1
Robust Dimensioning and Routing
for Dynamic WDM Networks
Steven S. Lumetta Xiaolan J. Zhang
Electrical and Computer Engineering
Coordinated Science Laboratory
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
email: {xzhang29,lumetta}@illinois.edu
Abstract—Advances in device technology and dense wavelength
division multiplexing have enabled modern optical backbones to
provide high data rate services in a cost-effective manner. At
the same time, applications are emerging with the potential to
leverage these capabilities for short time spans: load migration
for Internet clouds, integrated computational grids, and remote
surgery. Until such applications mature, investment in real
networks to support them is unattractive, but without such
investment, the applications mature slowly. Current networks
thus remain dominated by lightpaths provisioned by hand, over
the space of days or weeks.
Three problems must be solved to enable a rapid transition
to dynamic optical networks that integrate well with demands at
the Internet Protocol (IP) level: traffic characterization, resource
dimensioning, and resource allocation. Traffic characterization
provides models of traffic demand variation and evolution, which
can only be predicted at this stage.
In this paper, we provide an overview of our past and current
work on the resource dimensioning and allocation subproblems.
We describe our methodology for dimensioning networks based
on expected traffic behavior. We next offer a few observations
about dealing with statistical variations in network behavior. We
develop analytic models of opportunity cost and a congestion-
aware routing algorithm based on the models. A near-optimal
threshold value for this algorithm can be chosen based on
analysis, and simulations demonstrate that this choice is robust
to variations in both topology and capacity.
I. I NTRODUCTION
Global optical backbones and core networks rely primarily
on Dense Wavelength Division Multiplexing (DWDM) [1].
Advances in technology for fast switching, frequency tuning,
and control plane integration have enabled these networks
to provide high data-rate services in a cost-efficient man-
ner [2], [3]. For example, Reconfigurable Optical Add-Drop
Multiplexers (ROADM) and MicroElectroMechanical (MEM)
switches have gained popularity in core networks [4], [5].
Generalized Multi-protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) [6]
provides signaling capability to directly reserve wavelengths
on optical devices for protocols such as IP, SONET, and ATM.
Actual use of these networks, however, remains dominated
by lightpaths provisioned by hand and over the space of days
The material presented in this paper is based in part upon work supported by
National Science Foundation grant ANI 01-21662 ITR. The authors are also
grateful for resources provided through generous donations by Intel as well
as support from the Information Trust Institute of the University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign and the Hewlett-Packard Company through its Adaptive
Enterprise Grid Program. The content of this paper does not necessarily reflect
the position nor the policies of any of these organizations.
978-1-4244-7596-4/10/$26.00 ©2010 IEEE
Sun-il Kim
Electrical and Computer Systems Engineering
University of Alaska Anchorage
email: kim@uaa.alaska.edu
or weeks. This difference in time scale arises primarily from
the common lack of both support and applications: lack of
support for dynamic traffic in commercial networks hinders ap-
plication development, while lack of widespread applications
limits incentive for support in commercial networks. Interest
in rapid provisioning dates back at least a decade [7], and use
of a dynamic network may save up to 80% capacity [8] relative
to a supporting dynamic traffic with a static network. The need
for on-demand wavelength connection services for future IP
customers has also been growing [9], [10]. The emergence
of relatively short duration applications that require high data
rates for video delivery, health care applications, etc. [11],
has increased the dynamic variability of traffic. Migration of
load between cloud computing sites, dynamic peer-to-peer and
distributed computing applications, and computational science
applications executing across the globe (grids) can all generate
high data-rate demands over short time periods. Once support
for dynamic wavelengths becomes stable and cost efficient,
demand will grow rapidly.
The challenges for realizing the vision of a dynamic optical
core are threefold: traffic characterization, resource dimen-
sioning, and resource allocation. Traffic characterization is
the process of developing models that can be used to predict
variations and evolution of traffic demands. Resource dimen-
sioning is the problem of provisioning hardware resources in
a way that minimizes cost while providing a low likelihood
of overload (e.g., using a blocked call metric). Resource
allocation is the problem of mapping dynamic connection
requests to hardware resources.
In the absence of existing dynamic demands, traffic char-
acterization is a prediction problem. A Poisson traffic model
is used for connection request arrival and departures. Aggre-
gation at lower levels generally suppresses bursty behavior
in backbone networks [12]; although dynamic wavelength
services may alter this behavior, little or no data is available.
In this paper, we describe our efforts over the last few
years in developing mechanisms for the resource dimensioning
and allocation problems. We focus on an Optical-Electronic-
Optical network (or equivalently, an optically transparent
network with full wavelength conversion at each node) with
centralized control for routing. Wavelength capacity on each
link is the primary resource. Lightpaths are automatically set
up (torn down) by OXCs upon the acceptance (departure) of
connection requests. The connections are bidirectional and

