10G EPON vs.
XG-PON1 efficiency
Pamela Begovic, Nasuf Hadziahmetovic, Darijo Raca
Faculty of Electrical Engineering, University of Sarajevo
Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina
pamela.begovic@etf.unsa.ba
Abstract - 10G EPON and XG-PON1 are both recently
standardized but emerging technologies, ready to replace their
less capacitive predecessors, 1G EPON and GPON respectively.
Both technologies offer row bit rate of 10 Gbps on downlink, but
are based on significantly different signal processing principles
and protocol stacks characteristics. According to these
principles, different technologies introduce different amount and
types of transmission overhead, which must be transmitted along
with the useful information (in order to provide network
functionality). While these overheads drastically reduce real
available bit rates to the end users, it is of the great interest to
estimate these overheads with high accuracy. Accordingly, in this
paper, entire overhead (including PHY and MAC layers
overheads) introduced by 10G EPON and XG-PON1 technologies
is estimated through their corresponding protocol stack analysis.
Based on these estimations, final conclusions about 10G EPON
and XG-PON1 efficiency and thus maximum real achievable data
rates are derived. This enables network operators to make
appropriate decision when choosing between the two concurrent
technologies.
Keywords - NGA, 10G EPON, XG-PON1, protocol stack,
bandwith efficiency, transmission overhead
I. INTRODUCTION
The growth of high bit-rate services, such as TV over IP
(IPTV and High Definition IPTV, which require up to 20
Mbps), Web-TV (e.g. YouTube) and also the increasing
popularity of social networks (resulting in a multimedia content
exchange) required from current telecommunications networks
a migration towards architectures and technologies capable of
ensuring ever higher bandwidth [1]. These migrations had to be
made in all sections of the network, especially in the access
part where the bandwidth limitations bottled the development
of the next-generation networks [1].
In order to overcome this issue, a significant number of
different access wideband technologies have been developed,
based on existing, newly-built cable infrastructure or the use of
wireless media. However, popular technologies like xDSL,
cable modem networks as well as existing wireless
technologies are not capable of providing enough bandwidth
for emerging services [2]. Among all currently existing
technologies, only optical medium has capacities to actually
deal with future needs [3]. Therefore, in long terms, optics in
access segments (under the generic term FTTx - Fiber To The
x), represent the only solution which supports large bandwidth
capacities, required by communications networks [3].
978-963-8111-77-7
When it comes to FTTx networks, a large specter of
solutions has been developed, so far. These solutions are based
on different architecture, types of network elements, multiple
access techniques and data layer protocols. At the moment, the
most attractive and most usable solutions are those based on
passive link components between central office and output
point on users side, known as passive optical networks (PON).
These networks are the simplest and cheapest to implement [1],
which is why they represent around 85% of installed FTTx
networks today in the world [3]. Therefore, these networks and
their newest standard versions are the subject of this paper
analysis.
Chronologically speaking, after a few less successful
solutions, ITU-T and IEEE in 2004 have both individually
announced PON networks standards, called GPON (ITU-T
G.984) and EPON (IEEE 802.3ah) respectively [4]. They
provide maximum theoretical rates up to 1.25/1.25 Gbps
(EPON) and 2.48/2.48 Gbps (GPON) [5]. However, not entire
bandwidth is available to the end user. It is shared among
multiple users (up to 32 or even 64) and moreover, it is used for
transmission of system information (transmission overhead)
whose amount depends on type of a PON standard. Because of
that overhead, GPON and EPON efficiencies are 94% and 73%
respectively (for maximum raw data rates available) [4].
Consequently, these technologies provide around 30 Mbps
(EPON) and 70 Mbps (GPON) per user (assuming 32 users
sharing the total bandwidth) [4]. Accordingly, real available
data rates per user are different, depending on chosen
technology, and moreover, they are both drastically reduced in
respect to theoretical rates. Bearing in mind the above
mentioned, since 2006, first IEEE then ITU-T also, estimated
that in time to come, available rates will become insufficient
for providing desired quality of service. During that period,
both organizations started working on standardizing NGA
(Next Generation Access) optical access networks upon a PON
fiber infrastructure.
In 2009, a 10G EPON standard (IEEE 802.3av) was
announced, followed by XG-PON1 (ITU-T G.987) standard in
2010. 10G EPON and XG-PON1 enable shared raw bit rates up
to 10 Gbps [6]. However, similarly to previously standardized
PON solutions, 10 Gbps bit rates are just theoretical and must
be used for multiple users data transmissions together with
transmission overheads [7]. While both NGA systems features
introduce a number of different transmission overheads, real
available bit rates are reduced differently, depending on
technology [7].
 Accordingly, in the process of access network planning it is
necessary to perform objective assessment of available rates
offered by each of these technologies to their users, in terms of
their efficiency factor [8]. Reflecting the above mentioned, a
detailed overview analysis of NGA solutions (10G EPON and
XG-PON1, that have been standardized up to the moment of
writing) are given in this paper, focusing on comparing
efficiency and assuming the implementation protocols as close
as possible to MAC protocols.
Similar efficiency comparison or only the results have been
presented for EPON and GPON technologies in [5], [4], [8]
and [9]. As far as NGA solutions are concerned, technologies
mentioned are just recently standardized, so up until now, not
many papers dealing with these issues have been published.
Concluding from a survey of literature available, there are few
papers ([7], [10], [11]) dealing with only specific overhead
segments separately and for each technology individually.
According to the knowledge of the authors, not one paper that
gives comparison efficiency analysis of both solutions (with
overall overhead estimation concluded with MAC layer of
protocol stack) has been published. Hence, this paper should
then represent a contribution to this field and provide objective
insight into a real performance of rival solutions to the future
operators.
Paper is organized as follows: Section II contains a short
overview of NGA solutions standardized to this day (10G
EPON and XG-PON1) and those in perspective. Concepts of
systems functioning through identifying a transmission
overhead introduced by 10G EPON and XG-PON1
technologies are given in Section III and Section IV
respectively. Section V contains an assessment of performed
efficiency and real user rates in respect to scenario suggested,
for each of the solutions. A brief discussion of analysis results
and conclusion is given in last section of the paper.
II. CURRENT STATUS OF NEXT-GENERATION PON
A large step forward has been made with an introduction of
EPON and GPON technologies in terms of available capacities,
especially compared to other access network technologies like
DSL or cable modem networks. However, with the
development of more demanding services (such as 3DTV,
multiple full HDTVs per household etc. [12]), these capacities
will soon be insufficient for providing a desired quality of
service to end user. These trends were first recognized in 2006,
when IEEE and ITU started preparing optical access NGA
network standards.
After several years of preparation, IEEE at the end of the
year 2009, finally published standard named 802.3av defining
the specifications for 10G EPON networks. At the moment of
announcing, standard assured a transmission through rates
higher than all other access technologies, providing asymmetric
transmission bandwidth of 10/1 Gbps and symmetric, equal to
10/10 Gbps [13]. As its reference for the optical link loss
budgets, the 802.3av specification uses a split ratio of either
1:16 (i.e., 16 optical network units (ONUs) on a single PON
connecting to one optical line terminal (OLT) interface) or
1:32, but in practice, larger split ratios such as 1:64 or 1:128
can also be used [14]. It is also important to mention that 10G
EPON is completely compatible with its predecessor, which
makes system upgrade very simple and provides coexistence of
both solutions over the same optical distribution network
(ODN) [14]. This has made 10G EPON technology very
attractive for operators already having installed EPON systems
of former generation.
Similarly, FSAN/ITU-T in 2007 has also started to work on
NGA PON solution [6], but in two different directions. The
first group (NG-PON1) included systems that could coexist
with GPON on the very same ODN infrastructure. The second
group (NG-PON2) included all other systems that either
required a different ODN or that required technologies that
were not to be available in close future [15].
In 2008, FSAN group gathered proposals for NG-PON1
and among seven different propositions choose XG-PON1, as it
seemed to be the most appropriate candidate for starting phase
of standardization development [15]. As a result, the solution
has been standardized in June 2010, as a part of ITU-T G.987
standard. It offers asymmetric bandwidth of 10/2.5 Gbps, uses
one wavelength in each direction and can support between 32
and 256 users on each ODN [16]. These networks are,
according to request, compatible with previous GPON
networks generation, which gives them a complete
competitiveness against IEEE solution.
Moreover, within the NG-PON1 group, XG-PON2
(offering 10 Gbps symmetric bandwidth) was also
recommended for further development, and its standardization
is expected towards the end of 2011/2012 [16].
However, when more bandwidth required than can possibly
be provided by 10G EPON or NG-PON1, and when PTP
(point-to-point) fiber is not an option, wavelength division
PON (WDM-PON) may be the answer. Although WDM PON
solutions are still under standardization, they are going to offer
rates up to 40 Gbps and symmetric bandwidth, but they are also
going to exhibit a higher cost per line, compared to 10G EPON
or NG-PON1 [6].
Accordingly, up to moment of writing, just 10G EPON and
XG-PON1 have been standardized as NGA solution, which
makes them only candidates for comparative analysis within
this paper. Moreover, both technologies offer the same 10 Gbps
downstream bandwidth, but are built on quite different
principles. Therefore it is of great importance to compare
objectively their technical characteristics and consequent
efficiency. This enables network operators, which are planning
to implement FTTx solution within their access networks, to
make appropriate choice between these two concurrent
technologies. In the sections that follow, a comparison
efficiency analysis of 10G EPON and XG-PON1 solutions are
given. Their aim is to provide conditions for maximum
available rates per user estimation and represent a starting point
in the process of PON networks planning.
III. 10G EPON OVERHEAD IDENTIFICATION
Each TDMA PON network (EPON, GPON, XG-PON1),
therefore 10G EPON network as well, has an identical
topology which can be described as multipoint-to-point for
upstream, and point-to-multipoint for downstream, because of
the character of PON architecture. Accordingly, all system
users, represented as ONU units, share a single transmission
channel towards central device (OLT located in central office).
Thus it is necessary to allocate its resources between all
existing ONU units.
The upstream transmission occurs in burst mode, since
ONUs must only enable their lasers to transmit a burst of data
and disable them immediately after that [7]. According to their
traffic demands, multiple (N) ONU units take turn transmitting
in their dynamically allocated time slots, which occur almost
periodically.
On the other side, downstream link transmission is
broadcast. All traffic is transmitted to every ONU unit, but only
one having the corresponding address will pass the traffic
through upper OSI model layers.
Therefore, it is obvious that data related to time slots
allocation, devices addressing etc., are beside user data,
necessary to transmit through a PON system. Moreover, for
transmissions full functionality (as in any other network),
pieces of information used for synchronization, encoding etc.,
also need to be transmitted. Apparently, all mentioned occupies
a part of overall links capacity, directly influencing maximum
transmission rate available to users. Consequently, shared links
rate is being significantly decreased compared to theoretical
rate of 10.3125 Gbps (recommended by standard for
symmetrical 10G EPON systems [11]). In order to evaluate real
data transmission rates available to users, it is of great
importance to perform an assessment of overall overhead. That
overhead is introduced in order to provide system functioning
conditions and is necessary to identify all elements leading to
bandwidth efficiency decrease in both transmit directions.
