{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02857142857142857, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.5245098039215685, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Multi-domain ASON/GMPLS network operation: current status and future evolution

This paper describes clarifications and comparisons of routing models for multi-domain optical networks as well as the current status and future perspective for ASON/GMPLS technologies. The three routing models, the per-domain routing, the ASON hierarchical routing, and the PCE-based routing, have been being standardized for the ASON/GMPLS multi-domain networks. In this paper, we compare these three routing models in terms of path computation capabilities, on-line multiple path planning capability and inter-domain confidentiality. According to our analyses, the PCE-based routing and the ASON hierarchical routing models have rich path computation capabilities enough for multi-domain ASON/GMPLS network operation, while the per-domain routing does not provide much capabilities. One of the significant issues left for the ASON hierarchical routing model is an appropriate abstraction mechanism which strongly affects the path computation capabilities and inter-domain confidentiality. In addition to the sufficient path computation capabilities, the PCE-based routing model offers the on-line bulk optimization for multiple requests. Therefore, we concluded that the PCE-based routing is the most suitable for multi-domain ASON/GMPLS networks.