Thomas Martin Fiber To The Home

2007 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.
Cisco Confidential thmartin-FTTH 1

Fiber To The Home
Thomas Martin thmartin@cisco.com
Consulting Systems Engineer
2007 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. Cisco Confidential thmartin-FTTH 2
Motivation for Fiber to the Home
FTTH Approaches
FTTH Deployment Aspects
Conclusion
222
AGENDA
Motivations For
FTTx
FTTH Motivations/Drivers
Need for a first mile
Availability of Local Loop Unbundling
Dependency on Local Loop Unbundling
Greenfield Areas
Streamlining the Access Network
Consolidation of Access networks
Competitive Threat
From cable companies & DOCSIS 3.0/Wideband DOCSIS
SPs offering FTTH services
The need for speed!
Bandwidth requirements driven by NGN applications
Video (HD is a key driver)
On demand BW services
Bandwidth Drivers
Triple Play
Switched Video at Home
Symmetric High-speed
Connectivity
Video download than real-
time streaming
Telepresence
Video High Definition!
Bandwidth demands
growing
Bandwidth Drivers
Source: IDATE
Telepresence
FTTH The Way to
Provide True High Speed Access
ADSL is reaching its limitations
The two major constraints inherent in ADSL
technologies,
asymmetry and bandwidth limitation,
prevent operators from being able to supply the
applications that digital homes will be
demanding in the not too distant future.
With increased penetration download speeds beyond
1.5 to 2 km drops dramatically and the minimum
10Mbps for 3Play (SDTV) cannot longer be provided
Trend for access bitrates :
exponential growth
1
10
100
1000
10000
100000
1000000
10000000
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018
"High-speed connection," actual
Straight line extrapolation assuming acceleration from 2004
Straight line extrapolation
Source: Heavy Reading report FTTH Worldwide Market & Technology Forecast, 2006-2011
FTTx Access Topologies/
Technologies
FTTH Access Topologies
Tree architectures
Passive Optical Network (PON) technology
Star architectures
Point-to-point connection of customers to
switches in a star topology
Passive Optical
Networks (PON)
Core Network
Aggregation
Access
Main
Point of Presence
Internet
PSTN
ONU in
basement
Voice
Gateway
SMB and residential
10
Passive
Optical Fiber
10 Mbit/s
WiFi
Video
surveillance
1:N split
Video source
(VoD / Bcast)
ONT
PC
TV Set
Ethernet
RJ-11
RJ-11
Ethernet
Set-top Box
Analog
Phones
RF coax
ONT in
Appartment
or office
ONT in home
or business
ONT
ONU
ONT
PON Architecture
PON Physical Network Infrastructure
Drop
Cables
Distribution
Cable
Feeder
Cable
Optical
Distribution
Frame (ODF)
Optical Line
Terminal
(OLT)
IP
Aggregation
Router
Primary Fiber
Concentration
Point (FCP)
Central Office
Access Node
Serving Area
Aggregation
Network
Single
Family
Unit
Small
Business
Unit
Multi
Dwelling
Unit
Distribution
Terminal
(Splitter)
Distribution
Cable
Distribution
Cable
Distribution
Terminal
(Splitter)
Distribution
Terminal
(Splitter)
Drop
Cables
Multi
Tenant
Building
Drop
Cables
Motivations for PON deployment
Fiber saving between splitter and CO/POP
relevant in scenarios where existing cables or ducts need to be reused towards
the splitter, or where fiber deployment is restricted (e.g., aerial cabling)
Less relevant for Greenfield scenarios
(marginal cost of fiber compared to digging, splicing, ...)
