, the respective tunable wavelength converters (TWC) at the input of the
available buffer module is tuned to any one of the loop buffer wavelengths, which is
free to accept the packet. As long as a packet circulates in buffer, the TWC inside that
module corresponding to the used wavelength will remain transparent. For reading out
a packet when output contention is resolved, the corresponding TWC is tuned to the
free wavelength port of demultiplexer (DEMUX). Then these packets can be directed
Figure 4. Loop buffer module.
Optical Packet Switch Architectures: A Comparison 325
to the destined output port through the space switch fabric. The buffer wavelengths
are automatically cleared from the loop buffer as soon as the buffered packet leaves
the loop.
2.4. Feedback Shared Buffer Architecture (A4)
This architecture A4 (Figure 5) is similar to the A3 with the difference that the loop
buffer is utilized in feedback configuration. The size of the core switch (space switch
fabric) is 2N � 2N . The lower N ports of the space switch are used as actual inputs
and outputs. The upper N ports are used for buffering of the packets in the optical loop
buffer modules [7]. Thus, the maximum number of allowed buffer modules is m D N=D.
The loop buffer module indexed 1 to m (Figure 5) is the same as that used in the case
of architecture A3 (Figure 4). Thus, the process of storing in as well as reading out a
packet from the buffer is same as that for A3.
3. Bursty Traffic Analysis
The brief detail of bursty traffic is given in this section along with the bursty traffic
analysis of the above-mentioned architectures. Here, we present the two state model of
Markov chain, and the simplified form of the three state model was given by Hass [4].
3.1. Model of Bursty Traffic
As a function of time, the traffic will be composed of bursts of packets destined to the
same output port. These bursts are followed by an idle period that can be of length zero,
where a new burst will be adjacent to the older one (Figure 6). The bursty traffic is
characterized by two parameters:
1. average offered traffic load �, and
2. average burst length, BL.
Figure 5. Feedback shared buffer switch architecture (A4).
326 R. K. Singh et al.
Figure 6. Packet sequencing for bursty traffic.
Time correlation of traffic on each input can be modeled as the Markov chain shown
in Figure 7. The chain is composed of two states: idle state (0) or burst state (j ). The
system will be in the idle state (0) when no packet arrives in the current slot. Also, if
no packet will arrive in the next slot with probability Pa , then a new burst will begin
with probability 1 � Pa and the system will be transferred to the burst state j . In this
state, one of the values of output destinations is chosen with equal probability. Being in
this bursty state, the next arrival will be either the part of same burst with probability Pb
(i.e., destined to the same output port) or the burst will terminate. The termination of a
burst can occur in two ways with certain probability:
1. A new burst will start for another destination. This transfers the system to a state
other than the current one. The choice of another destination is equiprobable. The
probability of this state will be .1 � Pb/ � .1 � Pa/.
2. Or the burst will become idle, with probability .1 � Pb/ � Pa .
The steady-state equation for this Markov chain can be written in terms of steady-
state probabilities as
�
Pa .1 � Pb/Pa
.1 � Pa/ .1 � Pa/.1 � Pb/ C Pb
� �
�0
�
�
D
�
�0
�
�
(1)
Figure 7. Markov chain model for bursty traffic.
Optical Packet Switch Architectures: A Comparison 327
Here, � is the steady-state probability of the system being in any one of state j ; i.e.,
� D †�j and 1 � j � N . Further using the property that summation of all the state
probabilities is equal to unity,
�0 C � D 1 (2)
Solving (1) and (2), we will get the steady-state probabilities in terms of Pa and Pb .
