Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 33 references

Automatic Configuration Protocols for Optical Quantum Networks

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that automatic configuration protocols can identify physical channels in optical quantum networks using only light on/off control and classical messages.

desk verdict A practical, honest protocol roadmap for automating quantum testbed wiring, with the TDC half solid and the switch-discovery half underspecified where it matters. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.19613 v2 pith:IIQUQH3F submitted 2025-04-28 quant-ph cs.NI

Amin Taherkhani , Andrew Todd , Kentaro Teramoto , Rodney Van Meter , Shota Nagayama This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcs.NI PACS 03.67.Hk42.79.Sz
keywords quantumnetworkconfigurationchanneldiscoverytime-to-digitalconverterSNSPDopticalswitchtopologypublish-subscribeprotocoladdressresolution
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Quantum networking testbeds are still wired and labeled by hand: single-photon detectors are bundled into shared cryostats and time-to-digital converters, and optical switches pass light without knowing what is attached to them. This paper proposes two families of protocols that automate this layer of configuration. The first identifies which TDC input channel belongs to which measurement or Bell-state analyzer node, using serial or parallel light-on identification coordinated by a classical TDC service. The second identifies which nodes sit at the other end of each optical switch port, either by pulsing light with randomized timing and matching events over a publish-subscribe bus, or by encoding a unique optical pattern that sinks decode and resolve through a pattern lookup table. If the protocols work, a testbed can move from an unconfigured wiring state to a fully labeled neighbor table without manual tracing, which is a prerequisite for topology discovery, link monitoring, resource naming, and routing.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is endpoint light monitoring plus classical coordination: every channel is identified by correlating the controlled appearance of light at a source output port with its detection at a sink input port, without attributing any quantum state to the light. For node-to-TDC configuration, the machinery is the TDC service API with ID_REQ, ID_START, ID_RETRY, ID_COMPLETE, ID_LOOKUP, and ID_STATUS messages, together with a state machine that maps unconfigured channels to nodes. For node-to-node channels, the paper offers two mechanisms: a single on-off pulse coding scheme in which nodes publish activation times and durations to a "channel/active" topic, listeners publish detections to "channel/detect", and matching events with conflict-driven backoff produce candidate lists; and a pattern-encoding scheme in which each output port is assigned an optical PATTERN analogous to a MAC address, announced into a lookup table, and decoded by sinks to resolve NODE_ID and PORT_ID, analogous to reverse address resolution.

What would settle it

Run either node-to-TDC algorithm on a real testbed with known wiring: record which physical fiber connects each detector to which TDC port, start from the unconfigured state, and compare the resulting NODE_ID-to-CHAN_ID map against the recorded wiring. The central claim falls if the protocol reports CONFIGURED with a mismatched map, or if it never terminates when one node is dark.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the correspondence between physical channels and network nodes in an optical quantum testbed does not have to be established by hand. A TDC service that knows the number of attached nodes and their pre-registered NODE_IDs can learn which of its channels serves which detector by letting each node turn light on, either one at a time or according to a unique 8-bit on/off pattern, and watching which unconfigured channel lights up. For inter-node channels, the paper claims that a network of sources, switches, and detectors can discover all active channels incrementally: sources announce and emit pulses with randomized start times and durations, sinks report what they detect, and nodes correlate announcements with detections to build candidate lists and verify links; alternatively, a source can encode a unique pattern in its light and a sink can decode it and look up the source's NODE_ID in an optical address table. Once source-side ports are resolved, light with known provenance can be forwarded through switches to expose the next layer of channels, until every port's neighbor is recorded. The protocols require no wavelength-specific hardware and only presence-or-absence light monitoring, not interference or tomography.