Analog video overlay for existing broadcast services
emulates cable TV distribution plant on a separate downstream wavelength
delaying introduction of IP TV
requires equivalent of cable headend at each OLT side
Port saving in the CO/POP
need to terminate thousands of fibers on switch ports
PON can reduce this by 1...2 orders of magnitude compared to P2P
port costs on a per-customer base, however, are roughly equivalent
No deployment of active equipment in the outside plant
in Europe & ME typically loops are sufficiently short so that also for P2P there is
no need to put active equipment into the outside plant,
unless the fiber saving argument becomes relevant
RF
TV
PON Flavors Today
Ethernet, ATM, TDM Ethernet ATM Transmission
1310 1310 1310 Upstream (nm)
1490 and 1550 1550 1490 and 1550 Downstream (nm)
Downstream
up to 2.5 Gbit/s
Upstream
up to 1.25 Gbit/s
Up to symmetric
1.25 Gbit/s
Downstream up to
622 Mbit/s
Upstream 155 Mbit/s
Bandwidth
ITU-T G.984 IEEE 802.3ah ITU-T G.983 Standard
GPON EPON BPON
PON Protocol Overview
OLT
C B A
1490 nm
C B A
C B A
C B A
C B A
1310 nm
A
C
B
ONT
ONT
ONT
A
CATV overlay
B
CATV overlay
C
CATV overlay
CATV overlay
CATV overlay
CATV overlay
CATV overlay
1550 nm
About Next-Gen PON:
GPON vendors say ...
2006 2009 2010 2011+
More bandwidth.
New optical components.
10G PON.
More capacity with
Wavelenght multiplexing.
WDM-PON (CWDM)
More capacity and bandwidth with
One wavelength per subscriber.
(DWDM)
GPON up and
running.
None of this is standardized yet None of this is standardized yet
2006 2009 2010 2011+
More bandwidth.
10G PON.
More capacity with
WDM-PON (CWDM)
(DWDM)
GPON up and
running.
ONT
ONT
ONT
OLT
1x 10Gbps
Simple view of the solution
GPON Lambdas:
- 1 downstream
- 1 upstream
GPON
1x 1.25Gbps
About Next-Gen PON:
2006 2009 2010 2011+
More bandwidth.
10G PON.
More capacity with
WDM-PON (CWDM)
(DWDM)
GPON up and
running.
ONT
ONT
ONT
OLT
GPON Lambdas:
- N downstream
- 1 upstream
4x 2.5Gbps
1x 1.25Gbps
GPON
Simple view of the solution
PON deployment Splitter spliced into plant
=> LLU impossible
OLT
opt.
MDF
Splitter
ONT
ONT
1 fiber
per n OLTs
PON deployment remote ODF with splitters
=> Enables LLU at a cost
LLU through SP-specific splitter in ODF and SP-specific feeder fiber
OLT
opt.
MDF
ODF
ONT
ONT
1 fiber
per Service Provider
Splitters
ONT
ONT
Main Issues with PONs
Data sent to all users on the tree: inefficient Video multicast & VoD
IGMP Proxy and snooping with limited support. IGMP process distributed between OLT(Proxy) and ONT(Snooper)
instable. Zapping degrades with large number of channels selected. No state of IGMP on ONT kept. Troubleshooting
by mirroringPONT tree, no focus on one sub (trace per user) possible Asymmetrical
All FTTH deployments that we are aware of universally assume a take rate of 25...35%. Only 25-35% of
interfaces need to be accommodated on switches in a Eth. P2P scenario rather than 100% in PON.
Strong encryption required to prevent eavesdropping
No resilience
OLT optics is single point of failure for entire tree
corrupt CPE can impact entire PON tree
J amming is very easy
just transmit continuous light and the whole tree is OOS
In case of technology change all terminations on a tree need to be replaced (simultaneously?)
Every endpoint (OLT, ONT, ...) has to operate at the aggregate bitrate
e.g., a GPON ONT delivering 100 Mbit/s to an end customer has to operate at 2.5 Gbit/s
Theoretical maximum number of customers per tree is rarely reached due to take-up rates, unless very
expensive ODFs in the field are used to optimize utilization
Main Issues with PONs
Data sent to all users on the tree: inefficient Video multicast & VoD
Asymmetrical
All FTTH deployments that we are aware of universally assume a take rate of 25...35%. Only 25-35% of
interfaces need to be accommodated on switches in a Eth. P2P scenario rather than 100% in PON.
