Title: Fundamental Complexity of Optical Systems
1Fundamental Complexity of Optical Systems
- Hadas Kogan, Isaac Keslassy
- Technion (Israel)
2Router schematic representation
Router
Optic to electronic
Electronic to optic
Optic to electronic
Electronic to optic
- Problem - electronic routers do not scale to
optical speeds - Access to electronic memory is slow and power
consuming. - Data conversions are power consuming as well.
3Power consumption per chassis
There has to be some future alternative!
Nick McKeown, Stanford
4How about an optical router?
- No electronic memory bottleneck
- No O/E/O conversions
- BUT
- An optical router is thought to be too complex.
- Is it?
5Optical router complexity
- Objective quantify the fundamental complexity of
an optical router - Two types of fundamental complexity
- Construction complexity number of basic optical
components needed (e.g., 2x2 optical switches) - Control complexity frequency of optical switch
reconfigurations
6Main contributions
- Define fundamental complexity in general optical
constructions - Control complexity
- Construction complexity
- Find lower and upper bounds on these costs.
- Construct optical router with minimum complexity.
7Outline
- Background
- Control complexity ( switch reconfigurations)
- Definition
- Bounds
- Construction complexity ( switches)
- Definition
- Optimally constructed constructions
8Two possible ways to store light
- To slow/stop light.
- BUT requires gas environments with tight
temperature and pressure constraints, and
currently seems impractical. - Use optical switches and fiber delay lines.
- .
Buffer
Buffer
9How do we store light?
An optical memory cell (a) writing the
packet (b) circulating the packet (c) reading
the packet
(a)
(b)
(c)
1
1
1
Weve presented a buffer capable of storing one
optical packet.
10A naive optical queue with buffer B
1
1
1
1
1
- The number of 2?2 switches needed for the naive
construction is B. - Could be less than B when several packets can
share the same line (with different line
lengths).
11What we want an ideal router
- An output-queued push-in-first-out (OQ-PIFO)
switch. - OQ - Arriving packets are placed immediately in
the queue of size B at their destination output. - PIFO packets departure ordering is according to
their priority.
12What we want an ideal router
- Why it is ideal
- OQ Work conserving implies best throughput and
minimal delay. - PIFO Enables FIFO, strict priorities, WFQ
- But up to N packets destined to the same
output - Speed-up for switch
- Speed-up for queue
- PIFO is hard to implement.
13How do we do it in optics?
PIFO
1
B
OQ
Input 1
Output 1
1
2
Output 2
1
Output 3
3
3
Input N
Output N
2
PIFO
1
B
- If packets are destined to different outputs
- Switching optical switch NxN with O(NlnN) 2x2
optical switches (Shannon 49, Benes 67). - Buffering optical PIFO queue B
2x2 optical switches (Sarwate Anantharam 04).
14Control complexity
15Generalization to systems
- An optical system - a network element that has
input links, output links and inner states, and
is built with optical 2x2 switches and FDLs. - Inner states - the different settings of the
system elements.External states
distinguishable possible system outputs.
16Definition
- Control complexity a measure of the minimal
expected number of switch reconfigurations. - Example
- 4 inputs, 4 outputs,
- 3 external states
-
- What is the control complexity of an optical
system with these states?
17Link to coding
-
- Source symbols
- A1 w.p. 0.5
- A2 w.p. 0.25
- A3 w.p. 0.25
-
- A 2x2 switch A binary digit
- State entropy Source entropy
- ??? Minimizing expected code length
- Coding results should apply also to switching!
Coding
Switching
18Definitions
- A super switch
- Passive and active controls for each state, a
control is called passive if its value is
irrelevant for setting that state. Otherwise, it
is called active.
C
19Example
C10
C11, C20
C11, C21
With coding w.p 0.5 A1 ?0 w.p 0.25 A2?10 w.p
0.25 A3?11
20Definition control complexity
- Definition the control complexity of an optical
system is its minimal expected number of active
controls, -
- T states space, - number of active
controls per state
21Link to coding
-
- Source symbols
- A1 w.p. 0.5
- A2 w.p. 0.25
- A3 w.p. 0.25
-
- A 2x2 switch A binary digit.
- States entropy Source entropy
- Minimized expected code length
Coding
Switching
???
Control complexity
22Lower bound
- Theorem The control complexity is lower
- bounded by the entropy of the states
- Proof Similar to the
- proof of expected code
- length lower bound
23An upper bound on the control complexity
- Theorem The control complexity is upper bounded
as follows - Stages of proof
- Generate Huffman coding (expected code length
H1) . - There exists a construction (using multiplexers
and distributers) of a memoryless system such
that the active controls for each state are the
Huffman coding of that state - A system with memory can be composed from a
memoryless system using a time-space
transformation.
24Construction complexity
25Definition
- Construction complexity the minimal possible
number of 2x2 switches in the construction. - Examples
- An NxN switch
- N! states, O(NlnN) switches Shannon, 49,
Benes, 65. - A Time Slot Interchange (TSI) with time frame N
- N! states - O(lnN) switches Jordan et. al.,
94.
26Construction complexity
- Intuition With C 2x2 switches during T time
slots, the possible number of resulting states K
is upper bounded by 2CT. - Therefore to get K states in state duration T, a
lower bound on the construction complexity is
given by
27Optimally-constructed constructions
- A construction algorithm is optimally constructed
if its number of 2x2 switches is equal in growth
to the construction complexity. - Examples
- An NxN switch
-
- A TSI
Benes, 65.
Jordan et. al., 94.
28Conclusion construction complexity of optical
routers
B
NxN switch T(Nln(N))
PIFO buffer of sizeB T(ln(B))
- The construction complexity of an OQ-PIFO switch
is T(Nln(N))T(Nln(B)) T(Nln(NB))
29Thank you!