�0 DPa.1 � Pb/
1 � PaPb
and � D.1 � Pa/
1 � PaPb
(3)
The average offered traffic load (�) will be a fraction of time the system is not in
the idle state; i.e.,
� D 1 � �0 D1 � Pa
1 � PaPb
(4)
The probability of a burst of length k is
Pr.k/ D .1 � Pb/P k�1b ; k � 1 (5)
Hence the average burst length is
BL D
1X
kD1
k Pr.k/ D1
1 � Pb
(6)
Considering some fix value of � and BL in (4) and (6) respectively, the values
of Pa and Pb can be calculated and will be used to simulate the performance of the
above-mentioned switch architectures under bursty traffic conditions.
3.2. Results and Discussion
The loss probability and average delay for bursty traffic arrival are shown graphically
in Figures 8a and 8b respectively, for the switch architecture A1 and A3. We have
considered the same size switch .N D 16/ for all the architectures and the comparison
is done under the same loading condition. The buffering capacity for A1 at S D 16
is 136 ŒD S � .S C 1/=2�, whereas it is 80 .D m � B/ for A3 at m D 4, B D 20,
D D 4, and M D 0. We have chosen M D 0 in architecture A3 to make it comparable
with A1 and A2. The value m D 4 is chosen for A3 because all the ports of scheduling
and switching stages are fully utilized with it (i.e., m � D D N ). The value B D 20
provides comparable packet loss probability for A3 compared to A1. Under lower loading
conditions (i.e., � � 0:6) and for smaller burst length (BL � 5), the loss probability and
average delay for A3 are slightly better than A1 (Figures 8a and 8b) but under the higher
loads and larger burst length, the results for A1 will be better than that for A3.
The results with different number of extra delay lines (R) for A2 are shown in
Figure 9 at � D 0:7. For smaller burst length, the loss probability is much better for A2
(Figure 10a) compared to A3 (Figure 8a) but at the expense of much higher and constant
delay (Figures 8b and 10b). Also, there is not enough advantage of using extra delay
lines for larger burst length as loss probability for A2 is nearly equal to that of A3 but
with increasing delay.
328 R. K. Singh et al.
(a)
(b)
Figure 8. (a) Loss probability for staggering switch (A1) and feed-forward switch (A3).
(b) Average delay for staggering switch (A1) and feed-forward switch (A3).
Optical Packet Switch Architectures: A Comparison 329
(a)
(b)
Figure 9. (a) Loss probability for feed-forward switch (A3) and feedback switch (A4). (b) Average
delay for feed-forward switch (A3) and feedback switch (A4).
330 R. K. Singh et al.
(a)
(b)
Figure 10. (a) Loss probability for modified staggering switch (A2). (b) Average delay for modified
staggering switch (A2).
Optical Packet Switch Architectures: A Comparison 331
The bursty traffic analysis for A3 and A4 is done for same buffering capacity with
N D 16, m D 4, B D 8, and M D 16. We have considered M D 16 for A3 as it is
equivalent to the lower N output ports of A4 for direct transfer. The loss probabilities
(Figure 9a) and the average delay (Figure 9b) are better for A4 compared to A3 but,
usually, the average delay increases when loss probability is reduced. Hence, the above
observation implies that A3 is not effectively utilizing the available buffering capacity
while A4 is utilizing the same.
4. Optical Cost Analysis
The optical cost of any switch architecture is calculated by adding the cost of each optical
component used in that architecture. The cost of the optical components is obtained by
counting the number of fiber-to-chip couplings (FCCs) [8]. The FCC is the number of
interconnections to the outer world through that component. The counting of optical
components in the switch architecture is started from the switch input. The number of
each component is multiplied by the respective optical cost as given in Table 1, and thus
the optical cost of whole switch is obtained.
4.1. Optical Cost for Architecture A1 and A2
The optical cost for the staggering switch architecture (A1) is calculated in terms of
FCCs as
CA1 D CScheduling Stage.N; S/ C CSwitching Stage.S; N /
Since we are using the switch A1 with N D 16 and S D 16, applying the parametric
values from Table 1
CA1 D .N C S/ C .S C N / D 2N C 2S D 64
Similarly, the optical cost for A2 is obtained with R D 4
CA2 D .N C R C S C R/ C .S C N / D 2N C 2R C 2S D 72
Table 1
Optical cost function of the components
Function Description Number of FCC
CD.W / Demultiplexer (W channels) W C 1
CT .W / TWC (W wavelength) W C 1
CCom.W / Combiner .W � 1/ W C 1
CSwitch.I; O/ Switch (I/O input/output ports) I C O
CAmp Amplifier 2
CISO Isolator 2
C3dB 3 dB Coupler 4
332 R. K. Singh et al.
4.2. Optical Cost for Architecture A3
We use the switch A3 of N D 16 input with m D 4, D D 4, and M D 16 to compare it
with A4 and since K D M Cm�D; i.e., K D 32. Hence, the effective size of scheduling
and switching stages of A3 will be N � K and K � N , respectively, which is used in
the following equation for calculating the optical cost:
CA3 D CSwitch.N; K/ C m � ŒD � CT .B/ C CCom.D/ C C3dB C CD.B/ C B � CT .D/
C CCom.B/ C CAmp C CISO C CD.D/� C CSwitch.K; N /
CA3 D .N C K/ C m � ŒD � .B C 1/ C .D C 1/ C 4 C .B C 1/ C B � .D C 1/
C .B C 1/ C 2 C 2 C .D C 1/� C .K C N /
D 2N C 2K C m � Œ2BD C 3D C 3B C 12� D 544
4.3. Optical Cost for Architecture A4
The optical cost for the shared buffer feedback switch architecture is calculated as
CA4 D CSwitch.2N; 2N / C m � ŒD � CT .B/ C CCom.D/ C C3dB C CD.B/
C B � CT .D/ C CCom.B/ C CAmp C CISO C CD.D/�
CA4 D .2N C 2N / C m � ŒD � .B C 1/ C .D C 1/ C 4 C .B C 1/
C B � .D C 1/ C .B C 1/ C 2 C 2 C .D C 1/�
D 4N C m � Œ2BD C 3D C 3B C 12� D 512
5. Conclusions
The switch A3 effectively uses the principle of staggering switch (A1) but, in addition,
it applies the WDM technique to store the packets in recirculating loop. Thus, A3 is
compared with A1 and A2 on the basis of bursty traffic arrival only and not in terms of
optical cost, since it is architecturally not equivalent to A1 an A2. The FIFO discipline is
not maintained by A1 and A2, while A3 maintains the FIFO. Also, A3 is scalable in terms
of the buffering capacity, i.e., we can increase its buffering capacity without changing
the switch configuration. This comparative study implies that under bursty traffic, the
feed-forward architecture is much better than the staggering switch due to the additional
advantage of WDM application in buffering. The modified staggering switch has some
advantages over feed-forward architecture in terms of loss probability but only for smaller
burst length, while it also increases the size of scheduling stage. So, it is preferred over
the staggering switch and not over feed-forward switch.
Since the architecture A4 utilizes WDM recirculation loop buffer in feedback config-
uration for data storage and maintains FIFO, it is compared only with A3 for both bursty
traffic arrival pattern and optical cost estimation. The feedback switch is advantageous
over feed-forward in term of loss probability and average delay under bursty traffic due
Optical Packet Switch Architectures: A Comparison 333
to more effective use of buffers. The optical cost of the feedback switch is also much
higher but still comparatively less than the feed-forward switch.
The optical cost of architectures A1 and A2 is very low because they do not incor-
porate WDM loop buffer module and hence they are not compared with A3 and A4 in
terms of optical cost. Hence, we can conclude that the feedback configuration is the best
option among all of the compared architectures.
References
1. Tucker, R. S., and Zhong, W. D. 1999. Photonic packet switching: An overview. IEICE—
Transactions on Communications E82(B):254.
