Conference Paper
Multicast routing and wavelength assignment in WDM networks with limited dropoffs
Inst. of Appl. Math., Chinese Acad. of Sci., Beijing, China
DOI: 10.1109/INFCOM.2004.1354520 In proceeding of: INFOCOM 2004. Twentythird AnnualJoint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies, Volume: 1 Source: DBLP

Conference Paper: Is LightTree Structure Optimal for Multicast Routing in Sparse Light Splitting WDM Networks?
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To minimize the number of wavelengths required by a multicast session in sparse light splitting wavelength division multiplexing (WDM) networks, a lighthierarchy structure, which occupies the same wavelength on all links, is proposed to span as many destinations as possible. Different from a lighttree, a lighthierarchy accepts cycles, which are used to traverse crosswise a 4degree (or above) multicast incapable (MI) node twice (or above) and switch two light signals on the same wavelengths to two destinations in the same multicast session. In this paper, firstly, a graph renewal and distance priority lighttree algorithm (GRDPLT) is introduced to improve the quality of lighttrees built for a multicast request. Then, it is extended to compute lighthierarchies. Obtained numerical results demonstrate the GRDPLT lighttrees can achieve a much lower links stress, better wavelength channel cost, and smaller average endtoend delay as well as diameter than the currently most efficient algorithm. Furthermore, compared to lighttrees, the performance in terms of link stress and network throughput is greatly improved again by employing the lighthierarchy, while consuming the same amount of wavelength channel cost.Computer Communications and Networks, 2009. ICCCN 2009. Proceedings of 18th Internatonal Conference on; 09/2009 
Article: Is LightTree Structure Optimal for Multicast Routing in Sparse Light Splitting WDM Networks?
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To minimize the number of wavelengths required by a multicast session in sparse light splitting wavelength division multiplexing (WDM) networks, a lighthierarchy structure, which occupies the same wavelength on all links, is proposed to span as many destinations as possible. Different from a lighttree, a lighthierarchy accepts cycles, which are used to traverse crosswise a 4degree (or above) multicast incapable (MI) node twice (or above) and switch two light signals on the same wavelengths to two destinations in the same multicast session. In this paper, firstly, a graph renewal and distance priority lighttree algorithm (GRDPLT) is introduced to improve the quality of lighttrees built for a multicast request. Then, it is extended to compute lighthierarchies. Obtained numerical results demonstrate the GRDPLT lighttrees can achieve a much lower links stress, better wavelength channel cost, and smaller average endtoend delay as well as diameter than the currently most efficient algorithm. Furthermore, compared to lighttrees, the performance in terms of link stress and network throughput is greatly improved again by employing the lighthierarchy, while consuming the same amount of wavelength channel cost.11/2010; 
Article: Traffic Grooming for IP Multicast over WDM Networks Using LightPath and LightTree Schemes
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: In this paper, we consider one lightpath based and two lighttree based traffic grooming schemes for supporting IP multicast services. We made performance comparisons for call blocking probability and bandwidth blocking probability on those schemes. Simulation results reveal that lightpath scheme has lower blocking probability and less consumes bandwidth consumption as IP demand volumes are small (i.e., several Megabit/sec). On the other hand, Lighttree based schemes have better performance as the IP demands become high. We conclude that the selection of grooming strategies should take the volume of demands of the provided services into account and the results in this work can provide a basic guideline for grooming strategy selection.International Conference on Networking. 01/2010;
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.