MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2143072045 · doi:10.1109/ccece.2002.1012971

Performance analysis of the PetaWeb optical network architecture

2003· article· en· W2143072045 on OpenAlexaff
Anpeng Huang, O. Kabranov, Dimitrios Makrakis

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Optical Network Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceJitterTraffic generation modelComputer networkNetwork topologyNetwork architectureControl reconfigurationInternet trafficTraffic shapingEnhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionThe InternetNetwork traffic simulationInternet traffic engineeringDistributed computingNetwork traffic controlTelecommunicationsEmbedded systemNetwork packet

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The dramatic increase of Internet users and the development of new high volume Internet applications has a profound impact on the design of next generation optical network (NGON) architectures. In order to cope with the immense diversity of applications and traffic volume, highly dynamic optical networks will be needed. Nortel Networks, proposed one kind of NGON architecture, known as PetaWeb. PetaWeb is based on a star topology, formed by an adaptive core and edge switches, which can accommodate traffic fluctuations by periodically reconfiguring the optical channels. This results in increased effective capacity of the network and reduction of the average delay and delay jitter. We implement a simulation model of the PetaWeb architecture and test its functionality under a variety of traffic loading conditions. The effect of traffic on the behavior of the protocols and the performance of the network is investigated by applying several traffic models. Simulation results are presented We have performed a thorough analysis how of performance related parameters are affected by the reconfiguration frequency, as well as the statistical behavior of the traffic.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.167
Threshold uncertainty score0.245

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.187
Teacher spread0.182 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Optical Network TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207