Download presentation
1
Insight into EPON & GPON
Sept. 1st, 2007 2017/4/19 Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential
2
Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential
Outline EPON vs. GPON CTC EPON IOP Summary 2017/4/19 Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential
3
Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential
EPON Vs. GPON Protocol & Framing QoS & TDM Support System Costs Upgrade Path Interoperability & service migration Split ratios, maximum reach, & traffic management Users Forecast 2017/4/19 Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential
4
Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential
PON Framing ITU-TGPON 125 sec ATM GEM IEEE EPON OAM & MPCP No Fixed Frame GPON is evolving to look like EPON! “GPON Lite” 2017/4/19 Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential
5
Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential
GPON Frame Details Downstream PCBd n Payload n 125 us n+1 Payload n+1 Rate Frame Size 1.244G 19440 2.488G 38880 PSync 4 Bytes Ident PLOAMd 13 Bytes BIP 1 Byte PLend Plend US BW Map N*8 Bytes Coverage of this BIP (Includes Payload n-1) Coverage of next BIP (Includes Payload n) Upstream Frame n 125 us Frame n+1 Rate Frame Size 1.244G 19440 2.488G 38880 ONT 1 Gap ONT 2 ONT n PLOu Alloc #a PLOAMu 13 bytes DBRu 1 Payload 1 Alloc #b Guard Time SStart 2017/4/19 Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential
6
Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential
Protocol ≠ QoS OAM (In-Scope) Framing Physical Layer DBA (Out-of-Scope) Neither the EPON nor the GPON specification defines the QoS mechanism (DBA algorithm); it is out-of-scope, meaning it is up to the system/chip vendor. EPON and GPON have identical service requirements. High-performance, QoS-capable systems can be built with either protocol. Evaluate PON systems on performance and price, not protocol. 2017/4/19 Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential
7
End-To-End Service Architecture
PSTN Home Network Core Network Soft Switch Triple-Play FTTH ONT OLT Video / IP STB PON System: A L2/L3/L4 Ethernet Switch Connects the Core & Home Networks Multi-service Strict enforcement of service contracts Designed to reduce end-to-end cost VoD Server 2017/4/19 Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential
8
Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential
TDM Services over xPON Cell Site ONT Apartment Building Channel Bank Ethernet Switch E GbE Copper Telco-grade QoS is required Jitter, wander, delay, Stratum-traceability Must be compatible with triple-play networks EPON & GPON: identical service-layer requirements for TDM. TDM Network Data PSTN Video Mgmt Optical Line Terminal Central Office n x E1 ONT Business E1 GbE ONT ONT ONT ONT Triple-Play Residential Customers 2017/4/19 Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential
9
GPON Has More Complex Chips and Buffers
GPON uses GEM to Segment and Reassemble Ethernet frames Each connection (Port-ID) requires a separate SAR buffer An additional 1MB external buffer memory is required GPON OLT 100’s to 1000’s of SAR buffers Frame from ONU must wait until all bytes are received upstream from ONU before it can be processed GPON ONU Segmentation buffers for every Port ID 2017/4/19 Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential
10
EPON Uses Less Expensive Optics – Proven
GPON 1G/2G/10G EPON Downstream data rate (Mbps) 1244 or 2488 1000, 2500, 10000 Upstream data rate (Mbps) 155, 622, 1244 1000 Payload encapsulation GPON Encapsulation Method (GEM) Ethernet framing Laser on/off 13 ns * 512 ns AGC 44 ns * 400 ns CDR (Clock Data Recovery) * Short laser on/off times in GPON require high-speed laser drivers * Short AGC intervals in GPON require optical power leveling Additional protocol to negotiate power level Digital interface to transceiver to set the values * Relaxed optical specification parameters in EPON less expensive devices 2017/4/19 Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential
11
Two Very Different Choices
802.3ah EPON Continuity of Services & Network Management. 100% Ethernet Seamless Migration 10 Gb/s EPON 100% Ethernet Seamless Migration 2.5 Gb/s EPON 1.25 Gb/s EPON Support for Advanced Services ? No roadmap beyond 2.5G for GPON. X 2.5 Gb/s GPON X Disruption of Services & Network Management. ATM BPON New Protocol - Forklift Upgrade? ITU-T GPON 622 Mb/s Gb/s Gb/s Gb/s Speed 2017/4/19 Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential
12
1.25 & 2.5 Gb/s EPON: Line Rates & Framing
