The Comparison of FFR Network and TF Network Protection

Overview of Four-Fiber Ring Network and TwoFiber Ring Network Protection Plan
The Four-fiber ring network is a network architecture adopted usually when the two-fiber ring network cant meet the network transmission capacity requirement. The four-fiber ring network also includes four-wa e ring network! because in these days when dense wa elength di ision multiple"ing #$%$&' technology is tending to maturity day by day! planning using a large number of fiber resource becomes less and less! while planning using $%$& technology to e"pand the optical fiber(s usage bandwidth becomes more and more common. )o! the so-called the four-fiber ring network from the point of iew of the )$* transmission equipment! in fact! is four separate wa elengths e"ploited on a pair of physical fibers ia $%$& technology. +ecause the number of optical fibers pairs in the network and network node equipment are different in two-fiber &)-)pring #&ultiple"ing )ection-)hared Protection ring' and four-fiber &)-)Pring! there is no comparability between them. Therefore on the basis of four-fiber &)-)Pring! we o erall compare dual two-fiber &)-)Prings with a four-fiber &)-)Pring on a network built with ,-)&./0120013/00 transmission equipment4

Economy of the network construction investment

Four-fiber &)-)Pring needs to install four-fiber 5$& equipment at any node with add1drop ser ice in the four-fiber ring network from the beginning of the network construction! while dual two-fiber &)-)Pring is in fact two separate two-fiber &))Prings from the point of iew of optical line! completely depending on the detailed add1drop ser ice capacity of each network element node to determine whether this network element is a 5$& node of a two-fiber &)-)Pring or that of two &)-)Prings. 6f the network construction fund is in ested by stages! then it is e ident that the dual two-fiber &)-)Prings are better than the four-fiber &))Pring in economic performance. %e will illustrate as follows #Note4 here we adopt $%$& combining ,-)&-./0120013/00 equipment for detailed e"planation'4 6f the four-fiber &)-)Pring is adopted! then $%$& equipment is needed to output signals on optical fiber ia wa e-di ided 7T8 to the four interfaces of the optical line-processing unit of ,-)&-./0120013/00. The optical line processing boards of the latter output the ser ice signals ia the tributary boards configured in ,-)&.

The Comparison of FFR Network and TF Network Protection

./0120013/00! and at the same time output the ser ice signals needed to enter the network to the optical line processing board ia a tributary board and transmit to the optical fiber ia the wa e-combined unit of the $%$& equipment. 6f the dual two-fiber &)-)Prings are adopted! then it needs to compute the concrete add1drop ser ice capacity of the site. 6f the add1drop ser ice capacity of each optical fiber direction of the dual two-fiber &)-)Prings e"ceeds 9-:C;! then its configuration will be same as that of the four-fiber &)-)Pring< if it doesn(t e"ceed 9-:C;! then there are two plans for choice! one is the plan of in estment by stages! that is to only configure two optical line processing units and corresponding tributary units! and the other two optical line signals are directly connected ia the $%$& equipment! i.e.! wa e-di ided signals are directly connected to where the wa e signals are combined without the need of )$* equipment. The )$* optical line processing unit will be added only when the add1drop ser ice capacity of this site needs increasing! and in that case! the $%$& wa e-di ided1wa e combined signals are connected to the new-added optical line processing unit. 5nother plan is to configure the dual two-fiber &)-)prings! same as that of the four-fiber &))Pring! but these two optical line-processing units without add1drop ser ices adopt R=> optical link mode. )o! if the initial ser ice doesn(t need to meet the full capacity of the system! fourfiber &)-)Pring needs a large number of initial in estments! and the comple"ity of the system will additionally increase.

Networking fle!ibility
7nly 5$& nodes take part in the network ser ice protection in both two-fiber ring network and the four-fiber ring network. Then the equipment applied in the networking of a four-fiber ring network with a four-fiber &)-)Pring protection mode must be four-fiber 5$& equipment or four-fiber R=> equipment! and the network node type is single. +esides the restriction of the total number of 5$& nodes! for four-fiber 5$& equipment of some network nodes! insufficient processing ser ice may also come out. 7n the contrary! dual two-fiber networks with &)-)Pring protection mode can pre ent the abo e defects4 according to the signal capacity for the network node to process! determine to assign a two-fiber 5$& equipment or four-fiber 5$& equipment! that is! the 5$& nodes in dual two-fiber &)-)Prings can not be at the same place! so the total 5$&(s number of the whole network increases and in turn promotes the networking fle"ibility. The fle"ibility of dual two-fiber o erlapped rings can be seen from figure .4

The Comparison of FFR Network and TF Network Protection

Fig.1 Dual two-fiber rings

Furthermore! the con enience of the e"pansion discussed abo e also appears in dual two-fiber rings! three two-fiber rings! four two-fiber rings! etc. %hile the fourfiber ring has an e en larger upgrading step length and insufficient fle"ibility. 6n addition! the topology structure of the present transmission network is becoming more and more complicated! the ring-intersecting- network structure is fairly pre alent. 5imed at the inter-ring ser ice protection! 6T8-T recommendation >.9;3 brings forward the technical specification of the $N6 dual-node interconnection protection which makes a detailed standardi?ed presentation of the cross-ring ser ice protection for the two-fiber ring network interconnection! fa orable for the two-fiber ring networks interconnection built with equipment from different endors. +ut there is one thing needed to point out! this specification has no discussion on how to protect ser ice in the four-fiber ring network intersection! and this will ine itably occur the problem in technical standardi?ation aspect when the ring networks built by multiple endors respecti ely interconnects.

"

Transmission ca#acity
5s we all know! a four-fiber &)-)Pring has a ma"imum processing capacity of )T&-N@A #A4 total number of 5$& nodes'! a two-fiber &)-)Pring has a ma"imum processing capacity of )T&-N@A13! dual two-fiber &)-)Prings ha e a ma"imum processing capacity of 3@)T&-N@A13! that is! a four-fiber &)-)Pring has the same ma"imum processing capacity with dual two-fiber &)-)prings! making no distinction between the good and the bad ! and only difference between these two plans is in the allocation of working channels and protection channels.

The Comparison of FFR Network and TF Network Protection

Network E!istence Performance %nde!

7ne of the most important network e"istence performance indices is the protection switcho er time. The &)-)Prings all adopts 5P) protocol in the protection signaling communication and perform the algorithm processing. The switcho er time depends on the sum of the processing time and switcho er time of the node! transmission time of A bytes o er the network! processing time of passing the node and alarm detection time! in which only the processing time of passing the node increases as the increment of the 5$& nodes( number in the network. )o if the decrease of the passed nodes( number will greatly reduce the protection switcho er time and enhance the network e"istence performance. 5nd as to the four-fiber &)-)Pring and dual two-fiber &)-)Prings! because dual two-fiber &))Prings can reduce the 5$& nodes( number of each two-fiber &)-)Pring in accordance with the add1drop ser ice situation! its protection switcho er time is less than that of the four-fiber &)-)Pring. This inde" ad antage is more e ident in a long-distance network with a large number of nodes.

&
&(1

Reliability of 'ervice Protection

)om#arison of unavailability
Table . lists the una ailability and the corresponding &T+F of two kinds of &))Prings and the equi alent point-to-point systems. The first two columns indicate the una ailability of the a erage ser ice circuit and the worst ser ice circuit in typical short-span network after transmitted ia a ring with .2 nodes. 5ssume the a erage span #section' distance of the adCacent nodes is ./km and the &TTR is ;hours. The first column data indicates4 the una ailable time of point-to-point structure is 3.DDminutes per year! the two-fiber ring will reduce this inde" about three times to only 0.DD;minute per year while the four-fiber ring can further reduce another ;0E to 0./D.minute per year. The una ailable time under the worst conditions is a little more! but those of the two-fiber ring and four-fiber basically are in proportion. *owe er the una ailable time of point-to-point structure increases by more than .00E. These figures show that! in the a ailability aspect! the ring structure has e ident impro ement than the point-to-point structure. 6n addition! the a ailability of the four-fiber ring is slightly higher than that of the two-fiber ring. The last two columns in the table show the una ailability of the worst ser ice circuit after the transmission in the typical long span distance network ia .2-node ring! in which! the a erage span distances between adCacent nodes are respecti ely 90km and .20km! and &TTRF2hours. 6t should be pointed out that the abo e comparison is on the basis of the &T+F of
;