Load-bearing premise

The protocols assume that at the start some service already knows how many nodes are attached and holds a pre-registered identifier for each one; if that registry is missing, the process has no way to know when it is done or to distinguish an absent node from a failed identification.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A testbed can transition from raw, unlabeled fiber to a source-of-truth neighbor table without any manual tracing or physical inspection of ports.
  • The parallel TDC algorithm's runtime scales roughly logarithmically in detector count, so shared-detector pools with hundreds of channels remain configurable quickly.
  • The pattern-encoding scheme gives optical quantum networks an ARP-like primitive: a physical optical pattern acts as a hardware address, and a lookup table resolves it to a node identity.
  • With channel maps in place, higher-layer services such as quantum topology discovery, link quality monitoring, and routing can treat physical connectivity as known input rather than a manual assumption.
  • The protocols are wavelength-agnostic and work for free-space or fiber channels as long as sources can be turned on and off and endpoints can sense light, which broadens their applicability across testbed hardware.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A natural next step, not developed in the paper, is to remove the pre-registration requirement and let the TDC assign NODE_IDs dynamically, turning the discovery protocol into a true plug-and-play process.
  • The same presence/absence monitoring could double as a continuous link-integrity check after configuration: unexpected light on a dark channel, or absence on a lit one, would flag a broken or swapped fiber.
  • Because the mechanism does not rely on quantum properties, it likely transfers to classical all-optical networks with passive switches, where the pub/sub matching protocol could replace manual patch-panel documentation.
  • The conflict-backoff rules in the pub/sub scheme suggest a testable prediction: discovery time depends on the probability that two sources choose overlapping activation windows, so the protocol's average-case behavior could be modeled as a classical contention problem.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper addresses the practical problem of manually configured optical quantum network testbeds. It proposes two sets of automatic configuration protocols. The first set (Section IV) associates single-photon detectors with their network nodes via a TDC service, using either serial identification, where one node turns on at a time, or parallel identification, where nodes transmit distinct on/off light patterns. The second set (Section V) addresses node-to-node channel discovery: a single-pulse pub/sub protocol that correlates activation and detection events through a classical message bus, and a pattern-decoding protocol that uses unique optical patterns resolved through a lookup table. The paper presents pseudocode (Algorithms 1-3), message semantics, assumptions, and a qualitative and quantitative evaluation (Figures 6-7, Table II). It is framed as a roadmap for near-term testbed implementation rather than an experimental demonstration.

Significance. If the protocols operate as claimed, they would fill a genuine practical gap: eliminating manual fiber tracing and enabling automated neighbor discovery in near-term quantum testbeds. The paper is honest about its assumptions and does not fit data or tune free parameters to make the protocols look good; the error rates and timing parameters in the evaluation are scenario inputs. The main significance is conditional, however, on the correctness of the channel-matching and verification steps in the pub/sub protocol, which are currently underspecified. The pattern-decoding approach is more concrete, and the protocol suite as a whole is a plausible starting point for implementation, but it is not yet a complete, machine-checkable specification.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section V.A, Algorithms 1 and 2] The correctness of the channel-discovery claim depends entirely on the operations extract(filter(m)) and verify(candidate), but these operations are never defined. The text says nodes 'filter out unrelated events' and 'verify connectivity' after constructing a candidate list, but no concrete filtering rule or verification handshake is given. In particular, when two activation pulses have the same duration and overlapping time windows, or when a switch produces a coincidental duration match, the described candidate-list construction gives no criterion that guarantees the true peer remains in the list and no false peer is selected. Please define these subroutines and prove that the matching phase identifies the unique peer under the stated assumptions.
  2. [Section V.A, Algorithm 2] The port activation process has no termination or correctness proof. Activation times and durations are chosen randomly, and the conflict reactions described in the text (increasing D_i, doubling the parameters, setting activation to a maximum, and resuming after a timeout) are not reflected in the pseudocode. It is not shown that the while loop over unconfigured output ports terminates with all ports correctly configured, nor that the protocol cannot label a channel incorrectly when it does terminate. Since the protocol is intended to replace manual configuration, the paper should either prove termination with probability one, provide a deterministic fallback, or state an explicit stopping condition that can be evaluated by the nodes.
  3. [Section V.A.2, Message Semantics] The conflict-resolution rules given in the prose are not present in Algorithm 2. The text states that a node increases its activation and duration parameters when it sees two published messages with the same duration, doubles them when two published messages have the same detection time and duration, and halts activation during a verification conflict by setting its activation time to the maximum value; Algorithm 2 contains none of these actions. This mismatch makes it impossible to determine whether the pseudocode is a complete specification of the proposed protocol. Please align the algorithm with the described conflict handling, or explicitly state that the text describes an intended enhancement not captured by the current algorithm.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section VI, Fig. 6] The plot lacks axis labels. The x-axis appears to be the number of detectors and the y-axis the runtime in units of t_act, but this should be stated explicitly in the caption, along with a description of how the bit-level error rates are converted to identification failure probabilities.
  2. [Section VI, Fig. 7] The caption does not describe the simulation or estimation method for the 'average identified channels per step,' and no error bars or number of trials are provided. Please add this information so the reader can assess the variance of the reported averages.
  3. [Section IV.B] The description of the header '0111111110' followed by an 8-bit payload needs clarification on how a receiver identifies the start of the header when the pattern is repeated, and how the reserved value 255 is encoded. A bit-stuffing or explicit start-delimiter rule would remove ambiguity.
  4. [Sections IV.A and IV.E] The protocol assumes the TDC service knows the number of attached nodes and their pre-registered NODE_IDs. Please state how this registry is populated and what happens when the observed number of light-carrying channels is inconsistent with the expected node count.
  5. [References] References [10] and [20] are duplicate citations of the same Krutyanskiy et al. paper; please consolidate.
  6. [Section V.B, Algorithm 3] Algorithm 3 uses informal constructs such as 'Reserve a light source' and does not specify timeout or retry behavior for the confirmation handshake. Please specify the exact message sequence and failure handling for the pattern-decoding approach.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the protocols are constructive and the evaluation uses stated models, not fitted inputs or self-citation chains.

full rationale

The derivation chain is constructive rather than circular. For node-to-TDC configuration, the serial protocol's identification step ("the TDC service is able to identify which channel the node is connected to by simply looking for an unconfigured channel that has light arriving to it") is a concrete protocol action under the stated assumption that each requesting node is connected to exactly one unconfigured channel; it is not a parameter fitted from the desired output. The parallel protocol assigns distinct light patterns and detects them on channels; the runtime estimate (rt(2ceil(log2(d+1))+2)) is a stated formula, not a result tuned to match an outcome. For node-to-node discovery, the matching phase is admittedly underspecified: Algorithm 1 uses 'extract(filter(m))' and 'verify(candidate)' without defining them, and Algorithm 2's conflict handling lacks a convergence proof. This is a correctness/completeness gap, not circularity, because no equation makes the conclusion identical to an input by construction. The paper's self-citations ([12], [14], [33], [35], [36]) are used for background, taxonomy, timing considerations, or evaluation topologies; none is invoked as a uniqueness theorem or as the sole justification of a central claim. The paper also explicitly discloses its preconditions, e.g., Section IV.E: "the design already presupposes that the TDC is aware of exactly how many nodes are connected to it." No fitted-input-called-prediction, self-definitional, or ansatz-smuggling pattern is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The ledger is small: the paper introduces no new physical entities and fits no constants. It rests on standard domain assumptions about testbed hardware capabilities such as controllable light sources, light-sensing ports, and pre-registered node IDs, plus trusted operation.

free parameters (3)
  • Pattern repetition count r (parallel TDC protocol)
    Appears in the parallel runtime formula rt(2⌈log2(d+1)⌉+2); the paper does not fix r, treating it as a protocol knob.
  • Bit duration t (parallel TDC protocol)
    Defined as the time to represent each bit; a hardware-dependent input to the runtime estimate.
  • Error rates in Fig. 6 simulations = 0.0005% to 5%
    Chosen by hand to illustrate sensitivity of serial versus parallel runtime; not fitted to measurements.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Each node knows its own port configuration (input/output) before discovery runs.
    Assumption 3 in Section III-A; the protocols only detect connectivity, not port roles.
  • domain assumption The TDC service knows in advance how many nodes are connected and their NODE_IDs; IDs are pre-registered.
    Section IV states the service 'knows how many network nodes are connected to it' and IDs are 'pre-registered'; without this, the configured-state termination condition is undefined.
  • domain assumption Before reaching configured state, every D-type and T-type input port can measure incoming light, or a switch has a single auxiliary detector on an output port.
    Section V assumes input ports can monitor light; the relaxation to auxiliary sensors is described but changes serial behavior.
  • domain assumption All nodes in the network are trusted and an operator is on-site to troubleshoot.
    Section IV-E acknowledges the design presupposes trusted nodes and an available operator.
  • domain assumption Memoryless optical quantum networks with one-way light flow.
    Assumptions 1 and 3 in Section III-A; the protocols target flying-qubit, unidirectional channels.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Automatic Configuration Protocols for Optical Quantum Networks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IIQUQH3F

