Physical-Layer p-Cycles Adapted for Router-Level Node Protection: A Multi-Layer Design and Operation Strategy
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We study an idea for efficient integrated protection of an IP over WDM network using the spare capacity of span-protecting p-cycles to provide protection against both optical link failures and router node failures in the IP/MPLS layer. Previously, networks using span-protecting p-cycles were designed from the point of view of a single-layer physical transport network. Also separately, it has been known how to plan capacity allocations to IP-layer logical links to support controlled levels of bandwidth oversubscription on transiting traffic flows through a failed router or ATM node. To address both failure types, however, it is unattractive to simply combine the two investments in added protection capacity. Accordingly, we have studied ways to plan a 100% span-restorable set of physical-layer p-cycles so that very high levels of transiting traffic flow can also be restored upon MPLS router node failure, with controlled worst-case oversubscription of LSP capacity allocations. In test cases it was found that the spare capacity provided by span-protecting p-cycles can provide a high level of node protection depending on the strategy used for exploring the p-cycle capacity. We think this leads to novel and efficient strategies for multi-service and multi-layer survivable traffic engineering and bandwidth management
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it