comparison pon protocols
Post on 17-Feb-2018
223 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/23/2019 Comparison PON Protocols
1/18
Passive Optical Networks (PON) Protocols
-
7/23/2019 Comparison 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?
-
7/23/2019 Comparison PON Protocols
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
-
7/23/2019 Comparison PON Protocols
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
-
7/23/2019 Comparison PON Protocols
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 )
-
7/23/2019 Comparison PON Protocols
6/18
PON Protocols
APON/BPON/EPON/GPON
-
7/23/2019 Comparison PON Protocols
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)
-
7/23/2019 Comparison PON Protocols
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)
-
7/23/2019 Comparison PON Protocols
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)
-
7/23/2019 Comparison PON Protocols
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)
-
7/23/2019 Comparison PON Protocols
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
-
7/23/2019 Comparison PON Protocols
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
-
7/23/2019 Comparison PON Protocols
13/18
Dynamic Bandwidth Allocation (DBA)in
PON Networks
-
7/23/2019 Comparison PON Protocols
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
-
7/23/2019 Comparison PON Protocols
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
-
7/23/2019 Comparison PON Protocols
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
-
7/23/2019 Comparison PON Protocols
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
-
7/23/2019 Comparison PON Protocols
18/18
Contact : Mark Li - General Manager
Tel.: (852) 8200 2036
Fax.: (852) 8148 4513
Email: markli@hakko-opto.com
Web: www.hakko-opto.com
top related