A Distance-Weighted Dynamic Bandwidth Allocation Algorithm for Improved Performance in Long-Reach Passive Optical Networks for Next Generation Networks

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors propose a distance-weighted bandwidth allocation algorithm for multi-wavelength LRPONs, which utilizes a scheduling policy that assigns weight vectors to ONUs based on their distance from the OLT.

The paper's structure and writing style are well done, making it accessible to readers. However, it would be beneficial to highlight the specific strengths and contributions of the proposed algorithm compared to existing methods at the end of the related work section. This will help emphasize the novelty of the proposed approach and its significance in the field.

Figure 3.1 introduces the concept of the contention zone, but the text lacks a clear explanation of this term. The authors should provide a definition or explanation in the text to aid readers' understanding.

A comparison table between the proposed algorithm (DWDBA) and other existing methods (IPACT, NASC) is essential to understand the advantages of the proposed solution. Additionally, including a comparison with a widely used algorithm like distributed DBA would enhance the evaluation of the proposed approach.

The mention of "6G" in the conclusion raises questions about its relevance and how the proposed algorithm can optimize performance in such a scenario. The authors should provide a justification or discussion regarding this term's inclusion in the context of the paper's contributions and potential future applications.

The readability of result figures is crucial for the paper's overall impact. The authors should ensure that the figures are clear, properly labeled, and adequately sized to convey the presented data effectively. 

The manuscript is well written, with no major English issue

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

1. It will be beneficial for readers to support explanations and background descriptions in Section 1 with the corresponding Figure(s).

2. Quality of all figures is really poor, please use vector images for all images. Additionally:
- Fig. 3.1, looks like it is originated from some other work, if so, that work should be cited,
- all figures in Section 4 are hardly readable, despite the quality, fonts are too small and it is really challenging to get familiar with the results. 

3. The related work is very detailed and mentioned a lot of works. It is obviously an advantage, however, it is suggested to summarize the finding and conclusions in the table that compares all of the works in the field with this paper.

4. It is highly suggested toclearly present the differences between DWDBA and IPACT.

5. The proposed algorithm is evaluated under different scenarios. Each scenario is analyzed separately. Some observations are provided for them and reasonable conclusions are drawn. However, what is missing is a rational to perform evaluation under specifically this scenarios and to explain how results in different scenarios differ, and (what is the most important) why do they differ. 

1. Page 3, line 114, there is a type nearby "[16]"

2. Page 3, line 131, after ":" word "We" should be written without capital letter.

3. This sentence "of distance (thus not penalizing the farthest ONUs)..." is not clear (p. 6, line 267).

4. Page 11, line 423, "Error! Reference source not found.3.3"

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper deals with a novel type of optical access networks based on the PON concept. The authors present an original algorithm on resource allocation (here: queue lengths, optical channels and wavelengths). The resulting throughput parameters are then improved. The paper is well written and readable and it shows a publishable step ahead in comparison the the existing literature. 

1. Interesting topic.

2. Well covered useful results.

Small polishing is necessary. Sometimes blank spaces are lost. "internet" should be changed to "Internet".

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx