Since the photonic layer is the cheapest on a per-bit, per-function basis, and since the key imperative before operator's today is to bridge the yawning gap between exponentially increasing data traffic on the one-hand, and flat-to-declining revenues on the other, a tighter coupling between the packet and optical layers to derive operational, management, and deployment efficiencies, has...

1. PTB >>Packet-Optical Integration
The operator’s paradox for the past several years has been that while there is an explosion in data
traffic volumes to the tune of 45-65% yearly, the corresponding revenue growth is in the single digits at
best. To bridge this gap, providers must assess how to better architect their networks to reduce the
transport-cost per bit, conserve space and power, and improve network performance to lower the opex.
(Statistics show that service providers spend almost 5 opex dollars for each capex dollar![1]). They must
also optimize their networks to efficiently carry high growth services like Internet access, packet traffic
from 3G/4G wireless networks, and video. Achieving this efficiency entails a tighter integration between
the packet and the optical/photonic layers, since the photonic layer is the cheapest perbit, per function, thus
motivating the packet-optical
integration.
Major Solution Drivers Figure 1. Neilsen’s Law of Internet Bandwidth,
Technological advances (e.g. cloud predicted in 1998, has shown accurate and consistent for
computing, remote diagnostics, over a decade (From Jakob Neilsen’s Alertbox
multimedia collaboration), http://www.useit.com/alertbox/980405.html ).
bandwidth in tensive applications
(e.g. video services with HD,
Carrier Ethernet enterprise
services, remote data backup and
disaster recovery), and fast
connection speeds, which
according to Nielsen’s Law
double every 21 months (Figure 1),
lead to a proliferation of data
packets and drive the demand for a
better networking solution. In
addition, some key enterprise
trends contribute to this traffic. For
instance, almost 95% of enterprise
traffic is now Ethernet-based.
Indeed, business Ethernet port
demand was up 43% in 2008
alone. Further, almost 80% of
traffic now leaves the enterprise
(the reverse of what it was just a
little over a decade ago) implying a much greater load in the metro and core[2]. Thus, a key impetus for
carriers is to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of transporting these packets over an optical transport
network in the WAN environment.
Today, the IP/Ethernet packets are wrapped into SONET/SDH or G.709 TDM circuits, and transported
over wavelengths on an optical infrastructure. One disadvantage of this is that when all switching occurs in
a Layer 3 router/switch rather than judiciously leveraging Layer 2 Ethernet or Layer “2.5” MPLS
switching, the cost of the network begins to increase. Con sequently, control layer mechanisms, such as
Multi- Protocol Label Switching-Transport Profile, MPLS-TP (e.g. RFCs 5654, 5317, 5718, 5860;[3]), or
Provider-Backbone Bridging-Traffic Engineering, PBB-TE (IEEE 802.1Qay standard), are becoming

2. important. Plus, the transport of IP/Ethernet over optical infrastructure is moving to sending native
IP/Ethernet over wavelengths via WDM, which requires newer packet-optical solutions. The particular
solution adopted will be dictated by a number of factors. For example, the balance between the extent of
connection-oriented (TDM) traffic and pure datagram traffic; the exist ing capital investment in
SONET/SDH ADMs, ROADMs, switches and routers; the degree of equipment consolidation
needed/desired to reduce opex; desire to use the wavelengths better; the OAMP&T (operations,
administration, maintenance, performance and troubleshooting) provided by the deployed technologies; and
whether IP/MPLS expertise and transport expertise resides in a common team or in different parts of the
Figure 2. Conceptual Operation of a Wavelength Selective Switch.
providers’ organization.
Characteristics of a Packet- Optical Solution
So what are the key ingredients being looked upon by operators in a packetoptical solution? It turns out that
the following 4 elements are becoming table stakes:
• Reconfigurable Optical Add/Drop Multiplexer (ROADM) infrastructure with support for routing
wavelengths at multi-degree junctions, as well as the simpler two degree nodes [4].
• The ability to efficiently carry existing SONET/SDH services without compromising support for high-
growth packet and OTN traffic.
• Connection-oriented Layer 2 Ethernet switching and aggregation.
• Carrier-grade OAM — merging what exists in the optical domain with what exists in the packet
domain to give an operator a comprehensive view of the network. Thus a general industry consensus is
emerging on the requirements of a Packet-Optical Transport System (POTS).

