MMSRP: Multi-wavelength Markov-based Split Reservation
Protocol for DWDM Optical Networks
Malabika Sengupta Swapan Kumar Mondal
Kalyani Govt. Engg. College Kalyani Govt. Engg. College
Kalyani, West Bengal, India. Kalyani, West Bengal, India.
913325288537 913325941794
ms5_1@yahoo.com paltaswapan@yahoo.co.in
ABSTRACT
During wavelength reservation in Wavelength Division
Multiplexed (WDM) optical networks, often multiple
connection requests unknowingly compete for the same
wavelength, even when other free wavelengths are available,
resulting in a collision. The Markov model used in Markov
Based Reservation Protocol (MBRP), is very effective to reduce
such conflicts by intelligently guessing a wavelength in advance.
Even then a connection request may be blocked because of the
vulnerable period between wavelength probing and actual
reservation. To minimize the effect of such vulnerability,
splitting the probe process to fork out a partial reservation from
an intermediate node is an efficient solution. In Markov-
selection Split Reservation Protocol (MSRP), the above two
strategies are combined, but only one wavelength is guessed
during probing. If the attempt with this single wavelength fails,
the connection request is blocked. To take care of this limitation,
we propose here a new scheme called Multi-wavelength MSRP
(MMSRP), where a set of wavelengths (instead of one) is
selected by Markov model and continuously updated for
possible future use. In case of failure, during reservation in the
backward direction, it retries to reserve the next best wavelength
through another splitting at the failure point. Thus, MMSRP
handles multiple wavelengths sequentially through multiple
splitting. Simulation results show that the blocking probability
in MMSRP decreases considerably (~25% over MSRP and
~50% over MBRP in some cases) as the number of wavelengths
increases. Compared to MSRP, though the average setup time is
marginally higher in MMSRP, it appears quite promising for
delay-tolerant applications, where blocking is very crucial, in
dense WDM networks.
Categories and Subject Descriptors
B.4.4 [Input/Output and Data Communications]:
Performance Analysis and Design Aids – Formal models,
Simulation.
General Terms
Performance.
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this
work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee
provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or
commercial advantage, and that copies bear this notice and the
full citation on the first page. To copy otherwise, to republish, to
post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific
permission and/or a fee.
SAC’10, March 22-26, 2010, Sierre, Switzerland.
Copyright 2010 ACM 978-1-60558-638-0/10/03…$10.00.
Debashis Saha
IIM Calcutta
Kolkata, India.
913324622833
ds@iimcal.ac.in
Keywords
Optical networks, WDM, splitting, Markov model
1. INTRODUCTION
In Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexed (DWDM) optical
networks [1]-[2],[4] without wavelength converters, a dedicated
lightpath [5] is first established between the source-destination
pair of a connection request (henceforth we refer request to
represent connection request) before the actual data transfer
starts. Lightpath establishment involves three basic steps: (i)
routing, (ii) wavelength selection, and (iii) wavelength
reservation [1], [3]-[5]. This work is focused on wavelength
selection and reservation. Here we have used fixed shortest path
routing, but any other routing may be equally applicable.
A judicious selection of wavelength from an available set of
wavelengths, reduces the probability of collisions among the
concurrent requests. Random-fit and first-fit [2] are two
conventional methods for wavelength selection, whereas the
recently proposed methods include label prioritization [3], and
Markov selection [8],[10]. In label prioritization, the priorities
of wavelengths are set depending on the duration of stay in the
pool. In Markov method, a particular wavelength is guessed
from the available pool of wavelengths well in advance, for each
request separately. Thus, other concurrent requests can exclude
the already guessed wavelengths and consider the rest, thereby
reducing the probability of wavelength conflict. We use this
strategy for selection of wavelength in this work.
Successful reservation of the selected wavelength throughout the
path, is also very crucial because information about wavelength
availability is difficult to be guaranteed at any particular place
and time in large DWDM networks. To handle this issue, several
reservation protocols [3], such as Source Initiated Reservation
Protocol (SIRP), Destination Initiated Reservation Protocol
(DIRP), Intermediate node Initiated Reservation Protocol (IIRP)
[6] and Split Reservation Protocol (SRP) [7] have been reported
in literature. Two recent additions to this list are: Markov Based
Reservation Protocol (MBRP) [10], and Markov-selection Split
Reservation Protocol (MSRP) [8]. In MBRP, selection of
wavelength is done using Markov method and reservation is
done using DIRP. Here, a wavelength is guessed for a particular
request well in advance, so that other requests do not select that
guessed wavelength. Thus, wavelength conflict among
contemporary requests is reduced. Consequently, MBRP
performs better than DIRP [10]. In MSRP, wavelength selection
is done using Markov model and reservation of wavelength is
done using SRP. Using the concept of splitting [7], blocking is
reduced by shortening the vulnerable period. So MSRP performs
better than MBRP [8]. However, a major limitation of MSRP is
that, it attempts only one wavelength for reservation and
splitting is done only once. If the selected wavelength fails
during reservation, the request is blocked. Hence, there is still
space for further improvement by extending Markov selection to
multiple wavelengths and subsequently incorporating multiple
splitting. This concept helps many erstwhile failure cases
succeed, thereby reducing the overall blocking of requests. We
call this proposed scheme as MMSRP.
The paper is organized as follows. Wavelength selection in
MMSRP is described in Sections 2 whereas reservation of
selected wavelength(s) is discussed in Section 3. Comparative
simulation results are discussed in Section 4. Finally, Section 5
concludes the paper.
2. WAVELENGTH SELECTION IN
MMSRP
Each node of the network maintains three tables: node_table,
link_status_table and markov_table. A node_table keeps records
of all requests passing through the node. Each record of node_
table contains a few fields. All these fields are mentioned below.
Connection_id: identity number of the request, source_id:
identity number of source of a route (say R), destination_id:
identity number of destination of R, pre_hop_id: identity
number of previous node in R, next_hop_id: identity number of
next node in R, arrival_time: time when the request arrives at
the present node and guessed_wavelength: the wavelength
guessed in the present link by the present node. The duration of
a record in a node_table is bounded by the estimated source-
destination round trip time of the concerned request.
We assume that each node broadcasts its adjoining link usage
information at every T seconds. This link usage information is
stored in link_status_table at every node. The records in
link_status_table contains the fields: link_id and bit_map. The
field bit_map is of size equal to the number of wavelengths used
in the network and represents status of usage of all wavelengths
of the link. A ‘1’ is placed in the bit_ map when the
corresponding wavelength is free and a ‘0’ otherwise.
The markov_table contains the information of rate of change of
states of the wavelength usage for all the wavelengths in all the
links. The records of markov_table contains link_id and
rate_map. The rate_map contains rate of change of states of the
wavelength usage for all the wavelengths in the corresponding
link_id.
It is worth mentioning here that, control packets carry
information and the nodes use the information carried by the
control packets to execute the required tasks. But in this paper,
to improve the readability, we sometime describe control
packets as performer of some tasks.
When a request arrives at source node, the node initiates the
control packet PROB and forwards it to the next node towards
destination. Henceforth source and destination will be used to
represent source node and destination node respectively. PROB
includes the following fields: connection_id, source_id,
destination_id, route_path, probe_map, future_guess_set and
prev_guess_index. The route_path is the ordered list of nodes
on the selected route, probe_map is an array indicating the
availability of each wavelength in the route. A “1” in probe_map
represents that the corresponding wavelength is free and a “0”
otherwise, future_guess_set is an array which contains a set of
guessed wavelengths for probable use in future if the request is
splitted, prev_guess_index contains the guessed wavelength upto
the previous node. Use of future_guess_set and
prev_guess_index are discussed in Subsection 2.2.
While PROB moves towards destination, each node performs
three major tasks discussed in the following subsections.
2.1 Detection of interfering requests
When a request arrives at a node, it is called current request. All
other ongoing requests that arrived earlier at that node are called
under process requests. Those under process requests, whose
pre_hop_id or next_hop_id (available in node_table) matches
with next_hop_id of the current request, are called interfering
requests. When a PROB arrives at a node, the node detects the
interfering requests using node_table. This detection of
interfering requests is required to identify and exclude the
wavelengths guessed by them to reduce the probability of
collision of wavelengths.
2.2 Selection of the guessed wavelength
We assume that each node broadcasts its adjoining link usage
information at every T seconds. This is stored in
link_status_table. So each node comes to know about the
wavelength allocation on all links in the network at times 0T,
1T, …, sT, …, where s is a natural number. However, the
information broadcast at sT may not remain correct at an
arbitrary time instant between sT and (s+1)T. To overcome this
uncertainty, a prediction based on C-T Markov chain [6] is used.
Markov parameters are broadcast at every T ′ seconds and stored
in markov_table of each node. Usually, T ′ >> T so that the
Markov chain remains stable. After receiving a PROB, each
node first updates its probe_map field by marking those
wavelengths of the present link (the link connecting the present
node and the next node of the route) as busy (if any), which are
(i) already guessed by interfering requests or (ii) reserved by
other requests for future transmission or (iii) reserved and being
used for transmission. If no free wavelength is available, PROB
fails and the request is blocked. A NACK is generated and sent
towards source. NACK releases the entries of this request from
node_table at each node till it reaches source. Otherwise, for
each free wavelength (if any), the node uses the markov_table to
find the probability of getting the wavelength free throughout
the path [10]. We extend the concept of guessing [10], using
multiple number of wavelengths. If total number of free
wavelengths is y, the node selects p (y>p>1) number of
wavelengths having higher probabilities of remaining free.
These p wavelengths are arranged with respect to probability in
descending order as λg1 ,λg2 , …,λgp . Here, p is a predefined
number which represents the maximum number of splitting
permitted for a request. Obviously, if y<=p, all y wavelengths
are selected. From the ordered set, wavelength λg1 is selected as
guessed wavelength and wavelengths λg2 to λgp are stored in
future_guess_set.
When the present node is the source, prev_guess_index of
PROB is initialized to λg1. A record is created in node_table of
the source and PROB is forwarded to next node. If the present
node is any node other than source, the node checks the
availability of the wavelength stored in prev_guess_index. If the
wavelength is available, a record is created in node_table of the
present node and PROB is forwarded to next node; else the node
checks for splitting. When splitting does not occur,
prev_guess_index is updated to the wavelength λg1. A record is
created in node_table of the present node and the PROB is
forwarded to next node.
2.3 Dynamic splitting
MMSRP adaptively splits a probe attempt into two concurrent
(upstream and downstream) reservation attempts at some
intermediate node selected dynamically. For a request, splitting
may occur if both the following conditions are satisfied: (i)
PROB has traversed a pre-selected distance (x*d) of the route,
where d is the total distance of the route, x is a positive fraction
(0<x<1) and (ii) the wavelength at prev_guess_index is not
available in present link . The effect of x on blocking probability
(bp) for various network conditions, is discussed in [8]. We
select the value of x as 0.5, considering moderate to high crisis
situation. If the conditions of splitting are satisfied, it splits;
otherwise the PROB propagates to the next node.
3. WAVELENGTH RESERVATION IN
MMSRP
If splitting does not occur and PROB successfully reaches
destination, the destination converts PROB into RES. For that
request standard DIRP is used for reserving the wavelength.
Table 1 summarizes different control packets used in the
scheme. RES includes the following fields: connection_id and
selected_wavelength. The content of prev_guess_index of PROB
Name Description
PROB moves from source to destination and contains
various probe results
RES_FWD moves from splitting point towards
destination to reserve a selected_wavelength
RES_BKD moves from splitting point towards source to
reserve a selected_wavelength
ACK moves towards source, caries
acknowledgement if RES_FWD reaches
destination successfully
NACK moves towards source and caries not
acknowledgement if RES_BKD or PROB
fails
REL_BKD moves towards source to release the
wavelength reserved so far if RES_FWD fails,
also caries not acknowledgement
REL_FWD moves towards destination to release the
reserved wavelength if RES_BKD fails
Table 1. Control packets.
is assigned to selected_wavelength. The intermediate nodes, on
receiving this RES, lock the selected_wavelength as busy and
delete the record from the node_table of this request. However,
if the selected_wavelength becomes unavailable at any point,
RES is converted to REL which moves towards destination and
releases the wavelength in the links reserved so far. A NACK is
also generated from the point of failure which proceeds towards
source deleting all the records in the node_tables of this request.
If the RES reaches source successfully, transmission starts.
After the transmission is over, the reserved wavelength is
released.
If splitting occurs, the PROB is converted to RES_FWD. A
RES_BKD is also generated at the first splitting point (we call it
sp1) as shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2. RES_FWD includes the
fields: connection_id and selected_wavelength. RES_BKD
includes the fields: connection_id, selected_wavelength and
future_guess_set. At the point of splitting prev_guess_index
(i.e., λg1) of PROB is assigned to selected_wavelength of both
RES_FWD and RES_BKD. The RES_BKD moves towards the
source, reserving λg1 (i.e. the wavelength stored at
selected_wavelength) and deleting the entries of this request in
node_tables on the way. The RES_FWD moves towards
destination reserving λg1.
Source sp2 sp1 Destination
PROB
RES_BKD RES_FWD
RES_BKD
RES_FWD
ACK
Data Transmission
Figure 1. Case of success in MMSRP.
However, if RES_BKD fails at some intermediate node due to
non-availability of λg1, further splitting may occur (maximum p-1
times). When RES_BKD fails, the node selects next candidate
from the future_guess_set, subject to availability. The node
checks first the availability of λg2 in the forward link. If λg2 is not
available, λg3 is checked for its availability and so on upto λ gp. In
case of failure after first splitting, RES_BKD again splits into
two new reservation packets RES_FWD and RES_BKD. These
RES_FWD and RES_BKD, act like earlier RES_FWD and
RES_BKD packets respectively. Both packets now attempt to
reserve a new wavelength selected in the same way, say λgx, in
both forward and backward directions. RES_FWD on its way
also releases the previously reserved wavelengths by previous
RES_FWD and RES_BKD.
Now, if both RES_FWD and RES_BKD are successful to
reserve the same wavelength, data transmission starts after
receiving the ACK from destination. If RES_BKD is stuck at an
intermediate node and all possible splittings are exhausted, the
request is blocked and RES_BKD is converted into NACK
which moves towards source. Another REL_FWD is generated
from the point of failure which moves towards destination and
releases the wavelengths reserved so far by both RES_FWD and
RES_BKD. Again, if RES_FWD fails, it is converted into
REL_BKD which moves towards source releasing the
wavelengths reserved so far. It also acts as a NACK and deletes
the entries of this request in node_tables of the path. Figure 1
shows a case of success whereas Figure 2 shows a case of
failure. In the figures, sp1 and sp2 indicate the two splitting points
(nodes) of a request.
Source sp2 sp1 Destination
 70
PROB
RES_FWD 60 % gain over M BRP

