Workpackage 5 Transmission and Physical Aspects

1. Plenary Meeting Munich WP5 June13 - 15, 2005 Agenda Achievements - Audit Recommendations PCAG : Status / Results – Integration into D26/D28 D26: Status / Work assignment / Next steps D28: Draft ToC / Define contributions CSG: Get alignment on cost model & relative cost Workpackage 5 Transmission and Physical Aspects Herbert Haunstein, Bernd Bollenz

2. Agenda for Munich meetings

3. Agenda / attendees Agenda: Introduction PCAG: Status / Results – Integration into D26/D28 D26: Status / Work assignment D28: Draft ToC / Work assignment CSG: Get alignment on cost model & relative cost 13th (.) means part time Tanya, (Alex), Jonas, Dominic, Andrew, Alfons, Thomas, Martin, Ralph, Henning, Dominque, Simone, (Stefano), (Ben), (Bernd), Matthias 14th Tanya, (Alex), Jonas, Dominic, Andrew, Alfons, Thomas, Martin, Henning, Dominique, Simone, (Stefano), Gottfried, Bernd Afternoon/CSG: Hisao, Erwan, Hans, Sandrine, Sophie, Jan, Marco 15th Tanya, Alex, Jonas, Dominic, Andrew, Alfons, Thomas, Martin, Stefano, Gottfried, Bernd

4. WP5 Wrap up, June 15th PCAG: D26: Define pages count for contributions (2 weeks) Send revised ToC First draft by end of July. Input until July 25. CSG: Review cost model assumption in D15, comments to M.Wade (June 24) Compare to Matthias’ model D28: send revised ToC General: Standardization contributions, fill template Send presented slides to WP5 Conference call Wed June 29, 2pm-3:30pm (CEDT) Next Meeting for final preparation of D26 Date: 12/13 or 19/20 of September (ECOC, 25-29.9.05 ) Venue: Athens Response to WP1 request

5. Backup slides for reference

6. Audit Recommendations D13 Physical feasibility of optical transport networks: a comprehensive definition of physical system models and reference configurations for use in the project. This is based on available technology and simulation work is indicative of performance that could be expected of an ASON such as practical link spans, methods of monitoring, switching.This area of work is central to the success of NOBEL as the costs of providing and operating the physical layer will determine the ultimate viability of the NOBEL concepts. The fundamental problem that needs to be addressed is as follows:For an ASON to be fully flexible as described in the proposal a connection may take a variety of physical routes across the network. So if short range connections share the same infrastructure as long range connections, as is inherent in the NOBEL principles, the physical layer components (transponders, amplifiers, compensations, equalisation, etc.) must be designed at the outset to support the longest possible path and maximum capacity (bit rate and waveband) over the network lifetime. If a significant proportion of the traffic requires shorter range connections then the network will be over-engineered and uneconomic. Any alternative that partitions the traffic would appear to reduce flexibility. This means the whole network must be designed for the most demanding connections, requiring the highest speed, longest range, best modulation method etc. Conventional cross-connect networks inherently allow a mix of low and high performance components to achieve an economic mix according to network geography, traffic etc. The NOBEL concept does not appear to allow such a mix without compromising flexibility. (Intelligent use of electronics and optimisation of individual ASON islands alone do not solve the problem). In the next period the project should seek to demonstrate that it is able to resolve this problem in a practical way.

7. WP5 - Work plan M12 M15 M21 M24 M4 Dynamic Network simulation (Routing) Network Design Rules Optimization Specification of network elements for verification Building Blocks Reference Networks Physical Feasibility Light Path Design • Dedicated sub teams: • Carrier‘s group (reference networks, traffic demand estimation) • Optical performance monitoring group (jointly w/ WP4, finished) • Path computation algorithms group (ongoing) • Cost study group (jointly w/ WP2)

8. Time line & sub teams of WP5 M12 M15 M21 M24 M4 Dynamic Network simulation (Routing) Network Design Rules Optimization Specification of network elements for verification Building Blocks Reference Networks Physical Feasibility Light Path Design • Dedicated sub teams: • Carrier‘s group (reference networks, traffic demand estimation) • Optical performance monitoring group (jointly w/ WP4, finished) • Path computation algorithms group (Dominic) • Cost study group (Martin)

9. WP5 Final deliverables D26 & D28 D26 Network simulation ready for dynamic transparent optical network (M21) Lead editor: Siemens (Dominic) Develop flexible simulation package, which allows solving optimization at various levels of detail. Experimental verification of building blocks. Identify most critical (and time consuming) blocks. D28 Specifications for network elements and components to support experimental demonstration (M24) Lead editor: Lucent (Bernd) In order to support subsystem and component development for flexible optical networks, simulation results as well as experimental verification are combined to generate a set of key parameters, which can be used for optimization. Based on the simulation capabilities and details of component performance, revised specifications for improved subsystems (building blocks) will be provided.

10. WP5 work ahead (to be confirmed during Munichmeeting) • D19 : Static Networks • D26 : Dynamic Networks (Structure: Summary + Appendix ) • Path computation during network planning • Physical constraints aware light path computation (operation phase) • Cost comparison • D28 : Domain Oriented Approach (static and dynamic) • Translucent Network  Define transparent domainsHow ‘big’ could / should a domain be ? • O-E-O vs. all-optical – cost study to support the design of transparent domains • Create specifications for components (and subsystems) based on the results from D19/D26 • Hand over to experimental work in “NOBEL phase II”

11. WP5 D28 - Contributions TILab: "How 'big' could /should a domain be" and "Requirements for components (and subsystems) based on the results of the previous work (Marcello) ASEL/ACIT: ACIT: transients (from D26, Dominique) BT: cost studies (OPM, OEO vs. transparency) (Yu Rong) Lucent: verify simulation results and revise specifications for main building blocks of transparent optical networks (Alfons, Bernd) Marconi: Cost studies (Cornelius) Plabs: Contribute to compile the specifications of network elements (Stefano) Siemens: Identification and specification of key components of transparent optical networks (Gottfried) T-Systems: Cost comparison of an opaque and transparent approach for the DT network and price list (Matthias) ACREO: definition of experiments preferably carried out in Acreo's all ethernet/IP based testbed (e.g. OPM, Anders B.) FT: translucent networks (Hisao) NTUA: network simulations based on reference networks? (Tanya)