use the same path in both directions. Based on the rout-
ing policy and the current availability of wavelengths, the
network either accepts or rejects a connection request. No
queuing/preemption/rerouting is assumed.
Backbone topologies are constrained by geography, and
abundant fibers are laid to avoid future digging. Costs thus
consist primarily of those associated with operating wave-
lengths, such as the number of line cards and amplifiers.
In this context, resource dimensioning focuses on allocating
link capacities for a given topology. Our initial work [13],
[14] outlined a strategy for dimensioning networks based on
estimated traffic demands and targeted load, and evaluations
of the impact of traffic demand evolution. Later work (not
discussed in this paper) extends dimensioning to problems of
link failure restoration [15] and multiple domains [16].
Resource allocation focuses on online routing. We assume
demands for full wavelengths, and thus ignore the problem
of traffic grooming. We cover highlights of route selection
strategy (details in [17]), then and develop analytic models
of opportunity cost that motivate a simple congestion-aware
routing scheme with an admission control threshold parameter
that is robust across both topologies and network capacity [18],
[19]. Comparisons with oracular optimal routing and more
detailed analyses of other algorithms appear in the papers.
II. R ESOURCE D IMENSIONING
Previous studies on circuit switching networks tried to solve
the resource dimensioning and allocation problems jointly,
planning an optimal path (or a few alternative paths) for
each expected connection demand. Models were proposed to
compute the blocking rate for connection requests [20], [21],
[22], [23]. These approaches worked well for legacy low data-
rate networks with limited resources but became insufficient
for today’s high data-rate models [2], [24], [11]. Separating
the two problems can lead to better performance [13].
Adding fibers to an optical backbone network is clearly
not feasible at time scales of minutes or hours. Even when
extra fibers are available, however, activation of these fibers
typically requires installation of hardware such as transponders
and switches as well as time for tuning and testing the
system. These operations currently take weeks or months.
Dynamic optical networks are thus unlikely to remain at an
optimal offline design point between upgrades, and resource
dimensioning must address not only statistical variations for
current load, but evolution of that load over time to avoid the
need for more frequent upgrades.
The use of properly dimensioned networks is important
when studying the behavior of dynamic resource allocation
schemes, as misdimensioned networks tend to obscure dif-
ferences. The key insight in this regard is that most misdi-
mensioned networks will have some weak point, typically a
small cut with too few resources to meet the demand across
the cut. As a result, only routing behavior across the cut will
be evaluated; raising the load past the point at which the cut
saturates makes blocking unacceptably high (more than a few
percent). Networks with uniform capacity, for example, are
most likely misdimensioned, and should be avoided if possible.
2
TABLE I
N ETWORK NOTATION .
N Set of nodes.
E Set of links.
Ce Total capacity of link e ∈ E.
Ue Current used capacity of link e ∈ E.
R Set of all end-to-end request pairs. R ⊆ N × N .
κr Mean requested capacity for pair r.
λr Mean arrival rate for pair r.
μr Mean departure rate for pair r. The expected holding
time is 1/μr .
T SLr Topological shortest path length for pair r.
T SPr Topological shortest paths set for pair r.
T {λr , κr , μr } Traffic matrix with per pair arrival rate λr , capacity
κr and departure rate μr .
η Congestion threshold.
Algorithm 1: Dimensioning for matrix T {λr , κr , μr }.
1 ∀e ∈ E, Ce ← 0 foreach request pair r ∈ R do
2 foreach topological shortest path p ∈ T SPr do
3 foreach link e ∈ p do
4 Ce ← Ce + μ λ|Tr κ r
SPr |
r
5 end
6 end
7 end
8 Round each link capacity Ce to the nearest integer.
We dimension networks using Algorithm 1, a basic dimen-
sioning technique that allocates wavelength resources accord-
ing to topology and Poisson traffic demands. Our notation is
summarized in Table I. The algorithm dimensions capacities
for each request pair uniformly over all topological shortest
paths for the pair. The initial wavelength capacity on each link
is dimensioned at 100% of the projected load. A fraction of
the projected load is then used to model the actual offered
load on a network. If the offered load increases, the network
becomes
 congested. The  projected load of a network is defined
λr κr
 
