AI 中文总结
研究混合空芯/单模光纤网络中路由权衡，用通用模拟器比较六种路由方案，通过特定模型得出不同方案在过渡次数、吞吐量及成本上的表现，支持BD-TPAR为碎片化部署默认方案，GMR-T为低复杂度替代，高过渡成本时选TPAR或GFJ。
AI 中文摘要
在单模光纤（SMF）网络中逐步部署空芯光纤（HCF）会带来路由权衡：减少HCF-SMF过渡可提高物理层可行性，但过度规避过渡的路由会导致有害的路径迂回。我们使用通用事件驱动模拟器研究此权衡，该模拟器比较了六种受保护的路由方案，涵盖光纤盲、广义信噪比（GSNR）感知和明确的过渡感知设计，应用于混合HCF/SMF拓扑。模型包括每个过渡的GSNR惩罚和探索性拼接失败可用性项。在六个参考拓扑、五个HCF部署分数和300爱尔兰的动态负载下，最强的过渡最小化器，即过渡惩罚感知路由（TPAR）和GSNR/光纤过渡联合方案（GFJ），在承载流量惩罚20-25%的情况下，将平均过渡次数减半。在中间设计中，具有过渡感知重新排序的GSNR最大路由（GMR-T）相对于距离自适应路由和频谱分配（DA-RSA），以3%的吞吐量成本将过渡减少约22%，而有界迂回TPAR（BD-TPAR）仅以1%的成本将过渡减少约11%。部署模式也很重要：连续的HCF推出平均可将过渡减少约40%，同时提高承载流量，降低积极的过渡感知路由的好处。这些结果支持BD-TPAR作为碎片化部署下的实际默认方案，GMR-T作为低复杂度替代方案，而TPAR或GFJ仅在过渡的外部成本较高时使用。
英文摘要
Incremental deployment of hollow-core fiber (HCF) in single-mode-fiber (SMF) networks introduces a routing tradeoff: reducing HCF-SMF transitions can improve physical-layer feasibility, but overly transition-averse routing incurs harmful path detours. We study this tradeoff using a common event-driven simulator that compares six protected routing schemes spanning fiber-blind, generalized signal-to-noise ratio (GSNR)-aware, and explicitly transition-aware designs on hybrid HCF/SMF topologies. The model includes a per-transition GSNR penalty and an exploratory splice-failure availability term. Across six reference topologies, five HCF deployment fractions, and dynamic loads at 300 Erlang, the strongest transition minimizers, transition-penalty-aware routing (TPAR) and the GSNR/fiber-transition joint scheme (GFJ), halve the mean transition count at a 20-25% carried-traffic penalty. Among the intermediate designs, GSNR- maximal routing with transition-aware reranking (GMR-T) cuts transitions by approximately 22% relative to distance-adaptive routing and spectrum assignment (DA-RSA) at a 3% throughput cost, while bounded-detour TPAR (BD-TPAR) cuts transitions by approximately 11% at only a 1% cost. Deployment pattern also matters: contiguous HCF rollout lowers transitions by approximately 40% on average while improving carried traffic, reducing the benefit of aggressive transition-aware routing. These results support BD-TPAR as a practical default under fragmented deployment, GMR-T as a lower-complexity alternative, and TPAR or GFJ only where the external cost of transitions is high.