Similarly to other actual technologies, concept of 10G
EPON networks is based on redirecting system information
through 802.3av layers of reference model (bearing various
types of frames in mind). Therefore, in order to identify the
overhead, it is necessary to identify all encapsulation elements
and control messages exchange, through referent model layers
and according to the standard mentioned. Moreover, bearing in
mind that 802.3av standard speficies only two lower layers of
ISO-OSI model (PHY and MAC layer), the data within
payload of second layer are considered as usage data. Under
these circumstances, in 10G EPON, three different types of
overhead can be identified: Ethernet framing overhead, control
message overhead and line coding, FEC and burst mode
overhead. Accordingly, in the rest of this Section, 10G EPON
overhead identification of appropriate ISO-OSI model is
presented, from the highest standardized level to the bottom
layer of it.
A. Ehternet encapsulation overhead
10G EPON technology has inherited data encapsulation
concept within Ethernet frame on a data link layer, from its
predecessor EPON [14]. Accordingly, looking from a data
layer of ISO-OSI model, a typical Ethernet frame header is
added on Ethernet payload (which is considered as usage data
within this analysis).
Figure 1. a) Ethernet frame format; b) 10G EPON frame format [17]
According to Fig. 1, header contains IFG (Inter Frame Gap)
periods, introduced in order to prepare devices for receiving
next frame. After that, a preamble field comes, whose content
has been slightly modified in 802.3av standard in relation to
original 802.3 field. It consists of LLID (Logical Link ID), start
of LLID delimiter (SLD) and appropriate CRC part. LLID field
carries information about EPON device address and is used to
emulate a PTP medium. It relies on tagging of the Ethernet
frames, with tags unique for each ONU [9], thus differing from
original preamble field used for Ethernet frame
synchronization. Before MAC layer, an additional addressing
scheme is useful because in downstream direction, even though
all frames are delivered to each ONU, only the ONU with
appropriate LLID pass the frame to its MAC layer [9]. Other
fields of each Ethernet frame contain MAC addresses of
receiver (DA) and transmitter (SA), after which comes a field
indicating length/type (L/T) of Ethernet frame. Ethernet
payload optionally contains from 46 to 1500 bytes (Npl),
followed by 4 bytes of FCS (Frame Check Sequence) code for
potential errors detection, caused due to the transmission [9].
Length of payload depends on momentary available amount of
data being transmitted within the frame, causing the overhead
(as a consequence of Ethernet encapsulation) to become 2.47%
out of 45.24% of total amount of data being transferred to a
lower layer from the MAC layer. Accordingly, the share of this
overhead in total amount of transmitted data, for Npl bits within
each Ethernet payload, can be expressed as aEt = 38/(38 +
Npl)100%.
However, while many frames coming from (or to) each
ONU with different payload's length are forwarded together to
lower level, the value of Ethernet frame overhead depends on
specific distribution of packet sizes [7]. Thus, if different
payload length, marked as Npl1, Npl2,...,Npln, appear with
probabilities p1, p2, ..., pn, average Ethernet encapsulation
overhad share in total amount of transmitted data can be
expresed as aEt = 38/(38 + p1Npl1 + p2Npl2 ++ pnNpln)100%.
B. Line coding, FEC and burst mode overhead
In accordance with 10G EPON concept, all buffered
Ethernet frames are forwarded to lower ISO-OSI layer for each
ONU individually. Additional data processing and
encapsulation is there performed. However, since downstream
and upstream transmissions feel different topologies, their
overheads differ and must be treated separately.
1) Downstream line coding and FEC overhead: In the
downstream direction (from the OLT to ONUs), Ethernet
packets transmitted by the OLT, pass through a 1N passive
splitter and reach each ONU [9]. However, prior transmitting,
buffered set of Ethernet frames within OLT passes to next
lower layer, or more precisely, to line coder. The line coding
for 10G EPON is 64B/66B thus reducing line coding overhead
(aLC_d) from 20% in its precursor EPON to just 3.03%.
 After line coder, a self-synchronous scrambler is used on
the block payload in order to help randomize the payload bits.
However, scrambler doesnt introduce any overhead and it
doesnt affect bandwidth efficiency in any way.
Afterwards, scrambled bits enter the forward error
correction (FEC) coder. 10G EPON specification includes a
mandatory FEC based on Reed-Solomon (255, 223) channel
encoding [7]. Accordingly, FEC coding process is in these
networks preformed as follows: for data streams at the output
of the scrambler, FEC encoder accumulates 27 of 66 bit blocks
to form the basis of an FEC codeword. First, it removes the
redundant first bit of each block (which is guaranteed to be the
complement of the second bit) [15]. It then adds 29 padding
bits (binary 0) to the 27 blocks (65 bits each) to form the 223-
byte payload portion of an FEC codeword which, combined
with 223-byte payload, form the 255-byte Reed-Solomon
codeword [18]. After the Reed-Solomon codeword has been
computed, the FEC encoder constructs the transmittable FEC
codeword with the original sequence of 27 66 bit blocks
(including the redundant first bit, but not including the 29
padding bits). Moreover, while 32 parity bytes can be treated as
four groups of 64 bits, FEC coder also adds additional 2 bits to
each of these blocks, to remain compatibility with line coding
principles [14].
At the end, it is important to emphasize that 10G EPON is
stream based, so it makes estimation of FEC overhead
independent on packet size distribution on upper layers [18].
Accordingly, for every 27 64B/66B blocks of transmitted data,
FEC encoder adds 4 64B/66B blocks of parity, resulting in
aFEC_d = 12.9% FEC overhead share, in total amount of
downstream data. Finally, in downstream direction, created 31
66 bit blocks are sent directly to the media for transmission
[14].
2) Upstream Line coding, FEC and burst mode overhead:
In the upstream direction (from ONUs to the OLT), each ONU
transmits in its allocated time slot. These time slots for each
ONU occur almost periodically and the period in which all N
ONU units (within existing ODN) are served, is called cyclic
period T. Each time slot within that cyclic period is capable of
carrying several Ethernet packets. ONU must buffer frames
received from a subscriber until its time slot arrives [9]. When
its time slot arrives, the ONU ''burst'' all stored frames at the
full channel. However, before transmitting, additional
overhead must be added.
Similarly to downstream direction, in upstream, line coding
64B/66B is also performed. But, opposite to downstream, in
upstream direction two 66 bit blocks with idle code, at the
beginning of the FEC protected portion of every burst (for each
ONU) must be added [7]. These idle blocks are used to
synchronize the descrambler and to provide packet delineation
at the MAC layer of the OLT. As this overhead (called idle-
prefix overhead) is present in every upstream burst, it is easy to
estimate the total bandwidth it consumes [7]. Accordingly,
assuming that raw transmission rate equals to 10.3125 Gbps,
within each cyclic period T, the total of 10.3125109T bits can
be transmitted. While idle-prefix overhead is composed of two
66 blocks for each ONU unit, for N of them, it can be
calculated as: aIP = (266N)/(10.3125109T)100%.
After line coding, scrambling and FEC (identically as in
downstream direction) are performed. However, since 10G
EPON specification does not allow shortened codewords in
FEC coding structure, upstream transmission slot must be
extended to include integer number of codewords [7]. That is
while variable size Ethernet frames may not be able to
completely occupy the granted timeslot, and according to [7],
half of one codeword payload (composed of 27 66 bit blocks)
remains unused during actual transmission by each OLT.
Consequently, so called codeword quantization overhead
occurs, being equal to aCQO = (0.51782N)/(10.3125109T)
100%. It is also important to emphasize that codeword
quantization overhead is specific only for upstream
transmission, assuming that in downstream direction there will
always be enough traffic to fill-in entire codeword.
Opposite to downstream direction, FEC encoded data can
not be directly transmitted to media. While at the moment, just
one ONU can transmit, it has to turn on its laser first and turn it
off after the transmission. It means that additional overhead,
known as burst mode overhead, must be introduced within each
ONU transmission.
Figure 2. Internal structure of the upstream channel data burst in 10G EPON
[7]
According to Fig. 2, before starting a transmission from
each ONU, some amount of time (known as laser on time -
TON) needed for the laser to turn on, must be reserved.
Afterwards, it is also necessary to reserve some time for gain
control (TAGC) and for performing clock and data recovery
(TCDR). Depending on the quality and implementation of the
OLT burst-mode receiver, these values might vary for different
manufacturers. In [19], proposed values for each of them equal
200 ns. Moreover, before the start of FEC data portion,
additional burst delimiter (BD) field, containing 66, bit must be
added. This field is used to enable OLT to reliably identify the
beginning of an incoming data burst, even in the presence of bit
errors [7]. After the transmission of FEC coded data (for each
ONU unit), end of burst (EOB) delimiter (composed of 66 bits)
indicates to the OLT receiver that the end of the data burst from
the given ONU is also necessary [7]. Finally, after
transmission, amount of time, named laser off period (TOFF),
must be reserved in order to enable laser to turn off. TON and
TOFF depend primarily on ONU laser diode and the driver
circuit [7] and in 10G EPON, these times usually equal to 64 ns
[19]. Although the IEEE 802.3av specification does not specify
any guard band between two consecutive upstream bursts, laser
on and laser off periods of two consecutive bursts may overlap.
Thus it is recommended to ensure a gap between these burst,
named guard band period (TGB). Accoridng to [7], its value is
equal to 81.25 ns. Consequently burst mode overhead
(assuming downstream row bit rate R = 10.3125109 bps) now
can be calculated as: aBM = (LON + TAGC + TCDR + LOFF + BD/R
+ EOB/R + TGB)N/T100%.
 However, in the upstream transmission, guard band and
burst model overheads are not line coded and FEC protected.
Therefore, the upstream line coding and FEC overhead is less
than in downstream direction, and can be calculated as aLC_u =
3.03(100 aBM)/100% and aFEC_u = 12.9(100 aBM)/100%.
C. Control overhead
To support a time slot allocation by the OLT, the multi-
point control protocol (MPCP) is being developed by the
802.3ah task force, and taken out from within 10G EPON
standard. This protocol relies on two Ethernet messages: GATE
and REPORT, which are both MAC control frames, type 88-08
[9]. A GATE message is sent from the OLT to an ONU and it
is used to assign a transmission timeslot. A REPORT message
is used by an ONU to convey its local conditions (such as
buffer occupancy, etc.) to the OLT and to help the OLT make
intelligent allocation decisions [9]. In view of that, for the
purpose of time slots allocation, during each cyclic period at
least one pair of these messages must be exchanged between
OLT and each ONU. To simplify the calculations, according to
[7], it can be assumed that each GATE message carries a single
bandwidth grant which includes time for transmission of a
REPORT message back to the OLT. Since each MAC control
frame type 88-08 contains 84 bytes in total, the control
overhead is therefore aC = (672N)/(10.3125109T)100% in
both downstream and upstream.