as r∈R μr T SLr / e∈E Ce .
III. R ESOURCE A LLOCATION
Interest in dynamic wavelength services has led to renewed
interest in online, link-state based routing and load balancing
between pre-optimized and dynamically selected paths [9],
[10]. In this section, we illustrate the relationship between
path length, network load, and blocking rate.
We evaluate dynamic routing algorithms in terms of the
expected number of blocked requests for a given number
of arrivals. For the simulations in this paper, we allow the
network to reach steady state (which generally requires about
20,000 arrivals), then measure blocking probability over 5,000
arrivals. Each data point represents an average over many
traffic demands selected at random from a space of possible
demands in which each node pair has a demand uniformly
distributed between 1 and 10 connection requests per unit time.
Each matrix is normalized to the average load in the space of
possible demand matrices, and the network is dimensioned
by averaging the results of Algorithm 1 across the randomly
selected matrices. Samples are generated using a new set of
random matrices until the 95% confidence interval for each
data point lies within 5% of its value. We report results only
for the ARPANET network; results for other networks are
similar [13], [14], [17], [18], [19].
 3

z
0.1

Summed expected blocking difference

Blocking probability

0.01
threshold

Plane z=1 y

hc-TSL+any
hc-TSL+0 i/c
hc-TSL+1 2
0.001 nk
hc-TSL+2 Li
hc-TSL+3
0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 Link 1 normalized initial capacity i/c x
Offered load

Fig. 2. Threshold prediction using the two-link independent model.

Fig. 1. ASPF with different hop constraints on ARPANET.

