Optical Switching and Networking 23 (2017) 539

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Optical Switching and Networking

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/osn

Review

Study and Analysis of Routing and Spectrum Allocation (RSA) and

Routing, Modulation and Spectrum Allocation (RMSA) Algorithms
in Elastic Optical Networks (EONs)
Forough Shirin Abkenar, Akbar Ghaffarpour Rahbar n
Computer Networks Research Lab, Electrical Engineering Technologies Research Center, Sahand University of Technology, Tabriz, Iran

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: With the growth of Internet users' trafc demands, the efcient and cost-effective usage of bandwidth
Received 11 September 2015 and spectrum in optical networks plays an important role in improving service provisioning. An Elastic
Received in revised form Optical Network (EON) is a new generation of optical networking that can provide high exibility and
7 July 2016
scalability in spectrum allocation and data rate accommodation to support different trafc types. In fact,
Accepted 18 August 2016
Available online 21 August 2016
EON can allocate the available resources in a network according to users' demands. Besides, EON gen-
erates elastic optical paths (the paths with variable bit rates) and divides available spectrum exibly
Keywords: according to the trafc demands of users. This study reviews and analyzes one of the most important
Elastic Optical Networks topics in EON namely Routing and Spectrum Allocation (RSA). In fact, RSA selects the most appropriate
Flexibility
resources according to the conditions of the resources and exibility assigns them to the connection
Routing and Spectrum Allocation (RSA) al-
demands. RSA can be divided into two categories: without adjusting modulation format (simply referred
gorithms
Routing, Modulation and Spectrum Alloca- to as RSA) and with adjusting modulation format (called Routing, Modulation and Spectrum Allocation,
tion (RMSA) algorithms RMSA). In this paper, we review all available RSA and RMSA algorithms proposed for EON, analyze and
compare them through both quality of performance and computational complexity aspects for the rst
time.
& 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2. Basic concepts in EON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.1. Frequency Slots (FSs) in EON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2. Continuity and contiguity constraints in EON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.3. Network and node architecture of EON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.4. Basic function in EON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3. Routing and Spectrum Allocation (RSA) in EON. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.1. RSA algorithms supporting static trafc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.1.1. Routing, Wavelength assignment, and Spectrum Allocation (RWSA) algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.1.2. Adaptive Frequency Assignment-Collision Avoidance (AFA-CA) algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.1.3. Shortest Path with Maximum Spectrum Reuse (SPSR) algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.1.4. Balanced Load Spectrum Allocation (BLSA) algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.1.5. Survivable Multipath Routing and Spectrum Allocation (SM-RSA) algorithm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.1.6. Minimum Interference (MI) routing algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.1.7. Quality of Service (QoS)-based RSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.2. RSA algorithms that support dynamic trafc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.2.1. Routing based on spectrum segment representation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.2.2. Light-path Fragmentation Algorithm (LFA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.2.3. Adaptive Unconstrained Routing-Exhaustive Spectrum Search (AUR-ESS) algorithm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

n
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: forough_shirin_abkenar@yahoo.com (F. Shirin Abkenar), ghaffarpour@sut.ac.ir (A. Ghaffarpour Rahbar).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.osn.2016.08.003
1573-4277/& 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
6 F. Shirin Abkenar, A. Ghaffarpour Rahbar / Optical Switching and Networking 23 (2017) 539

3.2.4. The Most Common Available Patterns (MCAP) algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

3.2.5. Fairness-aware dynamic spectrum allocation algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.2.6. Dynamic RSA with mixed line rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.2.7. First-Last Fit spectrum allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4. Routing, Modulation level and Spectrum Allocation (RMSA) in EON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.1. RMSA algorithms that support static trafc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.1.1. Routing and Modulation Level and Spectrum Allocation (RMLSA) algorithm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.1.2. Multicast-capable RMSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.1.3. Routing and Spectrum Allocation with Joint Anycast and Unicast routing (RSA-JAU) algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.1.4. Routing and Spectrum Allocation with Dedicated Path Protection (RSA-DPP) algorithm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.1.5. RMSA optimization model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.2. RMSA algorithms that support dynamic trafc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.2.1. m-Fixed and m-adaptive RSA algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.2.2. Spectrum Reallocation (SPRESSO) algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4.2.3. Impairment-Aware Routing and Subcarrier Allocation (IARSA) algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4.2.4. Fragmentation-and alignment-aware RMSA algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4.2.5. Dynamic RMSA algorithms for High-Throughput Service Provisioning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
4.2.6. Time-Spectrum Consecutiveness (TSC) algorithms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
4.2.7. Dynamic Multipath Routing Algorithm with Trafc Grooming (MPTG) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
4.2.8. Optimal Route, Spectrum and Modulation Level Assignment (RSMLA) algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
4.2.9. Energy-Efcient Manycast RSA (EEM-RSA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
4.2.10. Multi Population Pattern Searching EON (MuPPetS-EON) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
5. The comparison of RSA algorithms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
5.1. The comparison of RSA algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
5.1.1. Qualitative performance evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
5.1.2. Quantitative performance evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
5.1.3. The comparison of computational complexity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
5.2. The comparison of RMSA algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
5.2.1. Qualitative performance evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
5.2.2. Quantitative performance evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
5.2.3. The comparison of computational complexity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
6. Future works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
7. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

1. Introduction impairment conditions. Hence, when RSA becomes impairment-

Elastic Optical Network (EON) is the new generation of optical
networks which tries to allocate available resources to clients'
demands optimally and prohibits the resource wastage. In EON,
light-path is an optical path established between a given source
destination pair which supports a determined data rate. One of the
most important issues in EON is Routing and Spectrum Allocation
(RSA) problem. Different algorithms have been introduced to ad-
dress this challenge. In EON, the network spectrum is divided into
a set of Frequency Slots (FSs). An RSA algorithm tries to allocate
FSs to each demand efciently so that Blocking Probability (BP) of
demands is reduced. There are two important constraints in RSA
related to the FS concept as the continuity and contiguity of
spectrum resources. According to the continuity constraint, an FS
has to be free on all links of a light-path. According to the con-
tiguity constraint, the available FSs, which have to be allocated to a
connection demand, must have contiguity in all links of the re-
levant light-path. Under RSA, the continuous and contiguous
constraints must be guaranteed. Another important concept in
EON is Guard-Band (GB) that is used between a continuous
number of FSs to separate demands for prohibiting of demands
collision. RSA algorithms are divided into two categories as [13]:

without adjusting modulation format (simply referred to as RSA
in this paper).

with adjusting modulation format (called Routing, Modulation
and Spectrum Allocation, RMSA).
A light-path may be impaired and RSA has to consider the
aware, a transponder can make the modulation level of its sub-
carrier slots adaptive to the Quality of Transmission (QoT) of a
light-path. Therefore, impairment-aware RSA is essentially a RMSA
problem [4]. We categorize both of the RSA and RMSA algorithms
into two groups: those that support static trafc and those that
support dynamic trafc.
There are some surveys published about EON. Paper [3] pro-
vides a comprehensive survey on OFDM-based elastic optical
network technologies, including basic principles of Orthogonal
Frequency-Division Multiplexing (OFDM), Optical OFDM (O-
OFDM) technologies, the architectures of OFDM-based elastic core
optical networks, and related enabling technologies. The main
focus of [3] is on OFDM, modulation formats, and transmission
systems in EON. In addition, routing and spectrum assignment has
been explained very briey. Moreover, the main advantages and
issues of OFDM-based elastic core optical networks that are under
research have been discussed. Authors in [5] have reviewed the
exibility feature of EON and briey introduced its research areas
(i.e., performance, cost, energy efciency and control plane re-
quirements). In [6], all aspects of EON (i.e., basic concepts of EON,
network and node models, RSA, fragmentation and defragmenta-
tion, and energy efciency) have been studied. RSA section has
been divided into two categories: (1) routing and (2) Spectrum
Allocation (SA). Different types of routing mechanisms and SA
mechanisms have been reviewed in routing section and SA sec-
tion, respectively. In [7], the authors have divided RSA algorithms
into ofine, online, fragmentation-aware, grooming-aware ones
and so on. This category is different from the presented category in
our paper. However, no analysis or comparison has been presented
 F. Shirin Abkenar, A. Ghaffarpour Rahbar / Optical Switching and Networking 23 (2017) 539
for these algorithms. The contribution of [8] is to identify, classify
and analyze three basic building blocks for enabling exible net-
working solutions: (1) physical layer technological aspects;
(2) network optimization which involves spectrum fragmentation
concept, RSA types, the cost in EON, grooming concept, etc.; and
(3) control plane. Authors in [8] have compared RSA with Routing
and Wavelength Assignment (RWA). Table 1 expresses the main
issues of the mentioned papers and the our paper issues, briey.
The main objective of this paper is to review the existing RSA
and RMSA algorithms in EON. For the rst time, this paper com-
pares the proposed RSA and RMSA algorithms in detail, separately
and from different aspects. Hence, we have separated RSA and
RMSA algorithms and divided each of them into two categories:
(1) algorithms that support static trafc and (2) algorithms that
support dynamic trafc. In addition, we have gathered them and
expressed their main objectives and features in separate tables.
Finally, we have compared them from different aspects such as
fundamental basis, computational complexity and trafc states.
There are several abbreviations in this paper. All of them have
been mentioned in Table 2.
The remainder of this work is organized as follows. Funda-
mental concepts of EON are reviewed in Section 2. In Section 3,
different RSA methods are explained. In Section 4, the RMSA
concept and related algorithms are expressed. Section 5 compares
the RSA and RMSA algorithms proposed for EON, separately. Sec-
tion 6 provides future works for RSA and RMSA. Finally, Section 7
concludes this review paper.
2. Basic concepts in EON
In this section, some important concepts of EON will be re-
viewed briey including FSs, continuity and contiguity constraints,
network and node models and basic function.
2.1. Frequency Slots (FSs) in EON
EON uses FSs to accommodate sub-wavelength, super-wave-
length, and multiple data rate trafc demands. As seen in Fig. 1a,
xed grid networks have rigid nature to allocate resources to ex-
isting demands. The FS concept has been introduced to cover the
rigid nature of current frequency grids. The EON can assign the
necessary amount of contiguous FSs to demands. There are two
exible spectrum resource designation schemes as follows [1]:

Single slot on the grid approach: In this method, the frequency f
on the International Telecommunication Union-Tele-
communication Standardization Sector (ITU-T) frequency grid
uses a channel spacing fcs and a frequency number n. In addi-
tion, f is interpreted as a spectral slot having a frequency seg-
( 1
)
ment in range 193.1 + n 2 fcs . An ITU-T frequency number n
corresponds to a FS number. The allocation of contiguous fre-
quency slots is depicted in Fig. 1b. A frequency segment can
Table 1
Survey papers.
Survey Main issue
[3] Modulation formats and transmission system of OFDM
[5] Performance, cost, energy efciency and control plane requirements of EON
[6] Basic concepts of EON, network and node models, RSA fragmentation and defragmentation, energy efciency
[7] RSA algorithms (ofine, online, fragmentation-aware, and grooming-aware), but without any analysis and comparison
[8] Physical layer technological aspects; network optimization involving spectrum fragmentation concept, RSA types, cost in EON,
and grooming concept; and control plane
Our paper Studying, classifying, analysis and comparison of RSA and RMSA in both quality of performance and computational complexity
aspects
7
contain various widths. Therefore, a frequency segment is
specied using three parameters of a slot as: width fslot (which
is equal to fcs ), the lowest FS number nl and the highest FS
number nh [1].
The center frequency fc and the width of the frequency segment
fw are shown with fc = 193.1 + ( (nl + nh)
2 )f
slot
and
fw = (nh nl + 1) fcs . The single slot on the grid approach is not
good for wide channel spacing frequency grid because fc
1
deviates from wider channel spacing frequency grid by 2 fcs [1].

Double-sided half slot: This approach is similar to single slot, how-
1
ever in double-sided, fslot is equal to 2 fcs . Thus, this method can
suffer from wide channel spacing frequency grid. As seen in Fig. 1c,
the numbering system of FSs is different in this approach [1].
Existing ex-grid networks split available optical spectrum into
a set of FSs that have a better spectrum width related to DWDM
ITU-T grid 50 GHz. The size of current FSs is 6.25 GHz, 12.5 GHz
and 25 GHz. In ex-grid networks, the spectrum is divided into a
set of FSs.
2.2. Continuity and contiguity constraints in EON
There are two important constraints in RSA, related to the FS
concept, are the continuity and contiguity of spectrum resources.
According to the continuity, an FS has to be free in all the links of a
light-path. According to the contiguity constraint, the available FSs
must have contiguity in all links of the light-path. Spectrum con-
tiguity is the most important difference between EON and WDM
networks. The spectrum contiguity increases the complexity of
existing RSA approaches. In the RSA, the continuous constraint and
contiguous constraint must be guaranteed.
2.3. Network and node architecture of EON
Fig. 2 shows EON model. EON consists of two important com-
ponents: Bandwidth Variable Transponders (BV-Transponders)
and Bandwidth Variable Wavelength Cross-Connections (BV-
WXCs). A BV-WXC is enumerated as an EON node. These compo-
nents enable EON to exibly allocate resources. A BV-Transponder
generates an optical signal according to trafc demand. Hence, it
can provide efcient use of available spectrum resources [9].
The BV-WSSs receive the spectrums and perform multiplexing/
demultiplexing and switching functions using integrated spatial
optics. The splitting of spectrums can be based on the micro-
electro-mechanical systems (MEMS) or liquid crystal on silicon
(LCoS) technologies [911].
2.4. Basic function in EON
In the following, the basic concepts of EON are introduced
[1,2,9,12,13].
Published year
2012
2013
2015
2014
Accepted for publication
8 F. Shirin Abkenar, A. Ghaffarpour Rahbar / Optical Switching and Networking 23 (2017) 539

Table 2 Table 2 (continued )

Abbreviations.
Abbreviation Explanation
Abbreviation Explanation
RWSA Routing, Wavelength assignment, and Spectrum Allocation
AFA-CA Adaptive Frequency Assignment-Collision Avoidance SA Spectrum Assignment
AFA-JAU Adaptive Frequency Assignment-Joint Anycast and Unicast SB Spectrum Block
AR Adaptive Routing SFPS Sorted Feasible Paths Searching
ARMSA Adaptive RMSA SM-RSA Survivable Multipath-RSA
AUR-ESS Adaptive Unconstrained Routing-Exhaustive Spectrum Search SP Shortest Path
BA-EEM Blocking Aware-EEM SPF Shortest Path First
BFS Breadth First Search SPRESSO SPectrum REaLLOcation (SPRE (LLO) (SSO))
BFSA Best Fit Spectrum Assignment SP-RWSA Shortest Path-RWSA
BLSA Balanced Load Spectrum Allocation SPSR Shortest Path with maximum Spectrum Reuse
CAP Common Available Pattern SPV Spectrum-constraint Path Vector
CA-SA Collision-Aware Spectrum Allocation SSRSMLA Split-Spectrum RSMLA
EEM-RSA Energy-Efcient Manycast-RSA TS Tabu Search
EON Elastic Optical Network TSC Time-Spectrum Consecutiveness
FA Fragmentation-Aware TSP TranSPonder
FAR Fixed Adaptive Routing
FBP Flow Blocking Probability
FF First Fit
Sub-wavelength accommodation: If the required bandwidth of a
FFSA First Fit Spectrum Assignment
demand is less than a full wavelength capacity and cannot
FI Fairness Index
FLF First-Last Fit completely ll it, this state is called stranded bandwidth issue.
FR Fixed Routing For solving this problem, EON uses efcient sub-wavelength
FS Frequency Slot granularity fractional bandwidth) and allocates resources ac-
GA Genetic Algorithm cording to trafc demands [9].
GMPLS
HC-MCAP
Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching
Hop Constraint-MCAP

Super-wavelength accommodation: If the required bandwidth of
HQ High Quality a demand is more than a wavelength capacity, multiple con-
H-SSRSMLA Heuristic-SSRSMLA tiguous wavelengths are combined together to construct a su-
IARSA Impairment-Aware Routing and Subcarrier Allocation per-wavelength. Then, the demand is transmitted by this super-
ILP Integer Linear Programming
wavelength. Note that the concept of super-wavelength is dif-
KSP k Shortest Path
LB Lower Band ferent from the Virtual Concatenation (VC). In VC, the wave-
LCM Link Coexistence Matrix lengths that are not contiguous can be concatenated together,
LFA Light-Path Fragmentation but in EON, the wavelengths that construct super-wavelength
LQ Low Quality must be contiguous to save the spectrum [9].
LSS
MCAP
Largest Spectrum Saving
Most Common Available Patterns

Multiple data rate accommodation: Since the nature of EON is
MFS Most Slot First exible, it can direct the accommodation of mixed data bit rates
MF-TSP Multi-Flow TSP on a ber [9].
MHLT Maximum Heaviest Link TSC
MI Minimum Interference
EON uses three functions which are [14]:
MPP MultiPath Provisioning
MPT Maximum Path TSC
MPTG Multipath routing algorithm with Trafc Grooming
Segmentation: SLICE allocates the bandwidth according to users'
MR Minimum Residual demands. Thereby, reducing the consumed spectral resources.
MRSA Maximum Reuse Spectrum Allocation Hence, the free bandwidth can be used by other optical paths
MSF Most Slot First
MSP Modied Shortest Path
[14].
MTLT Maximum Total Link TSC
Variation: the capacities of optical paths are adjusted dynami-
MUB Maximum Usable Bandwidth cally according to the required capacity of paths that is variable
MuPPetS-EON Multi Population Pattern Searching-EON at different time periods of the day and night. The free resources
NBP Normalized Blocking Probability
can be used by other optical paths [14].
OFDM Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing
O-OFDM Optical-OFDM

Aggregation: to reduce the consumption of bandwidth re-
PADR Progressive Allocation and Dynamic Reallocation sources, EON aggregates multiple requests as a super-wave-
PCF Power Consumption Function length request and transmits it through the core network
P-EEM Pure-EEM [14,15].
PLG Pattern Layered Graph
PRSA Pattern-Layered RSA
PSPADR Partial Sharing, Progressive Allocation and Dynamic On the other hand, EON allocates resources to requests ac-
Reallocation cording to the volume of clients' trafc, allocates just-right amount
QoS Quality of Service
of bandwidth to demands adaptively, and considers the distance of
QoT Quality of Transmission
QPF QoS Provisioning based on Fragmentation optical paths (the number of end-to-end node hops) to allocate
QPS QoS Provisioning based on Squeezing resources adaptively. These concepts imply bit rate adaptation,
RMLSA Routing, Modulation Level and SpectrumAssignment bandwidth adaptation, and distance adaptation, respectively [14]:
RMSA Routing, Modulation and Spectrum Allocation
RMSA/MS RMSA/Maximum Spectrum
RMSA/PC RMSA/Power Consumption
Bit rate adaptation: when the volume of client trafc changes,
RS Random Spectrum the capacity of the optical link is adjusted accordingly [14].
RSA Routing and Spectrum Allocation
Bandwidth adaptation: there are different optical paths with
RSA-DPP RSA/Dedicated Path Protection
different capacities. The amount of allocated bandwidth to an
RSA-JAU RSA/Joint Anycast and Unicast
RSMLA Route, Spectrum and Modulation Level Assignment arrived request is exactly adapted to that request requirement
RSVP Resource reSerVation Protocol [14].
RWA Routing and Wavelength Assignment
Distance adaptation: there are different optical paths with
 F. Shirin Abkenar, A. Ghaffarpour Rahbar / Optical Switching and Networking 23 (2017) 539
Fig. 1. Spectral resource designation schemes [1]: (a) current ITU-T DWDM frequency grid with different channel spacings (CSs); (b) single slot on the rigid approach; and
(c) double-sided half slot approach.
Fig. 2. Architecture of an EON [9].
different end-to-end node hops. Each of these paths has its
transmission and ltering-related impairments. EON is capable
to select an appropriate modulation level adopted to distance
[14].
In [16], the distance-adaptive spectrum allocation in EON has
been considered. Since a signal traverses through multiple EON
nodes and is ltered by them, the width of the spectrum is narrow
and spectrum utilization is reduced. Hence, the authors in [16]
have used appropriate modulation formats according to trans-
mission reach in order to address the mentioned narrowing issue.
3. Routing and Spectrum Allocation (RSA) in EON
RSA plays an important role in EON. When different demands
with various resource requirements arrive, the RSA algorithms
have to check all the available conditions and select the best op-
tion for each demand so that the maximum number of clients'
demands have been served. There are different parameters which
construct the main objective of RSA. These parameters are differ-
ent in various conditions. For example, some of the RSA algorithms
try to alleviate BP, while some others want to improve resource
usage or energy efciency.
9
Totally, RSA is divided into two subproblems: routing and SA.
Many approaches have been proposed to solve the RSA problem.
Some of them try to address routing subproblem, some of them
consider SA and some others focus on both issues. Generally, the
main objective of existing methods, which is common between
them, is efcient and cost-effective usage of resources according to
client demands. Routing, Wavelength assignment, and Spectrum
Allocation (RWSA); routing based on spectrum segment [17]; and
some other algorithms have been proposed to solve this problem.
In the following, we review the RSA algorithms under two cate-
gories: (1) the algorithms that support static trafc and (2) the
algorithms that support dynamic trafc.
3.1. RSA algorithms supporting static trafc
One type of trafc is static trafc, which is known in advance
and the trafc information is given in a constant matrix, where the
duration of each demand is considered as innity. The RSA algo-
rithms designed for static trafc nd the appropriate routes and
then assign the appropriate resources to the demands according to
the matrix.
3.1.1. Routing, Wavelength assignment, and Spectrum Allocation
(RWSA) algorithm
Since spectrum contiguity increases the complexity of existing
RSA approaches, a new concept called channel is introduced. A
channel comprises multiple contiguous FSs and is assigned to each
request. Using channel allocation can reduce the mentioned
complexity because the FSs are contiguous in the channel. How-
ever, in the assignment based on FSs, rst FSs have to be con-
tiguous and then they can be assigned to demands. This RSA
problem is divided into two sub-problems: demand routing sub-
problem and spectrum allocation sub-problem [18].
The objective of RWSA is to maximize spectral efciency. An
EON may support a set of line rates, for example {10 Gb/s, 40 Gb/s,
100 Gb/s, 400 Gb/s, 1 Tb/s}. The RWSA problem is divided into two
subproblems. The rst subproblem is to nd the set of line rates
for a request such that total capacity of line rates is at least equal to
the requested data rate. This sub-problem is referred to rate
10 F. Shirin Abkenar, A. Ghaffarpour Rahbar / Optical Switching and Networking 23 (2017) 539
Table 3
Required variables for RWSA formulation [19].
Variables Description
A A set of auxiliary links
E The set of point-to-point single-ber links
G (N , A ) Auxiliary graph
K Number of routes as potential solutions
li Line rate
N A set of auxiliary nodes
R Request
W Wavelength slots
Zew The discrete spectrum availability information
The spectrum availability information for each wavelength slot j on
Zej
i
an edge e along path i.
selection algorithm. The second subproblem is how to establish
light-paths at the specic line rates between a sourcedestination
pair such that the total required spectrum in the network is
minimized. This problem is named routing and channel allocation
[19].
In the rate selection algorithm, the combination of line rates, which
requires the minimum amount of spectrum is selected. Then, routing
and channel allocation segment uses Greedy-RWSA, KPaths-RWSA or
Shortest Path RWSA (SP-RWSA) to schedule light-paths at lower-
number wavelengths (i.e., the wavelength with lower indexes) such
that the total occupied spectrum is minimized [19]. Table 3 shows the
required variables for the RWSA algorithms [19].
Greedy-RWSA: Greedy-RWSA operates based on spectrum re-
quirements. Algorithm 1 shows the procedure of the Greedy-
RWSA algorithm. To calculate the spectrum requirements, a cost
function is introduced. Let U = H sd xli be the mentioned cost
function, where H sd represents the distance between source node s
and destination node d, and xli indicates the spectral width re-
quired to support data line rate li . After nding the new set of
requests and ordering the set of requests according to the cost
function (U), the Greedy-RWSA algorithm solves the routing and
channel allocation subproblem. At the same time using an aux-
iliary graph and the Breadth First Search (BFS) algorithm, the path
between the source and destination nodes is checked. If there
exists more than one path, the shortest path is selected. The
Greedy nds K potential solutions for each request that indicates
the algorithm can nd K routes on K unique wavelengths. Finally,
the RWSA algorithm selects the path with the shortest physical
distance. If K 1, only the rst shortest path is selected. When K
increases, a shorter path among available paths is given higher
priority. Thus, the routing becomes a composition of adaptive and
shortest path routing [19].
Algorithm 1. Greedy-RWSA (R, Zew , W , K ).
1: foreach request do
Calculate the cost function (U )
Order the requests according to these calculated
cost functions.
end
2: Construct the auxiliary graph (G(N , A)).
3: Find K-shortest paths between source node s
and destination node d by BFS (G(N , A) , s, d ).
4: Find the shortest path among all calculated K-shortest paths.
5: if K 1 then
return the first shortest path as PATH and k = 1.
else
return the shortest path as PATH and the number of
this shortest path as k
end
KPaths-RWSA: Algorithm 2 shows the procedure of the KPaths-
RWSA algorithm. After nding the new set of requests and or-
dering the set of requests according to the cost function (U), the
KPaths-RWSA algorithm solves the routing and channel sub-
problem at the same time by nding K shortest paths. In Greedy-
RWSA, K paths are found on the rst available K wavelengths and a
wavelength is not repeated more than once. In KPaths-RWSA, K
shortest paths are found at the rst. In order to reduce the com-
plexity of the RWSA problem, the spectrum is discredited in the
frequency domain, and the smallest unit of a spectrum is referred
to as a wavelength slot. Thus, the allocated spectrum can also be
dened in terms of the number of consecutive wavelength slots.
No more than one light-path can occupy a wavelength slot
(spectrum) at the same time; however, a light-path may occupy
more than one consecutive wavelength slots depending on the
offered line rate. The wavelength of a light-path is dened as the
lowest indexed wavelength slot occupied by the light-path. The
available wavelength slots of paths are sorted in a set. Then, the
path, where its available wavelength slot is minimum, is selected.
Hence, a wavelength may be repeated on more than one path [19].
Algorithm 2. KPaths-RWSA (R, Zew , W ).
1: foreach request do
Calculate the cost function (U ) .
Order the requests according to these calculated
cost functions.
2: K- ShortestPath(G(V , E ) , s, d, K ).
3: forall the K paths do
forall the W wavelengths do
Find the available required number of consecutive wavelength
slots which are starting from the lowest slot on the available
spectrum of each path.
end
end
4: return the path with the lowest available wavelength slot.
SP-RWSA: after nding the new set of requests and ordering the
set of requests according to the cost function (U), the SP-RWSA
algorithm solves the routing and channel subproblem at the same
time. This algorithm is the same as KPaths-RWSA in which K 1
[19].
According to achieved performance results from [19], RWSA
can improve spectrum utilization, network cost and energy con-
sumption in OFDM networks compared with WDM networks.
3.1.2. Adaptive Frequency Assignment-Collision Avoidance (AFA-CA)
algorithm
Another algorithm that tries to solve the RSA problem is AFA-
CA heuristic algorithm that supports static trafc and performs
routing and resource assignment according to a given trafc ma-
trix. The aim of AFA-CA is to minimize the allocated frequency
spectrum width in the network. The main idea behind the AFA-CA
is to assign the contiguous FSs to requests without happening any
overlap in contiguous spectrums [20].
Algorithm 3 shows the procedure of AFA-CA. Demands are
 F. Shirin Abkenar, A. Ghaffarpour Rahbar / Optical Switching and Networking 23 (2017) 539
processed in decreasing order of requested number of FSs, i.e., the
algorithm starts the process with the demand that has requested
the most number of FSs. There is a function called MinFS that
analyzes all candidate paths of the considered demand d and
searches for the lowest indexed FS that can be selected for demand
d. Using MinFS, the request with the lowest index of FS is selected.
If there are some requests with the same lowest index, the de-
mand with the lowest average length of the path is selected. Again,
if there are some requests with the same lowest average length,
the demand with the shortest path is selected. Then, the satised
demand is removed from the demand set and the process con-
tinuous until the demand set becomes empty. After that, the value
of the maximum number of requested FSs is reduced and new
requests are considered. The AFA-CA continues until it allocates
bandwidth to all trafc demands in the network [20].
Algorithm 3. AFA-CA algorithm [20].
1: n max{number of requested FSs}
2: Construct the demand set by ordering the
demands in decreasing order of requested FSs.
3: forall the demands in demand set do
Select the demand with the lowest index of FS.
end
4: Allocate the demand to calculated path.
5: Remove the demand from demand set.
6: if the demand set is empty then
Go to (Step 7)
else
Go to (Step 3)
else
7: n n 1
8: if n < 1 then
Terminate
else
Go to (Step 2)
end
According to the achieved performance results in [20], AFA-CA
can reduce the number of FSs of occupied frequency spectrum. In
addition, AFA-CA can reduce the computation time compared to
other algorithms like Most Slot First (MSF) (see Section 4.2.5) and
FA-FF.
3.1.3. Shortest Path with Maximum Spectrum Reuse (SPSR)
algorithm
One of the most important aims of an RSA problem should be
the minimization of the amount of used spectrum (i.e., the number
of subcarriers). One way for this minimization is to reuse sub-
carriers. The SPSR algorithm makes it possible to reuse subcarriers,
and in this way, it can reduce the maximum number of required
subcarriers. The SPSR combines the shortest path routing and
Maximum Reuse Spectrum Allocation (MRSA) algorithms. In ad-
dition, SPSR supports static trafc and performs routing and re-
source assignment according to a given trafc matrix.
Algorithm 4 shows the procedure of the MRSA algorithm. Ac-
cording to MRSA, the requests of spectrum paths are ordered
based on the size of trafc demands. The larger trafc demands
have high priority because subcarrier consecutiveness constraint
makes it hard to nd available consecutive subcarriers for large
trafc demands. Only the ber-disjoint spectrum paths may reuse
the same subcarriers. The MRSA uses the rst-t algorithm to nd
available consecutive subcarriers as displayed in Lines 5 and 9 in
Algorithm 4 [21,22].
11
Algorithm 4. MRSA algorithm [21,22].
1: Sort the spectrum path requests in descending order of the
trafc demands.
2: while there exists non-zero trafc demands do
3: J
4: Take the request with the maximum demands
(say t j ).
5: Accommodate t j using the first available
consecutive subcarriers .
6: J J pj
7: forall the the remaining requests having non
zero traffic demands do
8: if pi is disjoint with all paths in J then
9: Accommodate pi , ti using the first
available consecutive subcarriers
10: J J pi .
end
end
end
According to the results obtained from [21,22], SPSR cannot
achieve load balancing in the network. On the other hand, in SPSR,
the shortest path routing can potentially reduce the overall path
overlapping.
3.1.4. Balanced Load Spectrum Allocation (BLSA) algorithm
BLSA determines routing with balancing load within a network
in order to minimize the maximum number of required sub-
carriers. The BLSA comprises three steps as path generation, path
selection, and spectrum allocation [21,22]:
1. Path generation: the k-shortest path algorithm is used to gen-
erate k (where k 1) paths [21,22].
2. Path selection: the path is selected based on load balancing
within all the bers in the network for each spectrum path
[21,22].
3. Spectrum allocation: The MRSA algorithm is used to accom-
modate all of the spectrum paths [21,22].
Path overlapping is an important issue in these algorithms. For
dening the overlapping concept assume that there are two re-
quests. Request 1 and request 2 need two subcarriers and one
subcarrier, respectively. The subcarriers of each request have to be
consecutive. However, the assigned subcarriers to different re-
quests must be separated by guard-bands. If there is no guard-
band between allocated subcarriers to request 1 and request 2,
these requests are called overlapped.
There are two denitions in these algorithms as Lower Band
(LB) and Maximum Subcarrier (MS). LB is the load on the most
congested ber that determines the minimum number of sub-
carriers on a ber, and MS is the maximum subcarrier number on a
ber. Performance results in [21,22] show that BLSA can achieve
load balancing in the network. However, the longer path routing in
BLSA increases the overall path overlapping. Hence, the overall
path overlapping in BLSA is high. In fact, although BLSA has a
smaller lower bound, the gap of MS between BLSA and its LB is
12 F. Shirin Abkenar, A. Ghaffarpour Rahbar / Optical Switching and Networking 23 (2017) 539
larger and it is due to the longer routing paths [21,22].
3.1.5. Survivable Multipath Routing and Spectrum Allocation (SM-
RSA) algorithm
In MultiPath Provisioning (MPP), one data stream is split into
multiple low-rate streams and each stream passes through sepa-
rate routes. When a failure occurs on one of the assigned paths to a
connection, trafc is automatically carried out on another path.
Hence, multipath provisioning naturally provides partial protec-
tion with high efciency. Partial protection means guaranteeing a
part of the requested bandwidth, rather than the full amount, at
the event of a link failure [23,24]. SM-RSA uses the advantages
mentioned for MPP. In fact, the aim of SM-RSA is to accommodate
a given set of demands using MPP to minimize the number of
utilized spectrums [25].
To accommodate a connection demand using MPP, two or more
link-disjoint paths have to be determined. This phase is performed
by using Bhandari's link-disjoint paths algorithm [26]. This algo-
rithm computes the largest number of link-disjoint paths with the
least total cost for a given pair of source and destination nodes.
After that, the required subcarriers on each path is allocated to the
demand so that the bandwidth and protection requirements of
this demand are satised. In addition, the utilized spectrum is
minimized. Hence, MPP splits the incoming demand into multiple
low-rate demands and can minimize the utilized spectrum [25].
Performance evaluation results in [25] show that SM-RSA can
minimize the utilized spectrum. In addition, SM-RSA can reserve
more subcarriers than required.
3.1.6. Minimum Interference (MI) routing algorithms
One important issue in RSA is Fragmentation which means se-
parating the available spectrum into small non-contiguous spec-
trum blocks and allocating/de-allocating these blocks on demands
[3,7]. Most approaches on RSA focus on mitigating the spectrum
fragmentation effects generated by elastic allocation through re-
routing mechanism. However, the high equipment cost or the
disruption of active trafc due to the reallocation of these schemes
are the main drawbacks for rerouting schemes. In addition, ex-
isting approaches consider the spectrum fragmentation on link
level. However, a fragmentation procedure limits the capacity of
resources due to the continuity constraint. The main aim of MI
algorithms is to mitigate the spectrum fragmentation on path level
by achieving minimum interference.
The MI algorithms use maxow value to evaluate the severity
Fig. 3. An example of MI [27].
of the path level spectrum fragmentation. The MI algorithms ob-
tain minimum interference through the choice of paths that will
decrease the maxow values of all other sourcedestination pairs
(i.e., (s, d)) as small as possible. In addition, critical links are
identied as the links that whenever a request is routed to them,
the maxow values of one or more (s, d) pairs decrease. To nd the
best path rst of all, the links are weighted according to their
critically using Eq. (1), where sd indicates the importance of an (s,
d) pair. Then, a weighted graph is generated by using the men-
tioned weighted links. After that, the Dijkstra algorithm is run to
nd the best path. Fig. 3 shows an example of MI. There is a re-
quest from S2 to D2 requiring two FSs. First of all, MI comprises
available patterns to nd the best resources. As seen in this gure,
there are two available paths for this request which are (4, 5, 6, 7)
and (4, 2, 7), but since the rst path has the minimum interference
related to the second one, choosing it reduces maxow of the (4, 2,
7) to zero. Hence, (4, 5, 6, 7) is chosen [27].
w (l) = sd
(s, d) l Csd (1)
There are two algorithms based on MI described in the fol-
lowing [27]:
MI-RSA algorithm: The MI-RSA algorithm comprises of four
steps as:

Step 1: the request with r required slots is received [27].

Step 2: the weighting procedure is performed according to Eq.
(1). In addition, Eq. (2) is used to normalize the weights [27]:
w(l) = logw(l) (2)

Step 3: the Dijkstra algorithm is applied to the weighted to-
pology with link capacities greater than the number of re-
quested slots to compute a lowest weighted sum path [27].

Step 4: if the shortest path can be found by the Dijkstra algo-
rithm, the rst r shared continues slots are selected. Otherwise,
the request is blocked [27].
Minimum Interference Pattern-layered RSA with First-Fit spec-
trum allocation (MI-PRSA-FF): In order to reduce the probability of
rejection due to the spectrum consecutiveness constraint, the MI-
RSA is combined with PRSA-FF. Here, a pattern refers to the exact
continuous number of slots assigned to meet their needs of the
current request. The PRSA-FF develops the original physical to-
pology into virtual pattern-layered topologies. The MI-PRSA-FF
 F. Shirin Abkenar, A. Ghaffarpour Rahbar / Optical Switching and Networking 23 (2017) 539
involves four steps. Steps one and two are the same in MI-RSA and
steps three and four are as follows [27]:

Step 3: the weighted graph is converted to virtual pattern-
layered topologies [27].

Step 4: the Dijkstra algorithm is applied to a weighted pattern
layered topology and the path is computed sequentially from
the rst layer to the last layer. Next, the path with the lowest
weighted sum is selected. If there is more than one lowest
weighted sum path, the rst path is chosen [27].
Performance results in [27] show that MI-RSA and MI-PRSA-FF
can reduce the Flow Blocking Probability (FBP).
3.1.7. Quality of Service (QoS)-based RSA
One important issue in the EON domain is QoS provisioning.
Two QoS-based algorithms have been presented in [28] which are
called QoS Provisioning based on Squeezing (QPS) and QoS Pro-
visioning based on Fragmentation (QPF), and use two important
mechanisms of EON as squeezing and fragmentation, respectively,
in order to support QoS in EON. Both QPS and QPF classify the
incoming demands into High Quality (HQ) and Low Quality (LQ)
requests and theat them in specic policies. Both QPS and QPF
have common parts. One of them is the FloydWarshal routing
mechanism that tries to order all available paths between each s- d
pairs. Then, the available routes (i.e., np ) are classied into two
categories which are HQ's paths (i.e., nHQ ) and LQ's paths (i.e., nLQ )
and are calculated by Eqs. (3) and (4), respectively. The FF and R
are used as spectrum assignment mechanisms. The main step of
each algorithm is different which are described in the following:
nHQ = np (3)
nLQ = np nHQ (4)
QoS Provisioning based on Squeezing (QPS): The QPS algorithm
uses the squeezing mechanism to alleviate the blocking prob-
ability of HQ trafc. When a request is squeezed, it means that the
request is transformed to another path, where it is likely that the
available FSs of the new path are less than the required FSs of the
request. In this situation, some FSs of the request will be lost. To
prevent the HQ trafc loss, QPS applies the squeezing mechanism
only for LQ requests. QPS threats differently in related to incoming
requests [28]:

If a HQ request arrives, QPS tries to nd available resources in
nHQ . If it could not nd any resources, it searches in nLQ to nd
required resources. If QPS could not nd the available FSs
among nLQ , it tries to squeeze the LQ requests on the other
available paths and assign the released resources to HQ. If the
squeezing is impossible, QPS decides to preempt LQ requests
and assigns their resources to HQ. Finally, if there are not any
available resources, HQ will be blocked [28].

If a LQ request arrives, QPS tries to nd available resources in
nLQ . If it could not any available resources, it searches in nHQ to
nd available FSs with the low index, but when a HQ request
arrives and needs the occupied resources with LQ, the LQ re-
quest has to release them [28].
QoS Provisioning based on Fragmentation (QPF): The QPF algo-
rithm is based on the fragmentation mechanism. Fragmentation of
a request means to fragment the request to multiple lower-rate
requests and route the fragments through different paths. QPF
tries to provide the best conditions for serving HQ requests, and
hence when there is no sufcient resource for an incoming HQ
request, the QPF tries to search for LQ paths. All steps in QPF are
13
similar to QPS, except that QPF fragments the LQ requests instead
of squeezing them [28].
Fig. 4 illustrates an example of both QPS and QPF. The rst si-
tuation of links has been shown in Fig. 4a, where HQ request could
use the LQ links (i.e., link 5). When a HQ request arrives, there is
no available SB for this request neither in HQ links nor LQ links.
Hence, QPS and QPF have to release appropriate SBs for this new
request. According to Fig. 4b, QPS selects the assigned LQ request
on link 5 and squeezes it on available SBs on link 6. However, the
squeezed request needs 6 slots and there are 5 slots on link 6. It
means one slot of the squeezed request will be lost. However, QPF
tries to fragment the LQ request on link 5 to two new requests and
assigns the available SBs on both links 6 and 7 to these fragments.
QPF has been shown in Fig. 4c. It is noticeable that there is loss in
QPS in some situations.
Performance evaluation in [28] shows that QPS has less BP than
QPF. However, QPS yields to the loss in LQ requests but there is no
loss in QPF. In addition, FF-based mechanisms yield better per-
formance than R-based ones.
3.2. RSA algorithms that support dynamic trafc
These algorithms support dynamic trafc, where the trafc
conditions are changed in time. Hence, these algorithms have to
update their information and adapt themselves to new conditions
to select appropriate routes and assign the appropriate resources
to demands.
3.2.1. Routing based on spectrum segment representation
Improving both transmission capacity and exibility of band-
width is a signicant issue in optical networks. Hence, a exible
architecture based on O-OFDM is introduced to cope with this
issue. The advantages of O-OFDM are high capacity, high spectrum
efciency, and exibility of bandwidth. There are two re-
presentation approaches for spectrum: slot-based representation
and segment representation, where segment representation is
more exible than slot-based approach. Since the variety of optical
components resolutions and spectral widths of all signals is high,
determining spectrum width is so difcult. Hence, the aim is to
present spectrum based on the segments algorithm that is showed
by continuous spectrum segments [17].
The algorithm based on segments comprises routing and
spectrum aggregation, spectrum selection and signaling process in
which all of them are based on spectrum segments. Routing and
spectrum aggregation includes three routing algorithms, and
spectrum selection consists of three selection schemes that will be
described in the following. Trafc process can be divided into two
processes [17]:

Trafc routing: Trafc routing is implemented in a source node
and is congured with real-time trafc arrivals. The main aim of
trafc routing is to determine solutions of dynamic RSA. The
trafc demands that are not accepted by the RSA algorithm are
blocked. This situation is dened as routing blocking. The aim of
RSA is to maximize the amount of capacity of established de-
mands or minimize the probability of routing blocking [17].

Signaling: Signaling is processed between distribution nodes
and includes reservation of spectrum resources, trafc trans-
mission, and trafc release. Failure in the signaling process is
considered as signaling blocking [17].
In the following, the mentioned routing algorithms and selec-
tion schemes are described:
Routing and spectrum aggregation: routing determines a route
(or candidate routes) for a bandwidth variable light-path, while
14 F. Shirin Abkenar, A. Ghaffarpour Rahbar / Optical Switching and Networking 23 (2017) 539
Fig. 4. An example of QoS-based algorithms: (a) rst situation of links; (b) QPS; and (c) QPF.
spectrum aggregation explores routed paths and calculates the
aggregated spectrum over the path. Three algorithms of routing
and spectrum aggregation are as following [17]:
1. Fixed shortest path Routing (FR): each node congures a
xed and constant pre-calculated routing table and there is
no requirement for dynamic state information of a link. The
routing table includes the shortest path for each source
destination (SD) pair. When a request arrives, the routing
controller in a source node searches the routing table ac-
cording to SD addresses and selects the shortest pre-calcu-
lated path. FR is a two-phase approach. Its phases are the
routing process and spectrum aggregation [17].
2. Fixed Alternate Routing (FAR): FAR is proposed to improve
the efciency of blocking. It can be implemented by calcu-
lating at least three candidate paths. Then, each SD candidate
path is sorted (e.g., according to hop number or transmission
reach). Constructing the FAR routing table is difcult. The FAR
uses the k-shortest path algorithm to congure a routing ta-
ble. The FAR is a two-step approach. At the rst step, when a
request arrives, the routing controller searches the pre-cal-
culated routing table and selects the ordered path. At the
second step, it processes the spectrum aggregation for each
candidate path, alternatively [17].
3. Adaptive Routing (AR): AR is a single-phase approach which
considers routing and spectrum aggregation simultaneously.
The AR depends on the timely update of the network status. The
AR based on the segment is modied from the modied Dijkstra
Shortest Path (MSP) algorithm. The MSP algorithm does not
consider Filtering-Guard Band (FGB) and could not support
these different spectrum selection approaches in the segment-
based networks. Algorithm 5 shows the procedure of AR/MSP
algorithm [17].
Spectrum selection: spectrum selection includes: (i) selecting
one available segment from aggregated spectrum and (ii) de-
termining one appropriate starting/ending frequency. Spectrum
selection step is independent of the previous segment described
in routing and spectrum aggregation steps. Two issues must be
considered in spectrum selection: (i) avoidance of spectral col-
lision and (ii) avoidance of spectral fragmentation. The spec-
trum selection approaches based on segment include [17]:
1. Segment-based First-Fit (FF) approach: FF selects the rst
idle segment and assigns the starting frequency to it. FF se-
lects frequency segments in the low-frequency domain and
reduces the probability of spectrum fragmentation, but the
collision is a signicant problem in FF. Note that different
nodes may choose the same spectrum segment simulta-
neously, and this may lead to signal blocking [17].
2. Segment-based Random (RS) spectrum approach: RS se-
lects the spectrum segment and the side of the spectrum (i.e.,
left or right) randomly. Compared with FF, the RS tends to
 F. Shirin Abkenar, A. Ghaffarpour Rahbar / Optical Switching and Networking 23 (2017) 539
choose different segments hence, it can reduce the probability
of spectrum collision. Of course, RS splits the spectrum into
more fragments, thus increasing the routing blocking [17].
3. Minimum Residual (MR) spectrum approach: MR considers
spectrum defragmentation and the segment that has minimal
but sufcient bandwidth is selected. Other segments with
more continuous bandwidth are kept for future requirements.
The time complexity of MR is O(k ), where k is the segment
number [17].
Signal processing: signal processing consists of (i) reserving the
spectral bandwidth on each link over the path (trafc adjust-
ment process); (ii) transmitting data; and (iii) releasing optical
path. It expands Open Shortest Path First-Trafc Engineering
(OSPF-TE) and Reservation Protocol-Trafc Engineering (RSVP-
TE) protocols. Computation processes for routing, spectrum
aggregation, and spectrum selection is performed in a source
node in computation time ( tC ). The setup process starts (with
the propagation delay ( tD )) to reserve spectral segments from
the source node to a destination node. As soon as an inter-
mediate node receives a RSVP (RESV) message, it considers the
local spectrum resources and congures its BV-WSSs to
bypass the signal (with processing and conguration time (tp)).
Otherwise, a RSVP (RESV-ERR) message is returned back to the
source node and the relevant demand is blocked because of
signaling blocking [17].
Algorithm 5. AR/MSP algorithm [17].
Input: Integers in the topology with nodes N and links E.
A new demand with SD(s, d ) and the occupied band-
width B arrives.
Output: The routing path from s to d (P(s, d)) with aggregated
available spectrum S(s, d) .
1: Initialize the visited nodes set: M s
2: while d M do
Search j N M (i. e ., unvisited nodes) with the minimum
cost of j.
if j is found then
Run(MSP )
else
return Blocking
end
end
3: return Required P(s, d) and S(s, d) .
Fig. 5. An example of LFA [29].
15
According to the performance results in [17], FF and MR exhibit
more spectrum collision at light-trafc and fewer spectrum colli-
sion at heavy-trafc. In addition, the signaling blocking rate of RS
rises slightly because the increasing spectrum utilization in RS
causes more collisions. In fact, at heavy-trafc situations, more
trafc is blocked in the routing process. Hence, signaling blocking
rates of FF, RS, and MR are all decreased.
3.2.2. Light-path Fragmentation Algorithm (LFA)
A connection request must be fragmented in some situations.
The Light-path Fragmentation Algorithm (LFA) uses idle trans-
ponders (TSPs) in source and destination nodes, fragments a high-
rate connection to multiple low-rate connections, and then assigns
them to fragmented network spectrum [29]. If the required
number of FSs exceeds the size of the available spectral gap in
candidate paths between source and destination nodes, the re-
quest is blocked. Otherwise, it is possible to divide the request into
multiple independent low-rate signals and allocate them into
multiple contiguous spectral gaps. This operation can originate
from Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) proto-
col. Establishing multiple light-paths for a single request implies
that a TSP must be assigned to source and destination of each
light-path [29].
For an incoming request, the LFA mechanism rst checks
whether there is at least one TSP in both source and destination.
After this verication, LFA selects k shortest paths and then cal-
culates minimum number of required FSs for the connection re-
quest. There must be spectral gaps for each k-candidate path to
guarantee contiguous FSs. Then, LFA orders the available spectral
gaps for each candidate path in a descending order. After that, LFA
checks whether the connection request can be assigned to each of
the candidate paths. At the last step, LFA rst fragments the re-
quest into two fragments (i.e., light-paths) and checks whether the
fragment assignments to light-paths are in contiguous manner.
Note that this algorithm is an iteration-based algorithm that in-
creases the number of fragments in each iteration. Hence, at the
next iteration, the number of light-paths is increased to three. This
procedure continues until the number of fragments becomes equal
to the maximum allowed fragments ( maxfrag _allowed ) [29].
The bandwidth of each fragmentation is determined initially
and depends on the available spectral gaps width on each candi-
date path. The fragmentation algorithm uses a SP-FF algorithm to
assign the spectrum to requests [29].
Fig. 5 shows an example of LFA. At the rst time, all slots are
occupied by the existing requests (i.e., Fig. 5a). After a time dura-
tion and according to Fig. 5b, one of the connections is terminated
and then its released resources are available for the next coming
16 F. Shirin Abkenar, A. Ghaffarpour Rahbar / Optical Switching and Networking 23 (2017) 539

requests. As seen in Fig. 5b, when a new connection arrives, since
there are not enough number of available slots, the LFA fragments
it into two fragments and assigns the available resources to them
[29].
Performance evaluations in [29] show that LFA can improve
average blocking bandwidth, average transponder utilization, and
blocking probability. In fact, by fragmentation of demands into
multiple lower-rate demands, available spectral gaps can be allo-
cated. In addition, using TSPs in the source and destination nodes
makes the fragmentation of incoming call possible and simple.
3.2.3. Adaptive Unconstrained Routing-Exhaustive Spectrum Search
(AUR-ESS) algorithm
The AUR-ESS solves the RSA subproblems jointly. Algorithm 6
shows the procedure of AUR-ESS. Let NFSR be the number of FSs
required by a light-path and S be the whole number of existing
FSs. First, AUR-ESS determines feasible routes in the given physical
network. Then, AUR-ESS determines the rstSlot and lastSlot
available FSs according to NFSR. After that, AUR-ESS constructs an
auxiliary graph of the physical network. If all the FSs from rstSlot
to lastSlot in the ber that connect two nodes of the physical
network are not used by another light-path, the two nodes are
connected together by a symbol link in the auxiliary graph. Then,
AUR-ESS searches for the shortest path using the Dijkstra algo-
rithm. If the shortest path can be found, two states may happen:
(i) If the hop number of this path is equal to the hop number of the
pre-calculated shortest path in the physical network, the com-
puted path in the auxiliary graph and the evaluated set of FSs are
selected as the route and spectrum assignment, respectively, and
then the algorithm nishes. (ii) Otherwise, add the route and the
evaluated FSs to set (L). After that, AUR-ESS searches in L to nd a
route with the lowest number of hop counts and selects it as the
route and choose the FSs of the selected route as spectrum that
has to be assigned [30].
Algorithm 6. AUR-ESS [30]

1: Set the list of feasible routes and spectrum assignments, L = .

2: Determine feasible routes in a physical network.
3: for i 0 to S NFSR do

Determine the firstSlot and lastSlot available FSs according to NFSR.

Build an auxiliary graph of the network.
Search for the shortest path in the auxiliary graph using the Dijkstra Algorithm.
if A shortest path is available then
if the number of hops of the path in the auxiliary
graph is equal to the number of hops of a
precalculated shortest path in the physical
network
Select that path computed in the auxiliary
graph as the route .

then Select the evaluated set of frequency slots as

the spectrum assignment .

Finish the algorithm.

else
Add the route and the evaluated frequency
slot set to L.
end
end

end
4: if L = then
Reject the light path establishment request.
else
Search L for the route with the lowest number of
hops.

Select this combination as the route and spectrum

assignment to be used.
end
5: End the algorithm.
 F. Shirin Abkenar, A. Ghaffarpour Rahbar / Optical Switching and Networking 23 (2017) 539
Performance evaluations in [30] show that AUR-ESS can im-
prove blocking probability compared with FR Most Used (MU)
algorithm, FR Least Used (LU) algorithm, FR FF, and so on.
However, AUR-ESS has more computing time compared with the
mentioned algorithms (i.e., FR MU, FR LU, FR FF, etc.). On the
other hand, AUR-ESS and FAR Least Unusable Spectrum First
(LUSF) algorithm have the same performance. However, compu-
tation time in FAR LUSF is more than AUR-ESS.
3.2.4. The Most Common Available Patterns (MCAP) algorithm
The MCAP algorithm is based on GMPLS, where the GMPLS-
enabled service is according to resource reservation protocol
(RSVP). There are three types of service blocking in GMPLS-en-
abled optical network as [31]:

Routing Blocking (RB): If a path cannot be found between a
source and destination pair in the route computation phase, the
RB occurs [31].

Forward Blocking (FB): The next phase after nding the ap-
propriate route phase is forwarding phase. If in the forwarding
phase from a source to a destination, the resources on the
computed route are not available, the FB occurs [31].

Backward Blocking (BB): If the outdated information or re-
servation collision occurs in backward phase, the BB occurs [31].
All the previous dynamic RSA algorithms focus on reducing the
RB or FB without considering the BB. However, MCAP tries to re-
duce the BB. The MCAP involves two schemes: (i) Most Common
Available Patterns routing algorithm with Hop Constraint (HC-
MCAP), which is a pattern-layered and graph-based algorithm;
and (ii) Collision-Aware Spectrum Allocation (CA-SA) scheme. The
basic idea of MCAP is to nd the route with the most available
patterns for a specic request and select the pattern with mini-
mum backward collision probability [31].
The graph G = (V , E ) shows the topology of network, where V
and E are the set of nodes and the set of edges, respectively. The
matrix A = (amn)|E || E| is the adjacency matrix of G. There are some
other notations described as follows [31]:

Pattern (Pt.): An allocation of the required FSs for a connection
request. For example, for a request requiring b FSs, we have
Pt. i = {fi , fi + 1 , , fi + b 1}. Hence, there are |F | b + 1 candidate
patterns [31].

Pattern Layered Graph (PLG): the layered graph is a copy of the
physical topology instantiated in each candidate pattern. For
example, link e presents in PLGl only if the Pt. l in e is available.
l
The matrix Al = (amn )|E || E| is the adjacency matrix of PLGl [31].

Link Coexistence Matrix (LCM) of PLG: The L E matrix to
present the PLG, where L is the number of patterns, with the
entry dened in the following equation:
1, where e exists in PLG
cle = l end
0, otherwise

Connectivity matrix (R): This matrix is used to check the con-
nectivity of a given node pair, which could be derived from the
powers of the adjacency matrix (A) of the graph as in the fol-
lowing equation [31]:
R = (rmn)N N
where
1, if and only if N 1a (k) > 0;
rmn = k = 1 mn
,
0, otherwise
(k ) N (k 1)
where amn = h = 1 amh ahn .
17
As mentioned before, MCAP uses the HC-MCAP and CA-SA al-
gorithms as routing and spectrum assignment algorithms, re-
spectively. These algorithms are expressed in the following.
Most Common Available Patterns Routing Algorithm with Hop
Constraint (HC-MCAP): The aim of MCAP is to nd the path with
maximum available patterns. MCAP uses the best-rst and
breadth-rst searches in order to provide more options for the
spectrum allocation (SA) approach to reduce the potential colli-
sion. It uses the best rst because the vertex with the most
Common Available Patterns (CAPs) from the source in the new
frontier (it is based on BFS, and therefore, uses frontier to check
adjacent nodes) is selected to be processed next. The breadth-rst
search is used because the new frontier consists of vertices that
can be tried next and these vertices are one edge away from the
explored vertices. In addition, the connectivity of source and
destination nodes in each pattern layer will be checked before CAP
searching. Moreover, CAP is used to indicate the set of available
patterns (see Algorithm 7 [31]).
In Algorithm 7, a hop counter H is considered to avoid selecting
a long path than a shortest-hop path. The value of H is set to
min(hmin + h, N 1), where hmin is the hops of the shortest path
between node pair (m , n) and h is the allowable number of extra
hops, which should optimally be a function of hmin . In addition, for
a given set of links (E), the number of elements in CAP is calcu-
lated as |CAP[e|e E]| = l e E cle . According to the HC-MCAP
algorithm, rst the existing graph G is transformed to PLG ac-
cording to the required bandwidth of request (i.e., bst ). After that,
the algorithm checks all available paths hop by hop. In fact, the
HC-MCAP starts from the source node and checks all of its
neighbors according to the breadth-rst search algorithm. The HC-
MCAP re-iterates this checking to achieve the destination node.
Finally, HC-MCAP selects the path with the most CAP and no
longer than H. If there is no path with mentioned conditions, the
request is blocked [31].
Algorithm 7. HC-MCAP [31].
Input: G (V , E ) .
Request (s, t , bst ).
Spectrum Utilization.
Output: Route with the most CAP and no longer than H hops.
1: PLG Generation
Transform G to PLG according to bst .
Check the connectivity of PLGl through Eq. (6) to simplify the LCM.
2: Initialization
N {s}, Q V {s};
3: Iterative Searching
while Q is not empty do
Check all available paths hop by hop by using BFS
algorithm.
(5) 4: if the route is not found then
Block this request.
else
return the route.
end
(6)
Collision-Aware Spectrum Allocation (CA-SA) Algorithm: According
to the HC-MCAP routing algorithm, a path with the greatest number
of available patterns is chosen under HC. In CA-SA, the collision
(7) probability of pattern (FSs) is checked. If the collision probability of
that pattern is high, the pattern is not selected and the request is
blocked. Otherwise, that pattern is reserved for the request [31].
18 F. Shirin Abkenar, A. Ghaffarpour Rahbar / Optical Switching and Networking 23 (2017) 539

Fig. 6. An example of CA-SA [31].

Fig. 6 illustrates an example of CA-SA. As seen in this gure, there bandwidth. Hence, making fairness conditions for demands is so
are two vectors which are FSCV and PCV that show the collision level important. One solution to address theses issues is to classify the
of FSs and patterns, respectively. Each link between nodes i and j is trafc into different classes according to the number of FSs they re-
e
illustrated by eij . Parameter fk shows FS k. Parameter FSCVk ij shows quire. Therefore, two important factors are expressed as Normalized
the collision level of fk on link eij . Notation Pt. k represents Pattern k. Blocking Probability (NBP) and Fairness Index (FI) [32]:
i i
PCVPt . k and PCVPt . k are the collision level and updated collision level
Normalized Blocking Probability: to achieve trafc service fair-
of Pt. k for request i (Req. i), respectively. Each pattern equals to the
ness, the blocking performance of a request of size n should be
number of required FSs that a request needs. The value of 0 re-
equal to the blocking performance of n requests of size 1 [32]:
presents that there is no collision. Parameter Amax shows that there is
collision. Finally, each value between 0 and Amax determines that 1 (1 p1)n = pn (8)
there may be a collision. According to Fig. 6, the third FS of existing
link between nodes 2 and 3 (i.e., f 3e23) has been occupied because its where pi is blocking probability (BP) of trafc with size i.
FSCV equals to Amax , while the other FSs are free. When Req. 1 re- Therefore, the Normalized Blocking Probability (NBP) of class n
quiring two FSs arrives at time (t1), there are three available patterns is calculated by the following equation [32]:
in e12, which have equal probability to be reserved (i.e., Pt. 1{f1, f2},
j
pn = 1 n 1 pn (9)
Pt . 2 = {f2 , f3 }, Pt . 3 = {f3 , f4 }) with probability 1 for each one.
3
Hence, we have = = 1
PCVPt .1
1
= 0 . After leaving the
PCVPt .2
1
PCVPt .3

Fairness Index: the Fairness Index (FI) can be redened as Eq.
Path. message of Req. 1 from node 1, FSCV is updated as FSCV1e12= ( (10), where N is the number of classes. FI is a number between
0 and 1; and the closer to 1, the better the fairness is [32].
1
3
, FSCV2e12 =
1
3
+
1
3
=
2
3
, FSCV3e12 =
1
3
+
1
3
=
2
3
, FSCV4e12 =
1
3 ).After leav-
ing the Path. message of Req. 1 from node 2, parameter PCV is up- (in= 1p i )2
FI = , i = 1, 2, N
1 1 1 N (in= 1p i 2 )
dated as PCVPt. 1= 0 and PCVPt . 2 = PCVPt . 3 = Amax , because (10)