@misc{pith2026250419613,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Automatic Configuration Protocols for Optical Quantum Networks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IIQUQH3F}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.19613}
}
read the original abstract

Before quantum networks can scale up to practical sizes, there are many deployment and configuration tasks that must be automated. Currently, quantum networking testbeds are largely manually configured: network nodes are constructed out of a combination of free-space and fiber optics before being connected to shared single-photon detectors, time-to-digital converters, and optical switches. Information about these connections must be tracked manually; mislabeling may result in experimental failure and protracted debugging sessions. In this paper, we propose protocols and algorithms to automate two such manual processes. First, we address the problem of automatically identifying connections between quantum network nodes and time-to-digital converters. Then, we turn to the more complex challenge of identifying the nodes attached to a quantum network's optical switches. Implementation of these protocols will help enable the development of other protocols necessary for quantum networks, such as network topology discovery, link quality monitoring, resource naming, and routing. We intend for this paper to serve as a roadmap for near-term implementation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.19613 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) A high level logical quantum network diagram in a photonic synchronization domain (PSD) showing MEAS, EPPS, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Quantum Network Discovery Flow. The highlighted [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) A flow for parallel identification of detector [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The pub/sub-based protocol for identifying inter-node [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Instead of a light sensor at every input port of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Average number of channels identified at each step of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The estimated runtime (scale tact) of node to TDC protocols given different geometrically distributed bit-level error rates, up to 256 detectors. However, for the parallel protocol, higher error rates quickly erase the protocol’s lograrithmic advantage. For the evaluat…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Van Meter, Quantum Networking

    R. Van Meter, Quantum Networking . John Wiley & Sons, 2014, doi:10.1002/9781118648919

    doi:10.1002/9781118648919 2014

  2. [2]

    Architecture of a quantum multicomputer opti- mized for Shor’s factoring algorithm,

    R. D. Van Meter III, “Architecture of a quantum multicomputer opti- mized for Shor’s factoring algorithm,” Ph.D. dissertation, Keio Univer- sity, 2006, doi:10.48550/arXiv.quant-ph/0607065

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.quant-ph/0607065 2006

  3. [3]

    Review of distributed quantum computing: From single QPU to high performance quantum computing,

    D. Barral et al. , “Review of distributed quantum computing: From single QPU to high performance quantum computing,” Computer Science Review , vol. 57, p. 100747, 2025, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosrev.2025.100747

    arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    Universal blind quantum computation,

    A. Broadbent, J. Fitzsimons, and E. Kashefi, “Universal blind quantum computation,” in 2009 50th annual IEEE symposium on foundations of computer science . IEEE, 2009, pp. 517–526, doi:10.1109/FOCS.2009.36

    doi:10.1109/focs.2009.36 2009

  5. [5]

    Large-scale modular quantum-computer architecture with atomic memory and photonic interconnects,

    C. Monroe, R. Raussendorf, A. Ruthven, K. R. Brown, P. Maunz, L.-M. Duan, and J. Kim, “Large-scale modular quantum-computer architecture with atomic memory and photonic interconnects,” Phys. Rev. A, vol. 89, p. 022317, Feb 2014, doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.89.022317

    doi:10.1103/physreva.89.022317 2014

  6. [6]

    An optical interconnect for modular quantum computers,

    D. Sakuma et al. , “An optical interconnect for modular quantum computers,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.09299 , 2024, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2412.09299

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.09299 2024

  7. [7]

    Architectural Principles for a Quantum Internet,

    W. Kozlowski, S. Wehner, R. Van Meter, B. Rijsman, A. S. Cacciapuoti, M. Caleffi, and S. Nagayama, “Architectural Principles for a Quantum Internet,” RFC 9340, Mar. 2023, doi:10.17487/RFC9340

    doi:10.17487/rfc9340 2023

  8. [8]

    Realization of a multinode quantum network of remote solid-state qubits,

    M. Pompili et al. , “Realization of a multinode quantum network of remote solid-state qubits,” Science, vol. 372, no. 6539, pp. 259–264, 2021, doi:10.1126/science.abg1919

    doi:10.1126/science.abg1919 2021

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

    Advanced architectures for high-performance quantum networking,

    M. Alshowkan, P. G. Evans, B. P. Williams, N. S. V . Rao, C. E. Marvinney, Y .-Y . Pai, B. J. Lawrie, N. A. Peters, and J. M. Lukens, “Advanced architectures for high-performance quantum networking,” J. Opt. Commun. Netw. , vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 493–499, Jun 2022, doi:10.1364/JO...

