Comparison PON Protocols

7/23/2019 Comparison PON Protocols

1/18

Passive Optical Networks (PON) Protocols


2/18

Optical Access - FTTx

End User Sub-NetworkVoice, Data and Video

Networks(e.g. twisted pair, Ethernet, Coax)

User Terminals (e.g. Phone,

PBX, Computer, TV, STB)

Access Sub-NetworksServices Sub-Networks

PSTN

CATV Video

Intranet

PSTN/TDM

Intranet

ATM/FR

Intranet

IP/Ethernet

Video

POTS

Intranet

FTTC, FTTH, FTTP

FTTB, Hybrid

Ethernet

TDM

Fiber Home gateway

VoIP

Copper, WirelessSDH, P2P Modem,

PON

PON Protocols:APON, BPON, EPON,

GPON

Telemetry

(Special)

Why not pure Ethernet?


3/18

New Access Network:Why not pure Ethernet ?

New Access Network what should it be?

- Enterprise-class Ethernet- Carrier-class Ethernet- Carrier-class Multiservice

Carrier-class or Build at Lowest Cost (& rebuild, & rebuild):

- Performance monitoring (link monitoring)- Fault management (preemptive alarms)- Network Management (configuration/connection)- Reliability- Scalability

- Value


4/18

PON Basics

WF1OLT System

1310 nm

1490 nm

Video at 1555 nm

V- OLT System

1:N 1:N

Splitters can be collocated or

distributed

Splitters can be collocated ordistributed

ONU/ONT

Passive Optical Network (PON)

Optical Distribution Network (ODN)

Passive Optical Network (PON)

Optical Distribution Network (ODN)

1555 nm

1555 nm

1310 nm

1490 nm

1310 nm

1490 nm

+14 dBmV

SFU ONT or FTTC ONU

10/100BaseT

MDU ONT or FTTC ONUSME; LAN; B-ONU; V-ONU

Video RF+33 dBmV

24 POTS Lines

Data {DSL or 10/100BaseT}

ONU/ONT

NarrowCast Programming

EMS

IntranetIP Network

IntranetATM Network

IntranetTDM/PTN

Network

IntranetVideo Network

IntranetManagement

Network

Service Sub-Network End User NetworkAccess Sub-Network

Single Mode/Single Strand Fiber withsplitters


5/18

G.983.1/G.983.3 Wavelength Allocation Plan

( b ) IT U -T G 9 8 3 .3 W a v e l e n g t h A l lo c a t io n P l a n

1 4 8 0 1 5 0 0 1 5 2 0 1 5 4 0 1 5 6 0 1 5 8 0

G 9 8 3 . 3 B P O N U p s tre a m W a v e le n g th B a n d

1 2 6 0 1 2 8 0 1 3 0 0 1 3 2 0 1 3 4 0 1 3 6 0 W a v e le n g th ( n m )

G 9 8 3 .3 W D M B P O N D o w n s t r e am B a n d

V i d e o B a n d

(a ) C u r re n t G 9 8 3 W a v e l e n g th A l lo c a t io n P la n

G 9 8 3 . 1 A P O N D o w n s tre a m B a n d

1 4 8 0 1 5 0 0 1 5 2 0 1 5 4 0 1 5 6 0 1 5 8 0

G 9 8 3 . 1 A P O N U p s tre a m W a v e le n g th B a n d

1 2 6 0 1 2 8 0 1 3 0 0 1 3 2 0 1 3 4 0 1 3 6 0

W a v e le n g th ( n m )


6/18

PON Protocols

APON/BPON/EPON/GPON


7/18

Optical Access Protocols and Standards

Active Optical Networks: SONET/SDH (TDM-based/ATM VPR/Packet-based RPR)

Point-to-Point (Fiber Modems/POS/GigE)

Passive Optical Networks: FSAN/ITU-T APON/BPON/BPON+ ATM Cell-based

Ethernet/EFM/IEEE EPON IP Packet-based

Multi-Service/ITU-T GPON Packet/Cell/TDM

Full Service Access Networks (FSAN) APON/BPON/GPONITU-T G.983.1 Broadband Optical Access Systems Based on PON

ITU-T G.983.2 ONT Management & Control (OMCI)

ITU-T Q.834.3 Management Interface Requirements (EMS)

Ethernet in the First Mile (EFM) - EPON

IEEE 802.3ah EFM Ethernet in the First Mile Study Group (VDSL - copper & optical)


8/18

PON Protocols APON & BPON

Cell-Based PON (APON): Carrier-Class Multiservice

Standards-based (ITU-T G.983.1; G.983.2; G.983.3)

155/622M/1.2G APON/BPON

AES Encryption is defined in BPON (no FEC)

True Multi-service technology (DS1/DS3 Transport; ATM/IP; Video)

Proven QoS and Network Clock Synchronization (SRTS; Adaptive) Carrier-Class Network Management standard (ITU-T Q.834.3)

Good fit for ATM-Based Carrier Network

Strong support by carriers & vendors

Terawave is a leader in 622Mbps BPON (>5,000 nodes)

Carrier-class DBA; 50-ms protection switching; ASICs

Terawave is a leader in Network Management (FSAN standard co-editor)


9/18

PON Protocols EPON

Packet-Based PON (EPON): Ethernet-Class Commodity

Emerging 1.2G standard (IEEE 802.3ah)

Ethernet-type low-cost residential PON (Japan: $75- $100)

PotentiallyMulti-service technology (currently no standard)

Potentially capable of QoS and Clock Synchronization (PWE3) Network Management standard is not defined

Does not support enhanced security; supports FEC

Good fit for Ethernet Backhaul (10/100M)

Terawave will become strong leader in EPON (multi-protocol ASIC)


10/18

PON Protocols GPON

GPON: Multiservice

FSAN 1.2/2.4G Gbps standard that breaks away from PON framing

established in previous APON standards (ITU-T G.983.1)

Multi-service technology with Cell, Packet, and TDM mapping

Gigabit Encapsulation Method framing (GEM) to support Multi-service

(not GFP)

Will maintain Network Management standard as defined by APON

Will support ATM-only, Packet-only (variable length burst), and Mixed-

mode framing

Early phase of new standard (not completed; no ASICs)

FEC is the main point of interest by ILECs (enhance split ratio, distance,

and compensate for optical losses due to Video Lambda overlay)


11/18

Pros and Cons of PON Protocols: APON/BPON

APON/BPON - Pro

Favorable market perception Multiservice

(TDM/Data/Video)

Fully defined carrier-class

management Widely deployed technology

Supported by major vendors

Carrier-Class TDM (low jitter,

low delay synchronoustransport for structured andunstructured TDM traffic)

APON/BPON - Con

Lower upstream bandwidth

FEC is not defined

Requires SARing for IP traffic


12/18

Pros and Cons of PON Protocols: EPON & GPON

EPON - Pro

Lower cost optics

Simplicity of IP management Potential cost benefits of

commercially available packet-switching ASICs

GPON - Pro

Low delay for TDM traffic inmixed mode only

Mixed traffic mapping Higher bandwidth

FEC and AES

EPON - Con

Undefined Miltiservice (CES for TDM)

Poor QoS without per-flow queuing

Lack of Carrier-Class management

Higher delays and jitter due to store-

and-forward architecture

GPON - Con

Uncertain market demand

Confusing competitor to EPON/APON

Lack of commercial high-density GEM

Mappers ASICs @ OLT

Complex implementation for mixed-mode traffic

Higher cost optics

Not supported by major vendors


13/18

Dynamic Bandwidth Allocation (DBA)in

PON Networks


14/18

Dynamic Bandwidth Allocation (DBA)

DBA is a mechanism for scheduling the data traffic across PON

Non-DBA schedulers that support static data traffic across PON are notefficient for burst data applications

DBA became an important element of network architecture:

During the recent PON evaluations by NTT the efficiency of DBAalgorithm for EPON-based OLT & ASIC vendors was a key factor

New RFI by SBS, Verizon, and Bell South requires to supportStatus-Reporting DBA to improve utilization of upstream bandwidth


15/18

ITU BPON T-CONT Scheduling

PON

Scheduler Queue 1

Queue 2

Queue N

Scheduler

Queue 1

Queue 2

Queue 3

Queue N

Sch ONU 1 TCONT 1

ONU 1 TCONT N

Queue 1

Queue 2

Queue 3

Queue N

Sch ONU 2 TCONT 1

ONU 2 TCONT N

ONUs

OLT

PON

Input Queues are scheduled into T-CONTs at ONU

ONU reports T-CONT depths in mini slot

T-CONTs are scheduled across PON at OLT

Output flows are scheduled out of the OLT


16/18

Hakko Opto PON Scheduling

PONS

cheduler Queue 1

Queue 2

Queue N

Scheduler

Queue 1

Queue 2

Queue 3

Queue N

Queue 1

Queue 2

Queue 3

Queue N

ONUs

OLT

PO N

Input Queues are scheduled directly by OLT

ONU reports queue depths in mini slot

Queue lengths updates included in every cell

Output flows are scheduled out of the OLT


17/18

Hakko Opto DBA Advantage

Strict scheduling every cell generates a request, every requestgenerates a grant

Strict QoS Compute intensive scheduling calculates optimal time ofgrants

Dynamic Scheduling Grants recalculated every 25 uS by Hardware

Software may configure scheduling records for any ATM type of traffic. Software may reconfigure scheduling at a rapid rate


18/18

Contact : Mark Li - General Manager

Tel.: (852) 8200 2036

Fax.: (852) 8148 4513

Email: [email protected]

Web: www.hakko-opto.com

Documents

Comparison PON Protocols