1 1
PCVPt . 2 = max{PCVPt . 2, max{FSCV2e23, FSCV3e23}}. Parameter
1
PCVPt.3 is
calculated in the same way. This procedure is continued. Finally, Pt. There are two fairness-aware schemes that are described as
1 because of its minimum PCV is chosen and locked by Resv. message, follows [32]:
which implies lower collision probability. The mentioned procedure Progressive Allocation and Dynamic Reallocation (PADR) scheme:
is performed within time period between t1 and t5. In addition, Req. The PADR scheme rst divides the whole spectrum into C equal
2 requiring one FS from node 2 to 3 arrives at t3. Pt. 1 (f 1e23 ), Pt. 2 (f 2e23 ), Spectrum Blocks (SBs). A SB is a block of a few available contiguous
2 2
and Pt. 4 (f 4e23 ) are available with PCVPt . 1 = 1, PCVPt . 2 = 1 and subcarrier slots in the optical spectrum. When a request with class
2
PCVPt. 4 = 0, respectively. Then, FSCV e23 are updated as i arrives, the PADR searches for available SBs among C SBs. If ap-
FSCV1e23 = 1 +
1
=
4
. So, after arriving the Path. at node 3, Pt. 4 is propriate SBs are found, the PADR selects one of them according to
3 3
a predened selection policy (e.g., FF). Otherwise, if there are SBs
chosen and FSCV e23 are updated [31].
that have not been dedicated to any class, the PADR assigns one SB
Performance evaluation results in [31] show that MCAP pro-
to class i. Otherwise, the request is blocked. Then, PADR calculates
vides good load balancing and reduces backward blocking prob-
the NBP. If the gap between the minimum NBP (corresponding to
ability under a network at light-load and heavy-load trafc under
class m) and the maximum NBP (corresponding to class n) is larger
highly dynamic trafc [31].
than a given threshold, the PADR reallocates one SB, which is
currently dedicated to class m, to class n. Algorithm 8 shows the
3.2.5. Fairness-aware dynamic spectrum allocation algorithm
PADR scheme [32].
The users' trafc demands grow signicantly. In addition, as dis-
cussed before, the spectrum fragmentation reduces the possibility of Algorithm 8. PADR scheme [32].
nding available allocation for contiguous FSs that require larger
 F. Shirin Abkenar, A. Ghaffarpour Rahbar / Optical Switching and Networking 23 (2017) 539
1: Divide the whole spectrum into C equal SBs.
2: When a request belonging to class i arrives:
Find available SBs that are dedicated to class i
3: if available allocations are found then
Select one among them according to FF
else if there are no SBs that have been dedicated to any class then
Assign one SB to class i.
else
Request is blocked.
end
4: Calculate NBP. 5: Check the gap between minimum NBP and
maximum NBP.
Partial Sharing, Progressive Allocation and Dynamic Reallocation
(PSPADR) scheme: Since the spectrum block dedication happens in
PADR, the resource utilization is low in PADR. The PSPADR can
solve this issue. The basic idea of PSPADR is to divide the whole
spectrum into two parts. One for PADR of each class and the other
for sharing among all classes. When a request arrives, the PADR
and sharing parts are scanned and blocking occurs when available
resources cannot be found in both parts. Algorithm 9 shows the
PSPADR scheme [32].
Algorithm 9. PSPADR scheme [32].
1: Divide the sharing part into C equal SBs.
2: When a request belonging to class i arrives:
Find available SBs that are dedicated to class i
3: Search for available allocation in the sharing part.
4 - 6: Same as 35 in PADR.
Performance evaluation results in [32] show that both PADR
and PSPADR can improve blocking probability.
3.2.6. Dynamic RSA with mixed line rates
Dynamic RSA is one of the most important issues in RSA. To
solve this problem efciently, the proposed approach in [33] is
divided the RSA problem into its subproblems. A new approach,
called Sorted Feasible Paths Searching (SFPS), nds the shortest
feasible paths for dynamic trafc demands. Finally, two spectrum
allocation methods named xed segmentation and adaptive
Fig. 7. Illustration of SFPS [33].
19
segmentation are used to allocate the spectrum segments ef-
ciently to demands.
Sorted Feasible Paths Searching (SFPS): There is a container to
save the feasible paths as Q. The main objective is to nd feasible
paths from source node s to destination node d. Hence, SFPS
searches the feasible paths starting at s and saves these paths in a
container as Q. Initially, Q stores only one path Pss and then, the
other paths are checked and added to Q. In each iteration, a fea-
sible path Psu is extracted from Q. If node u is not d, adjacent links
of node u are explored to generate new feasible paths by in-
creasing the size of Psu with these links and the newly generated
feasible paths are inserted into Q; otherwise, return to feasible
path Pst . To speed up the searching process and guarantee the
optimality of the solution, the paths in Q are sorted in increasing
order of their estimated cost. The estimated cost of a path Psu is
dened as in the following equation:
f (Psu) = cost (Psu) + MCut , (11)
where cost (Psu) is the actual cost of path Psu , and MCut is the cost of
the shortest path from u to t without considering any constraint
[33].
Fig. 7 shows an illustration of SFPS. A new trafc demand (TD)
is routed from source node A to destination node E through data
rate (d 100 Gb/s). The cost, distance, and available spectrum
segments of a link are labeled on the link in Fig. 7a. The maximum
signal transmission distance of the trafc demand is 1500 km.
Initially and according to Fig. 7b, path PAA is added to set Q. Fig. 7c
shows the rst iteration, which PAA is extracted from Q, the
neighbor links of node A are checked to nd feasible path. Then,
these feasible paths (i.e., PAB and PAC ) are added to Q. In the second
iteration, since PAC has the minimum estimated cost, it is extracted
from Q and augmented by exploring the neighboring links of node
A, and the feasible paths PAB = A C B and PAE = A C E are
inserted into Q (i.e., Fig. 7d). Finally, the desired shortest path
PAE = A C E is selected and the algorithm terminates [33].
Fixed Segmentation (FS): There is a new description in FS called
spectral window ( W ). Spectral window is shown by the starting
and ending slots (i.e., fstart , fend ). The basic idea of FS is to partition
the W of all links into several spectrum segments sets. Each
spectrum segments set ( WSbr ) is used to serve the demand of
bandwidth requirement of br . When a special request with bri
arrives, FS rst searches WSbr . If the appropriate resource is not
i
found, FS tries to nd the feasible spectrum segment in the other
20 F. Shirin Abkenar, A. Ghaffarpour Rahbar / Optical Switching and Networking 23 (2017) 539
WSbr s. Hence, the partitioning in FS is performed in a xed way. It
means that each WSbr has a xed spectrum bandwidth [33].
Adaptive Segmentation (AS): As mentioned, FS has a xed
spectrum bandwidth while this is not suitable for dynamic trafc.
Hence, AR improves the performance of FS. With the arrival of
trafc demands, AS partitions the spectrum of all links adaptively
into different portions. Let BS show the blank spectrum set. In-
itially BS = fstart , fend and WSbr = . When a trafc demand with a
bandwidth requirement of TDbr arrives, AS searches WSTDb , BS, and
r
WSbr ( br TDbr ) sequentially to nd a feasible spectrum segment.
When a trafc demand leaves, AR will rst release the spectrum
segment used by trafc demand and then update the BS [33].
Required results from [33] show that SFPS FS and SFPSAR
reduce spectrum fragmentation related to SFPS FF. In addition, at
light-load trafc FS has better performance than AR but, under
heavy-load trafc it is vice versa. This is because at light-load
trafc, the network resource is enough and FS uses only the
spectrum segments assigned to the trafc type. But, as the trafc
load becomes heavy, FS assigns the spectrum segments that do not
belong to the trafc demand. Moreover, FS and AR have better
blocking probability than FF. In comparison between SFPS FS,
SFPS AR, Spectrum-constraint Path Vector searching algorithm
(SPV), Modied Shortest Path algorithm (MSP) and k Shortest Path
algorithm (KSP) (see Section 4.2.1), it has been shown that at light-
load trafc, the SFPS-based algorithms have better blocking
probability. But, at heavy-load trafc all algorithms have the same
performance. In addition, KSP has the lowest computational time.
The MSP, SFPS-based algorithms and SPV are in the next ranks,
sequentially.
3.2.7. First-Last Fit spectrum allocation
The First-Last Fit spectrum allocation is another RSA algorithm
that supports dynamic trafc. We refer to this algorithm as FLF
for simplicity. The main goal of FLF is to minimize the number of
used subcarrier slots. Hence, FLF divides the whole existing slots
into multiple sub slots and calls them partitions. Partitioning is
performed by the largest degree rst (LDF) algorithm which is
based on graph coloring method. Partitioning phase is the rst
phase of FLF and is called partitioning phase. The second phase
refers to partition assignment. This mechanism is called FLF and
selects the available lowest index slots in the odd number par-
tition from the list of available slots. For an even number parti-
tion, it attempts to choose the highest indexed slots from the list
Fig. 8. An example of FLF [34]: (a) physical topology of the sample network;
(b) virtual topology of the sample network; and (c) performing FLF on the sample
network.
of available slots [34].
Fig. 8 depicts an example of FLF. Fig. 8a and b show the physical
topology of sample network and its virtual topology, respectively.
There are three connection groups (CGs) as CG 1 on link 1, CG 2 on
links 1 and 2 and CG3 on links 1 and 3. CG 1, CG 2 and CG 3 need 3,
2 and 1 slots, respectively. As seen in Fig. 8c, FLF rst begins with
the lowest index in partition 1 (i.e., slot 1) and assigns it and slot
2 to CG 2. Then, it selects the highest slot in partition 2 (i.e., slot 6)
and allocates slots 68 to CG 1. Finally, FLF chooses the lowest
available index in partition 3, which is slot 9, for assigning to CG 3.
At the end, it is seen that three contiguous slots have not been
assigned and can be used for the next incoming requests [34].
According to the acquired results in [34], FLF has better per-
formance than non-partitioned procedures. In addition, FLF could
improve the spectrum usage even more than the best resource
assignment mechanism (i.e., FF).
4. Routing, Modulation level and Spectrum Allocation (RMSA)
in EON
As mentioned before, impairment-aware RSA is essentially a
Routing, Modulation-level, and Spectrum Assignment (RMSA)
problem [4]. Some algorithms have been proposed for RMSA. The
RMSA algorithms are categorized into the algorithms that support
static trafc and the algorithms that support dynamic trafc.
4.1. RMSA algorithms that support static trafc
As mentioned before, the algorithms that are based on static
trafc nd the appropriate routes according to the given static
trafc matrix, and then assign the appropriate resources to the
demands according to this given matrix.
4.1.1. Routing and Modulation Level and Spectrum Allocation
(RMLSA) algorithm
RMLSA is used for resource allocation in EON. The RMLSA
supports static trafc and is appropriate for unicast trafc. There
are three kinds of RMLSA [35]:

Joint RMLSA algorithm: This algorithm pre-calculates K paths by
using the K-shortest path algorithm, selects an appropriate
modulation level for each path, and allocates spectrum. Note
that some joint RMLSA algorithms do not need to pre-calculate
paths, but joint RMLSA in [35] needs to calculate it. All of these
routing, modulation level and spectrum allocation processes are
according to integer linear programming (ILP) formulation that
are performed simultaneously [35,36].

Decomposing the (RMLSA) problem: This algorithm rst nds
the best path set for each connection and its modulation level
according to an ILP formulation and then allocates spectrum
similar to the joint RMLSA algorithm [35,36].

Heuristic RMLSA: Since both of the above algorithms cannot be
solved efciently for large networks, it is necessary to design a
heuristic RMLSA. A heuristic RMLSA could be based on a meta-
heuristic algorithm such as Simulated Annealing, called SimAn.
The SimAn nds an order of demands and then allocates re-
sources according to their costs and requests [35,36].
For small networks, both joint and decomposed RMLSA algo-
rithms are good enough. But which one of these two RMLSA al-
gorithms performs well depends on the network situation. In fact,
the performance results of both joint and decomposed algorithms
are similar to each other, but only the decomposed RMLSA reduces
the average running time. For large networks, heuristic RMLSA is
appropriate and other algorithms cannot be used [35].
 F. Shirin Abkenar, A. Ghaffarpour Rahbar / Optical Switching and Networking 23 (2017) 539
4.1.2. Multicast-capable RMSA
Trafc multicasting is widely used in different applications
such as teleconferencing, IP television, and stock exchanges. There
is recently a growing demand to support scientic applications
that can transfer huge amounts of data to a few geographically
dispersed users. Since multicasting can reduce repeated optical-
electrical-optical conversions, all-optical multicasting leads to
more transparent and power-efcient solutions compared with
conventional IP multicasting. Since the multicasting plays an im-
portant role in different types of networks, three algorithms are
explained in the following that can support trafc multicasting in
EON. All of these three algorithms are based on Slot Block (SB).
Note that a SB is a block of a few available contiguous subcarrier
slots in the optical spectrum [4]:

Joint RMSA algorithm: The joint RMSA considers all multicast
requests together and tries to optimize them together. The ob-
jective of the joint RMSA is to minimize the maximum ending
slot index of all multicast requests. In addition, the routing
mechanism in joint RMSA is light tree. A light tree is the com-
bination of the routing paths from source si to each destination
as a multicast path set. It is noticeable that the light tree con-
siders modulation level changes in nodes [4].

Separate RMSA algorithm: Unlike the joint RMSA, separate RMSA
optimizes one request at a time and handles the requests se-
quentially. The objective of separate RMSA is to minimize the
maximum ending slot index of all multicast requests, just like
the joint RMSA. In separate RMSA, the multicast requests are
rst sorted in a descending order according to their capacities,
and then these requests are optimized separately one by one.
The routing mechanism in separate RMSA is similar to the joint
RMSA (i.e., light tree) [4].

Heuristic RMSA algorithm: Joint and separate RMSA algo-
rithms are based on ILP formulation, and therefore, their ac-
curacies are high. However, the computational complexities of
these algorithms are high. In addition, ILP formulations are not
scalable to large problems. Hence, a heuristic algorithm can
reduce the computational complexity and solve the large pro-
blem with less accuracy. Heuristic RMSA is based on genetic
algorithm (GA) [37]. In fact, a feasible RMSA solution for all
multicast requests is encoded as a set of genes, called an
individual chromosome (or individual). In order to encode the
genes for multicast requests, the requests are decomposed into
multiple unicast requests. In a GA, a gene refers to a feasible
solution to a subproblem, while an individual (i.e., a set of all
genes) represents a feasible solution to the problem. The
objective function of GA is the same as that of the joint RMSA
[4].
The GA involves selection, crossover and mutation operations
in iteration to optimize a problem. In heuristic RMSA, selection
operation has been changed to tournament selection to select
pairs of individuals (e.g., parents) from the current generation for
crossover. Tournament selection involves running several tourna-
ments among a xed number of individuals that are randomly
chosen from the population. The winner of each tournament, i.e.,
the ttest one in the group, is selected. The next operation is
crossover to generate offspring. The crossover is a multipoint op-
eration on the gene level in which a few genes in the parents are
selected randomly and swapped. The actual number of genes to
swap is calculated by |I|pc , where I and pc are multicast requests
and the crossover rate, respectively. After that, |P | ttest individuals
are selected from parents and offspring as the new generation,
21
while the size of population is kept constant during evaluation.
The last phase is mutation phase. In the mutation phase, some of
the genes are modied randomly. Similarly, the number of genes
to mutate in each individual is calculated as |I|pm , where pm is the
mutation rate. In fact, a gene is mutated by modifying its RMSA to
other feasible ones randomly [4].
One amazing feature of heuristic RMSA is that this algorithm
supports both static and dynamic trafc. Performance evaluation
results in [4] indicate that GA can reduce request blocking prob-
ability. In addition, GA optimizes the RMSA solutions.
4.1.3. Routing and Spectrum Allocation with Joint Anycast and Uni-
cast routing (RSA-JAU) algorithm
In order to appearing signicant network services such as grid
computing, cloud computing, video streaming, etc., anycast trafc
(one-to-one-of-many transmission technique) has gained popu-
larity. Anycasting can signicantly reduce the network trafc,
compared to the unicast transmission (a typical one-to-one tech-
nique). For example, in these mentioned network services the
content prepared by the provider is uploaded to replica servers
spread geographically in the network. Thus, users can access the
data using shorter paths and with lower delay [38].
Two algorithms have been introduced for anycast trafc that
are: (1) ILP-based RSA-JAU; and (2) Heuristic RSA-JAU is called
Adaptive Frequency Assignment Joint Anycast and Unicast
routing (AFA-JAU) [38].
ILP-based RSA-JAU: Light-paths are divided into FSs in ILP-based
RSA-JAU. The optimization problem concerns the minimization of
spectrum resources required in the network. There are two kinds
of requests to be routed in the network: anycast and unicast. The
unicast request is dened as a single demand with two end nodes
and the given volume in bps. In contrast, the anycast request is
dened by one client node and the given volume in bps. Therefore,
to realize the anycast request two demands are needed: (1) up-
stream (from the client node to the replica server); (2) and
downstream (from the replica server node to the client node). Two
demands (downstream and upstream) realizing the same anycast
request are called associated. Both associated demands must be
connected to the same replica server [38].
It is assumed that there are R replica servers already located at
some nodes of the network. Every replica server provides the
same content so each anycast client (demand) can be assigned to
any of the replica servers. For each demand, the candidate paths
are calculated by link-path modeling approach [39]. In more detail,
for each pair of end nodes k candidate paths are given. Thus, in the
case of unicast demands, there are k candidate paths for each
demand. Since the anycast demand can be assigned to any replica
server, the number of candidate paths for each anycast demand is
Rk. The selection of a replica server for a particular anycast de-
mand is made according to the selection of a candidate path. In
addition, according to the half distance law, the modulation level
selected for a path depends on the path length lp and it is equal to
1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively, for lp exceeding 1500 km, 750 km,
375 km, and below 375 km [38].
In particular, slices are labeled with s, where s = 1, 2, , S . For
demand d a set of candidate optical channels, indexed as
s = 1, 2, , Cdp , is considered for each candidate path p. Each
channel consists of a subset of ndp adjacent slices providing just
enough spectrum to support given volume hd . Then, RSA concerns
selecting a route and assigning a channel to a demand while
minimizing the width of spectrum, in terms of the number of
slices, required in the network [38].
Adaptive Frequency Assignment Joint Anycast and Unicast
22 F. Shirin Abkenar, A. Ghaffarpour Rahbar / Optical Switching and Networking 23 (2017) 539
Routing (AFA-JAU): The main idea of the AFA method is to adap-
tively select a sequence of processed demands in order to mini-
mize the width of spectrum, in terms of the number of slices, re-
quired in the network. An additional function applied in the al-
gorithm is a collision metric indicating potential collision of links.
It means, selecting paths without including links that can be po-
tentially selected in a large number of demands. Anycast and
unicast trafc are considered, separately. Anycast demands are
processed rst, as one end node of each anycast demand must
terminate at relatively small number of nodes hosting the replica
server. Consequently links adjacent to replica server nodes can
become congested and consume large number of slices [38].
First, minimum value of requested number of slices are calcu-
lated for each demand d as nd = ndp , p = 1, 2, , Pd . Then, demands
(separately anycast and unicast) are processed in decreasing order
of nd . Function MinFS (d ) returns the lowest indexed and accessible
slice for demand d. In the case of unicast demand d, MinFS (d )
examines all candidate paths and selects the path the guarantees
the lowest slice index allocation. In the case of anycast demands,
the processing is more complicated. If for a particular anycast
demand d the associated demand (d ) is not yet allocated in net-
work, MinFS (d ) examines all candidate paths and again selects the
path the guarantees the lowest slice index allocation. However, if
(d ) is already allocated in the network, for demand d the MinFS (d )
function analyzes only candidate paths connected to the replica
server already selected in the case of (d ). Using MinFS (d ), demand
d with the lowest index of the slice is selected. If there are more
than one demand with the same slice index, metric ld (i.e., the
average length of candidate paths of demand d) is used as an
additional criterion. The next function MinFSPath(d ) returns the
index of a candidate path selected to allocate demand d in order to
minimize the main idea of AFA-JAU. The same processing as de-
scribed above is applied again in the case of unicast and anycast
demands. If for more than one of the candidate paths the same
minimum value of the slice index is obtained, we select a path
with a lower value of the lp metric [38].
According to obtained results in [38], AFA-JAU provides on
average results about 78% from ILP solution, but with signicantly
lower execution time and with radically better scalability.
4.1.4. Routing and Spectrum Allocation with Dedicated Path Protec-
tion (RSA-DPP) algorithm
Network paths are divided into two main categories:
(1) working (primary) paths and (2) backup (secondary) paths.
When a working path fails, existing requests on this working path
have to be transferred on an appropriate backup path to improve
the efciency of network. One protection scenario is called Dedi-
cated Path Protection (DPP), where each connection has its own
backup resources. RSA-DPP is based on channel and its main ob-
jective is to minimize the width of spectrum resources. The RSA-
DPP uses two alternative scenarios for EON with path protection
capability, namely: (1) with the Same Channel (SC) allocation and
(2) with Different Channel (DC) allocation, to achieve its goal.
According to SC, transponders are shared between working and
backup demands and a demand allocates the same channel on its
primary and backup path. In contrast, in DC, a demand can allocate
different channels on its primary and backup path. As a result, SC
is cost-effective in related to DC. According to these mentioned
scenarios, ILP-based RSA-DPP has two kinds as RSA-DPP-SC and
RSA-DPP-DC. In addition, a heuristic algorithm that is a Tabu
Search-based (TS) algorithm exists to implement the RSA-DPP al-
gorithm for huge networks [40].
ILP-based RSA-DPP: As mentioned before, RSA-DPP is based on
channel. It means that a set of candidate optical channels is
considered, where each channel consists of a subset of adjacent
FSs. By these means, the contiguity constraint has been removed
in RSA-DPP. Link-path modeling approach has been used in RSA-
DPP in routing phase and it is assumed that a set of candidate
routing paths has been given. Primary and backup paths are sorted
in different sets. The main objective of RSA-DPP is to reduce the
width of spectrum which is in terms of the number of FSs. There
are two ILP-based RSA-DPP, where primary/backup channel con-
straint selection is different in them. One is called RSA-DPP-SC and
the other is called RSA-DPP-DC [40].
There are common constraints for both of the RSA-DPP-SC and
RSA-DPP-DC ILP models which are spectrum contiguity, spectrum
continuity and spectrum capacity. Spectrum capacity means that a
slice in a link can be allocated to one demand at most. But, there is
a special constraint for RSA-DPP-SC, called the same channel
which means both of primary and backup lightpaths should allo-
cate the same subset of slices for each demand while this con-
straint is not applied for RSA-DPP-DC. As mentioned in the pre-
vious paragraph, the main objective of both ILP models is to
minimize the width of spectrum in terms of FSs number [40].
TS-based RSA-DPP: The basic idea of TS is to search through a
neighborhood of the current solution in order to improve nal
result. The TS uses two key elements: (1) Tabu Move (TM) and
(2) Tabu List (TL). The TM denotes a move from one solution to
another (neighbor) solution. The TL is a form of memory structure
to save TMs. The algorithm starts with an initial (reference) solu-
tion. Next, the TM is applied and the reference solution is slightly
changed. It means that if the neighbor solution is better than the
reference solution, the neighbor one is selected as the reference
solution and the TM which has led to the improvement is added to
TL. Then, the next iteration of the algorithm is run [40].
According to the above paragraph, TS-based RSA-DPP has to be
begun with generating an initial solution. Since the initial solution
has strong inuence on the nal result, three different methods
are used [40]:

First Assign Allocation (FA): demands are processed according to
their initial order [40].