Strong encryption required to prevent eavesdropping
No resilience
OLT optics is single point of failure for entire tree
corrupt CPE can impact entire PON tree
J amming is very easy
just transmit continuous light and the whole tree is OOS
In case of technology change all terminations on a tree need to be replaced (simultaneously?)
Every endpoint (OLT, ONT, ...) has to operate at the aggregate bitrate
e.g., a GPON ONT delivering 100 Mbit/s to an end customer has to operate at 2.5 Gbit/s
Theoretical maximum number of customers per tree is rarely reached due to take-up rates, unless very
expensive ODFs in the field are used to optimize utilization
OLT
ONT
ONT
ONT
PON CPE Aspects
CPEs (a.k.a. ONUs or ONTs) are an integral part of the PON
architecture
Special functionality
Media Access Control
Burst-mode lasers
high optical power
encryption
makes PON-CPEs inherently more expensive than native Ethernet
CPEs
Multi-vendor interoperability left for the future
Typically deployed and owned by the Service Provider as corrupt
CPEs can impact the traffic of other customers and compromise
security
Point-to-Point
(P2P)
or
home run fiber
Core Network
Aggregation
Access
Point of Presence
Internet
PSTN
Access
switch in
basement
Voice
Gateway
SMB and residential
WiFi
Video
surveillance
Video source
(VoD / Bcast)
NT
PC TV Set
Ethernet
RJ-11
RJ-11
Ethernet
Set-top Box
Analog
Phones
ONT in
Appartment
or office
ONT in home
or business
NT
NT
Ethernet Star Architecture
Ethernet Physical Network Infrastructure
Drop
Cables
Distribution
Cable
Feeder
Cable
Optical
Distribution
Frame (ODF)
Ethernet
Switch
IP
Aggregation
Router
Primary Fiber
Concentration
Point (FCP)
Central Office
Access Node
Serving Area
Aggregation
Network
Single
Family
Unit
Small
Business
Unit
Multi
Dwelling
Unit
Distribution
Terminal
(One-to-One
Cable)
Distribution
Cable
Distribution
Cable
Distribution
Terminal
(Eth Switch)
Distribution
Terminal
(Eth Switch)
Drop
Cables
Multi
Tenant
Building
Drop
Cables
Ethernet Star Architecture Characteristics
(a.k.a. P2P, Point-to-Point
Direct fiber access to individual subscribers
(e.g. single family residences, apartments)
Access switches in CO or decentralized on customer premise
Single mode single fibre
MTU deployments for residential, SMB, and Enterprise
customers
Access switches in basement of MTU; last drop via UTP
(Cat6/7) or fiber (SM/MM)
Very flexible and future proof solution as it provides
virtually unlimited bandwidth per customer
Ethernet Star Architecture Characteristics
(a.k.a. P2P, Point-to-Point)
Pay as you grow possibility
Fiber topology is technology neutral
Migration to new technologies / higher speeds
can be done on a customer by customer basis
(enabling competition among different
technologies / speeds)
Higher number of fibers to CO/POP
Slightly more equipment needed in the
CO/POP
CPE Aspects
CPEs can be commodity items purchased at retail
stores
No interoperability issues
No special functionality required
No Media Access Control
No Burst-mode lasers
CPEs inherently less expensive than PON CPEs
Can be deployed and owned by the customer as
corrupt CPEs can not impact the traffic of other
customers or compromise security
just switch off the port in case of non-compliant CPE behavior
Ethernet Point-to-Point Advantages
Dedicated Bandwidth Per User
Greenfields: Fiber topology is not tailored to- and limited by a given
technology
Ethernet is a commodity
Lower port prices
Wide interoperability
Allows cost-effective and still future proof hybrid deployments
Mix of Fiber To The Home and Fiber To The Curb with Copper(UTP)
connection to the subscriber
Co-Existence of Business and Residential Subscribers
Residential subscribers cannot interfere with business services and
SLAs
FTTx
Deployment
Cost of Equipment and Construction
Deployment models
Source: Corning and FTTH Council Europe
Civil Works
68%
Ethernet
12%
Fiber
6%
Cabinets
2%
Installation
3%
Other Services
9%
Civil Works cost is the major share of
FTTx deployment and is common to
both PON and P2P
Fiber Cost is only 6% of a FTTx
network cost
Fiber lifetime varies between 15 and
25 years
Increased fiber cost of P2P vs. PON is
only a minor part of the overall cost of
deployment and has to be regarded in
15-25 years depreciation
SPs need to make three significant
investments for FTTH deployment
Step 2: Connect the building
~35% of capex
Step 1: Roll out in the region
~15% of capex
Step 3:
Connect the
customer
~50% of capex
Source: Cisco IBSG
Only for step 1 there are any differences resulting from
access network architectures
FTTH capex
Source: IDATE, Study for French Government, April 2006
Costs for GPON and E-P2P quite close
Civil engineering represents 70% of the costs
Compared costs for GPON and E-P2P ( per Home Passed )
404
469
1,637
1,727
443
352
443
351
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
Metro GPON Metro E-P2P Suburban GPON Suburban E-P2P
passive active
FTTH Subscriber Connection
Access
Switch
Home
Network
Residential
Gateway
FTTH
Network
STB
FTTx Point-to-Point
Physical Subscriber Connection
1. New multi/single mode fiber
Simple to deploy, Quick User Activation, Unlimited Bandwidth, Easy
upgrade to GE access
Multimode up to 500m, for in-building wiring
Singlemode-single fiber for 100Mb/s and 1000Mb/s up to 10km
Quick Installation in existing risers (no safety/interference issues)
2. UTP Copper CAT V-VII
In New Buildings (dedicated ducts) Installation quicker and simpler than
fiber
Network Components (U-PE & CPE) have lower cost than fiber equivalent
Future Proof Media for Speeds Up to 1Gb/s
Limited to 90m of distance (100m including patching)
Customer Premises Equipment
Gaming TV Service Voice and Fax Service
Internet Service
Residential
Gateway
FTTH
Network
STB
Customer Premise Equipment
SPs regard the CPE as demarcation point for the
service and termination of the FTTH line
2 types of CPE approaches, depending on the service
offering
ONT (Optical Network Termination)
Terminates incoming fiber and converts 100BaseFX/BX/LX10 to
100BaseT
Customer connection via UTP
HAG (Home Access Gateway)
Combined ONT and Service termination
Mostly Voice/Data combinations
Home Access Gateway Architecture
Voice
Adaptor
(H.323, MGCP, SIP)
Voice
Adaptor
(H.323, MGCP, SIP)
FXS
FXS
FXS
FXS
Analogue Phones USER DEVICES
Video STB
Ethernet
10/100BaseTX
Switch
Ethernet
10/100BaseTX
Switch
UPLINK
10/100BaseT
100BaseXX
CPE
E-ONT: Scientific Atlanta Prisma Series
100BaseBX10 to 100BaseTX
Optional RF Video Overlay
HAG: Deployments with Partner CPE
HAG Partner:
Tilgin (former i3micro) www.tilgin.com
Telsey www.telsey.it
Genexis www.genexis.nl
Core
Distribution
Access
Customer Premise
Core
Switch
Main POP
STB
Aggregation
POP
GE
Internet
PSTN
Voice Gateway
SS7 Interconnect
SS7 Interconnect
Video Servers
Set-Top Box
CPE
Residential Access
Business Access
GE
Distribution
Switch
Access
Switch
FTTH Deployment Example
Core Network
Aggregation
Access
Internet
PSTN
Voice
Gateway
Video Source
(VoD / Bcast)
Centralized POP Approach
HAG
HAG
HAG
HAG
HAG
HAG
HAG
HAG
U-PE
N-PE
Centralized POP Approach
4510 with up to 384 ports
n x GE or 10GE uplinks
3 x 4510 per 42RU Rack
1182 Subscriber per Rack
Pay as you grow
Modular line-card with SFP
Add (pay for) transceiver only
when a subscriber is connected
100Mb/s per Subscriber
