Improving service availability In ERP based mesh 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 has been challenged by the issue of network partitioning caused by concurrent failures. In this paper, we show that in a network designed to withstand only single failure situations, the service availability in the presence of dual failures is affected by the design method, i.e., the RPL placement as well as the selection of ring hierarchy. Therefore, we present a study for characterizing service outages and propose a design method which strikes a balance between capacity requirement and service availability (i.e., the number of service outages resulting from concurrent failures). We observe that by properly selecting the RPL positions and the ring hierarchies, remarkable reduction in service outages is obtained (hence higher service availability in the presence of dual failures) at a modest increase in capacity deployment. Numerical results show that our design approach can reduce the number of service outages as much as 39.1% with only 6.9% additional investment in capacity deployment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".