A Quantum Network Architecture

3.1. Goals

• To define the principal concepts in a quantum network, principally for quantum multicomputer interconnects but also data center and wide-area networks where possible.¶

• To enumerate some of the key architectural decisions for this architecture.¶

• To describe how device, link and node types are defined.¶

• To provide a guide to other documents.¶

3.2. Non-Goals

• Internetworking¶

7.1. Types of Applications

Applications fall into two large categories: inherently distributed applications, or subdivision of monolithic applications for distributed execution, as in supercomputing applications running on multicomputer architectures.¶

For a discussion of some inherently distributed applications of quantum networks, see [RFC9583]. This network architecture supports the applications listed in that RFC, though not all networks will support all applications.¶

7.2. Entangled States Consumption Patterns

(Adapted and extended from unpublished text in [van-meter-opt-timing].)¶

Distinct from the classification of quantum repeater generations by Muralidharan et al. [muralidharan-generations], one can categorize distributed quantum systems by how applications interface with the network; specifically, the timing at which network interface qubits are freed after attempting entangled state generation.¶

In the early days of quantum information research, Bennett et al. recognized [bennett-mixed] that the component qubits of an entangled state may be held at different times in different locations, termed time-separated Bell pairs. Based on this principle, we can describe the timeline of information availability between two nodes. This model assumes entangled states are requested dynamically during execution, rather than pre-caching entangled states　[schoute-shortcuts] for immediate consumption.¶

8.1. Quantum Devices

A quantum device stores, carries, measures or computes on quantum variables.¶

A quantum device (often shortened to just "device" in this specification) is under software control; i.e. optical fibers or beam splitters are not classified as quantum devices.¶

Control of devices is usually done with respect to some physical characteristic of the device itself, rather than dealing with the abstract notion of qubits. A controllable wave plate, for example, may be adjusted in units of degrees of rotation of the plate. An example of a software package that provides such functionality is PnPQ.¶

8.2. Quantum Nodes

A node comprises one or more quantum devices, and serves as a single locus of control for network protocols. The classes of nodes are described later in this document.¶

8.3. Quantum Links

Links are described in Section 17.¶

8.4. Photonic Synchronization Domains

A photonic synchronization domain (PSD) is the range of devices and fibers over which photons must be controlled with high precision in order to effect e.g. photonic entanglement swapping [mori-psds]. The primary concern of a PSD is getting photons to arrive at beamsplitters "simultaneously", with sufficient overlap, as specified in [I-D.draft-hajdusek-qirg-timing-physics].¶

8.5. Direct and Indirect Multicomputer Architectures

In multicomputer architectures, a direct architecture features links that go directly from computational node to computational node. Hypercubes, meshes and toruses are typically direct architectures. An indirect architecture interposes one or more switches between computational nodes. Fat trees, Clos and Benes networks, and the various -fly topologies are generally indirect [dally-towles].¶

The distinction is somewhat artificial in that direct architectures sometimes incorporate a small switch inside the node, in which case the matching term depends on where you draw the boundary of the node, and because computational nodes can be configured to act only as routers within the network, modeling an indirect architecture using direct hardware.¶

8.6. Detector-centric Architecture

Several detectors may be packaged as a single subsystem for purposes such as cooling, power, control and time stamping. An architecture built around a shared pool of detectors is a detector-centric architecture. This structure facilities entanglement distribution in a quantum system interconnect, data center network or some forms of local area network.¶

A detector-centric architecture is an indirect architecture if the pool of detectors is behind a switch or network of switches.¶

8.7. Source-centric Architecture

Many of the detector-centric network topologies can be inverted, such that the pool of detectors is replaced by a pool of entangled photon pair sources. The network then is used to distribute entanglement, with the photons measured, absorbed into memories, interfered with locally generated photons, or otherwise utilized at or near the end nodes. Such a network was proposed by Drost et al. [drost].¶

9.1. Multicomputer

The first deployment of production-level, distant quantum entanglement is likely to be in a quantum multicomputer, based on the same principles as classical distributed-memory supercomputers from the Caltech Cosmic Cube to Fugaku [rdv-thesis]. Multicomputer deployments will likely involve computational nodes, optical switches, Bell state analyzers, and possibly entangled photon pair sources (all defined below). Quantum repeaters with memory are less likely to be deployed in multicomputers, though one such architecture [choi-fat-tree] has been proposed. Because the current technology roadmaps favor this type of deployment, where design choices are in conflict or unclear, multicomputer designs are given priority over wide-area networks in this set of specifications.¶

The execution model is expected to be much like the classical supercomputing Message Passing Interface (MPI).¶

General hardware environment:¶

• A multicomputer consists of a set of quantum nodes that are connected via quantum optical channels. The system may be either a direct (point-to-point, end node-to-end node) or an indirect (switched) design.¶

• Every quantum node has a set of quantum devices and a classical controller.¶

• End nodes are generally computational nodes, but measurement-only, sensor, and specialized memory storage nodes may be included.¶

• End nodes are capable of running application programs as well as executing the minimum operations to build end-to-end entangled states.¶

• End nodes may be built using multi-level hardware interconnects; when gates between physically distant qubits are mediated by first creating shared entangled states, the creation of those entangled states is the responsibility of the network subsystem.¶

• Multicomputer interconnects are closed systems, with no need for cryptographic security mechanisms.¶

Many aspects of compilation and job execution are beyond the scope of this set of specifications, but some points will affect the network node definitions and interfaces, so it is important to present them here to establish a basis for design decisions:¶

• The general purpose of a multicomputer system is to execute application programs that exceed the capabilities of a single quantum node. The subdivision of the application into smaller quantum programs and the assignment of those sub-programs to nodes in the network is beyond the scope of this specification, and may be either automatically done by the compiler or manually done by the programmer.¶

• Programs are centrally compiled and distributed to nodes. (Note that, technically, this is different from classical MPI, where a command is sent to worker nodes, but the mapping of that command to an executable program and versioning and distribution of programs are outside the scope of MPI. It is, however, a convenient assumption and common practice to ensure the same program is executed at all worker nodes.)¶

• Execution is coordinated by a job controller: every node executes the same program, but with different parameters (e.g., which portion of the problem to work on).¶

• Applications consist of both classical computation and quantum computation; within a node, the classical portion of the program delegates certain computational tasks to the quantum processor (sometimes called a QPU), similar to a classical coprocessor such as a GPU.¶

• Classical data related to quantum operations (principally measurement results and event notifications that trigger further actions) is sent peer-to-peer, not back to the centralized controller, during execution.¶

• Within the runtime system, the interface between the (portion of the) application running at each node's classical controller is analogous to the interface between an application and the MPI messaging system or a socket in an ordinary Internet application. This quantum socket is an active area of research and is not defined here.¶

• The creation of sequences of end-to-end entangled states, roughly equivalent to TCP, is the responsibility of RuleSets, inspired by software-defined networking (SDN). A RuleSet can also be viewed as something like a Berkeley Packet Filter (BPF): it's a small program that handled actions that the application could do, but the application can't achieve the low, reliable latency to do it.¶

• In principle, all nodes are running the same program, distributed to all nodes. Since the compiled application circuits are often parameter- or input-dependent as well, separate nodes may have separate instances of the application. This may result in a small additional burden on the execution management system.¶

• In principle, the application and the communication system are separately compiled and managed. However, in practice the RuleSet may be compiled as part of the application by using a library of network functions. (As with classical parallel program runtime systems, the boundary between the application program, supplied libraries, and the kernel itself (if any) is implementation-dependent.)¶

• Compiling the network communication into the application program eliminates the need for separate program and RuleSet distribution protocols. However, the event messages that are part of the architecturally defined RuleSet operation are sent and received as usual, such that the behavior of the node is the same regardless of such implementation choices.¶

• Compilation and execution may achieve application goals via teledata, telegate or measurement of multiqubit Pauli operators transparently; the network is unaware of this distinction. Management of application-level variables and their movement from node to node, if any, is the responsibility of the compiler and is beyond the scope of this specification.¶

• The resources in a multicomputer may be partitioned to run multiple jobs [sane-jobs], but this is beyond the scope of the current specifications.¶

The realities of quantum hardware result in a few important differences from classical multicomputers:¶

• Multicomputer interconnects may be either optically switched or composed entirely of point-to-point links. In switched networks, depending on optical hardware as well as photonic qubit representation, reconfiguring the switch or switches may be an extremely high-latency operation.¶

• Application execution at end nodes proceeds in phases tied to specific communication patterns. Even with a fixed sequence of application-level operations, the execution time of a phase can be variable because entanglement generation is probabilistic. Local gates can also be probabilistic under some circumstances, but for many node hardware types, fast local gate execution means the impact of variable gate execution time will be small.¶

• In switched systems, reconfiguration of switches is centrally coordinated between phases. Thus, while classical data moves directly node-to-node during autonomous phase execution, advancing from phase to phase must be done at the direction of the job controller.¶

• Because execution is centrally coordinated, the network system is not required to provide multiplexing. (This is a substantial difference from data center networks, QLANs and QWANs.)¶

• The compiler may include multihop communication within a phase using hop-by-hop teleportation without reconfiguring any switches; this is beyond the scope of this architecture.¶

• Execution of the quantum portion of the node program generally involves hard real-time actions, both unconditional and conditioned on prior quantum measurement results. This generally requires compilation of the quantum program to very low-level actions to be executed by FPGAs or ASICs.¶

• Systems may be partially or completely emulated, decoupling development of different subsystems. e.g., an EPPS plus a MEAS together can emulate a COMP node that emits single photons.¶

• Systems may be noisy, intermediate-scale quantum (NISQ); near-term, small-scale fault tolerant; or fault-tolerant, application-scale quantum (FASQ).¶

• Quantum error correction is above the level of these specifications, but may involve distributed lattice surgery [ramette-remote], [leone-remote], or [sinclair-ft-interconnect].¶

9.2. Data Center Network (QDCN)

The hardware for quantum data center networks will be almost identical to multicomputers; the primary differences are in the workload, scheduling, programming model and assumptions of trust. Distributed control and protocols for multiplexing and connection setup may be necessary.¶

9.3. Local-Area Network (QLAN)

A QLAN will be deployed within a building or across a campus. It may connect quantum computers (including but not necessarily multicomputers) and sensors. A sensor, for example, may be connected to a computer with substantial memory for e.g. shadow tomography, learning from few measurements and related protocols.¶

A QLAN will have a less regular topology than a multicomputer or QDCN. Distance, latency, fidelity, and success probability will all vary on a per-link basis.¶

Distributed control and protocols for multiplexing and connection setup are necessary.¶

9.4. Wide-Area Network (QWAN)

Wide-area networks may involve client-server or peer-to-peer communication. One particular scenario of interest is a measurement-only (MEAS) client end node connecting to a centralized, supercomputer-scale quantum computer (perhaps, but not necessarily, a multicomputer) for the purposes of executing blind quantum computation [fitzsimons-blind], [morimae-blind].¶

QWAN client-server communication very likely will suffer from the "incast" problem of excessive traffic concentrating near certain nodes. Management of this problem is beyond the scope of this document.¶

10.1. Qubits

In this network architecture, we use only qubits, which may have two states identified as 0 and 1. Quantum information systems using qutrits, qudits, qunats or continuous variable (c.v.) quantum states are beyond the scope of the current set of specifications.¶

Qubits (also defined in RFC 9340) must conform to a sufficient subset of the DiVincenzo criteria [divincenzo-criteria].¶

10.2. Photons, Wave Packets and Optical Modes

Optical mode (link-layer view).¶

An optical mode is a well-defined slot of a physical link, specified by path, time window, frequency, polarization, or similar parameters, such that the receiver can be configured to monitor that slot and determine whether it is occupied by at least one photon or is empty.¶

The mode exists regardless of whether a photon is present; a photon is an excitation of the mode, not the mode itself.¶

In quantum networking, link capacity and state must be described in terms of modes (slots), not photons; photons merely occupy modes, while empty modes correspond to vacuum states that are still physically and operationally meaningful.¶

Technical note: In idealized models, distinct modes correspond to orthogonal field solutions, ensuring perfect distinguishability.¶

Short example: A quantum optical link may define one mode per time window. During each window, the receiver monitors the mode. A detection event indicates that the mode was occupied by at least one photon; the absence of a detection indicates that the same mode was empty. Both outcomes correspond to distinct physical states of the link.¶

10.3. Photonic Qubits

Photons are used in networks to carry qubits. There are several possible on-the-wire photonic qubit representations, e.g.¶

• Polarization¶

• Time bin¶

• Which path¶

• Energy level (wavelength)¶

These representations and more about the concept of an optical mode are discussed in the Standard Photons document, and are provided here only for informational purposes.¶

10.4. Memories

For our purposes, we do not need to worry about the physical implementation of memories, only that they may hold quantum data (qubits) that may be under the management of the network software and protocols. They may be entangled with photons or with other memory qubits.¶

Generally, the creation or entanglement of a state in memory is imperfect, and the memory has a finite lifetime.¶

The entanglement of a memory qubit with a photon is a technology-dependent process. To create fiber-compatible and optical equipment-compatible photons, wavelength conversion via transduction may be necessary. In 2025, transduction is a low-probability process, and hurts fidelity as well.¶

10.5. Photon Sources

Photons may be emitted by sources of many types [nist-singles] . Single photons may come from attenuated lasers, or be emitted by a variety of quantum devices, such as quantum dots, or by individual atoms.¶

Photons may be unentangled, entangled with other photons, or entangled with quantum memories.¶

10.6. Detectors

Detectors may be either single-photon detectors, which click when one or more photons hit the detector, or number resolving detectors, which can distinguish between one, two, or more photons hitting the detector within the same time window [nist-singles]. In this document, detectors may be assumed to be single-photon detectors.¶

11.1. General Requirements

11.2. Network Management Requirements

12.1. Deterministic Classical Control of Quantum States

This network architecture is entirely classically controlled. Its task is to generate shared quantum states for applications residing at separate nodes. While many quantum events are inherently probabilistic, and loss of photons is also inherently probabilistic, this architecture does not use multipartite quantum states for e.g. routing of two-party requests. (An extension of this network architecture may support generation of multi-partite state for applications at a later date.)¶

14.1. Quantum

The quantum signals and in-channel, hardware-dependent, real-time classical signals for timing and synchronization of photon wave packets. A node with a quantum plane incorporates one or more quantum devices. The quantum devices may be local or remote.¶

The quantum plane functionality executes the functions described as "Interferometric Stabilization" and "Wave Packet Overlap" and subject to the constraints in "Detector Timing Windows" in the Timing Regimes document.¶

14.2. Data

When operating in qubit mode, the Data Plane consists of classical messages that convey events for RuleSet operation and the communication ports and software that generate and consume such messages.¶

When operating in device mode, the Data Plane consists of RPCs for controlling individual devices.¶

Data plane functions may share data with management plane functions as part of the link management process, e.g. using disti-mation. If this is done, security and privacy concerns must be addressed.¶

The control plane functionality executes the functions described as "Pre-configured Event-driven Tasks" in the Timing Regimes document.¶

14.3. Control

The classical control plane is responsible for establishing and managing connections and testing sessions. Routing and multiplexing messages are included in the control plane.¶

Control plane functions may share data with management plane functions, e.g. sharing parameter adjustment values and timings. If this is done, security and privacy concerns must be addressed.¶

The control plane functionality executes the functions described as "Measurement basis selection", "Optical switch control" and some tasks in "Host-side Application-level Tasks" in the Timing Regimes document.¶

14.4. Management

While connection-specific changes to configuration, such as switching and necessary, immediate changes to e.g. polarization and optical delay may appear as control plane functions, slow-rate monitoring and adjustment of parameters such as timing or polarization due to drift in temperature, voltage or other parameters is the responsibility of the management plane. The management plane may receive useful data on the health and fidelity of links as a result of data plane and control plane operations.¶

The management plane functionality executes the functions described as "Background Tasks" in the Timing Regimes document.¶

16.1. End Nodes

End nodes represent hosts that wish to execute a quantum application such as quantum key distribution, secret sharing and blind quantum computation [broadbent-bfk-protocol], [fitzsimons-blind]. The technological maturity required of an end node heavily depends on the desired application. There are four major kinds of end nodes:¶

A measurement (MEAS) node is the most basic type of quantum end node, designed primarily for protocols that do not require quantum state storage. Its core capability is to receive individual photons and perform measurements on them in at least two different bases. Lacking quantum memory, MEAS nodes are well-suited for applications like quantum key distribution (QKD) or as simple terminals in certain forms of secure delegated computation protocols [morimae-blind],[fitzsimons-blind], typically interacting with the network in a synchronous manner where measurement results directly yield classical data.¶

A sensor (SNSR) node is a specialized end node designed to utilize entangled states, often shared with distant parties, for high-precision measurements of physical quantities, for clock synchronization tasks, or for distributed sensing tasks [ge-linear], [proctor-quantum-sensing], [degen-sensing], [giovannetti-metro], [proctor-multiparm]. These nodes typically feature limited quantum memory to hold working qubits (e.g., one half of an entangled pair) and possess specific quantum processing capabilities tailored for sensing protocols. Such capabilities include performing joint measurements, like Bell State Measurements (BSMs), between their stored qubits and photons that have interacted with the environment [huang-imaging-stars], [gottesman-telescope]. While an SNSR node's internal processing is specialized, certain sensing applications may also necessitate high-rate entanglement generation from the network to achieve desired performance. For SNSR nodes, precise timing information is almost invariably a critical component of the service they provide or require, and their operation typically culminates in outputting classical data that corresponds to the sensed phenomenon.¶

A store (STOR) node is a specialized end node whose primary function is to serve as a high-fidelity quantum data repository. Its core capabilities are the long-term storage of quantum states---often prepared and teleported from other locations---and the ability to teleport these states out on demand. While a STOR node does not require a universal gate set, it must support certain gates (e.g., Clifford gates) for active quantum error correction to preserve the stored quantum data. This includes using quantum error-correcting codes to protect against decoherence, along with mitigation strategies for correlated errors from events such as cosmic ray strikes [martinis-correlated], [sane-phonons], [xu-dist-qec], [vepsaelaeinen-ionizing], [wu-mitigating], [li-cosmic]. In a network context, STOR nodes may function as data servers, enabling asynchronous applications where valuable states are prepared and stored for later retrieval.¶

A computational (COMP) node represents a full-fledged quantum processing endpoint within the network. Equipped with quantum memory and additional algorithmic qubits, it can store, manipulate, and perform complex computations on quantum states received from the network or generated locally. COMP nodes support a wide range of advanced quantum network applications, including distributed quantum algorithms, more general forms of blind quantum computation, and potentially fault-tolerant quantum computing, often requiring asynchronous interfaces to coordinate their local quantum workloads with network operations [ambainis-multiparty-coin], [taherkhani-byz], [mayers-unconditional], [christandl-anon], [broadbent-bfk-protocol], [fitzsimons-blind], [mahadev-homomorphic], [dulek-homomorphic], [shapourian-qdc-infra], [sutcliffe-dist-qec], [yoder-tour-de-gross]. [kim-ft-million].¶

16.2. Support Nodes

An entangled photon pair source (EPPS) is a device dedicated to generating pairs of entangled photons, commonly through processes like Spontaneous Parametric Down-Conversion (SPDC). These entangled photons are then typically distributed over quantum channels to be captured or measured at link endpoints, forming the initial resource for entanglement-based protocols. EPPS nodes can be deployed in various scenarios, including terrestrial fiber links or free-space satellite-to-ground communication [fittipaldi-sat], [haldar-sat-dist], [khatri-spooky], [yin-1200km].¶

A Bell state analyzer (BSA) is a crucial component for performing projective measurements on two incoming photons, ideally projecting their combined state into one of the four Bell states. BSAs are fundamental for realizing photonic entanglement swapping[zukowski-entanglement-swapping], a primary process that creates link-level entanglement, used particularly to convert memory-photon entanglement into memory-memory entanglement between distant quantum memories. The efficiency and complexity of a BSA depend on the optical implementation and the specific photonic qubit encoding used.¶

A Repeater Graph State Source (RGSS) is a specialized source that generates multipartite entangled photonic states, specifically tailored for all-photonic (memory-less) quantum repeater architectures [azuma-rgs], [hilaire-rgs-optimizing-gen-time],[buterakos-graph-generation], [hilaire-logical-bsm]. An RGSS typically distributes segments of the generated repeater graph state to adjacent network nodes, where subsequent measurements on these photonic qubits are performed to establish long-distance entanglement without relying on quantum memories.¶

An advanced Bell state analyzer (ABSA) represents a more sophisticated version of a BSA, particularly required in advanced all-photonic repeater protocols based on repeater graph states[azuma-rgs], [hilaire-rgs-optimizing-gen-time],[buterakos-graph-generation], [hilaire-logical-bsm]. Unlike basic BSAs, an ABSA must be capable of performing measurements on single or multiple photons in dynamically selectable bases. The choice of measurement basis often depends on the outcomes of prior measurements within the network and the specific structure of the repeater graph state being utilized, implying more complex hardware and real-time classical control logic.¶

An optical switch (OSW) is a device that can passively route photons from input optical fibers or paths to different output paths without performing measurements on them [koyama-24]. OSWs, which can be based on technologies like nanomechanical systems or nanophotonic circuits, can be integrated as components within other node types (e.g., routers or complex end nodes) or can function as standalone elements in the network to dynamically reconfigure optical pathways.¶

16.3. Repeater Nodes

A first-generation repeater (REP1) is a network node with two quantum interfaces, whose main task is to extend entanglement. Its primary operations include generating link-level Bell pairs with its neighbors, performing entanglement swapping to connect these segments, and managing errors through heralded entanglement purification on physical qubits along the connection path.¶

A second-generation repeater (REP2) also focuses on entanglement swapping to bridge distances but generally requires a larger quantum memory capacity and higher fidelity local quantum operations than a REP1. It utilizes quantum error correction (QEC) to manage operational errors in conjunction with heralded link-level entanglement generation. Instead of, or in addition to, purifying link-level physical Bell pairs, a REP2 node operates on logical qubits, where quantum information is encoded across multiple physical qubits to protect it from errors. This approach inherently demands more sophisticated hardware and advanced computational capabilities for encoding, decoding, and error correction routines during swapping.¶

A quantum router (RTR) is a more complex and versatile node, possessing all capabilities of a quantum repeater and typically featuring three or more quantum network interfaces, enabling it to make sophisticated path selection decisions in complex topologies. Architecturally, an RTR may consist of multiple line cards and a quantum backplane, allowing it to run a full suite of network operation protocols. Beyond basic repeating functions like entanglement swapping, an RTR can govern network borders potentially interfacing between different repeater generations or technologies, participate in generating multipartite entangled states if the network provides such a service [meignant-dgs] [bugalho-dist-multipartite] [fischer-dgs] [fan-dgs-dist], and may act as a Responder in connection setups by rewriting or generating new RuleSets for different network domains.¶

16.4. Composite Nodes

A node may also aggregate the functions of more than one node, in a form known as a composite node or composite logical node. A common form of composite node is a switching BSA. When multiple devices of the same type are controlled by a single controller, they may be presented either as a node with multiple devices or as a composite node where each device is in turn represented as a node. Presenting as a single node is preferred.¶

17.1. The Link Service

A link provides Bell pairs across a single PSD. Each Bell pair is named via an identifier. This service may be either real time or batched.¶

17.2. Photonic Path Description

The optical path over which photons flow from source to detector in the process of creating a Bell pair can be described using terminology that names the node types in the path; the direction of flow of photons can be inferred. This path description can be applied to point-to-point or switched links within a single PSD.¶

Device type single-letter abbreviations and their corresponding node type:¶

• M: memory (COMP or STOR)¶

• S: source (of entangled photons) (EPPS)¶

• I: interference (i.e., Bell state measurement) (BSA)¶

• D: detector (i.e. a measurement node) (MEAS)¶

• X: switch (OSW)¶

Examples of path descriptions that may commonly appear:¶

• DSD: detector-source-detector¶

• MIM: memory-interference-memory¶

• MSM: memory-source-memory¶

• MM: memory-memory¶

• DSISD: detector-source-inteference-source-detector¶

At any point in a path except the ends, a photon may pass through one or more switches.¶

In a switched architecture, for example, photons may pass through paths such as:¶

• DXSXD¶

• MXIXM¶

• MXXIXM¶

(Question: Does this notation also need to represent frequency conversion?)¶

17.3. Point-to-point

Point-to-point links may be either fiber-based or free space. A link encompassing the path of one or more photons may be partially fiber and partially free space.¶

17.4. Switched

A system built around a pool of detectors, particularly organized as BSAs, utilizing switched MIM links can also be characterized as a detector-centric architecture.¶

For pseudocode for switching (routing) certain types of devices, see Koyama et al. [koyama-24].¶

17.5. Multidrop or Bus

A multidrop link, or a bus, is a shared physical channel to which more than two stations may be attached.¶

20.1. Quantum Plane

Yes, the quantum plane includes some classical signals.¶

20.2. Control Plane

• Qubit mode connections and communication¶

  • connection-level control of switching of photons¶

  • real-time event notification for RuleSets¶

• Device mode control¶

20.3. Data Plane

• Qubit mode connections and communication¶

  • connection-level control of switching of photons¶

  • real-time event notification for RuleSets¶

• Device mode control¶

20.4. Management plane: Node and link management

• reporting of parameters fixed by device physics¶

• reporting and setting of parameters selectable by node configuration¶

• reporting and adjustment of slowly-changing parameters (such as polarization drift)¶

• typical network node management tasks such as software updates¶

20.5. Mechanisms

• RPC for some tasks¶

  • especially device-mode control¶

  • qRPC wrapper for classical RPC mechanisms¶

• message broker or event broker for other tasks¶

  • especially qubit-mode RuleSet notifications¶

21.1. State naming and management in RuleSets

(Incorporates naming material from Naphan's thesis. Probably needs updating to account for testbed realities.)¶

Managing and agreeing upon the specific qubits for joint operations like entanglement purification or swapping among collaborating nodes are critical responsibilities handled by RuleSets. While it is possible to draw inspiration from the IP architecture by employing network-wide unique naming for qubits, RuleSets have local execution contexts, making global naming for individual qubits unnecessary.¶

Instead, RuleSets use local logical names for qubits. At the lowest level, physical qubits within a QNIC can be addressed by the local node using a tuple like <QNICAddress,QubitIndex>. However, this level of detail is not, and should not be, visible to the RuleSet logic.¶

Within a RuleSet instance on a given node, the RuleSet mechanism identifies a quantum resource primarily by its tag --- a label that categorizes the resource into a specific pool corresponding to its current role or stage in the protocol. To ensure an unambiguous and absolute ordering of multiple resources that may share the same tag (e.g., several Bell pairs awaiting purification), each resource, upon being allocated to a tag, is automatically assigned a \emph{sequence number} by the local RuleSet engine. The combination <tag,seq no.> thus serves as a distinct and locally unique key within that RuleSet instance for referencing a resource and associating it with relevant metadata, such as its tracked fidelity. Actions specified within Rules typically reference these resources based on their tag and their relative order within that tag, for instance, by operating on the resource with the smallest sequence number (i.e., the oldest available in that pool). This structured internal naming is vital for deterministic local operations and for preventing local operational mismatches that could lead to problems like the leapfrogging issue if not handled carefully at a higher protocol design level.¶

The RuleSet execution mechanism itself, therefore, only requires and manages this local <tag,seq no.> system for resource identification within a single node's RuleSet instance; it does not impose any inherent restrictions or requirements on how shared entangled states are identified between nodes. It is recommended that a strategy be used wherein the RuleSet creator (e.g., the Responder during connection setup) devises RuleSets such that the <tag,seq no.> is kept consistent across the RuleSets of all nodes involved in a particular joint operation on that resource. The responsibility thus lies with the RuleSet author to ensure that RuleSets are designed---potentially using this consistent naming strategy---to correctly manage shared resources and achieve the desired end-to-end protocol behavior. This minimal local naming scheme provided by the RuleSet engine, combined with judicious design of the RuleSets themselves, is sufficient for implementing a wide range of complex quantum network protocols while allowing creativity with minimal restrictions on RuleSet creator parts.¶

22.1. Fully Connected

A number of the early quantum multicomputer proposals assumed a single, large optical switch.¶

Shortest paths:¶

22.2. Q-Fly Multicomputer

An indirect interconnect. A multi-group, BSA-centric architecture. All nodes are part of the same PSD. The Q-Fly architecture is described in Sakuma et al. [sakuma-q-fly].¶

For DPFD topologies:¶

• Shortest paths¶

  • intra-group: MIXM¶

  • inter-group (network diameter): MXXIM¶

• Longer paths:¶

  • non-shortest path: MXXIXM or longer¶

For DPHD topologies:¶

• Shortest paths¶

  • intra-group: MXIXM¶

  • inter-group (network diameter): MXXIXM¶

• Longer paths:¶

  • non-shortest path: MXXXIXM or longer¶

For SPHD topologies:¶

• Shortest paths¶

  • intra-group: MXIXM¶

  • inter-group (network diameter): MXXIXM¶

• Longer paths:¶

  • non-shortest path: MXXXIXM or longer¶

22.3. Optically Switched Fat Tree

An indirect interconnect. Several parameters are needed to describe the full topology of a fat tree, which can also be called a k-ary n-tree:¶

• k is the switch radix¶

• n is the tree depth¶

This simplest description assumes homogeneous hardware, where all switches have the same number of ports and all links are the same bandwidth. Leiserson's original fat tree proposed single links of increasing bandwidth at higher levels of the tree, giving the network its name; this approach provides no redundancy or path diversity, and achieving higher transfer rates is impractical in some technologies, including quantum. Consequently, most fat tree deployments use multiple links to several switches at higher levels of the tree, in a configuration that is also know as a folded Clos network.¶

22.4. Repeater Fat Tree

The repeater fat tree is described in [choi-fat-tree].¶

22.5. 2-D Grid Multicomputer

A direct interconnect. A 2-D grid of nodes, where nodes with memory and certain computational capabilities (canonically COMP nodes) have up to four interfaces connecting to neighboring nodes. Each node must act as a memory buffer and repeater to enable communication between non-neighboring nodes.¶

22.6. Ring

A direct interconnect. All nodes in a ring have exactly two neighbors. Each node must act as a memory buffer and repeater to enable communication between non-neighboring nodes.¶

A ring is described in (something from Simon's group).¶

22.7. QLAN

A quantum local area network will have:¶

• irregular topology, possibly of heterogeneous link types¶

• distributed multiplexing¶

• distributed routing¶

25.1. Normative References

[RFC2119]

Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119>.

[RFC8174]

Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8174>.

25.2. Informative References

[aboy-governance]

Aboy, M., Gasser, U., Cohen, I., and M. Kop, "Quantum technology governance: A standards-first approach", American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), Science vol. 389, no. 6760, pp. 575-578, DOI 10.1126/science.adw0018, August 2025, <https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adw0018>.

[ambainis-multiparty-coin]

Ambainis, A., Buhrman, H., Dodis, Y., and H. Rohrig, "Multiparty quantum coin flipping", IEEE, Proceedings. 19th IEEE Annual Conference on Computational Complexity, 2004. pp. 250-259, DOI 10.1109/ccc.2004.1313848, November 2004, <https://doi.org/10.1109/ccc.2004.1313848>.

[awschalom-roadmap]

Awschalom, D., Bernien, H., Brown, R., Clerk, A., Chitambar, E., Dibos, A., Dionne, J., Eriksson, M., Fefferman, B., Fuchs, G., Gambetta, J., Goldschmidt, E., Guha, S., Heremans, F., Irwin, K., Jayich, A., Jiang, L., Karsch, J., Kasevich, M., Kolkowitz, S., Kwiat, P., Ladd, T., Lowell, J., Maslov, D., Mason, N., Matsuura, A., McDermott, R., van Meter, R., Miller, A., Orcutt, J., Saffman, M., Schleier-Smith, M., Singh, M., Smith, P., Suchara, M., Toudeh-Fallah, F., Turlington, M., Woods, B., and T. Zhong, "A Roadmap for Quantum Interconnects", Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI), DOI 10.2172/1900586, July 2022, <https://doi.org/10.2172/1900586>.

[azuma-rgs]

Azuma, K., Tamaki, K., and H. Lo, "All-photonic quantum repeaters", Springer Science and Business Media LLC, Nature Communications vol. 6, no. 1, DOI 10.1038/ncomms7787, April 2015, <https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms7787>.

[bennett-mixed]

Bennett, C., DiVincenzo, D., Smolin, J., and W. Wootters, "Mixed-state entanglement and quantum error correction", American Physical Society (APS), Physical Review A vol. 54, no. 5, pp. 3824-3851, DOI 10.1103/physreva.54.3824, November 1996, <https://doi.org/10.1103/physreva.54.3824>.

[broadbent-bfk-protocol]

Broadbent, A., Fitzsimons, J., and E. Kashefi, "Universal Blind Quantum Computation", IEEE, 2009 50th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science pp. 517-526, DOI 10.1109/focs.2009.36, October 2009, <https://doi.org/10.1109/focs.2009.36>.

[bugalho-dist-multipartite]

Bugalho, L., Coutinho, B., Monteiro, F., and Y. Omar, "Distributing Multipartite Entanglement over Noisy Quantum Networks", Verein zur Forderung des Open Access Publizierens in den Quantenwissenschaften, Quantum vol. 7, pp. 920, DOI 10.22331/q-2023-02-09-920, February 2023, <https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2023-02-09-920>.

[buterakos-graph-generation]

Buterakos, D., Barnes, E., and S. Economou, "Deterministic Generation of All-Photonic Quantum Repeaters from Solid-State Emitters", American Physical Society (APS), Physical Review X vol. 7, no. 4, DOI 10.1103/physrevx.7.041023, October 2017, <https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevx.7.041023>.

[choi-fat-tree]

Choi, H., Davis, M., Iñesta, Á., and D. Englund, "Scalable Quantum Networks: Congestion-Free Hierarchical Entanglement Routing with Error Correction", arXiv, DOI 10.48550/ARXIV.2306.09216, 2023, <https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2306.09216>.

[christandl-anon]

Christandl, M. and S. Wehner, "Quantum Anonymous Transmissions", Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Lecture Notes in Computer Science pp. 217-235, DOI 10.1007/11593447_12, ISBN ["9783540306849", "9783540322672"], 2005, <https://doi.org/10.1007/11593447_12>.

[dally-towles]

Dally, W. J. and B. P. Towles, "Principles and Practices of Interconnection Networks", ISBN 978-0-08-049780-8, 2004.

[degen-sensing]

Degen, C., Reinhard, F., and P. Cappellaro, "Quantum sensing", American Physical Society (APS), Reviews of Modern Physics vol. 89, no. 3, DOI 10.1103/revmodphys.89.035002, July 2017, <https://doi.org/10.1103/revmodphys.89.035002>.

[divincenzo-criteria]

DiVincenzo, D., "The Physical Implementation of Quantum Computation", arXiv, arXiv, DOI 10.48550/ARXIV.QUANT-PH/0002077, 2000, <https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.QUANT-PH/0002077>.

[drost]

Drost, R., Moore, T., and M. Brodsky, "Switching Networks for Pairwise-Entanglement Distribution", Optica Publishing Group, Journal of Optical Communications and Networking vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 331, DOI 10.1364/jocn.8.000331, April 2016, <https://doi.org/10.1364/jocn.8.000331>.

[dulek-homomorphic]

Dulek, Y., Schaffner, C., and F. Speelman, "", Theory of Computing Exchange, Theory of Computing vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 1-45, DOI 10.4086/toc.2018.v014a007, 2018, <https://doi.org/10.4086/toc.2018.v014a007>.

[dur-w-state]

Dür, W., Vidal, G., and J. Cirac, "Three qubits can be entangled in two inequivalent ways", American Physical Society (APS), Physical Review A vol. 62, no. 6, DOI 10.1103/physreva.62.062314, November 2000, <https://doi.org/10.1103/physreva.62.062314>.

[fan-dgs-dist]

Fan, X., Zhan, C., Gupta, H., and C. Ramakrishnan, "Optimized Distribution of Entanglement Graph States in Quantum Networks", Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), IEEE Transactions on Quantum Engineering vol. 6, pp. 1-17, DOI 10.1109/tqe.2025.3552006, 2025, <https://doi.org/10.1109/tqe.2025.3552006>.

[fischer-dgs]

Fischer, A. and D. Towsley, "Distributing Graph States Across Quantum Networks", IEEE, 2021 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE) pp. 324-333, DOI 10.1109/qce52317.2021.00049, October 2021, <https://doi.org/10.1109/qce52317.2021.00049>.

[fittipaldi-sat]

Fittipaldi, P., Teramoto, K., Benchasattabuse, N., Hajdušek, M., Van Meter, R., and F. Grosshans, "Entanglement Swapping in Orbit: a Satellite Quantum Link Case Study", IEEE, 2024 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE) pp. 1924-1930, DOI 10.1109/qce60285.2024.00222, September 2024, <https://doi.org/10.1109/qce60285.2024.00222>.

[fitzsimons-blind]

Fitzsimons, J., "Private quantum computation: an introduction to blind quantum computing and related protocols", Springer Science and Business Media LLC, npj Quantum Information vol. 3, no. 1, DOI 10.1038/s41534-017-0025-3, June 2017, <https://doi.org/10.1038/s41534-017-0025-3>.

[ge-linear]

Ge, W., Jacobs, K., Eldredge, Z., Gorshkov, A., and M. Foss-Feig, "Distributed Quantum Metrology with Linear Networks and Separable Inputs", American Physical Society (APS), Physical Review Letters vol. 121, no. 4, DOI 10.1103/physrevlett.121.043604, July 2018, <https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.121.043604>.

[ghz]

Greenberger, D., Horne, M., and A. Zeilinger, "Going Beyond Bell's Theorem", arXiv, arXiv, DOI 10.48550/ARXIV.0712.0921, 2007, <https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.0712.0921>.

[giovannetti-metro]

Giovannetti, V., Lloyd, S., and L. Maccone, "Advances in quantum metrology", Springer Science and Business Media LLC, Nature Photonics vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 222-229, DOI 10.1038/nphoton.2011.35, March 2011, <https://doi.org/10.1038/nphoton.2011.35>.

[gottesman-telescope]

Gottesman, D., Jennewein, T., and S. Croke, "Longer-Baseline Telescopes Using Quantum Repeaters", American Physical Society (APS), Physical Review Letters vol. 109, no. 7, DOI 10.1103/physrevlett.109.070503, August 2012, <https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.109.070503>.

[hajdusek-qcomm]

Hajdušek, M. and R. Van Meter, "Quantum Communications", arXiv, DOI 10.48550/ARXIV.2311.02367, 2023, <https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2311.02367>.

[haldar-sat-dist]

Haldar, S., Agullo, I., Brady, A., Lamas-Linares, A., Proctor, W., and J. Troupe, "Towards global time distribution via satellite-based sources of entangled photons", American Physical Society (APS), Physical Review A vol. 107, no. 2, DOI 10.1103/physreva.107.022615, February 2023, <https://doi.org/10.1103/physreva.107.022615>.

[hein-graph-entanglement]

"Entanglement in graph states and its applications", IOS Press, Proceedings of the International School of Physics “Enrico Fermi” vol. 162, pp. 115–218, DOI 10.3254/978-1-61499-018-5-115, 2006, <https://doi.org/10.3254/978-1-61499-018-5-115>.

[hein-multiparty]

Hein, M., Eisert, J., and H. Briegel, "Multiparty entanglement in graph states", American Physical Society (APS), Physical Review A vol. 69, no. 6, DOI 10.1103/physreva.69.062311, June 2004, <https://doi.org/10.1103/physreva.69.062311>.

[hilaire-logical-bsm]

Hilaire, P., Barnes, E., Economou, S., and F. Grosshans, "Error-correcting entanglement swapping using a practical logical photon encoding", American Physical Society (APS), Physical Review A vol. 104, no. 5, DOI 10.1103/physreva.104.052623, November 2021, <https://doi.org/10.1103/physreva.104.052623>.

[hilaire-rgs-optimizing-gen-time]

Hilaire, P., Barnes, E., and S. Economou, "Resource requirements for efficient quantum communication using all-photonic graph states generated from a few matter qubits", Verein zur Forderung des Open Access Publizierens in den Quantenwissenschaften, Quantum vol. 5, pp. 397, DOI 10.22331/q-2021-02-15-397, February 2021, <https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2021-02-15-397>.

[horsman-lattice-surgery]

Horsman, D., Fowler, A., Devitt, S., and R. Meter, "Surface code quantum computing by lattice surgery", IOP Publishing, New Journal of Physics vol. 14, no. 12, pp. 123011, DOI 10.1088/1367-2630/14/12/123011, December 2012, <https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/14/12/123011>.

[huang-imaging-stars]

Huang, Z., Brennen, G., and Y. Ouyang, "Imaging Stars with Quantum Error Correction", American Physical Society (APS), Physical Review Letters vol. 129, no. 21, DOI 10.1103/physrevlett.129.210502, November 2022, <https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.129.210502>.

[I-D.draft-hajdusek-qirg-timing-physics]

Hajdusek, M. and R. Van Meter, "Timing Regimes in Quantum Networks and their Physical Underpinnings", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-hajdusek-qirg-timing-physics-00, 2 March 2026, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-hajdusek-qirg-timing-physics-00>.

[I-D.draft-van-meter-qirg-quantum-connection-setup]

Van Meter, R. and T. Matsuo, "Connection Setup in a Quantum Network", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-van-meter-qirg-quantum-connection-setup-01, 11 September 2019, <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-van-meter-qirg-quantum-connection-setup-01>.

[ilo-okeke-clock]

Ilo-Okeke, E., Tessler, L., Dowling, J., and T. Byrnes, "Remote quantum clock synchronization without synchronized clocks", Springer Science and Business Media LLC, npj Quantum Information vol. 4, no. 1, DOI 10.1038/s41534-018-0090-2, August 2018, <https://doi.org/10.1038/s41534-018-0090-2>.

[khatri-spooky]

Khatri, S., Brady, A., Desporte, R., Bart, M., and J. Dowling, "Spooky action at a global distance: analysis of space-based entanglement distribution for the quantum internet", Springer Science and Business Media LLC, npj Quantum Information vol. 7, no. 1, DOI 10.1038/s41534-020-00327-5, January 2021, <https://doi.org/10.1038/s41534-020-00327-5>.

[kim-ft-million]

Kim, J., Min, D., Cho, J., Jeong, H., Byun, I., Choi, J., Hong, J., and J. Kim, "A Fault-Tolerant Million Qubit-Scale Distributed Quantum Computer", ACM, Proceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems, Volume 2 pp. 1-19, DOI 10.1145/3620665.3640388, April 2024, <https://doi.org/10.1145/3620665.3640388>.

[koyama-24]

Koyama, M., Yun, C., Taherkhani, A., Benchasattabuse, N., Sane, B., Hajdušek, M., Nagayama, S., and R. Meter, "Optimal Switching Networks for Paired-Egress Bell State Analyzer Pools", IEEE, 2024 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE) pp. 1897-1907, DOI 10.1109/qce60285.2024.00219, September 2024, <https://doi.org/10.1109/qce60285.2024.00219>.

[leone-remote]

Leone, H., Le, T., Srikara, S., and S. Devitt, "Resource overheads and attainable rates for trapped-ion lattice surgery", arXiv, DOI 10.48550/ARXIV.2406.18764, 2024, <https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2406.18764>.

[li-cosmic]

Li, X., Wang, J., Jiang, Y., Xue, G., Cai, X., Zhou, J., Gong, M., Liu, Z., Zheng, S., Ma, D., Chen, M., Sun, W., Yang, S., Yan, F., Jin, Y., Zhao, S., Ding, X., and H. Yu, "Cosmic-ray-induced correlated errors in superconducting qubit array", Springer Science and Business Media LLC, Nature Communications vol. 16, no. 1, DOI 10.1038/s41467-025-59778-z, May 2025, <https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-59778-z>.

[litinski-gosc]

Litinski, D., "A Game of Surface Codes: Large-Scale Quantum Computing with Lattice Surgery", Verein zur Forderung des Open Access Publizierens in den Quantenwissenschaften, Quantum vol. 3, pp. 128, DOI 10.22331/q-2019-03-05-128, March 2019, <https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2019-03-05-128>.

[mahadev-homomorphic]

Mahadev, U., "Classical Homomorphic Encryption for Quantum Circuits", Society for Industrial & Applied Mathematics (SIAM), SIAM Journal on Computing vol. 52, no. 6, pp. FOCS18-189-FOCS18-215, DOI 10.1137/18m1231055, December 2020, <https://doi.org/10.1137/18m1231055>.

[martinis-correlated]

Martinis, J., "Saving superconducting quantum processors from decay and correlated errors generated by gamma and cosmic rays", Springer Science and Business Media LLC, npj Quantum Information vol. 7, no. 1, DOI 10.1038/s41534-021-00431-0, June 2021, <https://doi.org/10.1038/s41534-021-00431-0>.

[mayers-unconditional]

Mayers, D., "Unconditional security in Quantum Cryptography", arXiv, arXiv, DOI 10.48550/ARXIV.QUANT-PH/9802025, 1998, <https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.QUANT-PH/9802025>.

[meignant-dgs]

Meignant, C., Markham, D., and F. Grosshans, "Distributing graph states over arbitrary quantum networks", American Physical Society (APS), Physical Review A vol. 100, no. 5, DOI 10.1103/physreva.100.052333, November 2019, <https://doi.org/10.1103/physreva.100.052333>.

[mori-psds]

Mori, Y., Sasaki, T., Ikuta, R., Teramoto, K., Ohno, H., Hajdušek, M., Van Meter, R., and S. Nagayama, "Scalable Timing Coordination of Bell State Analyzers in Quantum Networks", IEEE, 2024 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE) pp. 1890-1896, DOI 10.1109/qce60285.2024.00218, September 2024, <https://doi.org/10.1109/qce60285.2024.00218>.

[morimae-blind]

Morimae, T. and K. Fujii, "Blind quantum computation protocol in which Alice only makes measurements", American Physical Society (APS), Physical Review A vol. 87, no. 5, DOI 10.1103/physreva.87.050301, May 2013, <https://doi.org/10.1103/physreva.87.050301>.

[muralidharan-generations]

Muralidharan, S., Li, L., Kim, J., Lütkenhaus, N., Lukin, M., and L. Jiang, "Optimal architectures for long distance quantum communication", Springer Science and Business Media LLC, Scientific Reports vol. 6, no. 1, DOI 10.1038/srep20463, February 2016, <https://doi.org/10.1038/srep20463>.

[nist-singles]

Bienfang, J., Gerrits, T., Kuo, P., Migdall, A., Polyakov, S., and O. Slattery, "Single-photon Sources and Detectors Dictionary", National Institute of Standards and Technology, DOI 10.6028/nist.ir.8486r1, August 2025, <https://doi.org/10.6028/nist.ir.8486r1>.

[proctor-multiparm]

Proctor, T., Knott, P., and J. Dunningham, "Multiparameter Estimation in Networked Quantum Sensors", American Physical Society (APS), Physical Review Letters vol. 120, no. 8, DOI 10.1103/physrevlett.120.080501, February 2018, <https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.120.080501>.

[proctor-quantum-sensing]

Proctor, T., Knott, P., and J. Dunningham, "Networked quantum sensing", arXiv, DOI 10.48550/ARXIV.1702.04271, 2017, <https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.1702.04271>.

[ramette-remote]

Ramette, J., Sinclair, J., Breuckmann, N., and V. Vuletić, "Fault-tolerant connection of error-corrected qubits with noisy links", Springer Science and Business Media LLC, npj Quantum Information vol. 10, no. 1, DOI 10.1038/s41534-024-00855-4, June 2024, <https://doi.org/10.1038/s41534-024-00855-4>.

[rdv-thesis]

Van Meter III, R. D., "Architecture of a Quantum Multicomputer Optimized for Shor's Factoring Algorithm", Ph.D. Dissertation, Keio University, 2006, <https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0607065>.

[res-mgmt-het]

Benchasattabuse, N., "Resource Management in Heterogeneous Quantum Repeater Networks", Ph.D. Dissertation, Keio University, 2025, <https://aqua.sfc.wide.ad.jp/publications/whit3z-thesis-local-compiled.pdf>.

[RFC1122]

Braden, R., Ed., "Requirements for Internet Hosts - Communication Layers", STD 3, RFC 1122, DOI 10.17487/RFC1122, October 1989, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1122>.

[RFC1123]

Braden, R., Ed., "Requirements for Internet Hosts - Application and Support", STD 3, RFC 1123, DOI 10.17487/RFC1123, October 1989, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1123>.

[RFC9340]

Kozlowski, W., Wehner, S., Van Meter, R., Rijsman, B., Cacciapuoti, A. S., Caleffi, M., and S. Nagayama, "Architectural Principles for a Quantum Internet", RFC 9340, DOI 10.17487/RFC9340, March 2023, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9340>.

[RFC9583]

Wang, C., Rahman, A., Li, R., Aelmans, M., and K. Chakraborty, "Application Scenarios for the Quantum Internet", RFC 9583, DOI 10.17487/RFC9583, June 2024, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9583>.

[sakuma-q-fly]

Sakuma, D., Tsuno, T., Shimizu, H., Kurosawa, Y., Friedrich, M., Teramoto, K., Taherkhani, A., Todd, A., Ueno, Y., Hajdušek, M., Ikuta, R., Van Meter, R., Sasaki, T., and S. Nagayama, "Q-Fly: An Optical Interconnect for Modular Quantum Computers", arXiv, DOI 10.48550/ARXIV.2412.09299, 2024, <https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2412.09299>.

[sane-jobs]

Sane, B., Hajdušek, M., and R. Van Meter, "Optimizing Resource Allocation in a Distributed Quantum Computing Cloud: A Game-Theoretic Approach", arXiv, DOI 10.48550/ARXIV.2504.18298, 2025, <https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2504.18298>.

[sane-phonons]

Sane, B., Meter, R., and M. Hajdusek, "Fight or Flight: Cosmic Ray-Induced Phonons and the Quantum Surface Code^*", IEEE, 2023 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE) pp. 1378-1388, DOI 10.1109/qce57702.2023.00156, September 2023, <https://doi.org/10.1109/qce57702.2023.00156>.

[schoute-shortcuts]

Schoute, E., Mancinska, L., Islam, T., Kerenidis, I., and S. Wehner, "Shortcuts to quantum network routing", arXiv, DOI 10.48550/ARXIV.1610.05238, 2016, <https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.1610.05238>.

[shapourian-qdc-infra]

Shapourian, H., Kaur, E., Sewell, T., Zhao, J., Kilzer, M., Kompella, R., and R. Nejabati, "Quantum Data Center Infrastructures: A Scalable Architectural Design Perspective", arXiv, DOI 10.48550/ARXIV.2501.05598, 2025, <https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2501.05598>.

[sinclair-ft-interconnect]

Sinclair, J., Ramette, J., Grinkemeyer, B., Bluvstein, D., Lukin, M., and V. Vuletić, "Fault-tolerant optical interconnects for neutral-atom arrays", arXiv, DOI 10.48550/ARXIV.2408.08955, 2024, <https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2408.08955>.

[sutcliffe-dist-qec]

Sutcliffe, E., Jonnadula, B., Le Gall, C., Moylett, A., and C. Westoby, "Distributed Quantum Error Correction Based on Hyperbolic Floquet Codes", IEEE, 2025 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE) pp. 649-657, DOI 10.1109/qce65121.2025.00076, August 2025, <https://doi.org/10.1109/qce65121.2025.00076>.

[taherkhani-byz]

Taherkhani, M., Navi, K., and R. Meter, "Resource-aware system architecture model for implementation of quantum aided Byzantine agreement on quantum repeater networks", IOP Publishing, Quantum Science and Technology vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 014011, DOI 10.1088/2058-9565/aa9bb1, December 2017, <https://doi.org/10.1088/2058-9565/aa9bb1>.

[van-meter-opt-timing]

Van Meter, R., Satoh, T., Nagayama, S., Matsuo, T., and S. Suzuki, "Optimizing Timing of High-Success-Probability Quantum Repeaters", arXiv, DOI 10.48550/ARXIV.1701.04586, 2017, <https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.1701.04586>.

[van-meter-q-net-book]

Van Meter, R., "Quantum Networking", Wiley, DOI 10.1002/9781118648919, ISBN ["9781848215375", "9781118648919"], April 2014, <https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118648919>.

[van-meter-qi-arch]

Van Meter, R., Satoh, R., Benchasattabuse, N., Teramoto, K., Matsuo, T., Hajdusek, M., Satoh, T., Nagayama, S., and S. Suzuki, "A Quantum Internet Architecture", IEEE, 2022 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE) pp. 341-352, DOI 10.1109/qce53715.2022.00055, September 2022, <https://doi.org/10.1109/qce53715.2022.00055>.

[vepsaelaeinen-ionizing]

Vepsäläinen, A., Karamlou, A., Orrell, J., Dogra, A., Loer, B., Vasconcelos, F., Kim, D., Melville, A., Niedzielski, B., Yoder, J., Gustavsson, S., Formaggio, J., VanDevender, B., and W. Oliver, "Impact of ionizing radiation on superconducting qubit coherence", Springer Science and Business Media LLC, Nature vol. 584, no. 7822, pp. 551-556, DOI 10.1038/s41586-020-2619-8, August 2020, <https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2619-8>.

[wu-mitigating]

Wu, X., Joshi, Y., Yan, H., Andersson, G., Anferov, A., Conner, C., Karimi, B., King, A., Li, S., Malc, H., Miller, J., Mishra, H., Qiao, H., Ryu, M., Xing, S., Shi, J., and A. Cleland, "Mitigating cosmic-ray-like correlated events with a modular quantum processor", American Physical Society (APS), Physical Review Applied vol. 24, no. 4, DOI 10.1103/4ctq-r6w6, October 2025, <https://doi.org/10.1103/4ctq-r6w6>.

[xu-dist-qec]

Xu, Q., Seif, A., Yan, H., Mannucci, N., Sane, B., Van Meter, R., Cleland, A., and L. Jiang, "Distributed Quantum Error Correction for Chip-Level Catastrophic Errors", American Physical Society (APS), Physical Review Letters vol. 129, no. 24, DOI 10.1103/physrevlett.129.240502, December 2022, <https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.129.240502>.

[yin-1200km]

Yin, J., Cao, Y., Li, Y., Liao, S., Zhang, L., Ren, J., Cai, W., Liu, W., Li, B., Dai, H., Li, G., Lu, Q., Gong, Y., Xu, Y., Li, S., Li, F., Yin, Y., Jiang, Z., Li, M., Jia, J., Ren, G., He, D., Zhou, Y., Zhang, X., Wang, N., Chang, X., Zhu, Z., Liu, N., Chen, Y., Lu, C., Shu, R., Peng, C., Wang, J., and J. Pan, "Satellite-based entanglement distribution over 1200 kilometers", American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), Science vol. 356, no. 6343, pp. 1140-1144, DOI 10.1126/science.aan3211, June 2017, <https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aan3211>.

[yoder-tour-de-gross]

Yoder, T., Schoute, E., Rall, P., Pritchett, E., Gambetta, J., Cross, A., Carroll, M., and M. Beverland, "Tour de gross: A modular quantum computer based on bivariate bicycle codes", arXiv, DOI 10.48550/ARXIV.2506.03094, 2025, <https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2506.03094>.

[zukowski-entanglement-swapping]

Kaszlikowski, D., Kwek, L., Chen, J., Żukowski, M., and C. Oh, "Clauser-Horne inequality for three-state systems", American Physical Society (APS), Physical Review A vol. 65, no. 3, DOI 10.1103/physreva.65.032118, February 2002, <https://doi.org/10.1103/physreva.65.032118>.