blocking probability ( bp )
RES_BKD
50
REL_FWD
NACK 40
REL_FWD 30

20

10
% gain over M SRP
Figure 2. Case of failure in MMSRP. 0
50 100 150 200 250 300
average arrival rate of requests (cr )
4. SIMULATION RESULTS
We have tested our protocol in simulation environment and the
results are produced here. In the simulation model, static
shortest path routing is used in a randomly generated DWDM
Figure 4. Variation of % gain of MMSRP in bp with cr
network (without wavelength converters) of 40 nodes and 46
over MSRP and MBRP for wl=500.
links. Requests arrive following Poisson distribution, and
connection holding times are exponentially distributed. The
simulation model is event driven. The source and destination of
a request are chosen at random. The key performance metric bp
is studied exhaustively for different parameters. We define T ratio 0.12
M BRP
as the ratio of T ′ to T. Effect of Tratio on bp is studied in [8] and 0.1
blocking probability ( bp )
it is reported that for Tratio≈ 300, bp remains minimum. So, for
0.08
the results presented in this paper, we keep Tratio fixed at 300. MSRP
We represent the number of wavelength(s) and average arrival 0.06
rate of request(s) per second in the network as wl and cr,
respectively. Here, we have used p=2. Also, we have considered 0.04
M MSRP
MSRP and MBRP for comparison with the proposed scheme 0.02
MMSRP. We have studied the characteristics of the schemes for
higher values of wl ranging from 300 to 1000 which are suitable 0
for DWDM. However, due to limitation of space, we have 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
presented one representative result for wl= 500. We have also number of wavelengths (wl )
studied the effect of wl on bp for fixed values of cr. One such
representative result is presented here for cr=300.

4.1 Blocking probability Figure 5. Comparison of bp with wl for cr=300.

The variation of bp with respect to cr is presented in Figure 3
for wl=500. It is evident from the figure that MMSRP performs
distinctly better than MSRP and MBRP. In general, for all the
schemes, bp increases with increase in cr. The percentage gain
of MMSRP over MSRP is in the range of 13% to 25% and
around 50% over MBRP (Figure 4).
0.1
M BRP
blocking probability ( bp )
Figure 5 shows the variation of bp with different values of wl for
cr=300. The following points can be observed from the figure.
First, MMSRP always performs distinctly better than MSRP
and MBRP. Second, the variation of bp with wl is very less. This
may be explained considering the two basic reasons of
connection blocking, which are: (i) insufficient network resource
and (ii) use of outdated information during the attempt of

