Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
7/JULY 2013
I. INTRODUCTION
1943-0620/13/070802-11$15.00/0
concerning any abnormality of any household or commercial device in a sensor network that is expected to be
deployed for all households and commercial systems in
the u-City, e.g., gas systems, temperature and pressure
monitoring systems, electric sparking and smoke detection
systems, automobile systems, and medical sensor nodes in
a hospital. Constructing a closed, specific-use network for
each individual application and accommodating several
users using different access terminals and servers require
an enormous amount of time and expense. To overcome the
enormous expense and deployment of several backbone
networks, passive optical network (PON)-based converged
networks have been proposed to connect the FTTH and
WSNs in a single optical network [1], because PON systems
can effectively share the upstream channel and the CO
equipment over high-speed and high-capacity bandwidth
demands [2].
One of the most critical issues for converging FTTH access networks and several service providers, e.g., WSN,
HDTV/VoD, FNs, etc., in a single optical line terminal
(single-OLT) PON is the requirement of more computational complexity for data packet processing in the OLT.
Because all of these service providers in a u-City have several features, e.g., device capacity diversity, application diversity, mobility, numbering and routing diversity, security,
and privacy, they significantly differ from conventional
access networks. This is why the current access network
architecture is not capable of integrating these service providers efficiently [3]. To mitigate this problem, some polling
algorithms have been proposed to allow additional time in
the OLT for computation and management in addition to
the guard time between every two successive optical network units (ONUs) [4]. More recently, a multi-OLT PONbased hybrid network combining FTTH access networks
and WSNs in a single PON has been proposed to reduce
the computational complexity in the OLT [5]. Even though
the single-OLT PON, as explained in [1], can be used to connect multiple service providers in a u-City like an openaccess network, a multi-OLT PON can play a vital role
in alleviating the ascended problems in a single-OLT
during management and computing of data packets from
multiple service providers with less overhead in the upstream channel. In a multi-OLT PON, each OLT independently handles the control messages and data packets of
2013 Optical Society of America
for a multi-OLT PON consisting of two OLTs and two different FTTH and WSN service providers. Compared with the
single-OLT PON, the multi-OLT PON provides better
performance.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. The network architecture with upstream and downstream frame
formats and the modified MPCP for a multi-OLT PON
are investigated in Section II. Guard time management
and the ALDBAM scheme with the Gate message scheduling algorithm in a multi-OLT PON are presented in
Section III. In Section IV, we explain the simulation environment in detail. Section V elucidates the simulation
results. Finally, our conclusions are presented in
Section VI.
FOR A
AND
ALDBAM SCHEME
In this section, we first explain the guard time management scheme in a multi-OLT PON, followed by the proposed ALDBAM scheme. The proposed ALDBAM scheme
utilizes the total guard time savings by fair distribution
to the heavily loaded ONUs. Furthermore, the scheduling
algorithm of the Gate message is modified for the
ALDBAM scheme.
(1)
where T off is the laser off time, T FRTT is the fluctuation of the
RTT, T on is the laser on time, and T CDR is the time for CDR.
In a conventional PON, max is constant for each ONU.
The maximum granted transmission window to each ONU
by the OLT, GOLT , can be calculated as follows:
GOLT
max
T on T CDR
T max
D
T off ;
T FRTT T CDR :
NT G T G
M
(3)
in a multi-OLT PON
NT on T off .
(4)
In a multi-OLT PON, the maximum transmission window for each ONU of an FTTH terminal is W max
FTTH , while
the maximum transmission window for each ONU of a
WSN is W max
WSN . The maximum granted transmission windows to the ONUs of the FTTH terminals and WSN by
OLT1 and OLT2 can be expressed, respectively, by
max
GOLT1 W max
FTTH T CDR T DFTTH ;
(5)
max
GOLT2 W max
WSN T CDR T DWSN ;
(6)
(2)
where T max
is the length of the maximum granted data
D
packets.
