## 5 Results
### Comparison of Algorithms
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Network** & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**US26**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Euro28**} \\ \hline
**Number of TRX** & **10,000** & **15,000** & **20,000** & **10,000** & **15,000** & **20,000** \\ \hline UNI & 2.6 & 3 & 4.2 & 2.2 & 3.6 & 4.8 \\ ND & 4.8 & 5 & 4.4 & 5 & 5 & 4 \\ RO & 7 & 7 & 7 & 7 & 7 & 7 \\ CONF & 6 & 6 & 6 & 6 & 6 & 5.4 \\ COMB & 2.8 & 2.6 & 3.2 & 3.2 & 2.8 & 3.8 \\ MSU & 3.8 & 3.4 & 2.2 & 3.6 & 2.6 & 2 \\ SAUR & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Average ranking of algorithms for various number of transponders. Moreover, in Tables 4 and 5, we can see that the largest gaps between SAUR and other methods was obtained for the traffic profile E which again follows from the highest diversity of this traffic profile. Finally, the comparison of the tested network topologies shows that the gaps between SAUR and other methods were larger for the US26 network. This is due to the fact that US26 had on average larger distances between node pairs. In consequence, appropriate placement of transponders can provide \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**TP**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Accepted Traffic (NTUs)**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Distance to SAUR**} \\  & **UNI** & **COMB** & **MSU** & **SAUR** & **UNI** & **COMB** & **MSU** \\ \hline \multicolumn{7}{c}{10,000 transponders} \\ \hline A & 1149 & 1178 & 927 & 1235 & 6.9\% & 4.6\% & 24.9\% \\ B & 1310 & 1322 & 1076 & 1364 & 4.0\% & 3.1\% & 21.2\% \\ C & 1429 & 1428 & 1242 & 1482 & 3.6\% & 3.7\% & 16.2\% \\ D & 1072 & 1041 & 968 & 1258 & 14.8\% & 17.2\% & 23.0\% \\ E & 744 & 732 & 968 & 1230 & 39.6\% & 40.5\% & 21.3\% \\ \hline \multicolumn{7}{c}{15,000 transponders} \\ \hline A & 1411 & 1451 & 1412 & 1559 & 9.6\% & 6.9\% & 9.5\% \\ B & 1738 & 1791 & 1715 & 1910 & 9.0\% & 6.3\% & 10.2\% \\ C & 2081 & 2158 & 1989 & 2226 & 6.5\% & 3.1\% & 10.7\% \\ D & 1636 & 1601 & 1517 & 1824 & 10.3\% & 12.2\% & 16.8\% \\ E & 1176 & 1165 & 1533 & 1875 & 37.3\% & 37.9\% & 18.2\% \\ \hline \multicolumn{7}{c}{20,000 transponders} \\ \hline A & 1511 & 1541 & 1585 & 1616 & 6.5\% & 4.7\% & 1.9\% \\ B & 1914 & 1941 & 1973 & 2006 & 4.6\% & 3.2\% & 1.7\% \\ C & 2418 & 2479 & 2487 & 2499 & 3.2\% & 0.8\% & 0.5\% \\ D & 1908 & 1926 & 1921 & 1951 & 2.2\% & 1.3\% & 1.6\% \\ E & 1613 & 1610 & 2088 & 2211 & 27.1\% & 27.2\% & 5.6\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Comparison of algorithms for various number of transponders and traffic profiles, US26 network in terms of the accepted traffic expressed in NTUs (network traffic units). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**TP**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Accepted Traffic [NTUs]**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Distance to SAUR**} \\  & **UNI** & **COMB** & **MSU** & **SAUR** & **UNI** & **COMB** & **MSU** \\ \hline \multicolumn{7}{c}{10,000 transponders} \\ \hline A & 1319 & 1293 & 1075 & 1347 & 2.1\% & 4.0\% & 20.2\% \\ B & 1419 & 1377 & 1176 & 1436 & 1.2\% & 4.1\% & 18.1\% \\ C & 1476 & 1429 & 1222 & 1491 & 1.0\% & 4.2\% & 18.0\% \\ D & 1280 & 1180 & 1129 & 1371 & 6.7\% & 14.0\% & 17.7\% \\ E & 1017 & 910 & 1082 & 1377 & 26.1\% & 33.9\% & 21.4\% \\ \hline \multicolumn{7}{c}{15,000 transponders} \\ \hline A & 1500 & 1513 & 1526 & 1554 & 3.5\% & 2.6\% & 1.8\% \\ B & 1700 & 1756 & 1749 & 1807 & 5.9\% & 2.8\% & 3.2\% \\ C & 1994 & 2068 & 1917 & 2108 & 5.4\% & 1.9\% & 9.1\% \\ D & 1648 & 1678 & 1709 & 1780 & 7.4\% & 5.7\% & 4.0\% \\ E & 1619 & 1442 & 1754 & 1961 & 17.4\% & 26.4\% & 10.5\% \\ \hline \multicolumn{7}{c}{20,000 transponders} \\ \hline A & 1519 & 1540 & 1567 & 1598 & 4.9\% & 3.6\% & 1.9\% \\ B & 1797 & 1806 & 1874 & 1880 & 4.4\% & 3.9\% & 0.3\% \\ C & 2216 & 2248 & 2272 & 2332 & 5.0 & 3.6\% & 2.6\% \\ D & 1767 & 1792 & 1822 & 1834 & 3.6\% & 2.3 more benefits by allowing the regeneration in some network nodes which enables using more effective modulation formats than BPSK which allows to reduce the spectrum usage.