0.08 reservation. Here, with the increase of wl more resource become

available, whereby the first reason is minimized. But, due to
MSRP
0.06 propagation delay, the information used for reservation of wl
happens to be outdated. Thus the second reason exists, and
0.04 blocking takes place due to use of outdated information mainly.
M M SRP Hence, bp does not vary too much with wl.
0.02
4.2 Average setup time
0 Setup time is the latency in establishing a lightpath
50 100 150 200 250 300 corresponding to a request. Since individual setup times may
average arrival rate of requests (cr )
vary from request to request, we calculate the average of all
setup times for successful cases (Figure 6). Moreover, setup
time of MMSRP remains higher, compared to MSRP and
MBRP, throughout the region because MMSRP requires more
Figure 3. Comparison of bp with varying cr for wl = 500. time as some part of the route is traversed more than once in
case of multiple splitting in MMSRP.
 0.00395 [2] C. Murthy and M. Gurusamy, WDM Optical Networks,
Concepts, Design and Algorithms. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall, 2001.
M M SRP
0.00385 [3] D. Saha, “A Comparative study of distributed protocols for
wavelength reservation in WDM optical networks”, SPIE
setup time

Opt. Netw. Mag., vol 3, no. 1, pp. 45-52, 2002.

0.00375 M SRP
M BRP
0.00365
50 100 150 200 250
average arrival rate of requests (cr )
Figure 6. Variation of setup time with cr for wl=500.
We have also studied the variation of average number of control
packets with different values of cr for a range of values of wl
from 300 to 1000. Generally, the average value of control
packets used by MMSRP is slightly higher than (or equal to)
average value of control packets used by MBRP and MSRP. The
increase is limited to around 7% only. This is because the
number of control packets used by the schemesare the same for
most of the cases, such as success without split, success with
single split, failure during probing, and failure during
reservation without splitting. Only, for the case of more than one
splitting, the number of control packets for MMSRP is more.
Thus, the comparison of average control packets is not
remarkably noticeable and hence is not presented here.
5. CONCLUSION
Multiple splitting, combined with multi-wavelength guessing, in
[4] H. Zang, J. P. Jue and B. Mukherjee, “Review of routing
and wavelength assignment approaches for wavelength-
routed optical WDM networks”, Optical networks, Vol 1,
no 1, pp 47-60, Jan. 2000.
300 [5] H Zang, J. P. Jue., L Sahashrabuddhe, R Ramamurthy, and
B Mukherjee,“ Dynamic Lightpath Establishment in
Wavelength-Routed WDM Networks”, IEEE Commun
Magazine, pp 100-108, Sept. 2001.
[6] K. Lu, J. P. Jue and G. Xiao, “Intermediate-Node Initiated
Reservation (IIR): A New Signaling Scheme for
Wavelength-Routed Networks,” IEEE JSAC, vol. 21, no. 8,
pp 1285-1294, 2003.
[7] M. Sengupta, S. K. Mondal and D. Saha “An Adaptive Split
Reservation Protocol (SRP) for Dynamicaly Reserving
Wavelengths in WDM Optical Networks”, Proc. ICDCN
2008, LNCS 4904, pp 440-451, 2008.
[8] M. Sengupta, S. K. Mondal, C. Bose and D. Saha, “A
Markov selection Split Reservation Protocol for WDM
Optical Networks without Wavelength Conversion”, to
appear in Proc., IEEE GLOBECOM, 2008.
[9] T. Ozugur, M. Park, and J. Jue, “Label prioritization in
GMPLS-centric all-optical networks,” in Proc.ICC, 2003,
pp. 1283–1287.
[10] W. Lin, R. S. Wolff and B. Mumey, “A Markov-Based
Reservation Algorithm for Wavelength Assignment in All-
Optical Networks”, IEEE Journal of Light wave
Technologies, vol. 25, no. 7, pp 1676-1683, 2007.

MMSRP reduces blocking probability considerably (around

15%-
50%) over either MSRP or MBRP. During probing, first
splitting is used dynamically and then multiple splitting is used
in case of failures. Hence, the average setup time in MMSRP is
slightly higher than that in MSRP or MBRP, but the average
number of control packets used is not significantly changed.
Thus, MMSRP performs better than the current best protocols as
far as blocking probability is concerned at higher wavelength
regions at the cost of nominal increase in the average setup time.
So it may be considered as a better performer in DWDM
networks, specially for the applications, where protocol
efficiency is of prime importance and the network uses a larger
number of wavelengths.

6. REFERENCES
[1] A.E. Ozdaglar and D.P.Bertsekas, “Routing and
Wavelength Assignment in Optical Networks”, IEEE/ACM
Trans. On Networking, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 259-271, April.
2003.