    2022 doi

  2. [13]

    Quantum certification and benchmark- ing,

    J. Eisert, D. Hangleiter, N. Walk, I. Roth, D. Markham, R. Parekh, U. Chabaud, and E. Kashefi, “Quantum certification and benchmark- ing,” Nature Reviews Physics , vol. 2, no. 7, pp. 382–390, 2020, doi:10.1038/s42254-020-0186-4

    2020 doi

  3. [14]

    A quantum Internet architecture,

    R. Van Meter, R. Satoh, N. Benchasattabuse, K. Teramoto, T. Matsuo, M. Hajdu ˇsek, T. Satoh, S. Nagayama, and S. Suzuki, “A quantum Internet architecture,” in 2022 IEEE International Conference on Quan- tum Computing and Engineering (QCE) . IEEE, 2022, pp. 341–352, doi:10.1109...

    2022

  4. [15]

    High-efficiency, high-count-rate 2D super- conducting nanowire single-photon detector array,

    F. Fleming et al. , “High-efficiency, high-count-rate 2D super- conducting nanowire single-photon detector array,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.07357, 2025, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2501.07357

    2025 doi arXiv

  5. [16]

    A superconducting nanowire single- photon camera with 400,000 pixels,

    B. G. Oripov, D. S. Rampini, J. Allmaras, M. D. Shaw, S. W. Nam, B. Korzh, and A. N. McCaughan, “A superconducting nanowire single- photon camera with 400,000 pixels,” Nature, vol. 622, no. 7984, pp. 730–734, 2023, doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06550-2

    2023 doi

  6. [17]

    Teleporting an unknown quantum state via dual classical and einstein-podolsky-rosen channels,

    C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, C. Cr ´epeau, R. Jozsa, A. Peres, and W. K. Wootters, “Teleporting an unknown quantum state via dual classical and einstein-podolsky-rosen channels,” Phys. Rev. Lett. , vol. 70, pp. 1895–1899, Mar 1993, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.70.1895

    1993 doi

  7. [18]

    Experimental quantum teleportation,

    D. Bouwmeester, J.-W. Pan, K. Mattle, M. Eibl, H. Weinfurter, and A. Zeilinger, “Experimental quantum teleportation,” Nature, vol. 390, no. 6660, pp. 575–579, 1997, doi:10.1038/37539

    1997 doi

  8. [19]

    Entanglement-based quantum communication over 144 km,

    R. Ursin et al. , “Entanglement-based quantum communication over 144 km,” Nature physics , vol. 3, no. 7, pp. 481–486, 2007, doi:10.1038/nphys629

    2007 doi

  9. [20]

    Entanglement of trapped-ion qubits separated by 230 meters,

    V . Krutyanskiy et al., “Entanglement of trapped-ion qubits separated by 230 meters,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 130, no. 5, p. 050803, 2023, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.050803

    2023 doi

  10. [21]

    A link layer protocol for quantum networks,

    A. Dahlberg et al. , “A link layer protocol for quantum networks,” in Proceedings of the ACM special interest group on data communication . ACM, 2019, pp. 159–173, doi:10.1145/3341302.3342070

    2019

  11. [22]

    An operating system for executing applications on quantum network nodes,

    C. Delle Donne et al., “An operating system for executing applications on quantum network nodes,” Nature, vol. 639, no. 8054, pp. 321–328, 2025, doi:10.1038/s41586-025-08704-w

    2025 doi

  12. [23]

    A classical network pro- tocol to support distributed quantum state tomography,

    T. Oka, T. Satoh, and R. Van Meter, “A classical network pro- tocol to support distributed quantum state tomography,” in 2016 IEEE Globecom Workshops (GC Wkshps) . IEEE, 2016, pp. 1–6, doi:10.1109/GLOCOMW.2016.7848802

    2016

  13. [24]

    Quantum link bootstrapping using a ruleset-based communication protocol,

    T. Matsuo, C. Durand, and R. Van Meter, “Quantum link bootstrapping using a ruleset-based communication protocol,” Physical Review A, vol. 100, no. 5, p. 052320, 2019

    2019

  14. [25]

    IEEE 802.3 working group,

    “IEEE 802.3 working group,” IEEE, 04 2025, available at: https://www.ieee802.org/3/

    2025

  15. [26]

    An Ethernet Address Resolution Protocol: Or Converting Network Protocol Addresses to 48.bit Ethernet Address for Transmission on Ethernet Hardware,

    “An Ethernet Address Resolution Protocol: Or Converting Network Protocol Addresses to 48.bit Ethernet Address for Transmission on Ethernet Hardware,” RFC 826, Nov. 1982, doi:10.17487/RFC0826

    1982 doi

  16. [27]

    Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6),

    W. A. Simpson, D. T. Narten, E. Nordmark, and H. Soliman, “Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6),” RFC 4861, Sep. 2007, doi:10.17487/RFC4861

    2007 doi

  17. [28]

    IEEE standard for local and metropolitan area networks -station and media access control connectivity discovery,

    “IEEE standard for local and metropolitan area networks -station and media access control connectivity discovery,” IEEE, 2016, available at: https://standards.ieee.org/ieee/802.1AB/6047/

    2016

  18. [29]

    Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Constraint-based Routed Label Distribution Protocol (CR-LDP) Extensions,

    P. J. Ashwood-Smith and L. Berger, “Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Signaling Constraint-based Routed Label Distribution Protocol (CR-LDP) Extensions,” RFC 3472, Feb. 2003, doi:10.17487/RFC3472

    2003 doi

  19. [30]

    Label Switched Paths (LSP) Hierarchy with Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE),

    K. Kompella and Y . Rekhter, “Label Switched Paths (LSP) Hierarchy with Generalized Multi-Protocol Label Switching (GMPLS) Traffic Engineering (TE),” RFC 4206, Oct. 2005, doi:10.17487/RFC4206

    2005 doi

  20. [31]

    All SDN optical switches,

    “All SDN optical switches,” Available: https://www.polatis.com/, HUBER+SUHNER Polatis, (accessed: 18.11.2024)

    2024

  21. [32]

    Multicast DNS,

    S. Cheshire and M. Krochmal, “Multicast DNS,” RFC 6762, Feb. 2013, doi:10.17487/RFC6762

    2013 doi

  22. [33]

    An implementation and analysis of a practical quantum link architecture utilizing entangled photon sources,

    K. S. Soon, M. Hajdu ˇsek, S. Nagayama, N. Benchasattabuse, K. Ter- amoto, R. Satoh, and R. Van Meter, “An implementation and analysis of a practical quantum link architecture utilizing entangled photon sources,” in 2024 International Conference on Quantum Communica- tions, Ne...

    2024

  23. [34]

    Design and analysis of communication protocols for quantum repeater networks,

    C. Jones, D. Kim, M. T. Rakher, P. G. Kwiat, and T. D. Ladd, “Design and analysis of communication protocols for quantum repeater networks,” New Journal of Physics , vol. 18, no. 8, p. 083015, 2016, doi:10.1088/1367-2630/18/8/083015

    2016 doi

  24. [35]

    Timing regimes in quantum networks,

    M. Hajdu ˇsek, R. Van Meter, M. Tokuyama, A. Soeda, and S. Nagayama, “Timing regimes in quantum networks,” Available: https://github.com/moonshot-nagayama-pj/public-documents/blob/ main/timing-regimes/timing-regimes-in-quantum-networks.md, QITF/Nagayama Moonshot Project, March 2024

    2024

  25. [36]

    Optimal switching networks for paired-egress bell state analyzer pools,

    M. Koyama, C. Yun, A. Taherkhani, N. Benchasattabuse, B. O. Sane, M. Hajdu ˇsek, S. Nagayama, and R. V . Meter, “Optimal switching networks for paired-egress bell state analyzer pools,” in 2024 IEEE In- ternational Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE), vol. 01...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.