Centralized Equipment
1 point for AC and UPS
Central cable management and
troubleshooting
HAG HAG HAG HAG HAG HAG
Cisco 4510
100BaseBX10
Core Network
Centralized Access Pop
ODF relative position to Cisco 4510R Cisco 4510R in a rack ODF
Known POP sizes vary from 2 000 to 20 000 connected customers
Citynet in Amsterdam has designed POP with 10 000 & 12 000 fibres
New French Deployment (2M ports) with more than 10000 fibers per Pop
Loop lengths deployed:
In average 3.5 km, maximum 5 km
Novel mechanical solution
ODF for 2304 fiber terminations
Rack for 1502 active fiber
interfaces
50% take rate
up to 100% take rate
achievable with second
switch rack
Source: Huber & Suhner
Core Network/P
Aggregation
Access
PE-AGG
Internet
PSTN
Voice
Gateway
Video source
(VoD / Bcast)
Distributed Access
HAG
HAG
HAG
HAG
HAG
HAG
HAG
HAG
HAG
HAG
HAG
HAG
N-PE
U-PE
Multi Tenant Building Solution
Decentralized Access
Access Switch located in
Basement/Utility Area
UTP in-house cabling up to
90m distance
Cost effective Deployment
U-PE operates in L2 Mode
and can provides access for
Business services Layer2 &
Layer3 VPN services as well
as for Layer3 3Play services
GE (L2) link(s) to the PE-AGG
Residential Residential MTU Access MTU Access
To the
DP/POP
U-PE
HAG
Multi Tenant Unit
Switch Cabinet Solution
Compact Form Factor allows for
wall mounting
Power Distribution Panel with
optional UPS (Uninterruptible
Power Supply)
Fiber Tray for incoming fiber
UTP Patch Panels for in-house
cabling
Switches tilt-mounted to optimize
depth
Enclosure chassis act as heat-sink
Vandalism proof
FTTx Conclusion
What has been deployed so far?
In the US some of the incumbents are currently deploying
GPON
Utilization of existing Infrastructure: Re-use of existing duct and
outside cabinet structure
Video overlay
In J apan NTT and KDDI are deploying EPON
Aerial deployment in many regions does not allow large fiber
counts
Regulatory situation enforced lowest common denominator
Virtually anywhere else
Deployment of Point-to-Point/Star Ethernet
Only very little traction for PONs
Conclusion
Fiber deployment to residences is a large
investment into the future
Every deployment scheme for FTTx
networks has its own merits
Every deployment scheme for FTTx networks
has its own merits
PONs can optimize deployment cost in the very
short term, but do not represent a very future-
proof investment.
Ideal for existing FTTC (Fiber To The Curb)
topologies
Residential services in areas with FTTC deployments
Service offerings with low SLA (Service Level
Agreements)
Every deployment scheme for FTTx networks
has its own merits
Ethernet Point-to-Point architectures represent
the most future-proof solution which can
provide virtually unlimited bitrates to
subscribers.
Optimal choice for Greenfield deployments
Individual subscribers can be migrated to more
powerful technologies as needed without impacting
the service to other subscribers
Ideal to support mixed service offerings
Concurrent support for residential and business
services utilizing the same infrastructure
In terms of equipment, both PON and P2P solutions
have their merits, In terms of network topology, P2P
architectures have significant advantages. They are
more flexible and scalable, and therefore have
economic lifetimes in excess of 20 years.
Gartner Group
Choose the Right Topology for Your Fiber-to-the-Home Network

Thomas Martin Fiber To The Home

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Thomas Martin Fiber To The Home

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2007 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.

Cisco Confidential thmartin-FTTH 1

You might also like