1.25 Gb/s Downstream Line Rate: Gb/s (.8 ns per bit) Data Rate: 1 Gb/s (1 ns per bit) Line Encoding: 8B/10B MPCP Timing: Time Quanta (16ns units) 64 bits of Preamble 1518 Byte Packet PRE 1518 Byte Packet PRE 2.5 Gb/s Downstream Line Rate: 2.5 Gb/s (.4 ns per bit) Data Rate: 2 Gb/s (.5 ns per bit) Line Encoding: 8B/10B MPCP Timing: Time Quanta (16ns units) 64 bits of Preamble 1518 Byte P 1518 Byte P 1518 Byte P 1518 Byte P 2017/4/19 Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential
13
Backward & Forward Compatibility
1.25G 2.5G 1.25G 1.25G 1.25G 1.25G 1.25G 1.25G 1.25G 1.25G 1.25G 1.25G 2.5G 1.25G 1.25G 2.5G 2.5G 1.25G 2.5G 2.5G 1.25G 2.5G 2.5G 1.25G 2.5G 2017/4/19 Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential
14
Progression from 1G to 10G EPON
2017/4/19 Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential
15
Interoperability & Service Migration
“Full” Specification (ITU-T GPON) “Open” Specification (IEEE EPON) Management Layer (In-Scope) Management Layer (Out-of-Scope) Management Layer (Out-of-Scope) Why are these different? Services Layer (In-Scope) Services Layer (Out-of-Scope) System Layer (Out-of-Scope) System Layer (Out-of-Scope) Allows Telcos & OEMs to differentiate products “Upper” PON Layer (Out-of-Scope) “Upper” PON Layer (Out-of-Scope) DBA Algorithm, etc. “Lower” PON Layer (In-Scope) “Lower” PON Layer (In-Scope) Different Objectives Different Scopes 2017/4/19 Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential
16
Scope of the IEEE 802.3 Standard
IEEE covers only the Physical Layer & part of the Data Link Layer 2017/4/19 Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential
17
Interoperability: Two World Views
World View 1: PON equipment that complies with a complete specification, such as ITU-T GPON, is mandatory. Aspiration: A “complete” specification leads to interoperable equipment from multiple suppliers, leading in turn to lower cost. World View 2: PON equipment that allows transparent re-use of existing IP-based services is mandatory. Aspiration: Interoperability at the service and management layers with other access systems (e.g., DSL). 2017/4/19 Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential
18
Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential
Split-Ratio Myths Logical vs physical split-ratio limits Logical One BPON OLT can address 253 BPON ONUs; One GPON OLT can address 4k GPON ONUs; One EPON OLT can address 32k EPON ONUs. Physical In real deployments, all technologies are limited to 1x32 or 1x64, depending on reach, condition of the fiber plant, service mix, optical performance. There is no practical split-ratio limit for any of the PON protocols; all have ample “ONU address space.” Myth: “EPON is only a 1x16 solution, while GPON supports 1x128” Statements like this combine willful mis-reading of the EPON spec, which specifies a minimum split-ratio of 1x16, not a maximum split-ratio, with some very simplistic BW utilization calculations. Myth: “GPON has twice the split-ratio” because it’s downstream is twice as fast as EPON’s 2.5G EPON is here and 10G EPON is coming soon this issue will disappear. Latency requirements, bandwidth guarantees, and fairness requirements are more important than raw bandwidth. Stated another way, if solution A has more raw bandwidth than solution B, but cannot distribute that bandwidth with enough precision and accuracy to meet the SLAs, then solution A, and its higher bandwidth, are useless. 2017/4/19 Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential
19
Traffic Management & Maximum Reach
Too much emphasis is placed on the PON protocol (EPON vs GPON), and too little attention is paid to the traffic-management and service-level issues. The magic of EPON is not so much that it uses Ethernet framing (although that does lead to the lowest costs), but rather that Fiberhome has built in the traffic management functions that are really needed to make the services work properly. High-performance (or low-performance) systems in principle could be built with either protocol, hence manufacturers and carriers should place highest priority on feature set and performance, not details of the framing. Comments on maximum reach Optics performance, split-ratio, and fiber-plant particulars determine the reach, not the PON protocol. Again there is FUD that confuses minimum requirements in the EPON standard with what is actually achievable (and legal) in real systems. Basically, you can dial up very long-reach PONs using any of the protocols, provided you are willing to choose the right optics, reduce the split ratio, etc. None of the framing definitions contain any long-distance magic; it’s all about optics and physics. 2017/4/19 Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential
20
Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential
EPON in Asia, 2007 Japan: 300k+ lines/month. NTT, KDDI, Tepco, K-Opticom, Chubu Electric, Energia, Kintetsu, & many others. Korea: Now in mass deployment, KT and others, 1M+ new subscribers in 2007. China: 50+ EPON deployments currently underway, 400k+ new subscribers in 2007. Taiwan, Malaysia, Singapore, Hong Kong, Thailand, Indonesia, Australia, etc. 6 EPON deployments currently underway (including 3 PTTs). Cost is key. Since IEEE 802.3ah approval in 2004, EPON equipment costs have decreased by 60+% and optics costs have decreased by 80+%. 2017/4/19 Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential
21
2004–2009 PON Subscribers ~ 5M EPON end CY2006
Source: Infonetics Metro Ethernet Equipment, April 2006 With permission: Copyright © 2006 by Infonetics Research, Inc 2017/4/19 Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential
22
Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential
2005–2011 FTTH Subscribers Source: HEAVY READING | VOL. 4, NO. 9, JUNE 2006 | FTTH WORLDWIDE MARKET & TECHNOLOGY FORECAST 2017/4/19 Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential
23
Connecting two Ethernet networks
Ethernet-over-GEM-over-SDH or Ethernet? ITU-T GPON or IEEE EPON? 2017/4/19 Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential
24
Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential
Lessons from History Ethernet has won every time it has competed with “higher speed” and “higher efficiency” technologies Ethernet vs. Token Ring Ethernet vs. FDDI Ethernet vs. ATM Ethernet vs. SONET Ethernet vs. ATM in the DSLAM Ethernet vs. Multi-service in the Metro Ethernet is cheap, simple, easy to install & manage Prediction Ethernet all the way will win a large fraction of the market. 2017/4/19 Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential
25
Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential
Outline EPON vs. GPON CTC EPON IOP Summary 2017/4/19 Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential
26
Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential
CTC EPON IOP Key Features 2017/4/19 Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential
27
Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential
CTC EPON System Evaluation Test 2017/4/19 Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential
28
Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential
CTC EPON System Evaluation Test Achievements 2017/4/19 Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential
29
Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential
CTC View of EPON EPON is mature and suitable for mass deployment in CTC –Simple, easy to develop –Sufficient chip and system vendors –Large-scale, all-around, chip-level and system-level IOP –Mass deployment in east Asia –Stable operation in the field trial of CTC for one and a half years –Decreasing cost 2017/4/19 Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential
30
Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential
CTC View of EPON (Cont.) After improved by CTC spec, EPON has no distinctive and essential difference in technical capability compared with GPON -Transport capability -DBA & QoS -Operation & Management -Security -Multicast -Fiber protection -Multi-play support 2017/4/19 Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential
31
Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential
NTT View of EPON “Two types of giga-bit PON systems have been standardized: G-PON by ITU-T and GE-PON by IEEE. Now the question is which one is more promising? ... In Japan, we have seen a drastic price reduction of media converters which could be realized by sharing the technology and products of the LAN market. For services, high quality IP Telephone and IP video are becoming critical basic FTTH services. And for the core network, in NTT we have a full IP backbone network for the FLET’s service. Switches and routers in the network employ Ethernet interfaces. Given these factors, we decided to develop GE-PON as the next-generation FTTH system.” ----Hiromichi Shinohara, Director of NTT Access Labs (IEEE Communications Magazine, September 2005) 2017/4/19 Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential
32
Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential
Outline EPON vs. GPON CTC EPON IOP Summary 2017/4/19 Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential
33
Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential
Summary EPON is more mature & cost-effective than GPON. Both GPON & EPON will coexist in a long time. Fiberhome is a FTTH leader in China. With our effort, Fiberhome FTTH system will be deployed worldwide soon. 2017/4/19 Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential
34
Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential
Thank you for attention! 2017/4/19 Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential
Similar presentations
© 2024 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.