Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data.

Geir Hallingstad

dblp:40/5170 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 1997
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Computer networks · 1

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Computer networks
1 paper
Network performance modeling · 46% Optical networks · 23% Wireless networking · 23%

Topics — the 4 heaviest of 5, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Wireless networking › cognitive radio › spectrum access
channel sharing
0.011997
Channel sharing in multi-hop WDM lightwave networks do we need more channels? · IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw. 1997
Network performance modeling
queueing analysis
0.011997
Channel sharing in multi-hop WDM lightwave networks do we need more channels? · IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw. 1997
Network performance modeling
stability analysis
0.011997
Channel sharing in multi-hop WDM lightwave networks do we need more channels? · IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw. 1997
Optical networks
wavelength-division multiplexing
0.011997
Channel sharing in multi-hop WDM lightwave networks do we need more channels? · IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw. 1997

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

queueing model · 0.0analytical model · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
1997 Channel sharing in multi-hop WDM lightwave networks do we need more channels?
abstract
A local lightwave network can be constructed by employing two-way fibers to connect nodes in a passive-star physical topology, and the available optical bandwidth may be accessed by the nodal transmitters and receivers at electronic rates using wavelength-division multiplexing (WDM). The number of WDM channels, w, in such a network is technology-limited and is less than the number of network nodes, N, especially if the network should support a scalable number of nodes. We describe a general and practical channel sharing method, which requires each node to be equipped with only one transmitter-receiver pair, and in which each WDM channel is shared in a time-division multiplexed fashion; optical fiber LANs are discussed in particular. We also develop a general model for analyzing such a shared-channel, multi-hop, WDM network. Our analysis yields a counterintuitive result: it is sometimes better to employ fewer channels than a larger number of channels. We explore bounds on the ranges of w which admit queueing stability-using too few or too many channels can lead to instability. We also obtain an estimate for the optimal number of channels that minimizes network-wide queueing delay.
Srini B. Tridandapani, Biswanath Mukherjee, Geir Hallingstad
IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw.3