A Max-Flow Design Approach for Improved Service Availability in Multi-Ring ERP Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ethernet Ring Protection (ERP) has recently emerged to provide protection switching for Ethernet ring topologies with sub-50 ms failover capabilities. In addition to Ethernet's cost-effectiveness and simplicity, ERP's promise to also provide protection in mesh packet transport networks positions Ethernet as a prominent competitor to conventional SONET/SDH and the technology of choice for carrier networks. Higher service availability, however, in ERP mesh networks has been challenged by the issue of network partitioning and the contention for protection resources which may be caused by concurrent failures. In this paper, we show that in a mesh network designed to withstand only single failure situations, network services usually suffer from two outage categories subject to concurrent dual-link failures. We address the problem of minimal capacity network design to provide high service availability against concurrent dual-link failures. We cast this combinatorially complex design problem as an optimization one and show that higher service availability can be achieved by proper RPL (Ring Protection Link) placement and ring hierarchy selection. The objective is to maximize the network flow under any dual-link failure scenario. Our design achieves minimal capacity allocation that minimizes the number of service outages (up to 37%) therefore achieving higher service availability. Numerical evaluation and comparative study show that the joint desgin approach of the ILP model provisions 8% less capacity than the sequential two-step approach to achieve similar service availability.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".