The Comparison of FFR Network and TF Network Protection

equipment. +ecause each node in a four-fiber ring uses a four-fiber 5$&! while dual two-fiber rings adopt two two-fiber 5$&s in the same frame or different subframe! the conclusion that the four-fiber ring is more reliable is unilateral! and there are many other factors affecting the reliability of the whole network. 6ntuiti ely speaking! if one of the dual two-fiber rings can(t work! the other one might work. This situation will be difficult to Cudge by &T+F.
Table 1 Unavailability of the MS-SPring )hort-span network #./km! &TTRF;hours' Gong-span network #&TTTF2hours' )panF90km case %orst case )panF.20km %orst una ailability #&T+F' case

Transmission system

5 erage circuit una ailability #&T+F'

%orst

una ailability #&T+F'

una ailability #&T+F'

Two-fiber &)-)Pring

0.DD;minute1 year #32. years'

.../Dminutes1ye ar #30H years' 0.23. minute1year #B92 years'

/.B;minutes1yea r #2H.; years' B./3 minutes1year #.03 years'

.D.9minutes1year #.9.3 years'

Four-fiber &)-)Pring

0./D. minute1year #;02 years'

.2.0minutes1year #33./ years'

6t is generally considered that with the increase of the span distance! the reliability of the four-fiber ring will accordingly enhances. +ut! the issue will be so simple. Get us first consider the case with a erage span of 90km. The una ailable time of an interconnected point-to-point system is 2.93minutes1year! and those of the twofiber ring and the four-fiber ring are respecti ely /.B;minutes1year and B./3minutes1year. That is the four-fiber ring is only ;0E better than the two-fiber ring. 6f considering a .20km link! the ser ice una ailability of a two-fiber ring has rapidly reduced to .D.9minutes1year! and that of the four-fiber ring to .2.0minutes1year and only impro es 30E than the two-fiber ring. %ith the increase of the distance! the una ailability of both the four-fiber ring and the two-fiber ring also approaches gradually! which indicates that in long-distance network! the higher

The Comparison of FFR Network and TF Network Protection

initial in estment may not obtain high reliability impro ement. This mainly because that in short-span network! the maintenance always limits to a scope! and the daily maintenance is easy to control as well as coordinate. %hile in the long-span network! because of the wide area! the maintenance acti ities become more frequent and complicated! and need to coordinate in long distances so as to reduce the superiority of the four-fiber &)-)Pring. )o! network maintenance becomes a key factor that affects the network e"istence performance.

&(

Restriction condition of the four-fiber *'-'Pring su#eriority

6n addition! the main superiority of the four-fiber &)-)Pring o er the two-fiber &)-)Pring is that it supports span-switcho er and that it can resist multipointinefficiency. 6n fact! this ad antage is restricted! and the multipoint-inefficiency here means that when optical fiber inefficiency co erage rate less than /0E simultaneously appears in multiple line sections in the network! only working fiber fails! all the working fiber and protection fiber in an optical direction interrupt! four-fiber &)-)Pring still can not offer protection! in other words! the precondition of this ad antage is that optical line fault e ent occupies a comparati ely large probability of the una ailable time. 6n fact! if the pair of working fibers and the pair of the protection fibers are in the same optical fiber cable #that is! the pair of the working fibers has the same physical route with the pair of the protection fibers'! the probability of only a single optical fiber that is cut-off is far less than that of the whole optical fiber cable. 5nd in actual engineering! under common conditions the physical route is the same in the laying of the optical fiber cable< especially the introduction of the $%$& technology will further enhance this tendency! that is! the )$* equipment only occupies four of its wa elengths! in fact only a pair of optical fibers. 8nder this condition! the span-switcho er rarely occurs in the four-fiber ring and comparati ely the ad antage of its multipoint-inefficiency resistance that the twofiber ring can(t perform will not reali?e.