Beside the above components, there is also discovery
overhead in both, upstream and downstream. Discovery
overhead presents the time needed for process of discovering
new ONU units. It is usually repeated periodically every 1
second, and last for 300 s [9]. During that time, no other
transmission is allowed, thus introducing additional overhead
known as discovery overhead, equals to aD = 0.03%.
IV. XG-PON1 OVERHEAD IDENTIFICATION
XG-PON1 presents, up to this point, the only standardized
version of NG-PON solutions. It emerged as a successor of
GPON standard, allowing transmission of 10 Gbps in
downstream and 2.5 Gbps in upstream direction. Thus, it
inherited GPON concept, introducing some novelties (for
example, higher security level, both in upstream and
downstream and more heavily structured protocol stack etc.
[15]).
Being a representative of TDMA PON, XG-PON1
recognizes the same topologies as its competitor 10G EPON,
including broadcast transmission in downstream and dynamic
time slot allocation in upstream directions. But opposite to 10G
EPON, no control and discovery message must be transmitted
through the network. In purpose of ONU discovery and time
slot allocation, special encapsulation overhead is being
introduced within transmitted frame formats, in both
transmission directions.
As a result, the entire XG-PON1 overhead can be identified
through its protocol stacks frames encapsulation overhead
identification. The appropriate protocol stack, defined within
ITU-T G.987.3 standard, is structured with three distinct
sublayers: the first is the physical (PHY) adaptation layer
(PAS), which handles the unique issues of the XG-PON
physical layer; the second is the framing layer (FS), which does
the main work of transmission convergence (that is, the control
of the PON TDMA system); the third is the client adaptation
layer (CAS), which carries user signals over the XG-PON
system [15]. Since downstream and upstream transmissions
have different topologies and thus related transmission
principles, frame formats through identified sublayers differ in
different transmission directions.
A. Downstream XG-PON1 overhead
In XG-PON1 networks, downstream transmission occurs in
125 s PHY frames. These frames are used as transport
structures for FEC encoded blocks of data coming from higher
layer, together with physical synchronization overhead (PSBd).
Figure 3. Downstream XG-PON1 layer organization [15]
In view of that, supposing transmission rate of 9.95328
Gbps, defined within G.987 standard for downstream direction
[15], total of 155520 bytes within each 125 s PHY frames can
be transmitted. However, 24 of these bytes must be reserved for
PSBd overhead (Fig. 3). In downstream direction, PSBd
overhead is composed of following: 8 bytes set to fixed
framing pattern, used to enable receiver to find the beginning
of each PHY frame (PSync), 8 bytes of Superframe Counter,
which provides a much longer scale time reference and 8 bytes
carrying PON identity (PON-ID) [15]. Therefore total of
155496 bytes within each PHY frame can be used for carrying
FEC codewords. XG-PON1 uses Reed-Solomon (248, 216)
FEC correction code in downstream, and accordingly, within
each PHY frame, the total of 627 codewords can be
transmitted. Since 32 bytes in each of these 627 codewords
represent FEC redundancy, PAS downstream overhead can be
calculated as aPAS_d = (24+32627)/155520 100% = 12.92%.
However, before sending to FEC encoder, the group of
135432 bytes is formed on FS layer. Thus, XGTC frame is
composed of CAS PDU and XG-PON transmission
convergence downstream header (XGTC he.), as shown in Fig.
3. XGTC header consists of three parts. The first is the fixed
size part of the header, which carries the lengths of the next
two parts of the header (11 bits of bandwidth map (BWmap)
length and 8 bits of PLOAM count), and is protected with 13
bits header error correction (HEC) code [20]. The second part
is the bandwidth map (BWmap). It carries N 8-bayts upstream
bandwidth allocations to the ONUs (or more precisely,
transmission containers (T-CONTs) within each ONU) and
defines time slots allocation scheme for upstream traffic.
Therefore, after the bandwidth allocation identification (Alloc-
ID), each of these N fields carries start time and payload length
information for each transmission (regarding to T-CONTs
within ONUs). Moreover, it carries information about necessity
of transmitting DBRu and PLOAMu fields in appropriate
upstream transmission within the allocated time slot, FWI
(Forced Wakeup Indicator) and BProfile (Burst Profile) fields,
all protected with 13-bits HEC [20]. Finally, the third part
carries physical layer operations administration and
management (PLOAM) messages to the ONUs on the PON.
Opposite to GPON, in XG-PON1, zero, one or more (P)
PLOAM messages (consists of 48 bytes each) can be
transmitted in downstream direction [20]. Furthermore, just one
of these messages can be broadcast and just one message can
be transmitted per each ONU. Following this header, the
remainder of the downstream carries the payload. According to
above mentioned, FS downstream overhead can be calculated
as: aFS_d = (4 + N8 + P48)/155520 100%.
Previously mentioned XGTC payload also consists of the
set of higher layers units, known as XGEM (XG-PON
Encapsulation Method) frames. XGEM frame is composed of
header and payload. Further, XGEM header consists of 8 bytes:
payload length indicator (PLI), indicating the length in bytes of
an SDU or SDU fragment in the XGEM payload; key index
related to encryption method; XGEM Port ID which indicates
the port to which the frame belongs; LF, presenting last frame
indicator, (used because XG-PON allows fragmentation of
SDU) [20]. However, since typical Ethernet traffic is treated
within the 10G EPON overhead identification, in order to make
these two solutions comparable, Ethernet traffic is also going to
be treated within XG-PON1 overhead identification. So it is of
great importance to describe how Ethernet frames can be
mapped into a XGEM frame. Thereby, it must be stressed that
each Ethernet frame can be mapped only into a single XGEM
and one XGEM frame may not encapsulate more than just one
Ethernet frame [20]. Bearing in mind the importance of
Ethernet traffic in todays networks, within XG-PON1
standard, Ethernet frames are carried directly to XGEM frame
payload. However, some of its parts (IFG and preamble fields
refer to Fig. 1) are previously discarded, which additionally
reduces XGEM overhead. Finally, in respect to Ethernet
payload (which is, according to Section 3.A, considered as
users data), only 8 bytes of XGEM header and overhead
composed of Ethernet source and destination MAC address,
field indication Ethernet frame type and appropriate FCS (18
bytes in total) must be transmitted. Moreover, while XGEM
payload length must be divisible with four (for length bigger
then 8 bytes), additional 0 to 3 padding bytes must also be
added [20]. Taking average value to be 2 padding bytes, and
using principles proposed in Section 3.A, the following can be
concluded: if different payload length, marked as Npl1,
Npl2,...,Npln, appear with probabilities p1, p2, ..., pn,, average
XGEM encapsulation overhad can be expressed as aXGEM =
28/(28 + p1Npl1 + p2Npl2 ++ pnNpln)100%.
B. Upstream XG-PON1 overhead
The upstream of the XG-PON1 is burst-transmission
oriented, and is, similarly to downstream direction, at PAS
layer composed of PSBu and FEC data fields.
Figure 4. Upstream XG-PON1 layer organization [15]
However, upstream PHY frame has a few differences from
the downstream. The first is that the physical synchronization
block (PSBu) contains additional preamble and delimiter
patterns, composed of at least 160 and 32 bit intervals (or
maximum 1856 and 64 bit intervals) [21]. Moreover, to prevent
upstream transmissions to collide with each other, OLT builds
BWmap, allowing suitable guard time between upstream burst
from different ONUs. Minimum guard band duration is 64 bit
intervals, and maximum, 128 [21]. The second is that the
payload is not of a fixed size, and for this reason, the number of
FEC codewords in each burst is variable. In addition, to reduce
the loss of bandwidth for odd-sized bursts, the last codeword in
the burst can be shortened to fit the available amount of time in
the burst [15]. Finally, in upstream direction Reed-Solomon
(248, 232) is used, differently from correction code in
downstream direction.
However, if we assume 125 s to be duration of upstream
PHY frame (also assumed within the standard G.987.3 [20]),
taking upstream data rate to be 2.48832 Gbps [15], maximum
of 38880 bytes can be transmitted within each upstream PHY
frame. These frames are further transmitted as a series of
relatively short PHY bursts, coming from different ONUs.
Thus, while minimum 32 bytes must be reserved for PSBu
and guard time, in each 125 s PHY frame, 156 full codewords
and one shortened (also with 16 bytes of redundancy) can be
transmitted. Consequently, PHY upstream overhead is equal to
minimum aPAS_u = (32+15716)/38880100% = 6.54%. If more
than one PHY bursts must be transmitted within one PHY
frame, overhead is eventually increased for few percent (for
example, assuming 32 PHY bursts within 125 s PHY frame,
overhead increases to 8.9%). However, while XG-PON1,
opposite to 10G EPON, allows shortened code words, there is
no quantization overhead, presented within 10G EPON
technology, in upstream direction.
According to Fig. 4, it can be concluded that each PHY
burst is composed of few XGTC payloads and AO (Allocation
Overhead) fields related to them, XGTC header (X.H), and
XGTC trailer (X.T). XGTC header is composed of ONU-ID
(that contains the unique ONU-ID of the ONU that is
transmitting the burst), Ind field, providing fast unsolicited
signaling if the ONU status and appropriate HEC, which are all
together, occupy 4 bytes [19]. Additionally, it also carries 0 or
48 PLOAMu bytes, in respect to PLOAMu flag in allocation
structure, within appropriate downstream BWmap. Moreover,
related to each T-CONT within ONUs, the presence of
allocation overhead (AO) is controlled by the OLT, using
DBRu flag of the corresponding allocation structure within the
BWmap. It caries buffer status report, allocated with a specific
Alloc-ID. XGTC trailer is 4 bytes long and represents
interleaved parity computed over entire XGTC frame. So, if we
assume M PHY bursts to be within 125 s PHY frame, half of
the PLOAMu fields equal to 1 (within appropriate BWmap)
and NT-CONT of different transmission containers within each
ONU for which is necessary to transmit AO, upstream FS
overhead can be calculated as: aFS_u = (8M + 48/2M + 4MNT-
CONT)/38880100%.
However, similarly to downstream transition, XGTC
payload is composed of identically structured XGEM frames,
thus making XGEM overhead calculation identical in both
upstream and downstream directions.
V. 10G EPON AND XG-PON1 EFFICIENCY COMPARISON
According to transmission principles both, for 10G EPON
and XG-PON1, presented in Section III and Section IV, it now
became possible to calculate entire overheads for proposed
scenarios, and according to these overheads, to estimate system
efficiency and maximum real available data rates.
