Scheduled System Maintenance on May 29th, 2015:
IEEE Xplore will be upgraded between 11:00 AM and 10:00 PM EDT. During this time there may be intermittent impact on performance. For technical support, please contact us at We apologize for any inconvenience.
By Topic

Efficient distributed path selection for shared restoration connections

Sign In

Cookies must be enabled to login.After enabling cookies , please use refresh or reload or ctrl+f5 on the browser for the login options.

Formats Non-Member Member
$31 $13
Learn how you can qualify for the best price for this item!
Become an IEEE Member or Subscribe to
IEEE Xplore for exclusive pricing!
close button

puzzle piece

IEEE membership options for an individual and IEEE Xplore subscriptions for an organization offer the most affordable access to essential journal articles, conference papers, standards, eBooks, and eLearning courses.

Learn more about:

IEEE membership

IEEE Xplore subscriptions

4 Author(s)

In MPLS/GMPLS networks, a range of restoration schemes are required to support different tradeoffs between service interruption time and network resource utilization. In light of these tradeoffs, path-based, end-to-end shared restoration provides a very attractive solution. However, efficient use of capacity for shared restoration strongly relies on the selection procedure of restoration paths. We propose an efficient path-selection algorithm for restoration of connections over shared bandwidth in a fully distributed GMPLS architecture. We also describe how to extend GMPLS signaling protocols to collect the necessary information efficiently. To evaluate the algorithm's performance, we compare it via simulation with two other well-known algorithm on a typical intercity backbone network. The key figure-of-merit for restoration capacity efficiency is restoration overbuild, i.e., the extra capacity required to meet the network restoration objective as a percentage of the capacity of the network with no restoration. Our simulation results show that our algorithm uses significantly less restoration overbuild (63-68%) compared to the other two algorithms (83-90%).

Published in:

INFOCOM 2002. Twenty-First Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies. Proceedings. IEEE  (Volume:1 )

Date of Conference: