FTTH/FTTB: Point to Point vs. PON

FTTH/FTTB: Point to Point vs. PON
Date in Memo Master KEYMILE FTTH/FTTB: Point to Point vs. PON © KEYMILE Datum im Notizenmaster © KEYMILE Seite 1

COMPARISON OF PON VERSUS PTP ETHERNET
Date in Memo Master COMPARISON OF PON VERSUS PTP ETHERNET © KEYMILE © KEYMILE Datum im Notizenmaster © KEYMILE Seite 2

Comparison of PON vs. PtP Ethernet
Date in Memo Master Comparison of PON vs. PtP Ethernet Bandwidth / Resilience Network Components Fibre-to-the-Building (FTTB) Power Consumption Technical Summary Commercial Aspects © KEYMILE © KEYMILE Datum im Notizenmaster © KEYMILE Seite 3

COMPARISON PON VS PTP ETHERNET
Date in Memo Master COMPARISON PON VS PTP ETHERNET BANDWIDTH, RESILIENCE © KEYMILE © KEYMILE Datum im Notizenmaster © KEYMILE Seite 4

1 ... 32 subscriber lines/splitter
Date in Memo Master Bandwidth Comparison 100/1000 Mbps 100/1000 Mbps CPE DOWNSTREAM UPSTREAM subscriber lines Optical DSLAM 78 Mbps* 39 Mbps* 2.5 Gbps 1.25 Gbps ONT DOWNSTREAM UPSTREAM DS US SPLITTER subscriber lines/splitter GPON OLT * Depending on splitting factor © KEYMILE © KEYMILE Datum im Notizenmaster © KEYMILE Seite 5

Bandwidth upgrade means either
Date in Memo Master Bandwidth Comparison GPON Depending on splitting factor > typically 39 Mbps upstream / 78 Mbps downstream with 32 fold splitter Not sufficient bandwidth for business customers and for further distribution e.g. for FTTB Bandwidth upgrade means either Change splitter fold + CPEs Change OLT card + CPEs PtP Ethernet 100 Mbps / 1 Gbps symmetrical for upstream and downstream Able to serve business customers Bandwidth upgrade affects only one CPE and one DSLAM port © KEYMILE © KEYMILE Datum im Notizenmaster © KEYMILE Seite 6

Resilience Comparison – Line Measurement
Date in Memo Master Resilience Comparison – Line Measurement CPE Reflexion measurement easy due to point to point REFLECTED SIGNAL subscriber lines Optical DSLAM ONT Reflexion measurement complicated due to optical splitter REFLECTED SIGNAL SPLITTER REFLECTED SIGNAL subscriber lines/splitter REFLECTED SIGNAL GPON OLT © KEYMILE © KEYMILE Datum im Notizenmaster © KEYMILE Seite 7

Resilience Comparison – broken Line, bad Fibre Quality
Date in Memo Master Resilience Comparison – broken Line, bad Fibre Quality CPE Only one customer connection affected subscriber lines Optical DSLAM ONT Depending on location up to 32 customer connections affected SPLITTER subscriber lines/splitter GPON OLT © KEYMILE © KEYMILE Datum im Notizenmaster © KEYMILE Seite 8

Resilience Comparison – defect CPE, unfriendly Attack
Date in Memo Master Resilience Comparison – defect CPE, unfriendly Attack CPE Only one customer connection affected, easy to identify/isolate SIGNAL DIRECTED TO ONE DSLAM PORT NO INFLUENCE subscriber lines NO INFLUENCE Optical DSLAM Continuous Signal from one CPE affects entire GPON port, difficult to identify/isolate ONT CONTINIOUS SIGNAL SPLITTER CONTINIOUS SIGNAL TRAFFIC BLOCKED subscriber lines/splitter TRAFFIC BLOCKED GPON OLT © KEYMILE © KEYMILE Datum im Notizenmaster © KEYMILE Seite 9

Telecom Italia Study regarding GPON Safety
Source: ETSI Security Workshop, France, January 2009 © KEYMILE

Resilience Comparison
Date in Memo Master Resilience Comparison GPON Due to optical splitter 32 customers are using a shared medium Line qualification and maintenance difficult Failures or unfriendly attacks could affect the entire PON system and all connected customers Not acceptable for business customers PtP Ethernet Line qualification and maintenance on single fibre connections well known Failures only affects one line and customer Unfriendly attack can be identified through standard security mechanism © KEYMILE © KEYMILE Datum im Notizenmaster © KEYMILE Seite 11

Date in Memo Master COMPARISON PON VS PTP ETHERNET NETWORK COMPONENTS © KEYMILE © KEYMILE Datum im Notizenmaster © KEYMILE Seite 12

Optical DSLAM GPON OLT Network Components CPE SPLITTER ONT
Date in Memo Master Network Components ETHERNET PtP CPE Optical DSLAM PON SPLITTER ONT GPON OLT © KEYMILE © KEYMILE Datum im Notizenmaster © KEYMILE Seite 13

Network Component Comparison – Central Location (OLT)
Date in Memo Master Network Component Comparison – Central Location (OLT) GPON OLT New system architecture, often different platform for business customers needed Fixed line rates on OLT ports (GPON, EPON, ...) GPON Network management, different operational processes PtP Ethernet (KEYMILE) Optical DSLAM, same architecture and chassis as copper DSLAM 100 Mbps / 1 Gbps symmetrical for upstream and downstream switchable speed for each optical interface (subrates can be configured) Same Network management, configuration and operation exactly identical compared to xDSL DSLAM © KEYMILE © KEYMILE Datum im Notizenmaster © KEYMILE Seite 14

Network Component Comparison – Customer Equipment (ONT, CPE)
Date in Memo Master Network Component Comparison – Customer Equipment (ONT, CPE) GPON ONT Vendor dependant devices, ONT portfolio limited Operates on full OLT downstream speed (GPON: 2.5 Gbps) Depends on GPON NMS Price evolution vendor dependant PtP Ethernet Vendor independent through Ethernet standard interfaces Price evolution: Price decrease through tough competition Could support e.g. TR069 (remote modem configuration) Cheapest device: Lowest cost media converter $ ONT CPE © KEYMILE © KEYMILE Datum im Notizenmaster © KEYMILE Seite 15

Network Component Comparison – Optical Splitter
Date in Memo Master Network Component Comparison – Optical Splitter GPON Passive optical device but effects optical parameters Wavelength dependent attenuation Limits transmission range Must be removed, if network shall be upgraded to Ethernet Point-to-Point Eventually needs to be changed for PON upgrade PtP Ethernet Not needed © KEYMILE © KEYMILE Datum im Notizenmaster © KEYMILE Seite 16

GPON versus Ethernet-PtP: Vendor Interoperability
Datum im Memo Master GPON versus Ethernet-PtP: Vendor Interoperability GPON GPON is standardized acc. ITU-T G.984.2 In practice there is no interoperability between different GPON vendors given ONT <> OLT Due to system aspects also in future the optimal performance of a GPON system can only provided by one vendor delivering the ONT and OLT Ethernet-PtP Optical Ethernet Interfaces are standardized acc. IEEE 802.3 Interoperability has been proven in practice by lots of vendors for years – due to optical Ethernet interfaces are used in transport networks for a long time © KEYMILE © KEYMILE Datum im Notizenmaster © KEYMILE Seite 17

COMPARISON PON VS PTP ETHERNET FIBRE-TO-THE-BUILDING (FTTB)
Date in Memo Master COMPARISON PON VS PTP ETHERNET FIBRE-TO-THE-BUILDING (FTTB) © KEYMILE © KEYMILE Datum im Notizenmaster © KEYMILE Seite 18

Fibre-to-the-Building (FTTB) – Challenges
Date in Memo Master Fibre-to-the-Building (FTTB) – Challenges Questions to be answered How to connect the different buildings – for each household one fibre or per building one fibre? How to connect subscriber inside buildings – copper pairs, fibre or Ethernet cables? 1 – 2 households OLT 3 – 16 households 16 – x households © KEYMILE © KEYMILE Datum im Notizenmaster © KEYMILE Seite 19

Fibre-to-the-Building in GPON Networks
Date in Memo Master Fibre-to-the-Building in GPON Networks * New GPON systems allow dynamic bandwidth allocation Standard interface: 78 Mbps downstream speed is shared by all customers* ONT Several lines can not be used due to increased bandwidth on other lines* 1 – 2 households GPON OLT ONT 3 – 16 households ONT ONT Direct OLT connection possible – but expensive Enhanced interface: n x 78 Mbps downstream speed is shared by all customers* 16 – x households © KEYMILE © KEYMILE Datum im Notizenmaster © KEYMILE Seite 20

Fibre-to-the-Building in PtP Ethernet Networks
Date in Memo Master Fibre-to-the-Building in PtP Ethernet Networks For all scenarios the appropriate line speed can be used ONT Operate at 100 Mbps 1 – 2 households Operate at 100 Mbps Optical DSLAM ONT Operate at 100 Mbps up to 1 GbE 3 – 16 households ONT Operate at full GbE ONT 16 – x households NTU = Network Termination Unit (VDSL2 or Ethernet) © KEYMILE © KEYMILE Datum im Notizenmaster © KEYMILE Seite 21

Homes passed – Homes connected influence in GPON Networks
Date in Memo Master Homes passed – Homes connected influence in GPON Networks GPON OLT Even for customers without service, a splitter port is occupied and the OLT port needs to be operated Customer out of service Customer in service © KEYMILE © KEYMILE Datum im Notizenmaster © KEYMILE Seite 22

Homes passed – Homes connected influence in PtP Networks
Date in Memo Master Homes passed – Homes connected influence in PtP Networks Optical DSLAM Customer out of service Customers without service don’t need to be connected to a DSLAM port Customer in service © KEYMILE © KEYMILE Datum im Notizenmaster © KEYMILE Seite 23

FTTB Architecture Comparison
Date in Memo Master FTTB Architecture Comparison GPON OLT up- and downstream line rate is fixed to /2.5 Gbps (GPON) Customer line rate depends on splitting factor and ONT capacity For ONTs taking more than one timeslot (upstream), bandwidth for other users need to be reduced or oversubscription has to be activated (DBA) Customers without service (homes passed) are occupying a splitter port and 1/32 from the OLT port PtP Ethernet Line rate can be switched for each customer from Mbps to 1 GbE Due to direct point to point connections each customer line can be upgraded individually Only customer in service have to be connected © KEYMILE © KEYMILE Datum im Notizenmaster © KEYMILE Seite 24

Date in Memo Master COMPARISON PON VS PTP ETHERNET POWER CONSUMPTION © KEYMILE © KEYMILE Datum im Notizenmaster © KEYMILE Seite 25

Comparison: Power Consumption – Basic Information
Date in Memo Master Comparison: Power Consumption – Basic Information GPON Due to the splitter inside the passive network the laser power is much higher on OLT and ONT side The optical splitter has the same insertion loss in both directions and depends on the splitting factor (32-fold splitter: ca. 17 dB) GPON needs about 22 W per GPON port 32-fold splitter: 0.7 W per port 16-fold splitter: 1.4 W per port GPON simple CPE: 10 W consumption PtP Ethernet New low power designs require less laser power: KEYMILE typical 1.5 W for 100 Mbps Ethernet PtP simple CPE: 3 W consumption © KEYMILE © KEYMILE Datum im Notizenmaster © KEYMILE Seite 26

Comparison: Power Consumption GPON versus PtP – Compared Bandwidth
Date in Memo Master Comparison: Power Consumption GPON versus PtP – Compared Bandwidth © KEYMILE © KEYMILE Datum im Notizenmaster © KEYMILE Seite 27

Comparison: Power Consumption – Practical Case
Date in Memo Master Comparison: Power Consumption – Practical Case GPON In a typical GPON deployment there are unused splitter ports due to a not 100% customer take rate Calculation Basis: Homes passed. 100% Homes connected: 30% PtP Ethernet In an Ethernet PtP environment only the subscribers which are taking the service are connected to an active port © KEYMILE © KEYMILE Datum im Notizenmaster © KEYMILE Seite 28

Comparison: Power Consumption GPON versus PtP – Practical Case
Date in Memo Master Comparison: Power Consumption GPON versus PtP – Practical Case © KEYMILE © KEYMILE Datum im Notizenmaster © KEYMILE Seite 29

Date in Memo Master COMPARISON PON VS PTP ETHERNET TECHNICAL SUMMARY © KEYMILE © KEYMILE Datum im Notizenmaster © KEYMILE Seite 30

FTTx: PON vs. Point-to-Point (PtP)
Date in Memo Master FTTx: PON vs. Point-to-Point (PtP) PON PtP Number of optical interfaces (CO) low But higher demand on ONU high (1:1) TV support IPTV/CATV (Broadcast support) IPTV/CATV (Broadcast support) LLU Not supported supported Flexibility (architecture, technology, Subscriber basis) technical upgrade of OLT leads to replacement of all ONUs high per subscriber Resilience Low one faulty ONU can jeopardize the whole PON individual subscribers can be isolated – no impact on the whole region Trouble shooting complex simple © KEYMILE © KEYMILE Datum im Notizenmaster © KEYMILE Seite 31

PON vs. PtP Ethernet – Technical Summary
Date in Memo Master PON vs. PtP Ethernet – Technical Summary Bandwidth Standard Conformance Resilience Troubleshooting Maintenance Upgradeability Flexibility PON PtP Ethernet © KEYMILE © KEYMILE Datum im Notizenmaster © KEYMILE Seite 32

Date in Memo Master COMPARISON PON VS PTP ETHERNET COMMERCIAL ASPECTS © KEYMILE © KEYMILE Datum im Notizenmaster © KEYMILE Seite 33

PON vs. PtP Ethernet – CAPEX
Date in Memo Master PON vs. PtP Ethernet – CAPEX PON Infrastructure Cheaper for the initial investment > optical splitters are saving number of fibres in the aggregation network Passive splitter to be changed or removed in the network for bandwidth upgrade Upgrade to PtP infrastructure needs additional investments PtP Infrastructure Needs about 5% more initial investment From the first day on the most sustainable infrastructure – lives for the next 20 – xx years The passive infrastructure takes 75% - 85% of the total investment © KEYMILE © KEYMILE Datum im Notizenmaster © KEYMILE Seite 34

The right Investment in optical Networks
Date in Memo Master The right Investment in optical Networks Laying optical fibres causes the major share of costs Important: choose the right topology now (Compare Ethernet shared medium with PtP) Any network architecture has to be future-proof for the next 20 to 30 years Today’s optical fibres (single mode) have an almost unlimited transport capacity: Gbps = 1.6 Tbps) FTTC demands much lower investments The right way for an evolutionary approach Further investments into the network structure will follow after 5 to 10 years © KEYMILE © KEYMILE Datum im Notizenmaster © KEYMILE Seite 35

PON vs. PtP Ethernet – CAPEX
Date in Memo Master PON vs. PtP Ethernet – CAPEX PON Equipment Cheaper for the initial investment for pure residential applications > uses less number of lasers in OLT Depending on FFTB and business customer strategy CAPEX will be heavily increased Complete Equipment comes from one vendor – normal price erosion in question PtP Equipment Initial investment higher for pure residential applications due to number of lasers Advantages for business applications and FTTB connections The equipment costs are only 15% - 25% of the total investment © KEYMILE © KEYMILE Datum im Notizenmaster © KEYMILE Seite 36

PON vs. PtP Ethernet – OPEX
Date in Memo Master PON vs. PtP Ethernet – OPEX PON Equipment Needs less installation space Maintenance and failure localisation takes more time New system concept needs dedicated skills and different way of operation PtP Equipment Needs more installation space Easy operation of customer lines due to point to point connection Same operational concept like today for residential and business customers  Optical DSLAM © KEYMILE © KEYMILE Datum im Notizenmaster © KEYMILE Seite 37

PON vs. PtP Ethernet – Commercial Summary
Date in Memo Master PON vs. PtP Ethernet – Commercial Summary Pure Residential, Low Bandwidth 3 Years Horizon Residential, Business, FTTB medium Bandwidth 5 Years Horizon All Applications High Bandwidth Sustainability 10 – 20 Years Horizon PON PtP Ethernet Do not compare only port prices – Compare all aspects in a real network environment © KEYMILE © KEYMILE Datum im Notizenmaster © KEYMILE Seite 38

FTTx investments are mandatory to ensure operators’ revenues
Date in Memo Master Conclusion FTTx investments are mandatory to ensure operators’ revenues FTTB/FTTH point-to-point is the network architecture of the future PtP Ethernet technology offers the best scalability and is future proof for a FTTB/FTTH point-to-point applications For a sustainable fibre network strategy PtP Ethernet delivers cost effective solutions KEYMILE delivers a complete product spectrum for FTTH / FTTB applications © KEYMILE © KEYMILE Datum im Notizenmaster © KEYMILE Seite 40

FTTH/FTTB: Point to Point vs. PON

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "FTTH/FTTB: Point to Point vs. PON"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

FTTH/FTTB: Point to Point vs. PON

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "FTTH/FTTB: Point to Point vs. PON"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback