3 epongpon overview

7/28/2019 3 Epongpon Overview

1/34

2013/6/18 Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential

Insight into EPON & GPON

Sept. 1st, 2007


2/34

2013/6/18 Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential 2

Outline

EPON vs. GPON

CTC EPON IOP

Summary


3/34


EPON Vs. GPON

Protocol & Framing

QoS & TDM Support

System Costs

Upgrade Path

Interoperability & service migration

Split ratios, maximum reach, & traffic management

Users Forecast


4/34


PON Framing

ITU-TGPON

125 sec 125 sec 125 sec

ATM ATM ATM

GEM GEM GEM

IEEE EPON

OAM & MPCP

No Fixed Frame

GPON is evolving

to look like EPON!

ATM GEM ATM GEM GEMATM

GPONLite


5/34


GPON Frame Details

PCBdn

Payload n

125 us

PCBdn+1

Payload n+1

125 usRate Frame Size

1.244G 194402.488G 38880

PSync4 Bytes

Ident4 Bytes

PLOAMd13 Bytes

BIP1 Byte

PLend4 Bytes

Plend4 Bytes

US BW MapN*8 Bytes

Coverage of this BIP(Includes Payload n-1)

Coverage of next BIP(Includes Payload n)

Frame n

125 us

Frame n+1

125 usRate Frame Size1.244G 194402.488G 38880

ONT 1 Gap ONT 2 Gap ONT n Gap

PLOu

Alloc #a

PLOAMu13 bytesAlloc #a

DBRu 1

Alloc #a

Payload 1

Alloc #a

PLOAMu13 bytesAlloc #b

DBRu 1

Alloc #b

Payload 1

Alloc #b

GuardTime

SStart

Downstream

Upstream


6/34


Protocol QoS

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 ident icalservice requirements.

High-performance, QoS-capable systems can be built with either protocol.

Evaluate PON systems on performance and price, not protocol.

OAM

(In-Scope)

Framing

(In-Scope)

Physical Layer(In-Scope)

DBA

(Out-of-Scope)


7/342013/6/18 Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential 7

End-To-End Service Architecture

Video / IP

STB

C IS C OSY S T E M S

VoD Server

Soft Switch

PSTN

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

Core

Network

Home

Network

Triple-Play

FTTH ONT

OLT



TDMNetwork

Data

Network

PSTN

Video

Network

Network

Mgmt

Optical

Line

Terminal

Central Office

Triple-Play Residential Customers

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.

Cell Site

TDM Services over xPON

ONT

Apartment Building

Channel Bank Ethernet Switch

E1 GbE

Copper

Business

E1

GbE

ONT

ONT

n x E1

ONT ONT

ONT


9/34



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 nsAGC 44 ns * 400 nsCDR (Clock Data Recovery) 400 ns

* 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


11/34


Two Very Different Choices

1.25 Gb/s

EPON

ATM

BPON

2.5 Gb/s

EPON

2.5 Gb/s

GPON

10 Gb/sEPON

100% Ethernet

Seamless Migration

100% Ethernet

Seamless Migration

New Protocol -

Forklift Upgrade?

?No roadmap beyond

2.5G for GPON.

Continuity of Services

& Network

Management.

Disruption of Services &

Network Management.

802.3ah EPON

ITU-T GPON

X

X

622 Mb/s 1.25 Gb/s 2.5 Gb/s 10Gb/s

Speed

Sup

portforAdvan

ced

Services


12/34


1.25 & 2.5 Gb/s EPON: Line Rates & Framing

1518 Byte Packet 1518 Byte PacketPRE PRE

64 bits ofPreamble

1518 Byte P

64 bits ofPreamble

1518 Byte P 1518 Byte P 1518 Byte P

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)

2.5 Gb/s Downstream

Line Rate: 1.25 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)

1.25 Gb/s Downstream


13/34


Backward & Forward Compatibility

1.25G1.25G

1.25G

1.25G

1.25G

1.25G

1.25G

1.25G

2.5G

1.25G

1.25G

2.5G

2.5G

1.25G

1.25G

1.25G

2.5G

1.25G

1.25G

1.25G

2.5G

2.5G

2.5G 2.5G

2.5G


14/34


Progression from 1G to 10G EPON

802.3ah:1 Gbps downstream / 1 Gbps upstream The first commercial FTTH technology with Gigabit bandwidth deployed in the world Currently specified in IEEE Std. 802.3-2005

IPTV (200 Mbps), On-Demand (200 Mbps), Internet (600 Mbps)

HTTP, FTP, Gaming, Video Telephony (1 Gbps)

ONUPSOLT

Option 1:10 Gbps downstream / 1 Gbps upstream Providing more downstream bandwidth to support advanced digital TV services CATV replacement

IPTV (5 Gbps), On-Demand (2.5 Gbps),

Internet, Gaming, etc. (2.5 Gbps)

HTTP, FTP, Gaming, Video Telephony (1 Gbps)

ONUPSOLT

Option 2:10 Gbps downstream / 10 Gbps upstream Support for advanced, bandwidth-intensive upstream and downstream services Support for more subscribers / dense deployments / MDU markets

IPTV (5 Gbps), On-Demand (2.5 Gbps),

Internet, Gaming, etc. (2.5 Gbps)

Massively Multiplayer Gaming, Video

Surveillance, Video Telephony (10 Gbps)

ONUPSOLT


15/34


Interoperability & Service Migration

DBA Algorithm, etc.

Management Layer

(Out-of-Scope)

Management Layer

(Out-of-Scope)

Services Layer

(Out-of-Scope)

System Layer

(Out-of-Scope)

Upper PON Layer(Out-of-Scope)

Lower PON Layer(In-Scope)

Open Specification(IEEE EPON)

Allows Telcos & OEMs to

differentiate products

Management Layer

(In-Scope)

Services Layer

(In-Scope)

System Layer

(Out-of-Scope)

Upper PON Layer(Out-of-Scope)

Lower PON Layer(In-Scope)

Full Specification(ITU-T GPON)

Why are these different?

Different Objectives Different Scopes


16/34


Scope of the IEEE 802.3 Standard

MediumDependent

Interface (MDI)

Gigabit Media

IndependentInterface (GMII)

Logical Link Control

MAC Control

Media Access Control (MAC)

Reconciliation

Physical Coding Sublayer (PCS)

Physical Medium Attachment (PMA)

Physical Medium Dependent (PMD)

Medium

Data Link

Physical

Network

Session

Presentation

Application

Transport

Open Systems

Interconnection (OSI)

Reference Model

IEEE 802.3

Layering Diagram

IEEE 802.3 covers only the Physical Layer & part of the Data Link Layer


17/34


Interoperability: Two World Views

World View 1: PON equipment that complies with a completespecification, such as ITU-T GPON, is mandatory.

Aspiration: A complete specification leads to interoperableequipment from multiple suppliers, leading in turn to lowercost.

World View 2: PON equipment that allows transparent re-use of existingIP-based services is mandatory.

Aspiration: Interoperability at the service and management layerswithother access systems (e.g., DSL).


18/34


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 onreach, 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 amin imumsplit-ratio of 1x16, not a maximumsplit-ratio, with some very simplistic BWutilization calculations.

Myth: GPON has twice the split-ratio because its downstream is twice as fast as EPONs 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 cannotdistribute that bandwidth with enough precision and accuracy to meet the SLAs, thensolution A, and its higher bandwidth, are useless.


19/34


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 doeslead to the lowest costs), but rather that Fiberhome has built in the traffic managementfunctions that are really needed to make the services work properly.

High-performance (or low-performance) systems in principle could be built with eitherprotocol, hence manufacturers and carriers should place highest priority on feature setand 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 min imumrequirements in the EPONstandard with what is actually achievable (and legal) in real systems.

Basically, you can dial up very long-reach PONs using any of the protocols, providedyou are willing to choose the right optics, reduce the split ratio, etc.

None of the framing definitions contain any long-distance magic; its all about optics

and physics.


20/34


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 k ey.

Since IEEE 802.3ah appr oval in 2004, EPON equ ipment costs have decr eased by

60+% and opt ics costs have decreased by 80+%.


21/34


Source: I nfonetics Metro Ethernet Equipment, Apri l 2006

20042009 PON Subscribers

With permission: Copyright 2006 by Infonetics Research, Inc

21.6

6.8

2.5

0

5

10

15

20

25

Su

bscri

bers

(M)

CY04 CY05 CY06 CY07 CY08 CY09BPON

GPO

NEP

ON

Calendar Year

Wor ldw ide PON Subsc r ibe rs

~ 5M EPONend

CY2006


22/34


Source:HEAVY READING | VOL. 4, NO. 9, JUNE 2006 | FTTH WORLDWIDE MARKET & TECHNOLOGY FORECAST

20052011 FTTH Subscribers


23/34


Connecting two Ethernet networks

Ethernet-over-GEM-over-SDHorEthernet?

ITU-T GPONorIEEE EPON?


24/34


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.


25/34


Outline

EPON vs. GPON

CTC EPON IOP

Summary


26/34


CTC EPON IOP Key Features


27/34


CTC EPON System Evaluation Test


28/34


CTC EPON System Evaluation Test Achievements


29/34


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 halfyears

Decreasing cost


30/34


CTC View of EPON (Cont.)

After improved by CTC spec, EPON has no distinctive andessential difference in technical capability compared withGPON

-Transport capability

-DBA & QoS-Operation & Management

-Security

-Multicast

-Fiber protection-Multi-play support


31/34


NTT View of EPON

Two types of giga-bit PON systems have been standardized: G-PONby ITU-T and GE-PON by IEEE. Now the question is which one ismore promising? ... In Japan, we have seen a drastic pricereduction of media converters which could be realized by sharingthe technology and products of the LAN market. For services, high

quality IP Telephone and IP video are becoming critical basic FTTHservices. And for the core network, in NTT we have a full IPbackbone network for the FLETs service. Switches and routers inthe network employ Ethernet interfaces. Given these factors, wedecided to develop GE-PON as the next-generation FTTH system.

----Hiromichi Shinohara, Director of NTT Access Labs

(IEEE Communications Magazine, September 2005)


32/34


Outline

EPON vs. GPON

CTC EPON IOP

Summary


33/34


Summary

1. EPON is more mature & cost-effective than

GPON.

2. Both GPON & EPON will coexist in a long time.

3. Fiberhome is a FTTH leader in China.

4. With our effort, Fiberhome FTTH system will be

deployed worldwide soon.


34/34

Fib h P i t d C fid ti l 34

Thank you for attention!

3 epongpon overview

Documents