&("

)om#le!ity of functional software

The ser ice protection of the two-fiber ring and the four-fiber ring needs to rely on the 5P) protocol of 6T8-T recommendation >. 9;. specification to pro ide protection of signaling communication. 5P) protocol processing is the software processing of each network element! and the signaling categories and the types of implemented ser ice bridge switcho er operations of 5P) protocol processed by

The Comparison of FFR Network and TF Network Protection

the two-fiber ring are all less than that of the four-fiber ring! so its protocol processing comple"ity is lower than that of 5P) protocol processing of the fourfiber ring. The promotion of software comple"ity means the reduction of the software reliability. This is the difference between the dual two-fiber ring and the four-fiber ring. 5ccording to the 6T8-T recommendation >.9;. specification! 5P) protocol utili?es A. and A3 bytes of )$* multiple"ing section o erhead! in which A. byte is defined as shown in table 3I.J! A. definition is based on bit! and its first four bits are the bridge request code! and the last four bits are the destination node identifier. 6n the .2 bridge request codes! codes containing K)pan( are defined specially for the four-fiber &)-)Pring.
Table 2 Definition of K1 byte Bridge Request Code (Bits 1-4) bit 1 .... bit 2 bit 3 bit 4 Destination Node Identification (Bits 5-8) bit 5 bit bit ! bit 8

Gockout of Protection #)pan' or )ignal Fail #Protection' GP-)

The $estination Node 6$ is set to the

alue of the 6$ of the node for which

...0 ..0.

Forced )witch #)pan' F)-) Forced )witch #Ring' F)R

that A. byte is destined. The $estination Node 6$ is always that of an adCacent

..00 .0.. .0.0

)ignal Fail #)pan' )F-) )ignal Fail #Ring' )F-R )ignal $egrade #Protection' )$-P

Node #e"cept for default 5P) bytes'.

.00.

)ignal $egrade #)pan' )$)

.000

)ignal $egrade #Ring' )$-

The Comparison of FFR Network and TF Network Protection

R 0... &anual )witch #)pan' &)) 0..0 &anual )witch #Ring' &)R 0.0. 0.00 00.. 00.0 %ait-To-Restore %TR ="erciser #)pan' =-=R-) ="erciser #Ring' =-=R-R Re erse Request #)pan' RR-) 000. Re erse Request #Ring' RR-R 0000 No Request NR

6t can be seen that only 9 of the .2 signaling codes in the abo e table needs to be processed by the two-fiber &)-)Pring! so the computation of the two-fiber &))Pring protocol processing is far less than that of the four-fiber &)-)pring. Thus its software reliability is naturally higher than that of the four-fiber &)-)Pring. )o! to constitute an optical transmission network! it will be more practical to adopt dual two-fiber &)-)Prings than to adopt a four-fiber &)-)Pring! as the former is more preponderant for the promotion of network e"istence capability and enhancement of the networking fle"ibility. 6f the in estment by stages is adopted! the construction cost in the initial phase can be effecti ely reduced! so we propose deploying dual two-fiber &)-)Prings and the in estment by stages in the network construction. 6t can be seen from the abo e discussion that when e"panding and upgrading from the two-fiber ring to the four-fiber ring! the adopted ser ice protection plan may not always change from two-fiber &)-)Pring to the four-fiber &)-)pring. 6t is necessary to weigh carefully in estment economic performance! network e"istence performance reliability! upgrading e"pansion cost and other aspects to search for

The Comparison of FFR Network and TF Network Protection

optimal solutions. 8nder the condition the four-fiber &)-)pring(s superiority ha e not manifest itself! it is superior to adopt the plan of the dual two-fiber &)-)Pring bi-directional multiple"ing section shared protection ring o er four-fiber bidirectional multiple"ing section shared protection ring plan. This is because when the network operator e"pands its network capacity! the network is always in the formal operation state! and if it is e"panded from the twofiber ring to the four-fiber ring! and the ser ice protection mechanism is adCusted. 6n fact! it is equi alent to rebuild a new transmission network! so it will be necessary to reconfigure all the node(s equipment! and all protection relations! ser ice time slot allocation! and so on will also need to update. For a large-si?e transmission network! this e"pansion will result in long-time network ser ice interrupt! e en to affect the future normal operation of the network! and the cost to reorgani?e a network will be huge. 7n the contrary! the dual two-fiber &)-)Pring ser ice protection mechanism adopted in the e"pansion from the two-fiber ring to the four-fiber ring can basically reali?e the network smooth upgrading! that is to say! on the basis of the e"isting network configuration! directly organi?e a network with new-added ser ices! including the protection relation! the equipment configuration! and the route time slot allocation of new-added ser ices. 5s far as the performance of the present )$* equipment is concerned! all the abo e operations could be implemented without interrupt of the running of the )$* equipment! including the hot plug of the ser ice processing units of the equipment.