A. 10G EPON overhead calculation
In order to calculate 10G EPON efficiency, some
assumptions must be made: the assumption about number of
ONUs within existing PON, the assumption about cyclic period
duration, and moreover, about traffic distribution. Since
(according to IEEE 802.3av) 1:32 split ratio is recommended,
the number of 32 ONUs is going to be treated within this
calculation; according to literature ([5], [7], [9], [10]) the most
commonly used cyclic periods are 1 ms, and 2 ms, thus within
this paper, different scenarios, including 1 ms and 2 ms are
going to be treated. Moreover, when it comes to traffic
distribution, simplified tree-modal distribution is taken from
[5]. It assumes appearance of 64, 500 and 1500 bytes payload
lengths, appearing with probability of 0.6, 0.2 and 0.2,
respectively. Thereby, 1500 byte is the maximum Ethernet
limit, whereas 60% of transmitted packages with average size
of 500 bytes are ACK packages [5]. However, assumed traffic
model is adopted within this first stage of research, while in
further analysis, more realistic traffic models should be
considered.
In view of that, the results of 10G EPON overhead
calculation, for different scenarios and different transmission
directions, are presented in Fig. 5 and Fig. 6.
Figure 5. 10G EPON downstream overhead
Figure 6. 10G EPON uspteram overhead
B. XG-PON1 overhead calculation
Relying upon transmission principles described in Section
IV, entire XG-PON1 overhead now can be calculated.
Downstream and upstream PAS overheads are already
estimated in Section IV. Beside, for traffic distribution, tree-
modal distribution identical to 10G EPON can be adopted,
enabling us to calculate also a XGEM overhead. However, in
order to estimate entire overhead, it is also necessary to make
some assumptions about the number BWmap allocation
structures and PLOAMd messages within each XGTC
downstream frame, together with the assumption about number
of PHY bursts within each 125 s frame. Assuming that, within
each 125 s download frame, one broadcast PLOAMd message
is going to be sent together with unicast messages for one T-
CONT within each of NONU (NONU is total number of ONU
units within existing PON), P becomes equal to 1 + NONU.
Moreover, supposing that in each 125 s frame, two T-CONT
within each ONU is allowed to transmit, N becomes equal to
2NONU and downstream FS overhead can easily be calculated.
Furthermore, it is of great importance to emphasize that,
opposite to 10G EPON, maximum value of number N, in
general, can be calculated as the sum of all T-CONTs (usually
equals to 5) within all ONUs (where T-CONT represents a
group of logical connections that appear as a single entity for
the purpose of upstream bandwidth assignment within a PON
system [21]).
However, when an upstream PHY burst belongs to
upstream PHY frame, as long as this burst is specified in
BWmap transmitted with appropriate downstream PHY frame
[20], M is equal to N. If we assume one half of the bursts within
the frame having PLOAMu flag to be equal to 1, and for one
half of T-CONTs within the burst, DBRu flag to be equal to 1
(NT-CONT = 1), it can finally become possible to calculate the
last part of transmission overhead. The results of above XG-
PON1 overhead calculations are given in Figure 7.
Figure 7. XG-PON1 downstream and upstream overheads
 At the very end of these calculations, the effects of adopted
presumptions on final result must also be discussed. As long as
10G EPON concerns, duration of cyclic period doesnt affect
much of the results, both in downstream and upstream (making
the improvement of less then 1% in upstream direction, even
under the assumption of 8 ms duration per cyclic period).
Moreover, because the same traffic distribution is proposed in
both 10G EPON and XG-PON1, its influence on comparative
results are negligible. On the other side, assumptions made
about XG-PON1 overhead calculations dont significantly
affect downstream transmission overhead (which can be
improved for maximum 1% under the other initial conditions),
but they have more effect on upstream transmission overhead
(of about 3% difference). However, within this theoretical
analysis, it is not possible to test the accuracy of these
assumptions, and they must be tested in real network
environments.
C. Comparation of overhead between 10G EPON and XG-
PON1
According to results previously gained, it finally became
possible to estimate efficiency and real available data rates per
user, in both 10G EPON and XG-PON1 networks.
If there should be 32 ONUs within each network, 10G
EPON efficiency is around 76% in downstream and 74% in
upstream direction. Consequently real available rates per user
are 245/238 Mbps. In XG-PON1, these efficiencies are 80%
and 82% respectively, thus giving the rates per user equal to
249/64 Mbps. The comparative results of efficiencies, for
different numbers of ONU units, in downstream and upstream,
are presented in Fig. 8 and Fig. 9.
Figure 8. 10G EPON and XG-PON1 downstream efficiencies
Figure 9. 10G EPON and XG-PON1 upstream efficiencies
According to Fig. 8 and Fig. 9, it can be concluded that,
when smaller number of ONU units, XG-PON1 efficiency is
slightly higher than 10G EPON, but with increase of ONUs,
these values have the tendency to equate. However, available
users rates are comparable only in downstream direction, and
are pretty the same for both technologies, not depending on
number of ONUs. While in upstream direction, XG-PON1
standard specifies four time smaller rates than 10G EPON, the
impact of efficiency differences are negligible in respect to
these standardized raw bit rate differences.
VI. CONCLUSION
The aim of this paper was to compare the 10G EPON and
XG-PON1 technologies, mainly in terms of MAC efficiency,
relying on their overhead identification. Accordingly, within
this paper, all elements which introduce transmission overhead
were estimated. This enabled us to calculate overall efficiency
and real available data rate per user, for both technologies.