1 1

Normalized initial link capacity i/c of link 2

Normalized initial link capacity i/c of link 2

Consider the impact of allowing selection of long paths in 0.95 0.95

order to accept connection requests. Choosing any path longer

than the shortest currently available is generally a mistake [17]. 0.9 0.9

The ASPF routing scheme can easily be adjusted to restrict

selection to available paths no longer than a fixed number of
hops beyond the request pair’s TSL. Without such constraints,
the length of chosen paths depends on the offered load. On
ARPANET, at light load (75%), over 98% of the accepted
paths use TSL. At 95% offered load, only 70% use TSL, and
a few percent use as many as four extra hops.
Blocking behavior as a function of hop constraints appears
in Figure 1. Each hc-TSL+n denotes a hop constraint in which
a request is accepted if the shortest available path has TSL+n
or fewer hops. Using TSL reduces the bias against connection
requests with long TSLs (see [25] for a similar strategy).
Connections routed on a topologically shortest path use
resources dimensioned for them and introduce minimal inter-
ference with other connection pairs. When connections must
use longer paths, they make use of resources intended for other
request pairs. At low loads, the availability of longer paths
enables dynamic routing to avoid statistical hotspots in the
network; typically, two or three extra hops is enough to gain
most of this benefit. At high loads, allowing long paths be-
comes a liability: routing around a congested region backfires
by pinning down resources in other parts of the network and
creating more congestion and increasing the blocking rate of
future requests. These results suggest that using an adaptive
policy may be worthwhile in order to address both network
hotspots and traffic load evolution. In particular, we need an
adaptive routing policy that dynamically limits path length
based on the current network state. Such a conclusion is not
new, of course; we compare with two of the best previous
algorithms in Section IV. Many previous algorithms require
tuning for network topology and capacity, however, and need
to be re-tuned as networks expand and demand grows. Here,
we develop the notion of opportunity cost, motivate our choice
of threshold with analysis, and demonstrate that the choice is
robust to both expansion and growth.
The route chosen for a request affects blocking of future
requests. We define the opportunity cost for a request as the
expected difference in the number of future blocked requests,
over an infinite time span, due to accepting the request.
Opportunity cost greater than one implies that a request is
expected to cause more than one future connection to block
0.85 0.85
CAR-M η=0.50 CAR-M η=0.50
0.8 mod ld=0.80 0.8 mod dp=0.6
mod ld=0.85 mod dp=0.4
mod ld=0.90
mod ld=0.95
mod dp=0.2
mod dp=0.0
0.75
0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1
0.75
0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1
Normalized initial link capacity i/c of link 1 Normalized initial link capacity i/c of link 1
Fig. 3. Left: Two links with independent traffic (dp = 0), c1 = c2 = 100.
Right: Two links with various dependent traffic. c1 = c2 = 100, ld = 0.9.
(beyond those that will block regardless of the decision).
The initial benefit of accepting the request is thus eventually
counteracted by the rejection of more than one future request.
Opportunity cost depends on the policies governing routing
and admission control, and calculating it exactly is not al-
ways possible. In practice, however, good approximations of
opportunity cost are easily computed since traffic loads and
path length have a strong link to the opportunity cost. When
the network load is low, the opportunity cost is small because
the path length is minimal and the network has enough extra
resources to support other connections. The opportunity cost
increases when the network load is high and many links have
little spare capacity. The available path becomes longer since
some links become unavailable and must be routed around.
Existing dynamic routing algorithms can be viewed as
approximations to selecting a path with least opportunity
cost. ASPF is based on the understanding that using more
links to route a path increases the chance of blocking fu-
ture connections. Widest-shortest path (WSP) [26] uses the
fact that depleting the last few wavelengths on a link in-
creases the chance of blocking exponentially. Flow-based
approaches approximate opportunity cost by calculating flow
reductions. These algorithms degrade when the network load
increases [18], [19]. Better routing algorithms are needed to
optimize the performance for both low and high network loads.
Here, we approximate opportunity cost with simple models
that enable us to develop a threshold-based congestion-aware
routing algorithm and to identify the best value of the ad-
mission control threshold for the algorithm. We begin with a
simple, one-link model and the assumption that all links have
independent traffic. Let c be the maximum capacity for a link,

λ be the link’s aggregate arrival rate, and μ be the departure
rate for each connection. Let t = 0 be the decision time—the
time at which a request arrives. All future arrivals are assumed
to be accepted if capacity is available.
If the link is loaded with i wavelengths at t = 0, where
i < c, the expected number of future blocking in an arbitrary
t
time interval (0, t) can be written as 0 Pc,i (s)λds, where
Pc,i (s) is the probability that this link is full at time s.
As t → ∞, the expected blocking diverges. To make a
decision, we calculate the difference in blocking between
accepting and rejecting the request. We have two possible
initial states: if we accept the request, the initial capacity
is i + 1. If we reject it, the initial capacity is i. The ex-
pected difference in blocking (the opportunity cost)
 is thus
t t
dci = limt→∞ 0 Pc,i+1 (s)λds − 0 Pc,i (s)λds . Since we
assume that future arrivals are always accepted if there is free
capacity, the difference Pc,i+1 (s)−Pc,i (s) decreases exponen-
tially, and the opportunity cost dci converges as t → ∞.
We can use a continuous Markov chain to compute the
expected result for the opportunity cost for one link,
i i!
k=0 (i−k)!(cl)k
dc,l
i = c c!
(1)
k=0 (c−k)!(cl)k
where the offered network load l is given by λ/μc.
The opportunity cost for a single link is always less than
one, thus we need to extend the model. For two independent
links, the opportunity cost is equivalent to the sum of dc,l i shows results for various levels of dependence at offered load
for each one-link mode. Figure 2 shows a three-dimensional
plot with the x- and y-axes representing the normalized initial
capacity of each link. The z-axis is the opportunity cost
computed as the sum of two one-link models. The threshold
curve is shown in Figure 2 on the z = 1 plane. Above this
curve, a request should be rejected. The left graph in Figure 3
shows several threshold curves (legends “mod ld=l”), which
represent the ideal threshold at load l. Lower loads produce
higher thresholds and allow aggressive admission. At high
loads, few resources are available for long paths.
The two-link model inspires our routing algorithm, Con-
gestion Aware Routing based on Models, or CAR-M (see
Algorithm 2). For each shortest path, CAR-M computes the
average opportunity cost dc,l
i on each link using estimated load
l = Ue /Ce , capacity c = Ce , and initial capacity i = Ue .
Routing algorithms must choose carefully among all shortest
available paths [17]. CAR-M does so by choosing the path
with the least average per-link opportunity cost. Paths of length
TSL are always accepted to avoid bias against node pairs with
long TSLs. Longer paths are accepted only when the average
opportunity cost is below the optimized simulation threshold
η = 0.5, which corresponds to the CAR-M curve in Figure 3.
Since computation of γp takes total capacity into account, the
threshold is adaptive to capacity scaling. Each ideal threshold
curve in Figure 3 is optimal for a homogeneous global traffic
load l. At routing time, we know the operating point on the
plane, but not the offered load l. The threshold used at routing
time must thus work for all load values, and η = 0.5 is
analytically optimal for two independent links.
4
Algorithm 2: Congestion Aware Routing (CAR-M).
Input: request pair r
Input: current used capacity Ue , ∀e ∈ E
Input: total capacity Ce , ∀e ∈ E
Output: acceptance or rejection
1 foreach available shortest path p found for a connection generated
by request pair r by ASPF routing do
2 Compute the sum of congestion ratio;
3
1  Ce , CUe
γp = dUe e (2)
|p| e∈p
/* Path selection metric varies across
routing algorithms */
4 end
5 Path q ← p with min γp ; /* Optimality condition */
6 if |q| = T SLr then /* Always accept a Topological
Shortest Path (TSP)
*/
7 Accept the connection
8 end
if γq > η then /* Threshold comparison
9 */
10 Reject the connection;
11 else
12 Accept the connection on route q;
13 end
What happens when the traffic on two links is not indepen-
dent? In practice, traffic dependence is difficult to model: the
flow pattern on the links depends not only on the expected
traffic demands but also on use as alternative routes. The
complexity of the Markov chain for dependent links grows
quickly, so we use simulation. The right graph in Figure 3
l = 0.9. Traffic dependence dp is the fraction of two-link
traffic amongst all arrivals. When dp = 1, all connections use
both links, and the model reduces to a one-link model. When
dp = 0, only the initial request uses both links, and the model
is equivalent to the two-link independent model. The optimal
threshold curves drift upwards in x and y as dp increases,
becoming a point at (1, 1) when dp = 1. The implication for
CAR-M is that the threshold value should be higher when a
path being considered has links with correlated congestion.
If all links in a path of length L are independent, we might
generalize CAR-M using η = 1/L. Instead, since links along
a path are often inter-dependent, we use a threshold of η = 0.5
in all cases, which works well in practice and is robust both
to topology and capacity scaling.
IV. R ESULTS AND D ISCUSSION
This section provides simulation results. Figures 4-5 illus-
trate the properties of CAR-M and draw comparisons with
related work. ASPF selects a shortest available path. WSP se-
lects a path with maximum residual capacity on the bottleneck
link. Neither algorithm is competitive with CAR-M, although
the latter takes only ≈ 1.5× than ASPF to find routes.
The figures also compare CAR-M to two previous ap-
proaches. State-dependent routing (SDR)[27] approximates an
optimal solution using a Markov decision process and a link
cost model. We also consider a throughput-competitive online
routing and admission control algorithm (COL) [28]. The
original required knowledge of connection hold times. A later