Random Allocation (RND): demands are processed in random
order [40].

SoRTed Allocation (SRT): demands are processed in a specic
order. In fact, demands are sorted according to decreasing value
of their size [40].
After that, the pair of paths and the set of FSs have been de-
termined for each demand. Each solution is determined by two
elements: (1) demand processing queue which determines the
order of processed demands with the solution and (2) index of
candidate pair paths and the set of FSs selected for each demand.
According to these elements, there are two TMs [40]:

Demand Swap: two randomly chosen demands placed in the
processing queue are swapped and their processing order is
changed [40].

Path Change: a pair of paths is changed for a particular demand
[40].
As mentioned in TS denition, in each iteration of the algo-
rithm, TM is applied to nd a better solution and add to TL. In fact,
demands are processed sequentially according to processing
queue. For each demand, all candidate pairs of paths are examined
and the algorithm tries to nd the best allocating FSs and assigns
them to the demand [40].
Performance evaluations in [40] shows that the ILP-based RSA-
 F. Shirin Abkenar, A. Ghaffarpour Rahbar / Optical Switching and Networking 23 (2017) 539
DPP outperforms the TS-based one in small networks. But, the ILP-
based RSA-DPP is not suitable for large networks and the TS-based
RSA-DPP can address this issue.
4.1.5. RMSA optimization model
This optimization model is for unicast and anycast trafc.
Unicast trafc is related to point-to-point transmission, while the
anycast trafc refers to network trafc served by data centers, e.g.,
cloud computing trafc. The main idea before RMSA-optimization
model is minimizing maximum spectrum usage, network cost and
power consumption. This method comprises two algorithms de-
scribed in the following [41]:
ILP-based RMSA optimization: This algorithm separates max-
imum spectrum usage, network cost and power consumption as
three separated ILP formulation as [41]:

RMSA/Maximum Spectrum (RMSA/MS): The main objective of
RMSA/MS is to minimize the maximum spectrum usage. Spec-
trum usage is dened as the largest index of an occupied slot in
the network. First, k paths are selected according to link-path
modeling approach. For each demand (both unicast and any-
cast) exactly one candidate path, one modulation format and
one candidate channel are selected. Finally, FSs are allocated to
demands according to ILP formulation [41].

RMSA/Cost (RMSA/Cost): The main objective of this algorithm is
to minimize the cost of network. Network cost means the cost
function includes the cost of equipment (transponders and re-
generators) and the cost related to ber leasing [41].

RMSA/Power Consumption (RMSA/PC): The main objective of
RMSA/PC is to minimize the power consumption. The power
consumption is dened as sum of the power requirements of all
transponders and regenerators, taking into account the spec-
trum usage. The models of RMSA/PC and RMSA/C are similar to
each other [41].
Adaptive RMSA (ARMSA): Since above algorithms are NP-hard
and are not suitable for large networks, a heuristic algorithm is
dened named Adaptive RMSA (ARMSA). The ARMSA is based on
the AFA algorithm [38] with a modication related to the selection
of modulation formats. The main objective of ARMSA is to select a
sequence of processed demands, adaptively in order to minimize
the objective function. ARMSA combines a dedicated heuristic
method and TS metaheuristic approach. In fact, ARMSA denes a
ndpd
metric as ad = DIV , where nd is the minimum number of required
FSs, pd is the minimum number of hops included in the candidate
lightpath and DIV is a predened constant value. Then, ARMSA
divides demands into subsets named Ba which is a group of de-
mands with the same value of metric ad = a , where a is the
maximum value of ad . Finally, ARMSA nds the optimal resources
in each iteration of implementation and allocates them to appro-
priate demands so that the maximum spectrum usage, network
cost, and power consumption are minimized [41].
Accessed results from [41] show that using distance-adaptive
modulation formats can improve network performance in terms of
all considered metrics. In fact, when only the spectrum efcient
modulation format is used, the network cost and power con-
sumption are increased. But, when all objectives have to be con-
sidered, the results are better for the network.
4.2. RMSA algorithms that support dynamic trafc
As mentioned before, these algorithms have to update their in-
formation and adapt themselves with new conditions to select
23
appropriate routes and assign the appropriate resources to demands.
4.2.1. m-Fixed and m-adaptive RSA algorithms
The exibility feature of EON originates from using the OFDM
methodology. OFDM enables a network to use different modula-
tion formats with different modulation levels (m) according to
different Transmission Distance (TD) constraints. Two related al-
gorithms are m-xed RSA algorithm and m-adaptive RSA algo-
rithm based on spectrum segment representation [42].
There are three spectrum operations (spectrum algebra) based
on segment representation. Spectrum algebra follows the Com-
mutativity law and De Morgan low. The spectrum operations are
described in the following [42]:

Spectrum intersection ( ): calculates the spectrum in conjunct
part of two spectrums.

Spectrum union ( ): calculates the spectrum in either of two
spectrums.

Spectrum complement (S ): calculates the spectrum in the whole
spectrum window but not in spectrum S. For example, available
(blank) spectrum is complement spectrum of unavailable (oc-
cupied) spectrum.
In addition there are three basic RSA algorithms as follows [42]:
1. Spectrum-constraint Path Vector (SPV) searching algorithm: SPV is
a heuristic algorithm that includes routing and spectrum ag-
gregation. Algorithm 10 shows the procedure of the SPV
algorithm. All candidate paths are searched in SPV and are
stored in the Path Vector Searching Tree (PVST), where path
vectors are examined by aggregated spectrum. The root of PVST
is source node (i.e., s). After that, the rst path is found and its
length is saved as DR . Then, the distance of all available paths in
each level L (i.e., DL ) are compared with DR to nd the shortest
path. When all feasible paths are found in PVST, the SPV can nd
optimum solutions for RSA [42].
2. k Shortest Path (KSP) algorithm: KSP is a two-step algorithm that
performs routing and spectrum aggregation step by step. First k
shortest paths, which are sequenced based on TD are calculated.
Then, KSP employs spectrum intersection and spectrum detec-
tion operations to calculate aggregated spectrum and check the
availability of spectrum path. Finally, the KSP returns the
shortest path with available spectrum [42].
3. Modied Shortest Path (MSP) algorithm: MSP is the modied
algorithm of the classic Dijkstra and introduces spectrum in-
tersection and detection operations. In addition, MSP considers
routing and spectrum aggregation steps [42].
Algorithm 10. The SPV algorithm [42].
Input: G (N , E ) .
Demand (s, d ) and Signal bandwidth B (guard
band G).
The available spectrum Sij, ij E .
The distance on each link Dij, ij E .
Output: The shortest path from s to d: PR; with aggregated
available spectrum SR.
1: Initialize s as the root of PVST at level 0.
2: forall links that are connected to the root do
Add a new leaf into PSTV level = 1.
end
3: for PSTV level L 1 to |N | 1 do
24 F. Shirin Abkenar, A. Ghaffarpour Rahbar / Optical Switching and Networking 23 (2017) 539

forall the leaves in level L do problem. The m-xed RSA algorithm runs the basic RSA algorithm
if DL < DR then only once, and hence, it cannot nd the optimal solutions [42].
Update the shortest path and spectrum.
The m-adaptive RSA: Parameter m is not xed in the adaptive
end RSA algorithm. The basic RSA algorithm is one part of the m-
adaptive RSA algorithm. When m changes, the m-adaptive RSA
forall the link nv from node n to node v do calculates spectrum bandwidth, solves the basic RSA problem
if DL + Dnv < DR and there is no loop then and checks whether trafc TD exceeds the maximum TD. Failure
Add v as a new leaf into PVST level = L + 1. in basic RSA step is dened as routing blocking. This determines
that spectrum resources are insufcient for new demands [42].
end
end
According to the performance evaluations in [42], if m is xed
end or adaptive, the SPV and MSP algorithms almost have the same
performance, i.e., they obtain the lowest blocking probability un-
der light-trafc load conditions, whereas KSP has the most
end blocking probability. However, at heavy-load trafc situations, KSP
4: if DR < , PR , SR then has less blocking probability than both SPV and MSP.
return Success
else 4.2.2. Spectrum Reallocation (SPRESSO) algorithm
return Blocking SPectrum REaLLOcation (SPRE (LLO )(SSO )) is dened for spec-
end trum defragmentation. Whenever there are insufcient resources for a
connection request, SPRESSO follows the path triggered spectrum
defragmentation in ex-grid optical networks [43]. First, each available
The m-xed RSA algorithm and the m-adaptive RSA algorithm link in k shortest paths are checked to know whether there are suf-
use the above basic RSA algorithms described as follows. cient FSs to a new incoming connection request (i.e., the number of
available FSs are equal or more than required for an incoming con-

The m-xed RSA algorithm: If m is a xed parameter, basic RSA al- nection request). If there are enough FSs in one of the shortest paths,
gorithms and TD constraint are used directly to solve the RSA the SPRESSO mechanism is run to nd the already established path

Fig. 9. An example of SPRESSO [43].

 F. Shirin Abkenar, A. Ghaffarpour Rahbar / Optical Switching and Networking 23 (2017) 539
reallocations. In this way, it makes a sufcient room for the connection
request in the selected path. Otherwise, the connection request is
blocked [43].
Fig. 9 illustrates reallocation procedure of SPRESSO. There is a
network topology shown in Fig. 9a. According to Fig. 9b, four FSs
between links 47 are not assigned. Hence, SPRESSO reallocates
both paths P4 and P5 to make enough room for the new optical
connection newP (Fig. 9c). As seen, SPRESSO tries to use available
resources efciently [43].
According to the mentioned explanations, SPRESSO has been pro-
posed to allocate already established paths in the spectrum. According
to the performance evaluations in [43], SPRESSO can improve the gain
of using spectrum in OFDM networks from 20% to 31%.
4.2.3. Impairment-Aware Routing and Subcarrier Allocation (IARSA)
algorithm
One problem in a translucent EON (where some nodes re-
generate signals) is how to choose a feasible path from a source
node to a destination node and allocate subcarriers by using an
appropriate modulation format. This problem is called the IARSA
problem. The aim of IARSA is to nd the shortest feasible path,
where the availability of free subcarriers along the path de-
termines the feasibility of the path by considering impairment
levels and use of regenerators. In fact, the IARSA nds the path
that does not violate the QoT threshold. Maximum distance is
considered as an impairment constraint [44].
The IARSA comprises three algorithms as: the LARA algorithm
(which is the main body of IARSA), the MSP algorithm, and the
Graph Adjustment algorithm. Algorithms 11 and 12 show the
procedures of LARA and Graph Adjustment algorithms, respec-
tively. Note that dist[i] indicates the remaining impairment slake in
terms of distance at node i. In addition, sus[i] indicates the i-th
susceptible node for regenerating the signal [44].
Algorithm 11. LARA (G, r) [44].
for i 1 to M do
Allocate link weights .
M[i] ModifiedDijkstra(G, r , i).
if All M[i] equal NULL then
Block request .
else
Return the path P and modulation format m
corresponding to Min(M[i]).
Call GraphAdjust (G, r , P , m) to allocate
subcarriers .
end
end
Algorithm 12. GraphAdjust (G, r, p, m) [44].
1: Partition the path into s segments based on the set R of
regenerator nodes on the path.
2: Calculate the physical distance of each segment.
3: Record them (via seg[i]) in the R regenerator nodes and
destination node.
4: dist[source] = D[m]
5: foreach regenerator node i in set R do
25
dist[i] dist[sus[i]] seg[i]
if dist[i] < 0 not enough subcarriers
between last marked regenerated node and node i then
Mark node sus[i] to regenerate the signal
dist[i] D[m] seg[i]
end
Partition the path into segments according to the selected
regenerator node .
Allocate subcarriers in each segment .
end
Let (u, v ) be the link between nodes u and v. First, the LARA
algorithm calculates the link utilization w (u, v ) according to the
following equation [44]:
w (u, v) = ,
A(u, v) (12)
where is the number of requested subcarriers and A(u, v ) is the
number of free subcarriers. Then, LARA weights the links of a
network according to different modulation formats. After that, the
MSP algorithm is run to nd the path with the lowest weight.
Finally, the GraphAdjust algorithm is run to adjust the topology of
network and allocate subcarriers and regenerators. The Gra-
phAdjust considers whether the subcarrier assignment constraint
is satised or not [44].
Performance evaluation results in [44] reveal that LARA can
achieve the lowest blocking rate. The reason originates from the
applied weight allocation mechanism in this algorithm. This
weight allocation mechanism tries to strike a balance between
load levels and path lengths.
4.2.4. Fragmentation-and alignment-aware RMSA algorithm
The fragmentation-and alignment-aware Routing, Modulation
and Spectrum Allocation (fragmentation-and alignment-aware
RMSA) algorithms try to alleviate the fragmentation due to service
provisioning. By this way, dynamic provisioning can create spec-
trum fragments on the links and spectrum misalignments along
routing paths. Hence, fragmentation-and alignment-aware RMSA
algorithms consider both fragmentation and alignment as two
main factors [45].
One important denition in fragmentation and alignment-
aware RMSA algorithms is Cut value which accounts for the
number of spectrum blocks that the provisioning scheme will
break. The number of Cuts is considered as the cost of a provi-
sioning. If the value of Cut is zero, it is mostly preferred from
fragmentation perspective. The minimum number of Cuts is al-
ways candidate to assign to requests. According to this allocation
procedure, more available FSs will remain to be assigned to future
coming requests. Fig. 10 shows an illustration of the mentioned
algorithm on the presented topology in Fig. 10a. As seen in Fig. 10b,
the value of Cut is zero on path ADE. It means that this path is a
good option for fragmentation. On the other hand, the alignment
of the available spectrum blocks on two neighbor links creates
commonly available spectra and is valuable for future connection
requests. For example, the candidate provisioning on path ADE on
slot 8 will inuence the alignment between the neighboring links
as shown in Fig. 10c. The provisioning on link AD on slot 8 reduces
the commonly available spectra by one slot and this is calculated
26 F. Shirin Abkenar, A. Ghaffarpour Rahbar / Optical Switching and Networking 23 (2017) 539
Fig. 10. An example of spectral assignment status on the links with fragmentation-and alignment-aware RMSA [45].
as misalignment for link BA. Hence, the alignment-aware algo-
rithm should minimize this cost when doing the RMSA provi-
sioning [45].
The fragmentation-and alignment-aware RMSA algorithms are
divided into three algorithms as following [45]:

Fragmentation-aware RMSA algorithm: The fragmentation-aware
RMSA calculates the number of cuts caused by all RMSA can-
didates and chooses the one with the minimum number of cuts.
If the number of appropriate RMSA candidates with minimum
number of cuts is more than one, the algorithm uses the
shortest path and rst t rule to choose the best solution [45].

Alignment-aware RMSA algorithm: The alignment-aware RMSA
minimizes the increasing of the misaligned available spectral
slots when provisioning the connection requests. If more than
one RMSA candidate can satisfy the misalignment increase
constraint, the algorithm uses the shortest path and rst t rule
to choose the best solution [45].

P-CF algorithm: The P-CF supports both fragmentation and
alignment costs together. In fact, P-CF preselects all the candi-
date routes that have one spectral block to accommodate the
incoming request. Note that preselecting means that the algo-
rithm calculates all the candidate paths rst, and then pre-
selects the k-shortest routes which have at least one spectral
block available for the incoming request. The P-CF calculates the
cost of each RMSA candidate using Eq. (13), where H is the
number of hops for candidate path, S is the number of spectral
slots assigned to the candidate route considering the distance
adaptive modulation format assignment. Parameters Fcut and
Malign represent the number of Cut and alignment increase,
respectively, and C is the number of available spectral slots on
the current path. The P-CF combines shortest path routing,
fragmentation-and alignment-aware routing and balanced load
spectrum assignment in one step. In addition, when there is
more than one RMSA candidates that have the same minimum
A, the algorithm uses the rst-t rule to assign spectrum [45].
A = (H S + Fcut + Malign)/C (13)
Performance evaluation results in [45] reveal that P-CF, align-
ment-aware, and fragmentation-aware algorithms can reduce
blocking probability. The results of algorithms are very close to
each other. However, P-CF has the best performance. The perfor-
mances of fragmentation-aware and alignment-aware are similar
to each other, but alignment-aware has a little better performance
than fragmentation-aware at high trafc load.
4.2.5. Dynamic RMSA algorithms for High-Throughput Service
Provisioning
There are two algorithms described in the following for dy-
namic RMSA [46]:
Dynamic RMSA using Online Path Computation: This algorithm
dynamically updates link metrics based on their spectrum
 F. Shirin Abkenar, A. Ghaffarpour Rahbar / Optical Switching and Networking 23 (2017) 539 27

utilization statuses, and performs RMSA with online routing
path computation for each request. If the algorithm cannot nd
a spectrum assignment to serve the request, it is blocked. Note
that the modulation level has been considered as BPSK [46].
Dynamic RMSA using Path-Set Updates: This algorithm pre-
computes K shortest routing paths as the path-set for each
sourcedestination pair in the network topology, performs
RMSA based on different path-selection policies during dynamic
provisioning, and updates the path-set by adding a new path
(found according to the mentioned policies) when there is no
available path in the set for the request. In fact, it sorts the paths
in the path-set based on a path-selection policy. Then, it pro-
cesses the paths one by one. If one or more paths in the set is
unavailable for the request due to spectrum resource limitation,
the algorithm tries to calculate an equal number of new path
(s) and update the set with them. Note that there are four path-
selection mechanisms as follows [46]:
Shortest Path First (SPF): the path with the lowest distance
[46].
Most Slots First (MSF): the path with the most available slots
[46].
Largest Slots-over-Hops First (LSoHF): the following metric is
calculated for each path according to Eq. (14), and then the
path with the maximum value of the metric is selected [46]:
calculated by the following equation:
N= + Ng ,
M Cslot t (16)
where is the capacity of request in Gb, M is the modulation level,
Cslot is the size of a slot and Ng is the number of guard-band slots.
Then, MTLT searches for the available SBs which can accommodate
the trafc demand as candidate block set (i.e., BP = {B1BiBn}).
For each Bi , the sum of TSC on all links along the path are calcu-
lated through multiplying percentage of available FS along fre-
quency axis and time axis in the average joint numbers in each
free SB. Finally, the block which has the maximum TSC is selected
and assigned to the demand. Algorithm 13 shows the procedure of
MTLT.
Algorithm 13. MTLT [48].
1: Find K-shortest paths using KSP algorithm.
2: foreach Demand do
Find the number of required FSs through Eq. (16)
Construct BP as the available SBs set for demand.
foreach Slot Block in BP do

BW (Rs, d ) foreach Link do

asoh(Rs, d ) = , Calculate the sum of TSC on link.
hop(Rs, d ) (14)
end
where Rs, d is the route between source s and destination d,
end
BW (Rs, d ) and hop(Rs, d ) represent the available slots on route R
Select the SB with maximum TSC .
and the length of R based on the number of hops, respectively.
Largest Slots-over-Square-of-Hops First (LSoSHF): this me-
chanism is similar to the previous method. However, the end
metric is computed by the following equation [46]:
Maximum Heaviest Link TSC (MHLT): MHLT uses the similar
BW (Rs, d ) method to nd the candidate SBs, but MHLT chooses the block
asosh(Rs, d ) =
hop(Rs, d ) (15) which can maximize the heaviest payload link TSC. Algorithm 14
indicates the procedure of MHLT [48].

