4.5 Article

Soft-Failure Detection, Localization, Identification, and Severity Prediction by Estimating QoT Model Input Parameters

期刊

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TNSM.2021.3077543

关键词

Signal to noise ratio; Degradation; Location awareness; Object recognition; Analytical models; Optical filters; Optical fiber networks; Soft-Failure Identification and Localization; Network Automation

资金

  1. AEI/FEDER through the TWINS project [TEC2017-90097-R]
  2. ICREA institution

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study proposes a method of comparing QoT in optical devices to predict device failures by estimating the differences between estimated and measured values, achieving accurate detection and localization, and effectively identifying issues before degradation occurs.
The performance of optical devices can degrade because of aging and external causes like, for example, temperature variations. Such degradation might start with a low impact on the Quality of Transmission (QoT) of the supported lightpaths (soft-failure). However, it can degenerate into a hard-failure if the device itself is not repaired or replaced, or if an external cause responsible for the degradation is not properly addressed. In this work, we propose comparing the QoT measured in the transponders with the one estimated using a QoT tool. Those deviations can be explained by changes in the value of input parameters of the QoT model representing the optical devices, like noise figure in optical amplifiers and reduced Optical Signal to Noise Ratio in the Wavelength Selective Switches. By applying reverse engineering, the value of those modeling parameters can be estimated as a function of the observed QoT of the lightpaths. Experiments reveal high accuracy estimation of modeling parameters, and results obtained by simulation show large anticipation of soft-failure detection and localization, as well as accurate identification of degradations before they have a major impact on the network.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据