0.1
Blocking probability
0.01
COL η=1 μ=1012
SDR η=1
CAR-M η=0.50
0.001
0.75 0.8 0.85
Offered load
Fig. 4. Routing algorithms on ARPANET with average link capacity 60.
0.1
ASPF
WSP
COL η=1 μ=1050
SDR η=0.5
CAR-M η=0.50
Blocking probability
0.01
0.001
0.75 0.8 0.85
Offered load
Fig. 5. Routing algorithms on ARPANET with average link capacity 600.
version avoids this need by introducing a parameter μ [29], but
the algorithm is sensitive to its value. We compare modified
versions [19] of both algorithms. SDR is not competitive, and
COL is slightly worse than CAR-M, but after modification and
tuning, both algorithms achieve blocking rates comparable to
CAR-M. Our modified version of SDR always accepts TSL
paths and tries to optimize the threshold value for the best
blocking performance.
The advantage of CAR-M over previous algorithms lies
in the fact that its threshold parameter is robust to both
topology [18], [19] and network capacity. The CAR-M
threshold remains stable when network capacity scales across
10× link capacity (from 60 to 600). In contrast, both SDR
and COL require re-tuning both for capacity scaling (network
growth) and for network topology (expansion). Optimizing
SDR and COL is challenging, as SDR has three parameters
to optimize, while the best threshold value for COL increases
exponentially with the network capacity. Relative to CAR-M,
the time required for route selection is comparable for COL,
but more than an order of magnitude slower for SDR.
R EFERENCES
[1] R. Ramaswami and K. N. Sivarajan, Optical networks: a practical
perspective. San Francisco, CA, USA: Morgan Kaufmann, Inc., 1998.
[2] S. McCreary and K. Claffy, “Trends in wide area IP traffic patterns - A
view from Ames Internet Exchange,” Proc. of ITC Specialist Seminar
on Internet Traffic Measurement and Modelling, Monterey, CA, 2000.
[3] R. Doverspike and P. Magill, Optical Fiber Telecommunications. Lon-
don, UK: Elsevier Inc., 2008, vol. B: Systems and Networks, ch.
Commercial optical networks, overlay networks, and services.
[4] J. Strand and A. Chiu, “Realizing the advantages of optical reconfigura-
bility and restoration with integrated optical cross-connects,” Lightwave
Technology, Journal of, vol. 21, no. 11, pp. 2871–2882, Nov. 2003.
5
[5] M. D. Feuer, D. C. Kilper, and S. L. Woodward, Optical Fiber Telecom-
munications. London, UK: Elsevier Inc., 2008, vol. B: Systems and
Networks, ch. ROADMs and their system applications.
[6] L. Berger, “Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Sig-
naling Functional Description,” RFC 3471, Jan. 2003.
[7] N. Ghani and S. Dixit, “Channel provisioning for higher-layer protocols
in WDM networks,” All-Optical Networking 1999: Architecture, Control,
and Management Issues, vol. 3843, no. 1, pp. 22–32, 1999.
[8] K. Casier, S. Verbrugge, D. Colle, I. Lievens, A. Groebbens, M. Pick-
ASPF
WSP avet, and P. Demeester, “Dimensioning studies for transparent optical
backbone networks,” Transparent Optical Networks, 2005, Proc. of 7th
International Conference, vol. 1, pp. 252–255 Vol. 1, July 2005.
0.9 0.95 [9] A. Elwalid, D. Mitra, I. Saniee, and I. Widjaja, “Routing and protection
in GMPLS networks: From shortest paths to optimized designs,” IEEE
Journal on Lightwave Technology, vol. 21, no. 11, pp. 2828–2838, 2003.
[10] Y. Xin, L. Battestilli, and G. Karmous-Edwards, “Generic network
services to support emerging grid applications,” in IEEE International
Conference on Broadband Communication, Networks, and Systems
(BROADNETS), Raleigh, North Carolina, USA, 9 2007.