In a multi-OLT PON, two OLTs alternately receive data
from two consecutive ONUs, and the laser on and off times
can be easily avoided. When the data of ONU1 is received
by OLT1, OLT2 is in a sleeping condition at that time and
can wake up early to provide enough time for T on and receive data during T off of OLT1. In contrast, when the data
of ONU2 is received by OLT2, OLT1 is in a sleeping condition at that time and can wake up early to compensate for
T on and receive data during T off of OLT2. Figure 5 shows
the guard time management in a multi-OLT PON system
where only the CDR and RTT fluctuation times are used as
the guard time. T G M is the guard time between every two
consecutive ONUs in a multi-OLT PON in the following:
TG
B. ALDBAM Scheme
In this scheme, we consider a hybrid multi-OLT PONbased access network with two OLTs and N ONUs. Here,
N is divided into two groups and N N FTTH N WSN ,
where N FTTH is the number of ONUs connected to the
FTTH terminals and N WSN is the number of ONUs connected to the CHs of the WSN. Usually the packet size
of the WSN is smaller, and the data rate is lower than
the FTTH access network. This is why the usual maximum
transmission window of the WSN will be smaller than the
maximum transmission window of the FTTH terminals,
max
i.e., W max
WSN < W FTTH . Owing to these packet length and data
rate differences, the total available bandwidth savings in
the proposed scheme, W TS , is calculated as in the ALDBA1
scheme [1]:
max
W TS N WSN W max
FTTH W WSN :
(7)
WR
i; j RTTi T GD
T acq
i; j
(8)
where W pred
i; j is the predicted window size for ONU i at time
cycle j, T acq
i; j is the acquisition time of the present data in the
queue, W R
i; j is the requested window by ONU i at time cycle
LX
FTTH
m1
LX
WSN
R
R
W max
W max
FTTH; j W m; j
WSN; j W n; j ;
n1
(9)
where W excess
Total; j is the total excessive bandwidth at time cycle
j; LFTTH and LWSN are the number of lightly loaded ONUs
connected to the FTTH terminals and CHs of the WSN, respectively; and W R
mn; j is the requested window size of a
lightly loaded ONU mn at time cycle j.
In the ALDBAM scheme, this total excess bandwidth
from the lightly loaded ONUs is incorporated with T GS T
in Eq. (4). These two excess bandwidth savings from Eqs. (4)
and (9) can be fairly distributed to the heavily loaded
ONUs, without changing the length of T cycle. The following
equation is used to fairly distribute the total excessive
bandwidth in Eq. (9) and the total guard time savings in
Eq. (4) among the heavily loaded ONUs to solve the congestion problem in the hybrid multi-OLT PON:
W excess
i; j
R
W excess
Total; j T GS T W i; j
PH
;
R
k1 W k; j
(10)
(
j
Gi;OLT1
pred
WR
i; j W i; j
excess
W max
W pred
For heavily loaded ONUs
i; j
FTTH W i; j
(11)
(
j
Gi;OLT2
pred
WR
i; j W i; j
excess
W max
W pred
i; j
WSN W i; j
(12)
j
where Gi;OLT1
is the granted window to ONU i of the FTTH
j
terminal by OLT1 at time cycle j and Gi;OLT2
is the granted
window for ONU i of the CH of the WSN by OLT2 at time
cycle j.
RTT1 +T GD 1
D a ta fro m ON U 1 (F TTH)
max
G1 = WFTTH
+ W1,excess
+ W1,pred
j
j
W1,pred
j
ON U 1
RTT2+TGD2
ON U 2
D a ta fro m ON U 2 (WS N )
max
G 2 = WWSN
+ W2,excess
+ W2,pred
j
j
W2pred
,j
RTTN +T GD 1
D a ta fro m ON U N (WS N )
ON U N
R TGD1
R =W
1
1, j
max
G 2 = WWSN
+ WN,excess
+ WN,pred
j
j
WNpred
,j
max
max
GI EO TD(FTTH)
OLT1
R
=W
2, j
TGD2
max
GI EO TD(WSN)
OLT2
R
=W
N, j
max
GI EO TD(WSN)
Tim e c y c le j-1
GI EO TD(FTTH)
TGD2
Tim e c y c le j+1
Fig. 6. Illustrative example of the ALDBAM scheme for heavily loaded ONUs.
RTTi1 T FRTT ;
(13)
j
j
TGi2;
TGi1;
RTTi1 T FRTT T CDR
1
2
(14)
j
are the time epochs for OLT1 and
where TGi;1 j and TGi1;
2
OLT2 when Gate messages are transmitted to ONU i and
j
ONU i 1, respectively, at time cycle j, and TGi2;
is the
1
time epoch for OLT1 when the Gate message is transmitted
to ONU i 2 at time cycle j.
BY
SIMULATION
BWU
(15)
TABLE I
SIMULATION PARAMETERS
Symbol
N
N OLT
D
T on
T off
T FRTT
T CDR
T cycle
T proc
Ru
BR
BE
Bmax
FTIH
Bmax
WSN
P
Quantity
Value
32
2
1020 km
1.5 s
1.5 s
1.5 s
0.5 s
0.53 ms
10 ms
1 Gbps
576 bits
304 bits
1500 bytes
1024 bytes
010
1
n
q
X j
2
T avl T j1
avl ;
(16)
(17)
V. SIMULATION RESULTS
In this section, the system performance of the proposed
ALDBAM scheme for a multi-OLT PON is compared with
that of the existing ALDBA1 and ALDBA2 schemes for a
single-OLT PON. All the performance parameters are analyzed for nonuniform burst traffic in both the upstream
and the downstream directions. All the results are presented using contour plots over a wider range of offered
loads and cycle times. Lighter colors signify better performance in all of the contour plots in this paper.
Figures 8(a)8(c) show the end-to-end average packet delay of the existing ALDBA1 and ALDBA2 and the proposed
ALDBAM schemes, respectively, for N FTTH N WSN 1616
using contour plots for different offered loads and cycle
times. From these three contour plots, the ALDBAM
scheme clearly provides a wider area of lowest packet delay
in both directions of offered loads and cycle times. On the
other hand, the highest packet delay in the ALDBAM
scheme is 1.8 ms, whereas the highest packet delays in
the ALDBA1 and ALDBA2 schemes are 3 and 2.5 ms, respectively. Figure 8(d) shows a comparison of the average
packet delay among the three schemes for a 2 ms cycle
time. The ALDBAM scheme provides approximately 75%
and 30% less delay than the ALDBA1 and ALDBA2
schemes, respectively, at an offered load of 1.0. However,
the effectiveness of the ALDBAM scheme becomes more
significant at higher data rates and a larger number of
service providers and OLTs.
Figures 9(a) and 9(b) compare the average packet delay
among the ALDBA1, ALDBA2, and ALDBAM schemes for
Fig.
8. Average
packet
N FTTH N WSN 1616.
delay
in
milliseconds
for
value of the offered load. From the comparison of the bandwidth utilization at a 2 ms cycle time in Fig. 10(d), the
bandwidth utilization in the ALDBAM scheme exceeds
0.85 at an offered load of 0.12. In contrast, the bandwidth
utilization exceeds 0.85 at an offered load of 0.45 and 0.85
in the ALDBA2 and ALDBA1 schemes, respectively. Similarly, if we draw a horizontal line at a bandwidth utilization of 0.85, as shown in Figs. 11(a) and 11(b), we can then
see that the ALDBAM scheme continually provides similar
performance for different ratios of the number of ONUs
connected to the FTTH and WSNs.
Usually, in a DBA scheme, we cannot avoid jitter because
of bursty network traffic. The contour plots in Fig. 12 show
the jitter performance of the existing ALDBA1, ALDBA2,
and proposed ALDBAM schemes. From the contour plots, it
is clear that the ALDBAM scheme provides less jitter than
the ALDBA1 and ALDBA2 schemes. The comparison of
jitter for a 2 ms cycle time with different numbers of ONUs
from two service providers is shown in Figs. 12(d), 13(a),
and 13(b). Jitter characteristics at a 2 ms cycle time for
every combination of ONUs from the FTTH terminals
and WSN are similar in all the three schemes.
Upstream efficiencies are compared among the three
schemes by the contour plots in Figs. 14(a)14(c). In this
case, the proposed ALDBAM scheme provides better
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work was supported in part by the JSPS-NRF
bilateral joint research project.
The main reason for the low throughput for the ALDBA1
scheme is less utilization of the upstream channel due
to the lightly loaded ONUs, whereas the ALDBAM
scheme gains the utilization of excess bandwidth from
the lightly loaded ONUs and guard time savings for the
heavily loaded ONUs. From the comparison of throughput
among the three schemes for the 2 ms cycle time, the
ALDBAM scheme achieved more than 15% and 35% higher
throughput than the ALDBA2 and ALDBA1 schemes,
respectively, for every case of the ratio of ONUs from
two different service providers, as shown in Figs. 16(d),
17(a), and 17(b).
Even though the existing ALDBA2 scheme [1] can
achieve better results in a single-OLT PON than the conventional LS scheme [4], it still has its limitations, because
the ALDBA2 scheme does not consider the utilization of
guard time savings in a multi-OLT PON. In a multi-OLT
PON, the computation time for data packet processing in
the OLT is also reduced by dividing the upstream traffic
from the ONUs of different service providers among multiple OLTs. The proposed ALDBAM scheme copes with all
the limitations of the ALDBA1 and ALDBA2 schemes
and provides enhanced performance. Moreover, the effectiveness of the proposed scheme will be more significant
if the analyses are repeated for a larger number of OLTs
and service providers.
VI. CONCLUSION
Our proposed ALDBAM scheme enhances the performance of a multi-OLT PON by the reduction of data
processing time, fair distribution of excess bandwidth from
the lightly loaded ONUs to the heavily loaded ONUs,
proper guard time management, and the perfect scheduling algorithm of Gate messages from multiple OLTs. The
proposed ALDBAM scheme outperformed the ALDBA1
and ALDBA2 schemes in terms of the average packet delay,
bandwidth utilization, jitter, upstream efficiency, and
throughput. The main contribution of the proposed ALDBAM scheme is that it can provide better bandwidth sharing efficiency and utilization due to smaller cycle times and
lower offered loads. The ALDBAM scheme utilizes guard
time savings in a multi-OLT PON and provides better
QoS than the ALDBA1 and ALDBA2 schemes. The ALDBAM scheme provided 75% less delay with 35% higher
throughput and 30% less delay with 15% higher throughput for a 2 ms cycle time at an offered load of 1.0 when
REFERENCES
[1] M. Hossen and M. Hanawa, Adaptive limited dynamic bandwidth allocation scheme to improve bandwidth sharing
efficiency in hybrid PON combining FTTH and wireless
sensor networks, IEICE Trans. Commun., vol. E96-B,
no. 1, pp. 127134, Jan. 2013.
[2] L. G. Kazovsky, W. Shaw, D. Gutierrez, N. Cheng, and S.
Wong, Next-generation optical access networks, J.
Lightwave Technol., vol. 25, no. 11, pp. 34283442,
Nov. 2007.
[3] AKARI Project Group, sponsored by NICT, NEW generation
network architecture AKARI conceptual design, ver. 2, Aug.
2009 [Online]. Available: http://www.nict.go.jp/en/photonic_
nw/archi/akari/conceptdesign_e.html#block_top1.
[4] G. Kramer, B. Mukherjee, and G. Pessavento, IPACT: A
dynamic protocol for an Ethernet PON (EPON), IEEE
Commun. Mag., vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 7480, 2002.
[5] M. Hossen and M. Hanawa, Network architecture and performance analysis of multi-OLT PON for FTTH and wireless
sensor networks, Int. J. Wireless Mobile Netw., vol. 3, no. 6,
pp. 115, Dec. 2011.
[6] I. Hwang, Z. Shyu, L. Ke, and C. Chang, A novel early DBA
mechanism with prediction-based fair excessive bandwidth
allocation scheme in EPON, J. Comput. Commun., vol. 31,
no. 9, pp. 18141823, June 2008.
[7] C. Assi, Y. Ye, S. Dixit, and M. Ali, Dynamic bandwidth
allocation for quality-of-service over Ethernet PONs, IEEE
J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 21, no. 9, pp. 14671477,
Nov. 2003.
[8] Y. Luo and N. Ansari, Limited sharing with traffic prediction
for dynamic bandwidth allocation and QoS provisioning over
Ethernet passive optical networks, J. Opt. Netw., vol. 4, no. 9,
pp. 561572, Sept. 2005.
[9] Carrier Sense Multiple Access with Collision Detection
(CSMA/CD) Access Method and Physical Layer Specifications, Amendment: Media Access Control Parameters, Physical Layers, and Management Parameters for Subscriber
Access Networks, IEEE Standard 802.3ah, 2004.
[10] M. Hossen, K. Kim, and Y. Park, A PON-based large sensor
network and its performance analysis with Sync-LS MAC
protocol, Arabian J. Sci. Eng., to be published [Online]. Available: http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs13369
01305718.pdf#.
[11] W. Willinger, M. S. Taqqu, and A. Erramilli, A bibliographical
guide to self-similar traffic and performance modeling for
modern high-speed networks, in Stochastic Networks: Theory
and Applications (Royal Statistical Society Lecture Notes
Series, vol. 4). Oxford, UK: Oxford University, 1996,
pp. 339366.
[12] B. Lannoo, L. Verslegers, D. Colle, M. Pikavet, P. Demeester,
and M. Gagnaire, Thorough analysis of the IPACT dynamic
bandwidth allocation algorithm for EPONs, in IEEE 4th Int.
Conf. Broadband Communication, Networks and Systems,
Raleigh, NC, Sept. 2007, pp. 486494.