3. Three Key Areas of Advancement
The development of packet-optical solutions has involved advancements in 3 key areas: subsystems such as
ROADMs and PICs; systems and ASICs (such as Packet-Optical Transport Systems); and control and
management plane software.
1) ROADMs & PICs
ROADMs have played a key role in moving the transport network toward greater agility/flexibility by
reducing the manual intervention needed to set up new lightpaths. A ROADM is composed of a number of
sub-systems such as Wavelength Selective Switches (WSSs), optical amplifiers, optical channel monitors,
transponders, and control and management software. A ROADM eliminates costly optical-to-electrical
conversions at intermediate nodes by allowing wavelengths to pass intermediate nodes in the optical
domain. First generation ROADM’s allowed a lightpath’s direction to be changed, while its
wavelength remained fixed. They were typically 2-dimensional nodes that enabled ring architectures. Sub
sequent ROADMs had higher degrees of between 4-8, allowing for mesh architectures. Second generation
ROADM’s used tunable lasers and wavelength selective switches (WSSs), allowing both the direction
and the wavelength of a lightpath to be changed. WSS modules are the building blocks for ROADMs that
can handle any wavelength on any port (and so are known as ‘colorless’) and can connect signals
flowing in any direction on any port to any other port (hence ‘directionless’).
The next-generation of ROADMs will be gridless and contentionless. A contentionless ROADM allows
multiple copies of a given wavelength (coming from different directions) to be dropped at a node, while a
gridless ROADM has the capability to accommodate wavelengths that do not fit on the ITU 50 GHz or 100
GHz grid, but will utilize a flexgrid with a less rigid channel spacing (where some or all of the channels
could use more than the standard 50GHz bandwidth). This allows for variable channel widths and enables
operators to efficiently use spectrum to maximize fiber capacity. They will also incorporate fast switching
speeds to decrease latency, and superior optical channel monitoring at the ROADM ports to better regulate
signal power.
Photonic Integrated Circuits (PICs) have shown to be very effective in reducing the cost of the DWDM
systems deployed by operators [5]. For example, Infinera’s PIC-based transport system is the #1 most
widely deployed DWDM system in North America and includes a PIC-based Line Module with more than
100 optical components (lasers, modulators, wavelength lockers, etc.) integrated on a single monolithic
Indium Pho - sphide chip approximately 5mm square. Next generation PICs are now under development to
incorporate more complex modulation schemes such as QPSK and QAM, which are required to achieve
100Gbps per wavelength and higher and achieve aggregate capacities of 500Gbps or 1Tbps per PIC, and
more than 10Tbps per fiber over long-haul networks.
2) Packet-Optical Transport Systems Figure 3. Packet-Optical Transport Systems (P-
Packet-optical transport systems/ platforms (P-OTS or P- OTS): Architectures in use today.
OTP) are a new class of networking platforms that
combine the functions and features of SONET/SDH/OTN ADMs or cross-connects, Ethernet switching and
aggregation systems, and WDM/ROADM transport systems into either a single network element or a small
set of network elements. The goal of a Packet-Optical Transport System is to combine the best features of

4. all of the legacy technologies, such as SONET/SDH, IP, ATM, and Ethernet. As a result, the requirements
can be thought of as drawing upon the features of each technology in the following way:
a) From SONET/SDH: Resilience — 50 ms recovery, path provisioning, and OAM.
b) From ATM: Sophisticated Traffic Management and QoS as in ATM, including traffic engineering and
guaranteed QoS.
c) From IP/Ethernet: Very high efficiency from statistical multiplexing of packets/frames, and packet-flow
control that are key for multimedia traffic.
d) Flexible grooming or the ability to efficiently map a rich service mix onto the underlying transport layer
by switching at the wavelength (lambda) level, sub-wavelength (ODU) level, port (TDM or SONET/SDH)
level, and sub-port/packet (Ethernet, MPLS) level.
P-OTS architectures may be divided into three broad types:
a) IP-over-Glass or Layer 3 routers with integrated transponders connected to a DWDM system. These rely
on the router to perform switching function and eliminate O-E-O interfaces. Network architecture is
simplified by eliminating SONET/SDH, thus reducing Capex and Opex.
b) Carrier Ethernet Switch Routers with Connection-Oriented Ethernet (COE) controlled using PBB-TE or
MPLS-TP plus a DWDM layer. The goal here is to leverage the low cost points of Ethernet, while getting
the advantage of its traffic management and traffic engineering capabilities.
c) Packet-Optical Devices combining SONET/SDH and IP/Ethernet switching/ aggregation with DWDM
transport. They emphasize a modular architecture, where sub-wavelength multiplexing and packet
switching are done and traffic is groomed onto DWDM transport. These systems permit router bypass of
non-IP traffic (e.g. L2 traffic, TDM traffic, and transit traffic), and minimize wavelength requirements by
integrating SONET/SDH, MPLS, and OTN switching onto a single system. The best alternative will
depend on the existing and projected traffic mix (TDM to packet balance in the operator’s network),
existing capital investment in network assets (SONET/SDH ADMs, ROADMs, switches/routers), need for
efficient utilization of optical resources (wavelengths), and the carrier’s operations model (i.e., whether
the IP/MPLS and transport teams are separate or common).
3) Photonic Control-Plane Software
The data plane, comprising flexible ROADMs and packet-optical transport systems, must be complemented
by a highly integrated management and control plane that spans the packet, TDM, and optical domains.
This control plane software is critical for future agile optical networks. The control plane, which uses
routing and signaling to set up the connections between nodes, coupled with an efficient management
plane, is essential to orchestrate the operations of the data plane. Developments in the control plane are
occurring within the IETF, which has developed the GMPLS control plane that is now being refined to
include wavelength switched optical network (WSON) requirements. This will allow the control plane to
have simplified knowledge of the optical parameters (such as chromatic dispersion and polarization mode
dispersion) and simple rules that can be used to decide whether an optical path is adequate or requires
signal regeneration. The ITU-T has developed control plane requirements and architecture, under the
umbrella of ASON (Auto - matically Switched Optical Networks).
The GMPLS/ASON control plane comprises a common part and a technologyspecific part to include
technologies such as SONET/SDH, OTN, wavelengths, and MPLS-TP. By combining electrical and optical
switching and an integrated control plane, the operators will be able to continually optimize their networks,
and devolve them to the lowest-cost and most power-efficient solutions. The User-to-Network Interface
(UNI) and the External Network-to-Network Interface (E-NNI) implementations, based on the ITU-T, OIF
and MEF standards could prove very useful for carriers. The UNI standards should enable operators to have
packet switching devices that can signal the agile optical network, and request wavelength services for
certain duration over a specific path and with a defined level of protection. E-NNI implementations will
enable Wavelength Networks to share topology and availability information in a way to facilitate service
deployment across multi-vendor (and possibly even multi-carrier networks) in an end-to-end manner.
Open Issues Even as advancements in packet-optical integration continue to be made, challenges remain
before a fully agile optical network is a reality. An important consideration is providing the control plane
with knowledge of the optical impairments, and enabling routing transparently between vendors. Similarly,

5. handling increasing customer application rates, say 1, 10 or 40 Gb/s on 100 Gb/s infrastructure, will require
the use of OTN (G.709) multiplexing and electrical switching, plus control plane support. Finally,
modularity of the system makes the challenge of integration for an operator much easier. This modularity
comes in multiple forms, as universal switch fabrics and the ability to mix-andmatch linecards (from all
TDM to all packets and everything in between), or as modularity of the associated software with the ability
to selectively turn on or off specific features.
This article was written by Vishal Sharma, Principal Technologist & Consultant, Metanoia, Inc. (Mountain
View, CA), and Mark Allen, Ph.D., Director of Systems Engineering, Infinera Corporation (Sunnyvale,
CA). For more information, contact Mr. Sharma at vsharma@metanoia-inc.com, Dr. Allen at
mark.allen@infinera.com, or visit http://info.hotims.com/34451-201.

6. References
[1] Michael Kennedy, “Sizing-Up The Approaches,” Presentation, Network Strategy Partners,
Fierce Telecom: Packet- Optical Networking Platforms Webinar, July 14, 2010.
[2] Steven Gringeri, Bert Basch, Vishnu Shukla et al, “Flexible Architectures for Optical Transport
Nodes and Networks,” IEEE Comm. Mag., Vol. 48, Issue 9, July 2010, pp. 40-50.
[3] Matt Rossi, “Enterprise Bandwidth Consumption,” Presentation, Zayo Enterprise Networks,
Fierce Telecom: Making the 100 Gb/s Connection Webinar, July 21, 2010. [4] Internet Engineering Task
Force IETF, “MPLS-TP Standard,” WikiPage, http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/misc/mpls-tp/wiki/drafts,
Accessed 12/29/2010. [5] Mark Allen, Chris Lou, Serge Melle, Vijay Vusirikala, “Digital Optical
Networks Using Photonic Integrated Circuits Address the Challenge of Reconfigurable Optical
Networks,” IEEE Comm. Mag. Vol. 44, Issue 12, Dec. 2007, pp. 2-11.