Performance Evaluation of the Labelled OBS Architecture

TL;DR

This paper compares three Optical Burst Switching architectures, highlighting that the labelled OBS (L-OBS) offers better performance and efficiency despite increased hardware complexity, based on simulation results.

Contribution

It provides a comparative analysis of OBS architectures, demonstrating the efficiency of labelled OBS over conventional and offset time-emulated OBS.

Findings

L-OBS has lower burst loss probability than C-OBS and E-OBS.

L-OBS shows better resource utilization and fairness.

Simulation confirms L-OBS's efficiency despite higher hardware complexity.

Abstract

A comparison of three different Optical Burst Switching (OBS) architectures is made, in terms of performance criteria, control and hardware complexity, fairness, resource utilization, and burst loss probability. Regarding burst losses, we distinguish the losses due to burst contentions from those due to contentions of Burst Control Packets (BCP). The simulation results show that as a counterpart of an its additional hardware complexity, the labelled OBS (L-OBS) is an efficient OBS architecture compared to a Conventional OBS (C-OBS) as well as in comparison with Offset Time-Emulated OBS (E-OBS).