Abstract
The architectures of two small switching networks are compared as potential implementations of a 4 × 4 photonic switching module. Such a module would be made by interconnecting several 2 × 2 photonic directional couplers on a single LiNbO 3 substrate. While both networks are rearrangeably nonblocking, we investigate whether one network requires significantly more rearrangements than the other. The analysis includes transient, Monte Carlo simulation, and Markov steady-state techniques. We conclude that the traffic capabilities of the two structures are not significantly different, and that selection of an architecture can be based on other criteria, like loss, crosstalk, or ease of manufacture.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