The First-Fit Spectrum Assignment (FFSA) and Best-Fit Spec- Algorithm 14. MHLT [48].
trum Assignment (BFSA) are the allocation mechanisms used in
1: Find K-shortest paths using KSP algorithm.
the assignment procedure. The major drawback of dynamic RMSA
2: foreach Demand do
using online path computation is the high computation com-
plexity. Performance evaluation results in [46] indicate that the
Dynamic RMSA using Online Path Computation mechanism is Find the number of required FSs through Eq. (16)
better than Dynamic RMSA using Path-Set Updates method. Note Construct BP as the available SBs set for demand.
that the modulation-level of subcarrier channels can be adaptively
changed to accommodate various transmission reaches and QoT. foreach Slot Block in BP do
Hence, it is assumed that the modulation-level can be 1, 2, 3 and Select the link that has the heaviest pay load.
4 for BPSK, QPSK, 8-QAM and 16-QAM, respectively. The mod- Calculate the sum of TSC on link.
ulation-level is determined according to distance-adaptive con-
end
cept [1] and the proposed mechanism in [47].
Select the SB with maximum TSC .

4.2.6. Time-Spectrum Consecutiveness (TSC) algorithms

In this section, three Time-Spectrum Consecutiveness (TSC) end
based algorithms are reviewed. These algorithms are used to al-
locate the spectrum efciently by defragmenting it along fre-
quency axis and time axis. The TSC-based algorithms retain the Maximum Path TSC (MPT): MPT behaves as MTLT in nding the
TSC as much as possible when establishing a light-path and reduce candidate SBs. In particular, MPT evaluates the maximum path
the spectrum fragmentation. The aim of these three algorithms is TSC, and nally it selects the SB with maximum TSC. Algorithm 15
to alleviate the blocking probability [48]. demonstrates the procedure of MPT [48].
Maximum Total Link TSC (MTLT): MTLT algorithm rst nds K-
Algorithm 15. MPT [48].
shortest paths using the KSP algorithm. For each candidate path,
the start time (i.e., ts ) and duration time (i.e., t ) is traversed from 1: Find K-shortest paths using KSP algorithm.
the beginning to the end. Then, the number of required FSs are 2: foreach Demand do
28 F. Shirin Abkenar, A. Ghaffarpour Rahbar / Optical Switching and Networking 23 (2017) 539

Find the number of required FSs through Eq. (16) paths in both F1 and F2 in a descending order of useable band-
Construct BP as the available SBs set for demand. width. Usable bandwidth means the number of slots. The ob-
jective of MUB is to minimize the bandwidth of sub-connections
foreach Slot Block in BP do
so that the number of consumed BVT is minimized. When the
foreach Path do bandwidth of each sub-connection is increased, the spectrum
Calculate the sum of TSC on link. ratio of the guard bands to data transmission is reduced [51].
end
Largest Spectrum Saving (LSS): LSS sorts spectrum paths in set F1
in a descending order of spectrum saving ratio (r) which is
end Bandwidth can be saved from guard bands
dened as, r = . When r 0 in F2,
Select the SB with maximum TSC . Total bandwidth of this spectrum path
the spectrums in F2 are sorted through MUB [51].

end Algorithm 16 shows the procedure of MPTG [51].

Algorithm 16. MPTG [51].

According to the obtained results from [48], MTLT, MHLT and 1: Find K-shortest paths using KSP algorithm.
MPT have similar time complexity. In addition, MTLT and MPT 2: foreach Demand do
achieve the lowest and highest blocking probability, respectively.
The reason is that MTLT and MHLT only consider the link TSC while
MPT is based on the whole routing path TSC. Moreover, initial Find shared spectrum paths between demand and existing demands
delay is high in these TSC algorithms because for a pending re- (F1).
quest, these algorithms consider time dimension to improve the
Find available spectrum paths for demand (F2).
reuse of fragmentation while allocating spectrum resources. In
addition, spectrum efciency is high in the TSC algorithms. Sort F1 and allocate spectrum paths in F2 according above policies .
Revert unallocated spectrum resources . If no sufficient slots
4.2.7. Dynamic Multipath Routing Algorithm with Trafc Grooming
allocated, block the request
(MPTG)
EON can groom multiple sub-wavelength services into a
bandwidth variable transponder (BV-Transponder) and switch end
them together. All trafc in EON uses the same BV-Transponder
type that may not be appropriate for sub-wavelength services
because the high capacity of a transponder may not be used
completely. Moreover, to switch each sub-wavelength light-path, Table 4
guard bands between contiguous light-paths will be required. To Required variables for RWSA formulation [19].
solve this issue, it is ideal to groom multiple sub-wavelength
Variables Description
services to a BV-Transponder and switch them together [49,50]. It
is noticeable that continuity and contiguity constraints must be A Set of anycast requests
guaranteed in grooming mechanisms. C Set of channels
MPTG is based on the grooming concept. The objective of MPTG Cd Set of candidate channels for demand d
D Number of demands
is to reduce the blocking probability. It tries to groom different
E Set of links
requests to achieve this objective. The available resources in MPTG Set of online links which are changed according to any incoming
E (d )
are called spectrum slots. In fact, the spectrum path is formed by demand d
several contiguous spectrum slots which are available on all ber F Set of FSs
links along a candidate routing path. Hence, one candidate path HMax Maximum number of parts that a demand can be split
I Number of multicast requests
consists of spectrum paths which locate at various spectrum ran-
K Number of candidate paths
ges [51]. L Set of link rates
In the MPTG algorithm, there are two sets called F1 and F2. F1 is M Set of modulation format
the set of found spectrum path that are shared between new ar- MMax Maximum modulation level
riving demand and existing demands and F2 is the set of found N Set of nodes
spectrum paths for the new arrived demand. According to one NFSR Required number of FSs by a lightpath
Nd Number of destinations in manycast trafc
division, routing methods are divided into multipath routing and
O Set of candidate solutions
hybrid routing. Multipath routing does not rstly provision single P Set of paths
path routing by searching the entire candidate path set. In fact, Pd Set of candidate paths for demand d
multipath routing takes the order of F1 F2. In addition, this PMax Maximum number of path
method consumes additional guard bands and BVT. On the other Rd Bit rate of demand d
hand, hybrid routing assigns spectrum paths in set F1 and F2 in the S Set of subcarriers
order of F1 F2 F1 F2, where rst F1 F2 is for searching pos- SB Set of SBs
SEG Set of segments
sible single path routing. Hence, Dynamic MPTG uses trafc
T Maximum time unit
grooming and new policies named Shortest Path First (SPF), TSPd Number of destination transponders
Maximum Usable Bandwidth (MUB) and Largest Spectrum Saving TSPs Number of source transponders
(LSS) for both hybrid and multipath schemes to reduce the guard W Set of wavelength slots
band allocation, utilize BVT bandwidth and alleviate the impact of Wp Set of wavelength slots in each partition
multipath routing. The SPF has been introduced in Section 4.2.5. Z Average capacity of all service requests
The MUB and LSS are detailed in the following [51]: Real positive number in the interval (0.5, 1)
Maximum data rate
Number of consecutive wavelength slots

Maximum Usable Bandwidth (MUB): MUB sorts the spectrum
 F. Shirin Abkenar, A. Ghaffarpour Rahbar / Optical Switching and Networking 23 (2017) 539 29

Performance evaluations in [51] show that the multipath
routing has better performance than the hybrid one. It is shown
that trafc grooming can alleviate the blocking probability. Among
three above policies, LSS has the lowest blocking probability be-
cause it tries to allocate less guard bands to improve the spectrum
efciency. In addition, since MUB utilizes BVT bandwidth, it is
more efcient than SPF.
4.2.8. Optimal Route, Spectrum and Modulation Level Assignment
(RSMLA) algorithm
One kind of EON is Split-Spectrum (SS)-enabled networks.
Demands that face blocking situation in SS-enabled EON may be
split to be t in the available FSs. One important applied algorithm
in SS-enabled EON is Route, Spectrum and Modulation Level As-
signment (RSMLA) that tries to nd the most appropriate physical
route, spectrum portion and modulation level to satisfy the in-
coming demand at minimum cost for the operator. To achieve this
objective, RSMLA has two main sub-objectives that: (1) minimize
the number of resources to serve the incoming demand and
(2) minimize the spectrum fragmentation in the network. RSMLA
comprises two algorithms which are described as follows [52]:
Split-Spectrum-Enabled RSMLA (SSRSMLA): SSRSMLA is based on
a Mixed ILP (MILP) formulation which is suitable for both single-
path and multi-path approaches as well as BV-transponders (BV-
TSPs) and Multi-Flow TSPs (MF-TSPs). Under the BV-TSPs im-
plementation, a demand is sent through the splitting process and
the resulted splits are transmitted using independent BV-TSPs. On
the other hand, MF-TSPs transmit the split demand. A MF-TSP is
capable to transmit and receive multiple elastic optical channels
(ows), operates at independent bit rates that can be routed in-
dependently. This algorithm comprises three phases [52]:

Phase 1: All candidate paths are found by K link-distinct
shortest path strategy, where K is an input parameter. After that,
an appropriate modulation level is determined for each calcu-
lated path in the previous phase [52].

Phase 2: In this phase, the MILP formulation is executed to nd
the optimal RSMLA for the incoming demand. The MILP for-
mulation consists of multiple objectives that are: (1) minimiz-
ing the number of splits of a demand, (2) minimizing the
spectral gaps in the candidate paths, (3) minimizing the number
of FSs that the demand use, and (4) minimizing the difference
between the allocated and the requested bit rates [52].

Phase 3: This phase is called solution evaluation that checks
whether the solution of MILP is empty or not. If not empty,
therefore an optimal solution exists that satises the incoming
demand. Otherwise, the incoming demand has to be blocked
[52].
Heuristic SSRSMLA (H-SSRSMLA): Since SSRSMLA has sub-sec-
ond execution times and its scalability is limited to address large
networks, a Heuristic SSRSMLA (H-SSRSMLA) is introduced to
address SSRSMLA drawbacks. H-RRSMLA is based on a greedy
iterative mechanism that precalculates a set of solution and nally,
selects the best solution element from this set in each iteration.
Then, the precalculated set is updated and the mechanism pro-
ceeds with the next iteration, until the demand is fully allocated or
the candidate set becomes empty. The H-SSRSMLA comprises four
phases [52]:

Phase 1: This phase is similar to Phase 1 in SSRSMLA [52].

Phase 2: H-SSRSMLA builds all candidate sets. In fact, it assigns
to each of these candidate sets a candidate path, modulation
format and set of spectral gaps. Then, H-SSRSMLA orders the
solution elements according a comparison method called
CompareProcedure. In fact, CompareProcedure sorts the ele-
ments according to their qualities in a descending order [52].

Phase 3: In this phase, the elements which address the fol-
lowing criteria are added to complete the solution: (1) all the
demand's bit rate is served, (2) no more candidates exist, (3) the
number of parts has reached its limit (i.e., the maximum
number of splits (Hmax)), (4) there are not enough free TSPs at
source or destination to support such number of parts (BV-TSPs
case), or (5) the number of parts has reached the number of
maximum ows (MF-TSPs case) [52].

Phase 4: This phase is evaluation phase that checks whether the
entire bit rate of the demand has been served or not. In addi-
tion, it checks if a feasible RSMLA has been found for that par-
ticular demand. If yes, the demand is allocated successfully.
Otherwise, it will be blocked [52].
According to required results from [52], it can be seen that the
performances of SSRSMLA and H-SSRSMLA are close to each other.
But, the time complexity of H-SSRSMLA is better than SSRSMLA. In
addition, SSRSMLA is not appropriate for large networks.

Table 5
Comparison of RSA techniques.

Algorithm Routing mechanism Spectrum Assignment (SA) mechanism Basis Trafc type

Greedy-RWSA BFS Greedy-RWSA Wavelength Static

KPaths-RWSA KSP KPaths-RWSA Wavelength Static
SP-RWSA KSP, (k 1) SP-RWSA Wavelength Static
AFA-CA SP AFA-CA FS Static
SPSR SP MRSA Subcarrier Static
BLSA KSP MRSA Subcarrier Static
SM-RSA Bhandari's link-disjoint path SM-RSA Subcarrier Static
MI-RSA Dijkstra FF Subcarrier Static
MI-PRSA-FF Dijkstra FF Subcarrier Static
QPS FloydWarshal FF and R FS Semi-static
QPF FloydWarshal FF and R FS Semi-static
Routing based on spectrum segment representation FR, FAR, AR FF, RS, MR Spectrum segment Dynamic
LFA KSP SP-FF FS Dynamic
AUR-ESS Dijkstra AUR-ESS FS Dynamic
MCAP HC-MCAP CA-SA FS Dynamic
PADR FF SB Dynamic
PSPADR FF SB Dynamic
FS-SFPS SFPS Fixed Segmentation (FS) Spectrum Segment Dynamic
AS-SFPS SFPS Adaptive Segmentation (AS) Spectrum Segment Dynamic
FLF FLF Wavelength slot Dynamic
30 F. Shirin Abkenar, A. Ghaffarpour Rahbar / Optical Switching and Networking 23 (2017) 539

4.2.9. Energy-Efcient Manycast RSA (EEM-RSA)
Energy-Efcient Manycast RSA (EEM-RSA) is an algorithm that
supports both static and dynamic trafc. EEM-RSA is performed on
cloud computing environment. In this environment, a source node
might be connected to several destinations and this is the meaning
of manycast trafc. Manycast routing, which is a point-to-multi-
point paradigm is utilized in EEM-RSA. In manycast routing, the
route is established between the source and a subset of destina-
tion candidates. The connecting paths between source and desti-
nations, referred to as lightpaths, have the same modulation level
and spectrum intervals. These lightpaths form a spanning tree
connecting source to a subset of candidate destinations (selected
destinations) as light-tree. Thus, a light-tree is a point-to-multi-
point connection with the same assigned modulation level and
spectrum interval in all constituting links, whereby the source and
destination nodes are its roots and leaves, respectively [53].
The main objective of EEM-RSA is to minimize the number of
activated elements. In fact, turning on the elements of network
increases its energy consumption. The power consumption of
network elements is modeled by considering a constant overhead
for the element activation and a variable trafc-dependent term
for the element operation. In EONs, the power consumption of IP
routers, Bandwidth Variable-Optical TransPonders (BV-OTPs), BV-
Cross Connect Switches (BV-WXC) and optical Erbium Doped Fiber
Ampliers (EDFA) are considered the main sources of power
consumption. To address this issue, EEM-RSA introduces three
algorithms which are ILP-based EEM, Pure-EEM (P-EEM) and
Blocking Aware-EEM (BA-EEM). The two latter algorithms are

Table 6
Features of each RSA algorithm.

Algorithm Features State

RWSA 1-Improving spectrum utilization, cost and energy consumption of network Static
AFA-CA Reducing the number of FSs of occupied frequency spectrum Static
SPSR (1) Reducing the overall path overlapping Static
(2) Without load balancing in the network
BLSA (1) Increasing the overall path overlapping Static
(2) Achieving load balancing in the network
SM-RSA (1) Minimizing the utilized spectrum Static
(2) Reserving more subcarriers than required
MI Reducing ow blocking probability (FBP) Static
QoS-based RSA Reducing blocking probability (BP) Semi-Static
Routing based on spectrum segment representation (1) Low spectrum utilization and high signaling blocking rate in light trafc Dynamic
(2) High spectrum utilization and low signaling blocking rate in heavy trafc
LFA Improving average blocking bandwidth, average transponder utilization and blocking probability Dynamic
AUR-ESS Improving blocking probability Dynamic
Fairness-aware dynamic spectrum allocation Reducing blocking probability Dynamic
Dynamic RSA with mixed line rates Reducing spectrum fragmentation and blocking probability Dynamic
FLF Reducing ow blocking probability and minimizing used number of wavelength slots Dynamic

Fig. 11. Performance evaluation of RSA algorithms.

 F. Shirin Abkenar, A. Ghaffarpour Rahbar / Optical Switching and Networking 23 (2017) 539 31

Table 7 of a network elements. To alleviate the energy consumption of the

Comparison of computational complexity of RSA algorithms. network, EEM establishes an auxiliary graph which has the same
number of nodes and links as the physical network topology graph.
Algorithm Computational complexity
However, the weight of links is the amount of power added to the total
Greedy-RWSA O(K ( + 1)|E| + |N | + |L| + |D|log|D|) power consumption. Therefore, the cost functions assigned to the links
KPaths-RWSA O(|E| + |N |log|N | + K |W E| + K (|W | ) + |L| + |D|log|D|) of the auxiliary graph are updated after each network alteration. Each
SP-RWSA O(|E| + |N |log|N | + |W E| + (|W | ) + |L| + |D|log|D|) node and each link has its Power Consumption Function (PCF) which
AFA-CA O(|D P F E|) is related to its element. If a connection is routed along the working
SPSR O(|N |2 + |S E|(|D|2 + 1))) nodes and links, only the variable trafc-dependent cost is added to
BLSA O(|E| + |N |log|N | + K + |D P | + |S E|(|D|2 + 1)) the PCF of the corresponding links and nodes. However, if it turns on
SM- RSA O(K |D|(|S E| + log(K |D|)))
some idle network elements, the additional power consumption (cost)
MI-RSA O(N2 + |S D|) corresponding to constant-offset should be added to their respective
MI-PRSA-FF O(2|S|2) PCFs. Similarly, if termination of a connection results in some idle
QPS O((|E| + (1 )|E|[(1 )|E| + F ])|D| + |N |3) nodes or links, the idle components are turned off. In this scenario,
QPF O((|E| + (1 )|E|[(1 )|E| + F ])|D| + |N |3) both the variable trafc-dependent costs and the constant-offset costs
Routing based on O(|N |2|SEG|) (i.e., additional power consumptions corresponding to trafc-depen-
spectrum seg-
ment dent and constant-offset, respectively) are subtracted from the PCF of
representation inactive elements [53].
LFA O(K |N |log|N |) Pure-EEM (P-EEM): P-EEM is used to nd a light-tree for a given
AUR-ESS O((|F | NFSR + 1)(|F E| + N2)) manycast request. In this algorithm, the main route is determined
MCAP O(|N |2 + |E|2) using the Dijkstra algorithm for all demands of that manycast re-
PADR O(|D SB|) quest and this path is added to the corresponding light-tree. Then,
PSPADR O(|D SB|)
k destinations of whole manycast destinations are selected ran-
FS-SFPS O(K |E|log (K |E|))
domly and the shortest path from each of these selected destina-
AS-SFPS O(K |E|log (K |E|))
FLF O((|W Wp| + |N |)|D|)
tions to the main route is added to light-tree. Finally, the obtained
light-tree is inserted into the set of candidate light-trees. The cost
function of each link in P-EEM is calculated as in the following
heuristic algorithms which can solve the problem for large net- equation [53]:
works. However, ILP-based EEM does not work for large networks.
PClink mn = A mn PCOA Q mn + PCOXC (m) Pm + PCOXC (n) Pn
Each of these mechanisms are described in the following [53]:
ILP-based EEM: The ILP-based EEM models the power consumption + L mn, (17)

Fig. 12. Computational complexity of RSA algorithms.

32 F. Shirin Abkenar, A. Ghaffarpour Rahbar / Optical Switching and Networking 23 (2017) 539

where PClinkmn is the cost assigned to the corresponding link be-
tween nodes m and n; Amn is the number of optical ampliers on
link (m, n); and Q mn is a binary variable determining the idle 1 and
active 0 states of link (m, n). Parameter Pn is a binary variable
specifying the idle 1 and active 0 states of optical switching ele-
ments in node n, and L mn is the length of link (m, n). It should be
noted that the last term L mn indicates that if all links and nodes
are active, the cost function values will be directly proportional to
the length of link (m, n). The total cost function of P-EEM is cal-
culated using the following equation [53]:
PCost (T ) = PCip o NUip(s) + PCip t + PCotp o NUotp(s)
k
+ PCotp t + (PCip o NUip(dj) + PCip t
j=1
+ PCotp o NUotp(dj) + PCotp t ) + PClink mn,
mn T
where PCip o and PCotp o are constant-offset power consumption of
IP router and BV-OTP, respectively. In addition, ( PCip t and PCotp t )
are trafc-dependent power consumption of IP router and BV-OTP,
respectively. The coefcient is the amount of processed trafc in
Gb/s; and NUip(k ) and NUotp(k ) are binary variables indicating the
active/idle 0/1 states of the IP router and BV-OTP components in
node k, respectively [53].
Blocking Aware-EEM (BA-EEM): In BA-EEM, the bandwidth
usage is considered in the path computation algorithm to reduce
the BP. The path calculating in BA-EEM is similar to P-EEM. Then,
spectrum availability of each of the calculated paths (CPs) is
checked. Then, by using the modied auxiliary graph and con-
sidering the cost function calculated through Eq. (17), the next CP
with the lowest energy consumption is obtained and its spectrum
availability is checked. This procedure is continued until nding a
light-tree with enough available spectrum to serve the demand R.
If this algorithm could not nd any suitable path with enough
available spectrum, the light-tree will be eliminated from the list
of candidate light-trees [53].
Performance evaluation in [53] shows that ILP-based EMM has
better energy consumption than two other ones in small networks.
However, its time complexity is more than P-EEM and BA-EEM.
However, ILP-based EEM does not work in large networks. It is
seen that P-EEM has the best energy consumption. However, BA-
EEM considers both energy consumption and BP.
4.2.10. Multi Population Pattern Searching EON (MuPPetS-EON)
Multi Population Pattern Searching EON (MuPPetS-EON) tries
to alleviate the complexity of RSA-JAU according to MuPPetS
concept. MuPPetS is a type of Genetic Algorithm (GA). The k-
shortest path (KSP) is used as routing mechanism. Each demand
has its weight and candidate path. MuPPetS considers the requests
as genes and sorts them as their weights. Then, MuPPetS selects
(18)
the path with low index FS based on its GA basic [54].
According to achieved results in [54], in most cases, MuPPetS-
EON is less vulnerable to its parameter settings than other meth-
ods. However, in some cases, TS outperforms MuPPetS-EON.
5. The comparison of RSA algorithms
In this section, the RSA and RMSA algorithms are compared
separately. The algorithms are divided into two groups from trafc
type of view point. Some algorithms support static trafc that
means the initial situations are specied at rst according to a
given trafc demand matrix. The others support dynamic trafc
that means the conditions are changed along the time. From basis
viewpoint, the algorithms are divided into ve groups that are
subcarrier, FS, wavelength, slot block (SB) and spectrum block (SB),
where each of them has some features explained in the following.
According to the routing mechanism, the complexity of the RSA

Table 8
Comparison of RMSA techniques.

Algorithm Routing mechanism Spectrum Assignment (SA) mechanism Basis Trafc Type

Joint RMLSA KSP ILP model Subcarrier Static

Decomposed RMLSA ILP model ILP Spectrum Assignment (SA) Subcarrier Static
Heuristic RMLSA KSP Simulated Annealing Subcarrier Static
Joint RMSA Light tree ILP model SB Static
Separate RMSA Light tree ILP model SB Static
Heuristic RMSA Random selection Genetic Algorithm (GA) SB StaticDynamic
ILP-based RSA-JAU Link-path modeling ILP model FS Static
AFA-JAU Link-path modeling AFA FS Static
ILP-based RSA-DPP Link-path modeling ILP model Channel Static
TS-based RSA-DPP Link-path modeling TS Channel Static
ILP-based RMSA optimization Link-path modeling RMSA/MS, RMSA/C and RMSA/PC FS Static
ARMSA Link-path modeling ILP model FS Static
m-Fixed and m-adaptive SPV, KSP, MSP ILP model Spectrum Segment Dynamic
SPRESSO KSP ILP model FS Dynamic
IARSA MSP LARA Subcarrier Dynamic
Fragmentation-aware RMSA SP FF SB Dynamic
Alignment-aware RMSA SP FF SB Dynamic
P-CF SP FF SB Dynamic
Dynamic RMSA 1-Online path computation FFSA, BFSA FS Dynamic
2-Path-set updates
MTLT KSP Maximum total link TSC SB Dynamic
MHLT KSP Maximum heaviest link TSC SB Dynamic
MPT KSP Maximum path TSC SB Dynamic
MPTG KSP SPF, MUB and LSS FS Dynamic
SSRSMLA KSP MILP model FS Dynamic
H-SSRSMLA SP Greedy iterative mechanism FS Dynamic
ILP-based EEM Link path modeling ILP model FS Static
P-EEM Dijkstra P-EEM FS Dynamic
BA-EEM Dijkstra BA-EEM FS Dynamic
MuPPetS-EON KSP MuPPetS FS Dynamic
 F. Shirin Abkenar, A. Ghaffarpour Rahbar / Optical Switching and Networking 23 (2017) 539
algorithms are different. In addition, there are different spectrum
assignment mechanisms, where each of them has its own in-
dividual performance that differs from other types. Finally, the
algorithms of each group are compared through their computa-
tional complexity. All of these aspects are expressed in the fol-
lowing briey. Table 4 indicates the required variables to calculate
the computational complexity of all algorithms.
5.1. The comparison of RSA algorithms
This comparison of RSA algorithms is divided into two sub-
sections. In the rst, the performance of algorithms are compared
according to their main objective(s). Second subsection represents
the qualitative comparison of the algorithms, according to a spe-
cic parameter which these mechanisms consider. In the third
subsection, the computational complexities of the algorithms are
assessed. Performance comparison is completely a qualitative
comparison, while computational comparison is a quantitative
one.
5.1.1. Qualitative performance evaluation
Table 5 displays a summary of RSA techniques along with
routing mechanism, spectrum assignment, basis of each technique,
and the trafc type that each algorithm can support. Moreover,
Table 6 briey shows the features of each algorithm.
The efciency of an algorithm depends on the granularity of its
basis. As mentioned before, a slot has ner granularity than a
subcarrier, and the subcarrier has ner granularity than a wave-
length. The subcarrier-based algorithms have better complexity
than the slot-based algorithms because the number of subcarriers
is less than the number of slots. However, the slot-based algo-
rithms have ner granularity than subcarrier-based ones because a
subcarrier comprises many FSs. Hence, the number of subcarriers
is less than FSs, but a subcarrier does not show details as well as
FSs.
The segment-based algorithms have better complexity than
other algorithms because the complexity of slot-based algorithms
and segment-based algorithms are based on the number of slots
and segments, respectively. Since the number of segments is less
than the number of slots, segment-based algorithms have better
complexity than other algorithms. The combination of AR and MR
can provide optimal solutions at high trafc load, and after that,
the combination of AR and FF can result in optimal solutions. In
addition, spectrum utilization of FR, RS and MR are low and high at
heavy and light trafc loads, respectively. Hence, the signaling
blocking rates of mentioned algorithms increase and decrease
at light and heavy trafc, respectively. The Routing based-on
Table 9
Features of each RMSA algorithm.
Algorithm Features
RMLSA Improving spectrum utilization of network
RMSA (1) Reducing the request blocking probability
(2) Optimizing the RMSA solution
RSA-JAU Minimizing spectrum slices
RSA-DPP Minimizing spectrum width
RMSA-Optimization Reducing maximum used spectrum, cost and power consumption
m-Fixed and m-adaptive (1) The lowest blocking probability of SPV and MSP and the most blocking probability of KSP in light trafc
(2) The most blocking probability of SPV and MSP and the lowest blocking probability of KSP in heavy trafc
SPRESSO Improving the gain of using spectrum
IARSA The lowest blocking rate
Dynamic RMSA Reducing blocking probability
Time-Spectrum Consecutiveness (TSC) Reducing spectrum fragmentation and blocking probability
MPTG Reducing blocking probability and BVT usage
RSMLA Minimizing blocking probability
EEM-RSA Improving energy efciency
MuPPetS-EON Improving spectrum usage
33
Spectrum Segment is segment-based algorithm. In segment-based
algorithms, the computational complexity depends on the seg-
ment amount, whereas in slot-based algorithms it depends on the
slot numbers. Integers, oating-point numbers, or double-preci-
sion numbers can be employed to represent spectrum segments.
Therefore, the complexities of segment-based algorithms are
lower than that of slot-based algorithms [42]. On the other hand,
since the complexity of FF is less than MR, the total complexity of
(AR FF) in Routing based on Spectrum Segment is less than
(AR MR).
Other types of subcarrier-based algorithms like SPSR, BLSA and
SM-RSA are based on ILP formulation and their complexities could
be similar. On the other hand, SPSR is usually compared with BLSA.
In this view, SPSR cannot achieve load balancing in the network,
but BLSA can do. Moreover, SPSR and BLSA use the shortest path
routing and the longer path routing, respectively. Hence, the
overall path overlapping in BLSA is more than SPSR. In addition,
when the MI-RSA and the MI-PRSA-FF algorithms are compared
with each other, since the MI-PRSA-FF constructs multiple pattern
layers, MI-PRSA-FF can provide better blocking probability than
MI-RSA.
Since the slot-based algorithms have better granularity than
the subcarrier-based algorithms, the efciency of the slot-based
algorithms is better than the subcarrier-based algorithms. The
slot-based algorithm like AFA-CA is based on ILP formulation and
its complexity is less than the LFA and AUR-ESS algorithms. On the
other hand, the LFA tries to congure TSP, but AUR-ESS tries to
congure an auxiliary-graph. Hence, the complexity of LFA is less
than AUR-ESS. According to Table 5, MCAP is based on FSs. MCAP is
compared with HC-MCAP FF. The MCAP provides better load
balancing than HC-MCAP FF. In addition, MCAP can achieve
better backward blocking probability at light and heavy load
trafc. This is because at light or heavy trafc load, the reservation
sessions run concurrently. Hence, the probability of collision is
increased. QPS and QPF are two FS-based algorithms which try to
provide QoS. These algorithms try to separate HQ and LQ trafc
and alleviate the BP of HQ one.
Some algorithms in Table 5 are based on spectrum blocks (SBs)
that are PADR and PSPADR. As mentioned in the denition of SB in
Section 4, a SB comprises multiple contiguous subcarriers. Hence,
the number of SBs is less than the number of subcarriers. As a
result, the SB-based algorithms have better complexity than the
subcarrier-based algorithms, but a SB does not involve details
within a subcarrier. In addition, PADR and PSPADR are compared
with each other. Since PSPADR uses shared resources among all
trafc classes, it can obtain better blocking probability than PADR.
Finally, RWSA based on the wavelength concept provides least
State
Static
StaticDynamic
Static
Static
Static
Dynamic
Dynamic
Dynamic
Dynamic
Dynamic
Dynamic
Dynamic
Static-Dynamic
Dynamic
34 F. Shirin Abkenar, A. Ghaffarpour Rahbar / Optical Switching and Networking 23 (2017) 539

efciency than other types of RSA algorithms because the granu- BP

Q SRSAB =
larity of wavelength is more than slot, segment, and subcarrier. Load |N| |L| |S| (19)
The concept of wavelength is more rigid than the spectrum con-
cept. Among the RWSA algorithms, SP-RWSA has less complexity Spectrum Utilization
than KPaths-RWSA because SP-RWSA computes the xed shortest Q SRSAS =
Load |N| |L| |S| (20)
path while KPaths-RWSA calculates k-shortest paths. The com-
plexity of KPaths-RWSA is similar to Greedy-RWSA because both
of them search k-shortest paths. However, since the Greedy-RWSA
is based on the greedy method, the results of Greedy-RWSA is less Table 10
trusty than KPaths-RWSA. Since each demand in SP-RWSA is Comparison of computational complexity of non-ILP RMSA techniques.
routed on a xed shortest path, SP-RWSA cannot use the available
Algorithm Complexity
spectrum optimally. Hence, KPaths-RWSA is more efcient than
other types of RWSA algorithms. In addition, RWSA algorithms AFA-JAU O(|A F E|)
improve spectrum utilization, cost and energy consumption of ARMSA O(|D P E M F |)
OFDM networks compared with WDM networks. FLF is another m-Adaptive O(MMax|N |2K3)
algorithm of this group which divides the slots to partitions and m-Fixed O(|N |2K3)
nd the partition with the lowest index. IARSA O(|M N |log |N | + |M S E|)
Fragmentation- O(|E| + |N |log|N | + K + |SEG E M|)
5.1.2. Quantitative performance evaluation aware RMSA
Alignment-aware O(|E| + |N |log|N | + K + |SEG E M|)
As mentioned in Table 6, RSA algorithms are divided into static RMSA
and dynamic mechanisms. A number of static algorithms target to P-CF O(|E| + |N |log|N | + K + |SEG E M|)
alleviate the BP, while others try to improve spectrum utilization. Dynamic RMSA-on- |D E (d )| + |N |log|N | + K + |F E (d ) D| + |F E (d ) M D|
Besides, all dynamic algorithms target to reduce BP. Hence, there line path
Dynamic RMSA- |N |(log|N | + K ) + (|F M| + 1)|E| + K
will be three groups: Static RSA reducing BP; static RSA improving SetPath
spectrum utilization; and dynamic RSA alleviating BP. To compare MTLT O(K + |N |2lg|N | + T 2(|F | + |F |2|E|T 2))
existing algorithms in each group together, we dene a specic Q- MHLT O(K + |N |2lg|N | + T 2(|F | + |F |2|E|T 2))
factor, separately (i.e., Q SRSAB , Q SRSAS and Q DRSA for the rst group, MPT O(K + |N |2lg|N | + T 2(|F | + |F |2|E|T 2))
the second group and the third group, respectively). Since all of Heuristic MPTG O(K |N |3(Z (|N | + |SB|) + K |N |))
the studied algorithms in each group have the same simulation H-SSRSMLA (|E| + |N |log|N | + K ) + 2|Pd|(|M| + 1)+
conditions (e.g., all of them have been simulated on NSFNET to- (Rd + |O| + HMax + TSPs + TSPd + |F |PMax 1)|O|
pology (see Fig. 16), or the trafc load is based on Erlang dis- P-EEM O(|C E| + |C |Nd|N |2log|N |)
tribution), these factors can be calculated through Eqs. 19 to 21, BA-EEM O(2|F E N |log(2|F |))
respectively:

Fig. 13. Performance evaluation of RMSA algorithms.

 F. Shirin Abkenar, A. Ghaffarpour Rahbar / Optical Switching and Networking 23 (2017) 539 35

BP EEM, P-EEM and BA-EEM are the other type of FS-based algo-
Q DRSA =
Load |N| |L| |S| (21) rithms. ILP-one perform appropriately for small networks but is
not proper for big ones. Hence, P-EEM and BA-EEM have pre-
Here, |N |, |L| and |S| are the number of nodes, links and sub- sented. P-EEM tries to improve energy efciency of network, while
carriers, respectively. Parameter Load represents the trafc load in BA-EEM considers both energy efciency and BP. The last FS-based
Erlang, where simulations have been performed based on this algorithm is MuPPetS-EON. This mechanism is a type of GA and its
load. Moreover, BP and Spectrum Utilization show the blocking main goal is to improve the spectrum usage.
probability and spectrum utilization, respectively. We have used Since the slot-based algorithms have better granularity than
the measured values of both BP and spectrum utilization para- the subcarrier-based algorithms, the efciency of the slot-based
meters, which have been shown in the corresponding diagrams of algorithms is better than the subcarrier-based algorithms. SPRES-
the related papers. Fig. 11 shows the result of Q-factors. Fig. 11a SO is a sample of slot-based algorithm. However, the complexity of
represents the comparison of static RSA algorithms which try to IARSA is more than SPRESSO.
reduce BP. Lower value of Q SRSAB under these algorithms involves The m-xed and m-adaptive are segment-based algorithms
their better performances. As seen in Fig. 11a, QPS has better
such as Routing based-on Spectrum Segment algorithm in RSA.
performance than the other algorithms. Fig. 11b indicates the
Hence, their complexities are less than slot-based algorithms. In
spectrum utilization of static RSA algorithms. More value of Q SRSAS addition, the m-adaptive algorithm has better operation than m-
denotes that the AFA-CA mechanism has better performance. After
xed algorithm. Moreover, if m is xed or adaptive, SPV and MSP
that, SM-RSA is the second appropriate algorithm. Finally, the
have the lowest blocking probability at light trafc, whereas KSP
comparison result of dynamic RSA algorithms has been shown in
has the highest blocking probability. While, at heavy trafc, KSP
Fig. 11c. As seen in this gure, since MCAP has the lowest Q DRSA , it
has the smallest blocking probability than SPV and MSP.
is the best algorithm in this comparison.
Some algorithms in Table 8 are based on slot blocks (SBs) as
joint RMSA, separate RMSA, heuristic RMSA, fragmentation-aware
5.1.3. The comparison of computational complexity
RMSA, alignment-aware RMSA and P-CF. Since a SB is a block of a
Table 7 shows the computational complexity of each studied
few available contiguous subcarrier slots in the optical spectrum,
RSA algorithm. The complexity of each mechanism has been cal-
culated according to Table 7 for different values of each variable
Table 11
(see Fig. 12). Since, the range of complexities is different, the re- Comparison of computational complexity of ILP-based RMSA techniques.
sults have been divided into four categories. Algorithms in Fig. 12a
have the highest complexity. Fig. 12b, c and d show the next lower Algorithm
complexities, respectively. According to these gures, the com-
Joint RMLSA Number of |N |4 + (K + 1)|N |2
plexities of BLSA and SPSR are so close together and these algo- variables
rithms have the highest complexity. In addition, MI-PRSA has the Number of 2|N |4 + 2|N |2
lowest complexity. constraints
(RML SA) Number of |N |4 + (K + 1)|N |2
variables
5.2. The comparison of RMSA algorithms Number of 2|N |4 + 2|N |2
constraints
Similar to RSA algorithms, the RMSA algorithms are compared Joint RMSA Number of 2I 2 + (|P D| + |E| + 3)I
together in three ways: quality performance, quantitative perfor- variables
Number of (|E| + 3)I 2 + (|P D E| + |P D| + |D| + 4)I
mance and computational complexity. Each of these aspects are constraints
assessed in three separate sections as follows. Separate RMSA Number of (|P D| + 1)I + (K + 1)|E| + 2
variables
5.2.1. Qualitative performance evaluation Number of (|P D| + |D|)I + (2K + |P | + 2)|E| + |P | + 2
constraints
Table 8 displays a summary of the RMSA techniques along with
ILP-based RSA- Number of |D P C |(1 + |F |) + |E D P | + |F |(|E| + 1)
the routing mechanism, spectrum assignment, basis of each JAU variables
technique, and the trafc type that each algorithm can support. Number of |D| + |F |(|E| + 1) + |A|
Table 9 briey shows the features of each algorithm. constraints
As mentioned before, the subcarrier-based algorithms have ILP-based RSA- Number of 2|Pd Cd D| + 2|Pd E| + |E F |
DPP variables
better complexity than the slot-based algorithms. The (RML SA) Number of |Pd Cd D| + (|E| + 1)|F |
algorithm does not always lead to similar results as the joint constraints
RMLSA algorithm. However, the heuristic RMLSA algorithm always ILP-based Number of |C M P D| + (|E| + 1)|F |
results in better performance than (RML SA) and joint RMLSA RMSA variables
Number of (|E| + 2)|F | + (|A| + 1)|D|
algorithms in large networks. In fact, the (RML SA) algorithm is
constraints
proposed to reduce the computation complexity of the RMLSA SPRESSO Number of |P M C |
algorithms, but RMLSA and (RML SA) result in similar results. In variables
addition, the RMLSA algorithms improve the spectrum utilization Number of |P M C | + |E S |
constraints
of OFDM-networks compared with WDM networks. The IARSA,
ILP-based Number of |N |4 + (K2 + 1)|N |3 + (K + 2)|N |2
the other type of subcarrier-based algorithms, is based on ILP MPTG variables
formulation such as RMLSA. The IARSA uses three algorithms Number of |N |4 + (K2 + 1)4|N |3 + (K + 4)|N |2
based on the graph theory that support dynamic trafc, and the constraints
SSRSMLA Number of |P |(|F |2 + 2|F | + |C | + 3)
complexities of these three algorithms are more than RMLSA.
variables
As mentioned before, a channel comprises a set of adjacent FSs. Number of |3|D| + |E F | + |Pd|(|C | + 2) + |P |(3|F | 1)
Hence, a FS has a ner granularity than a channel, but the com- constraints
plexity of a channel is less than a FS. In addition, spectrum con- ILP-based EEM Number of (2|E F | + |N |)|D| + |N | + |E|
tiguity constraint is inherent in the channel. Hence, channel-based variables
Number of (2|E F | + 2|N F | + 2|N | + 2|F |)|D|
algorithms (such as RSA-DPP) have lower computational com- constraints
plexity than the FS-based algorithm (such as RSA-JAU). ILP-based
36 F. Shirin Abkenar, A. Ghaffarpour Rahbar / Optical Switching and Networking 23 (2017) 539

the SB-based algorithms have lower complexity than the sub- 5.2.2. Quantitative performance evaluation
carrier-based algorithms, but a SB does not involve details within a The same comparison for RSA algorithms is applied for RMSA
subcarrier. The computational complexity of ILP algorithms (i.e., ones. To compare all of the existing algorithms together, a specic
joint and separate RMSA algorithms) is more than the heuristic Q-factor is dened for each group of RMSA algorithms, separately
RMSA. However, the accuracy of joint and separate RMSA algo- (i.e., Q SRMSAS , Q DRMSAB and Q DRMSAS for spectrum utilization of static
rithms is better than the heuristic algorithm. According to Table 8, RMSA, BP comparison of dynamic RSA and spectrum utilization of
the fragmentation-aware RMSA, alignment-aware RMSA, P-CF al- dynamic RSA, respectively). In addition, these factors are calcu-
gorithms are based on spectrum block (SB) that are compared with lated through Eqs. 22 to 24, respectively:
each other. The P-CF performs the best in reducing blocking Spectrum Utilization
Q SRMSA =
probability compared with two other algorithms. This is because Load |N| |L| |S| (22)
P-CF considers the fragmentation and misalignment factors, the
shortest path, and load balanced routing. Hence, there is a trade- BP
Q DRMSAB =
off between minimizing the fragmentation and minimizing the Load |N| |L| |S| (23)
overall resource consumption. In addition, the alignment-aware
RMSA achieves better blocking probability than the fragmenta- Spectrum Utilization
Q DRMSAS =
tion-aware RMSA algorithm. Load |N| |L| |S| (24)

Fig. 14. Computational complexity of RMSA algorithms.

Fig. 15. Computational complexity of ILP-based RMSA algorithms.

 F. Shirin Abkenar, A. Ghaffarpour Rahbar / Optical Switching and Networking 23 (2017) 539
Fig. 16. The NSFNET topology [54].
Fig. 17. Comparison of time complexity.
Fig. 13 shows the result of Q-factors. Fig. 13a represents the
comparison of static RMSA algorithms which try to improve
spectrum utilization. More value of Q SRMSA in these algorithms
involve their better performances. As seen in Fig. 13a, TS-based
DPP has better performance than the other algorithms. Fig. 13b
indicates the BP of dynamic RMSA algorithms. Lower value of
Q DRMSAB denotes that the MPTG mechanism has better perfor-
mance. Finally, the comparison result of spectrum utilization re-
lated to dynamic RMSA algorithms has been shown in Fig. 13c. As
seen in this gure, since MPT has the highest Q DRSA , it is the best
algorithm in this comparison.
5.2.3. The comparison of computational complexity
The studied RMSA algorithms are compared together based on
their computational complexity. Since some of these algorithms
are ILP-based and the ILP-based problems are NP-hard, we calcu-
late the number of both variables and constraints of these algo-
rithms to compare them. In addition, some algorithms are based
on meta heuristic ones such as GA, SA, TS and MuPPetS and cal-
culation of their computational complexity is so hard. Hence, we
use their average time complexity which are obtained from related
papers. Therefore, Table 10 and Table 11 indicate the comp-
utational complexity of non-ILP and ILP-based algorithms,
respectively.
Fig. 14 indicates the comparison of categorized algorithms in
Table 10. To show the results clearly, the results have been shown
in three gures, where the complexity decreases from Fig. 14ac.
According to Fig. 14a, the complexities of MLTL, MHTL and MPT are
similar together and these mechanisms have the highest com-
plexity. On the other hand, Fig. 14c shows that the complexities of
Fragmentation-Aware (FA) RMSA, Alignment-Aware (AA) RMSA
and P-CF are almost equal, where they have the lowest complexity.
Note that, since the situation of dynamic RMSA-online path de-
pends on the incoming trafc and changes over the time, it is
impossible to calculate its complexity.
37
The number of both variables and constraints of mentioned
algorithms in Table 11 have been calculated and the results have
been shown in Fig. 15. To prevent the overlapping of diagrams, the
results have been shown in two gures. Fig. 15b and a contain the
algorithms with the highest and lowest number of parameters,
respectively. According to Fig. 15b, DPP has the highest number of
both variables and constraints, and Joint RMSA has the second
highest number of both variables and constraints. However, the
number of variables in Separate RMSA is so close to Joint one but
its constraints number is lower than Joint RSA. In addi-
tion, SPRESSO yields the lowest number of both variables and
constraints.
To compare metaheuristic-based algorithms (i.e., Heuristic
RMLSA, Heuristic RMSA, TS-based RSA-DPP), we use their time
complexities which have been calculated in their corresponding
papers. According to [35,4,40], all the mentioned mechanisms
have been evaluated in NSFNET topology which is shown in Fig. 16.
Since there are different initial values in this simulations, we de-
ne a quality factor (Q) as in the following equation:
RTAvg
Q= ,
ND (25)
where RTAvg is the average run time of algorithm and ND equals the
number of incoming requests. Note that the algorithm with
smaller Q has better performance. Fig. 17 shows the calculated Q
for each algorithm. According to this gure, RMSA has the best Q
(near to zero), and after that, RSA-DPP and RMLSA have better
performances, respectively.
6. Future works
As expressed in this paper, RSA and RMSA play important roles
in EON. However, there are many challenges in EON. One of the
most important issues in EON is the security of network. All of the
existing algorithms try to improve the important parameters such
as BP or even utilizing the amount of used resources, but none of
them considers security aspects of data transmission such as in-
tegrity, condentiality, availability and so on. While, nowadays,
hackers steal the important data such as banking or counting in-
formation through very simple methods such as tapping. There are
many different solutions to beat this problem such as stegano-
graphy, cryptography (symmetric and asymmetric), using SDH
system and so on. However, none of them has been applied to
EON.
7. Conclusion
In this paper, we have studied and analyzed both categories of
Routing and Spectrum Allocation (RSA) (i.e., RSA and RMSA algo-
rithms), and separately compared the algorithms of each category.
Totally, the main objective of both RSA and RMSA is to allocate
resources to demands efciently and exibility. There are many
issues in EON such as cost, BP, energy efciency, efcient resource
management, QoS provisioning and so on. Totally, the main ob-
jective of both RSA and RMSA is to allocate resources to demands
efciently and exibility. All of these parameters are related to-
gether. Hence, some algorithms just consider one of these para-
meter and try to alleviate it. For example, P-EEM tries to reduce
energy consumption, while BA-EEM improves both BP and energy
efciency. This review has tried to study all existing RSA and RMSA
and compare them through their both efciency in resource
management and computational complexity. According to this
viewpoint, different tables have been provided to show each
38 F. Shirin Abkenar, A. Ghaffarpour Rahbar / Optical Switching and Networking 23 (2017) 539
algorithm property in the best and detailed way. As a consequence
of these comparisons, the algorithms have a close competition to
achieve the best performance in resource assignment in EON with
high exibility and efciency.
References
[1] M. Jinno, B. Kozicki, H. Takara, A. Watanabe, W. Imajuku, Y. Sone, T. Tanaka,
A. Hirano, Distance-adaptive spectrum resource allocation in spectrum-sliced
elastic optical path network, IEEE Commun. Mag. 48 (August (8)) (2010)
138145.
[2] O. Gerstel, M. Jinno, A. Lord, and S.J. Ben Yoo, Elastic optical networking: a new
dawn for the optical layer, IEEE Commun. Mag. (February) (2012) 512520.
[3] G. Zhang, M.D. Leenheer, A. Morea, B. Mukherjee, A survey on OFDM-based
elastic core optical networking, IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. 15 (1) (2013)
6587.
[4] L. Gong, X. Zhou, X. Liu, W. Zhao, W. Lu, Z. Zhu, Efcient resource allocation for
all-optical multicasting over spectrum-sliced elastic optical networks, IEEE
Opt. Commun. Netw. 5 (August (8)) (2013) 836847.
[5] I. Tomkos, E. Palkopoulou, M. Angelou, A survey of recent developments on
exible/elastic optical networking, in: 14th International Conference on
Transparent Optical Networks (ICTON), July 2012, pp. 16.
[6] B.C. Chatterjee, N. Sarma, E. Oki, Routing and spectrum allocation in elastic
optical networks: a tutorial, IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. 17(May (3)), (2015), pp.
1776-1800.
[7] S. Talebi, F. Alam, I. Katib, M. Khamis, R. Salama, G.N. Rouskas, Spectrum
management techniques for elastic optical networks: a survey, Opt. Switch.
Netw. 13 (February) (2014) 3448.
[8] G. Zhang, M.D. Leenheer, S. K. Bose, Survivable elastic optical networks: survey
and perspective (Invited), Photonic Network Communications, 31(February
(1)), 2016, pp. 71-87.
[9] M. Jinno, H. Takara, B. Kozicki, Y. Tsukishima, Y. Sone, Sh. Matsuoka, Spectrum-
efcient and scalable elastic optical path network: architecture, benets, and
enabling technologies, IEEE Commun. Mag. 47 (November (11)) (2009) 6672.
[10] N. Maluf, K. Williams, An Introduction to Microelectromechanical Systems
Engineering, 2nd ed., Artech House, Boston-London, 2004.
[11] H. Ren, S.-T. Wu, Optical switch using a deformable liquid droplet, Opt. Lett. 35
(November (22)) (2010) 38263828.
[12] E. Palkopoulou, M. Angelou, D. Klonidis, K. Christodoulopoulos, A. Klekamp,
F. Buchali, E. Varvarigos, I. Tomkos, Quantifying spectrum, cost, and energy
efciency in xed-grid and ex-grid networks [Invited], IEEE Opt. Commun.
Netw. 4 (November (11)) (2012) 4251.
[13] M. Jinno, H. Takara, B. Kozicki, Concept and enabling technologies of spec-
trum-sliced elastic optical path network (SLICE), in: Communications and
Photonics Conference and Exhibition (ACP), November 2009, pp. 12.
[14] B. Kozicki, H. Takara, M. Jinno, Enabling technologies for adaptive resource
allocation in elastic optical path network (SLICE), in: Communications and
Photonics Conference and Exhibition (ACP), December 2010, pp. 2324.
[15] B. Kozicki, H. Takara, Y. Tsukishima, T. Yoshimatsu, T. Kobayashi, K. Yonenaga,
M. Jinno, Optical path aggregation for 1-Tb/s transmission in spectrum-sliced
elastic optical path network, IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett. 22 (September (17))
(2010) 13151317.
[16] B. Kozicki, H. Takara, A. Watanabe, Y. Sone, T. Tanaka, A. Hirano, K. Yonenaga,
M. Jinno, Distance-adaptive spectrum allocation in SLICE considering optical
ltering effects, in: 15th OptoElectronics and Communication Conference
(OECC), July 2010, pp. 9899.
[17] X. Wan, N. Hua, H. Zhang, X. Zheng, Study on dynamic routing and spectrum
assignment in bitrate exible optical networks, Photon. Netw. Commun. 24
(May) (2012) 219227.
[18] L. Velasco, M. Klinkowski, M. Ruiz, J. Comellas, Modeling the routing and
spectrum allocation problem for exgrid optical networks, Photon. Netw.
Commun. 24 (April) (2012) 177186.
[19] A.N. Patel, P.N. Ji, J.P. Jue, T. Wang, Routing, wavelength assignment, and
spectrum allocation algorithms in transparent exible optical WDM networks,
J. Opt. Switch. Netw. 9 (February) (2012) 191204.
[20] M. Klinkowski, K. Walkowiak, Routing and spectrum assignment in spectrum
sliced elastic optical path network, IEEE Commun. Lett. 15 (August (8)) (2011)
884886.
[21] Y. Wang, X. Cao, Y. Pan, A study of the routing and spectrum allocation in
spectrum-sliced elastic optical path networks, in: Proceedings IEEE INFOCOM,
April 2011, pp. 15031511.
[22] Y. Wang, X. Cao, Q. Hu, Y. Pan, Towards elastic and ne-granular bandwidth
allocation in spectrum-sliced optical networks, IEEE Opt. Commun. Netw. 4
(November (11)) (2012) 906917.
[23] W. Lu, X. Zhou, L. Gong, M. Zhang, Z. Zhu, Dynamic multi-path service pro-
visioning under differential delay constraint in elastic optical networks, IEEE
Commun. Lett. 17 (January (1)) (2013) 158161.
[24] A. Das, C. Martel, B. Mukherjee, A partial-protection approach using multipath
provisioning, in: Proceedings of the ICC IEEE, June 2009, pp. 15.
[25] L. Ruan, N. Xiao, Survivable multipath routing and spectrum allocation in
OFDM-based exible optical networks, IEEE Opt. Commun. Netw. 5 (March
(3)) (2013) 172182.
[26] R. Bhandari, Survivable Networks: Algorithms for Diverse Routing, Springer,
US, 1999.
[27] F. Yi, B. Guo, C. Xin, Y. He, Z. Li, Enhanced minimum interference routing al-
gorithms for elastic optical networks, in: Proceedings of the OECC/PS, June
July 2013, pp. 12.
[28] F.S. Abkenar, A.G. Rahbar, A. Ebrahimzadeh, Providing quality of service (QoS)
for data trafc in elastic optical networks (EONs), Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 41 (March
(3)) (2016) 797806.
[29] A. Pages, J. Perello, S. Spadaro, Lightpath fragmentation for efcient spectrum
utilization in dynamic elastic optical networks, in: 16th International Con-
ference on Optical Network Design and Modeling (ONDM), April 2012, pp. 16.
[30] R.J. Durn, I. Rodrguez, N. Fernndez, I. de Miguel, N. Merayo, P. Fernndez, J.
C. Aguado, T. Jimnez, R.M. Lorenzo, E.J. Abril, Performance comparison of
methods to solve the routing and spectrum allocation problem, in: 14th In-
ternational Conference on Transparent Optical Networks (ICTON), July 2012,
pp. 14.
[31] B. Guo, J. Li, Y. Wang, S. Huang, Z. Chen, Y. He, Collision-aware routing and
spectrum assignment in GMPLS-enabled exible-bandwidth optical network,
IEEE Opt. Commun. Netw. 5 (June (6)) (2013) 658666.
[32] S. Ma, Y. Wang, B. Guo, X. Chen, J. Li, Z. Chen, Y. He, A fairness-aware dynamic
spectrum allocation scheme in elastic optical networks, in: Proceedings of the
OECC/PS, JuneJuly 2013, pp. 12.
[33] X. Wang, K. Kuang, S. Wang, S. Xu, H. Liu, G.N. Liu, Dynamic routing and
spectrum allocation in elastic optical networks with mixed line rates, IEEE
Opt. Commun. Netw. 6 (December (12)) (2014) 11151127.
[34] W. Fadini, B.C. Chatterjee, E. Oki, A subcarrier-slot partition scheme with rst-
last t spectrum allocation for elastic optical networks, J. Comput. Netw. 91
(November) (2015) 700711.
[35] K. Christodoulopoulos, I. Tomkos, E.A. Varvarigos, Elastic bandwidth allocation
in exible OFDM-based optical networks, J. Lightw. Technol. 29 (May (9))
(2011) 13541366.
[36] K. Christodoulopoulos, I. Tomkos, E.A. Varvarigos, Routing and spectrum al-
location in OFDM-based optical networks with elastic bandwidth allocation,
in: Global Telecommunications Conference (GLOBECOM), December 2010, pp.
16.
[37] J. Koza, Genetic Programming: On the Programming of Computers by Means of
Natural Selection, MIT, Cambridge, MA, 1992.
[38] K. Walkowiak, M. Klinkowski, Joint anycast and unicast routing for elastic
optical networks: modeling and optimization, in: IEEE International Con-
ference on Communications (ICC), June 2013, pp. 39093914.
[39] M. Pioro, D. Medhi, Routing, Flow and Capacity Design in Communication and
Computer Networks, Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, 2004.
[40] K. Walkowiaka, M. Klinkowskib, B. Rabiegaa, R. Goscien, Routing and spectrum
allocation algorithms for elastic optical networks with dedicated path pro-
tection, IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. 13 (February) (2014) 6375.
[41] R. Goscien, K. Walkowiak, M. Klinkowski, Distance-adaptive transmission in
cloud-ready elastic optical networks, IEEE Opt. Commun. Netw. 6 (October
(10)) (2014) 816828.
[42] X. Wan, N. Hua, X. Zheng, Dynamic routing and spectrum assignment in
spectrum-exible transparent optical networks, IEEE Opt. Commun. Netw. 4
(August (8)) (2012) 603613.
[43] A. Castro, L. Velasco, M. Ruiz, M. Klinkowski, J.P. Fernndez-Palacios,
D. Careglio, Dynamic routing and spectrum (re)allocation in future exgrid
optical networks, J. Comput. Netw. 56 (May) (2012) 28692883.
[44] S. Yang, F. Kuipers, Impairment-aware routing in translucent spectrum-sliced
elastic optical path networks, in: 17th European Conference on Networks and
Optical Communication (NOC), June 2012, pp. 16.
[45] Y. Yin, M. Zhang, Z. Zhu, S.J.B. Yoo, Fragmentation-aware routing, modulation
and spectrum assignment algorithms in elastic optical networks, in: Pro-
ceedings of the OFC/NFOEC, March 2013, pp. 13.
[46] L. Zhang, W. Lu, X. Zhou, Z. Zhu, Dynamic RMSA in spectrum-sliced elastic
optical networks for high-throughput service provisioning, in: Proceedings of
the ICNC, 2013, pp. 380384.
[47] A. Bocoi, M. Schuster, F. Rambach, M. Kiese, C. Bunge, B. Spinnler, Reach-de-
pendent capacity in optical networks enabled by OFDM, in: Proceedings of the
OFC/NFOEC, March 2009, pp. 13.
[48] H. Chen, Y. Zhao, J. Zhang, R. He, W. Wang, J. Wu, Y. Wang, Y. Ji, H. Zheng, Y. Lin,
B. Hou, Time-spectrum consecutiveness based scheduling with advanced re-
servation elastic optical networks, IEEE Commun. Lett. 19 (January (1)) (2015)
7073.
[49] G. Zhang, M.D. Leenheer, B. Mukherjee, Optical trafc grooming in OFDM-
based elastic optical networks [Invited], IEEE Opt. Commun. Netw. 4 (No-
vember (11)) (2012) B17B25.
[50] Y. Zhang, X. Zheng, O. Li, N. Hua, Y. Li, H. Zhang, Trafc grooming in spectrum
elastic optical path networks, in: Optical Fiber Communication Conference
and Exposition (OFC/NFOEC), and the National Fiber Optic Engineers Con-
ference, March 2011, pp. 13.
[51] Z. Fan, Y. Qiu, C.K. Chan, Dynamic multipath routing with trafc grooming in
OFDM-based elastic optical path networks, J. Lightwave Technol. 33 (January
(1)) (2015) 275281.
[52] A. Pags, J. Perell, S. Spadaro, J. Comellas, Optimal route, spectrum, and
modulation level assignment in split-spectrum-enabled dynamic elastic op-
tical networks, IEEE Opt. Commun. Netw. 6 (February (2)) (2014) 114126.
[53] A. Fallahpour, H. Beyranvand, J.A. Salehi, Energy-efcient manycast routing
and spectrum assignment in elastic optical networks for cloud computing
environment, J. Lightwave Technol. 33 (October (19)) (2015) 40084018.
 F. Shirin Abkenar, A. Ghaffarpour Rahbar / Optical Switching and Networking 23 (2017) 539
[54] M. Przewozniczek, R. Goscien, K. Walkowiak, M. Klinkowski, Towards solving
practical problems of large solution space using a novel pattern searching
hybrid evolutionary algorithm an elastic optical network optimization case
study, J. Expert Syst. Appl. 42 (June) (2015) 77817796.
Forough Shirin Abkenar received her B.Sc. degree in
information technology from Azarbaijan Shahid Ma-
dani University, Azarshahr, Tabriz, Iran. She received
her M.Sc. degree in information technology from Sa-
hand University of Technology, Sahand New Town,
Tabriz, Iran. She is interested in optical networks
(especially Elastic Optical Networking, EON), switching
and routing in high speed networks.
39
Akbar Ghaffarpour Rahbar is a Professor in Electrical
Engineering Department at Sahand University of
Technology, Sahand New Town, Tabriz, Iran. Dr. Rahbar
received his B.Sc. and M.Sc. degrees in computer
hardware and computer architecture both from Iran
University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran, in
1992 and 1995, respectively. He received his Ph.D. de-
gree in computer science from University of Ottawa,
Canada in 2006. He is the Director of Computer Net-
works Research Lab at Sahand University. Dr. Rahbar is
a Senior Member of the IEEE. He is currently on the
editorial board of Wiley Transactions on Emerging
Telecommunications Technologies Journal, Interna-
tional Journal of Advances in Optical Communication and Networks, and Journal of
Convergence Information Technology. His main research interests are optical net-
works, optical packet switching, scheduling, PON, IPTV, VANET, network modeling,
analysis and performance evaluation, the results of which can be found in over 110
technical papers (see http://ee.sut.ac.ir/showcvdetail.aspx?id 13).