2. Dittmann, L., Develder, C., Chiaroni, D., Neri, F., Callegati, F., Koerber, W., Stavdas, A.,
Renaud, M., Rafel, A., Sole-Pareta, J., Cerroni, W., Leligou, N., Dembeck, L., Mortensen, B.,
Pickavet, M., Le Sauze, N., Mahony, M., Berde, B., and Eilenberger, G. 2003. The European
IST project DAVID: A viable approach toward optical packet switching. IEEE Journal on
Selected Areas in Communications 21(7):1026.
3. Singh, R. K., and Singh, Y. N. 2006. An overview of photonic packet switching architectures.
IETE Technical Review 23(1):15.
4. Hass, Z. 1993. The staggering switch: An electronically controlled optical packet switch.
Journal of Lightwave Technology 11(5):925.
5. Singh, R. K., and Singh, Y. N. 2005. A modified architecture for the staggering switch. NCC
2005 1(1):186.
6. Singh, R. K., Srivastava, R., Mangal, V., and Singh, Y. N. 2006. Wavelength routed shared
buffer based feed-forward architectures for optical packet switching. IEEE INDICON 2006.
Annual India Conference, 2006, September, pp. 1–6. Available at IEEE Xplore.
7. Singh, R. K., Srivastava, R., and Singh, Y. N. 2007. Wavelength division multiplexed loop
buffer memory based optical packet switch. Optical and Quantum Electronics 39(1):15.
8. Caenegem, R. V., Colle, D., Pickavet, M., Demeester, P., Martinez, J. M., Ramos, F., and
Marti, J. 2006. From IP over WDM to all-optical packet switching: Economical view. Journal
of Lightwave Technology 24(4):1638.
9. Verma, N., Srivastava, R., and Singh, Y. N. 2002. Novel design modification proposal for all
optical fiber loop buffer switch. Photonics 2002 1(1):181.
10. Shukla, S., Srivastava, R., and Singh, Y. N. 2004. Modeling of fiber loop buffer based switch.
Photonics 2004 1(1):248.
Biographies
Rajat Kumar Singh was born in Jaunpur (UP), India, on December 18, 1975. He re-
ceived a B.Tech. degree in electronics and instrumentation engineering from Bundelkhand
Institute of Engineering & Technology, Jhansi (UP) in 1999 and an M.E. in communica-
tion engineering from Birla Institute of Technology & Science, Pilani (Raj.) in December
2001. Currently he is pursuing his Ph.D. from the Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur.
His research interests are in the field of photonic packet switching, telecom networking,
and optical networks.
Rajiv Srivastava was born in Kanpur (UP), India, on February 18, 1976. He re-
ceived an M.Sc. degree in physics (solid state) from CSJM University, Kanpur (UP), in
1997, and an M.Tech. degree in laser technology from Indian Institute of Technology,
Kanpur, in December 2003. Currently he is pursuing his Ph.D. from the Indian Institute
of Technology, Kanpur. His research interests are in the field of photonic packet switching
and solitons-based optical networks.
334 R. K. Singh et al.
Yatindra Nath Singh was born in Delhi, India, on August 26, 1969. He obtained
a B.Tech. in electrical engineering from Regional Engineering College, Hamirpur, Hi-
machal Pradesh, in July 1991; an M.Tech. in optoelectronics and optical communications
from the Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi, in December 1992; and a Ph.D. from the
Department of Electrical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi, in 1997.
He was with the Department of Electronics and Computer Engineering, IIT Roorkee,
India, as faculty from February 1997 to July 1997. He is currently working as faculty in
the Department of Electrical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur. He was
awarded the AICTE Young Teacher Award in 2002. He is a fellow of the Institution of
Electronics and Telecommunication Engineers (IETE), India, and senior member of the
Institution of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE). His academic interests
include optical networks, photonic packet switching, optical communications, telecom
networks, network managements, e-learning systems, and open-source software develop-
ment. He is actively involved in development of open source e-learning platform tools
code named Brihaspati.