[11] S. Spadaro, “Traffic engineering in IP over optical transport networks
for metropolitan and wide area environments,” Ph.D. dissertation, Uni-
versitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Dec. 2004.
[12] Z. Jing, H. Sun, and L. Li, “Performance evaluation of packet discard
schemes in atm switches in heterogeneous traffic environment,” in
ICATM ’99. 2nd International Conference on ATM, 1999, pp. 482–491.
[13] X. J. Zhang, S. Kim, and S. S. Lumetta, “Resource dimensioning in
WDM networks under state-based routing schemes,” in Fourth Inter-
national Conference on Broadband Communications, Networks, and
Systems (BroadNets’07), Raleigh, North Carolina, USA, Sep. 2007.
0.9 0.95
[14] ——, “Dimensioning WDM networks for dynamic routing of evolving
traffic,” 2010, journal submission under review.
[15] S. Kim, X. J. Zhang, and S. S. Lumetta, “Towards a deeper under-
standing of managing dynamic optical networks under link failures,”
in Optical Fiber Communication Conference and Exposition (OFC’08),
San Diego, California, USA, Mar. 2008.
[16] X. J. Zhang, S. Kim, and S. S. Lumetta, “Resource provisioning for
dynamic multi-domain WDM networks: Effectiveness and fairness,” in
13th Conference on Optical Network Design and Modeling (ONDM’09),
Braunschweig, Germany, Feb. 2009.
[17] ——, “Reduced flow routing: Leveraging residual capacity to reduce
blocking in GMPLS networks,” in Fourth International Conference on
Broadband Communications, Networks, and Systems (BroadNets’07),
Raleigh, North Carolina, USA, Sep. 2007.
[18] ——, “Efficient and robust congestion estimation for dynamic WDM
networks,” University of Illinois, Urbana–Champaign, Tech. Rep. UILU-
ENG-09-2212, 2009.
[19] ——, “Opportunity cost analysis for dynamic wavelength routed mesh
networks,” 2010, journal submission under review.
[20] F. P. Kelly, “Blocking probabilities in large circuit-switched networks,”
Advances in Applied Probability, vol. 18, pp. 473–505, 1986.
[21] B. R. Hurley, C. J. R. Seidl, and W. F. Sewell, “A survey of dynamic
routing methods for circuit-switched traffic,” IEEE Communications
Magazine, vol. 25, no. 9, Sept 1987.
[22] A. Girard, Routing and Dimensioning in Circuit-Switched Networks.
Boston, MA, USA: Addison-Wesley Longman, Inc., 1990.
[23] A. Girard and B. Liau, “Dimensioning of adaptively routed networks,”
IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw., vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 460–468, 1993.
[24] D. Clark, W. Lehr, and I. Liu, “Provisioning for bursty internet traffic:
Implications for industry structure,” in Internet Service Quality Eco-
nomics, L. McKnight and J. Wroclawski, Eds. MIT Press, 2001.
[25] J. Späth, “Dynamic routing and resource allocation in WDM transport
networks,” Computer Networks, vol. 32, pp. 519–538, May 1999.
[26] R. Guerin, A. Orda, and D. Williams, “QoS routing mechanisms and
ospf extensions,” in 2nd Global Internet Miniconference, 1997.
[27] K. R. Krishnan and T. J. Ott, “State-dependent routing for telephone
traffic: Theory and results,” 25th IEEE Conference on Decision and
Control, vol. 25, pp. 2124–2128, Dec. 1986.
[28] R. Gawlick, A. Kamath, S. Plotkin, and K. G. Ramakrishnan, “Routing
and admission control in general topology networks,” Stanford Univer-
sity, Stanford, CA, USA, Tech. Rep. TR-95-1548, 1995.
[29] L. Zhang, M. Andrews, W. Aiello, S. Bhatt, and K. Krishnan, “A perfor-
mance comparison of competitive on-line routing and state-dependent
routing,” Global Telecommunications Conference, 1997. GLOBECOM
’97., IEEE, vol. 3, pp. 1813–1819 vol.3, Nov 1997.