Accordingly, it is shown that XG-PON1 has slightly improved
efficiency performance, achieved mostly by smaller FEC and
Ethernet encapsulation overhead. Bearing in mind obtained
results, 10G EPON (with 10 Gbps in downstream) is
competitively superior to XG-PON1, providing almost the
same data rate per user in downstream and four time higher
rates in upstream.
Still, in order to obtain more precise result, including the
effects of FEC correction codes on overall data rates in real
traffic conditions, it is recommended to perform appropriate
simulation, or even obtain the result in real networks
environment. However, according to authors best knowledge,
up to this date, no paper dealing with XG-PON1 efficiency and
10G EPON and XG-PON1 efficiency comparison is published.
Thus, even though transmission overheads decrease theoretical
rates even for almost 40% (for large number of ONUs), they
have great influence on real available data rates and their
estimate is of great interest in the process of network planning.
Finally, this paper represents a contribution to future operators
efforts and it provides an objective insight into a real
performance of rival solutions.
REFERENCES
[1] M. Giuntini, J. Morabito, A. Valenti, F. Matera, V. Carrozzo, S. Di
Bartolo: ''Integration Of Optical Telecommunications and Radio Access
Networks to Assure Quality of Service'', 12th IEEE International
Conference on Transparent Optical Networks (ICTON), Germany, July
2010
[2] Glen Kramer, Gery Pesavento: ''Ethernet Passive Optical Networks
(EPON): Building a Next-Generation Optical Access Networks'', IEEE
Comunication Magazine, Vol. 40, pp. 66 - 73, Februar 2002
[3] N. Gici, N. Hadiahmetovi, Z. Aljievi: ''Possibilities of FTTH
technology implementation for Telco operators'', Proceedings of VIII
International Symposium on Telecommunications (BIHTEL 2010),
Bosnia and Herzegovina, November 2010
[4] Skaljo, E.; Hodzic, M.; Bektas, I.: ''Migration from G(E)PON to
NGPON'', International Conference on Ultra Modern
Telecommunications & Workshops (ICUMT '09), October 2009
[5] T. Orphanoudakis, H.-C. Leligou, E. Kosmatos, J. D. Angelopoulos:
''Performance evaluation of GPON vs EPON for multi-service access'',
International Journal of Communication Systems, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp.
187 - 202, John Wiley and Sons Ltd. Chichester, UK, February 2009
[6] Chen Ling, Stefan Dahlfort, Dave Hood: ''Evolution of PON: 10G-PON
and WDM-PON'', IEEE Communications and Photonics Conference and
Exhibition (ACP), China, December 2010
[7] Rajesh Roy, Marek Hajduczenia, Glen Kramer, and Henrique J. A. da
Silva: ''10G-EPON Efficiency'', 3rd IEEE International Symposium on
Advanced Networks and Telecommunication Systems (ANTS), India,
2009
[8] FlexLight Networks: ''GPON - The Next Big Thing in Optical Access
Networks'', March 2004. godine
[9] E. Daido, T. Inoue, Y. Kawanishi, K. Yamazaki, A. Yoshimura, S. Shiba
S. Kouyama: ''Development of Asymmetric 10G-EPON System'',
Sumito Electric Information and Communications Tecnical Review,
2009
[10] Glen Kramer: ''What is Next for Ethernet PON?'', 5th International
Conference on Optical Internet (COIN 2006), Korea, 2006
[11] S. Kouyama: ''Development of Asymmetric 10G-EPON System'',
Sumito Electric Information and Communications Tecnical Review,
2009
[12] Jain, S., Effenberger, F., Szabo, A., Zhishan Feng, Forcucci, A., Wei
Guo, Yuanqiu Luo, Mapes, R., Yixin Zhang, O'Byrne, V.: ''Worlds First
XG-PON Field Trial'', Jurnal of Lightwave Technology, Vol. 29, No. 4,
pp. 524 - 528, February 2011
[13] Keiji Tanaka, Akira Agata, and Yukio Horiuchi: ''IEEE 802.3av 10G-
EPON Standardization and Its Research and Development Status'',
Journal of Lightwave Technology, Vol. 28, No. 4, February 2010
[14] Steve Gorshe, Jeff Mandin: ''Introduction to IEEE 802.3av 10 Gbps
Ehernet Passive Optical Networks (10G EPON)'', White Paper MC-
Sierra, Inc., No. 1, January 2009
[15] Frank Effenberger: ''The XG-PON System: Cost Effective 10 Gb/s
Access'', Journal of Lightwave technology, Vol. 29., No. 4., February
2011
[16] eljko Popovic: ''Evolution from GPON to Next Generation PONs'',
Ericsson Magazine, February 2010
[17] J. Santos, P. Inacio, J. Gomes, A. Arsenio, J. Pires, M. Freire, P.
Monteiro: ''Improving the Upstream Channel Efficiency of Passive
Optical Networks via Frame Aggregation and Compression'', 7th
Conference on Telecomminications ConfTele, 2009
[18] IEEE Computer Society: ''IEEE standard 802.3av-2009'', 2009
[19] Glen Kramer: ''10G-EPON: Drivers, Challenges and Solutions'', ECOC
2009
[20] ITU-T, G.987.3: ''10-Gigabit-capable passive optical networks (XG-
PON): Transmission convergence (TC) specification'', October 2010
[21] ITU-T, G.987.2: ''10-Gigabit-capable passive optical networks (XG-
PON): Physical media dependent (PMD) layer specifications'', October
2010