FTTH-FTTB PTP Vs Pon

KEYMILE
FTTH/FTTB: Point to Point vs. PON

CONTENT MOTIVATION NETWORK ARCHITECTURE COMPARISION PON VS PTP KEYMILE SOLUTION TV SERVICES CONCLUSION
BANDWIDTH/RESILIENCE COMPONENTS FTTB CONSUMPTION TECHNICS COMMERCIAL
COMPARISON OF
PON VERSUS PTP ETHERNET
18.03.2011 I Page 2 KEYMILE

Comparison of PON vs. PtP Ethernet
Bandwidth / Resilience
Network Components
Fibre-to-the-Building (FTTB)
Power Consumption
Technical Summary
Commercial Aspects

COMPARISON PON VS PTP ETHERNET

BANDWIDTH, RESILIENCE

Bandwidth Comparison
100/1000 Mbps 100/1000 Mbps

DOWNSTREAM UPSTREAM
1 ... 480 subscriber lines
78 Mbps* 39 Mbps* 2.5 Gbps 1.25 Gbps

DOWNSTREAM UPSTREAM DS US
SPLITTER
1 ... 32 subscriber lines/splitter
* Depending on splitting factor

Bandwidth Comparison
GPON
Depending on splitting factor > typically 39 Mbps
upstream / 78 Mbps downstream with 32 fold
splitter
Not sufficient bandwidth for business customers
and for further distribution e.g. for FTTB
Bandwidth upgrade means either
Change splitter fold + CPEs
Change OLT card + CPEs
PtP Ethernet
100 Mbps / 1 Gbps symmetrical for upstream and
downstream
Able to serve business customers
Bandwidth upgrade affects only one CPE and one
DSLAM port

Resilience Comparison Line Measurement
Reflexion measurement easy due to point to point
REFLECTED SIGNAL
Reflexion measurement complicated due to optical splitter
REFLECTED SIGNAL
SPLITTER
REFLECTED SIGNAL

REFLECTED SIGNAL

Resilience Comparison broken Line, bad Fibre Quality
Only one customer connection affected
Depending on location up to 32 customer connections affected
SPLITTER

Resilience Comparison defect CPE, unfriendly Attack
Only one customer connection affected, easy to identify/isolate
SIGNAL DIRECTED TO ONE DSLAM PORT
NO INFLUENCE

NO INFLUENCE
Continuous Signal from one CPE affects entire GPON port,

difficult to identify/isolate
CONTINIOUS SIGNAL CONTINIOUS SIGNAL
SPLITTER
TRAFFIC BLOCKED

TRAFFIC BLOCKED

Telecom Italia Study regarding GPON Safety
Source: ETSI Security Workshop, France, January 2009

Resilience Comparison
GPON
Due to optical splitter 32 customers are using a
shared medium
Line qualification and maintenance difficult
Failures or unfriendly attacks could affect the entire
PON system and all connected customers
Not acceptable for business customers
PtP Ethernet
Line qualification and maintenance on single fibre
connections well known
Failures only affects one line and customer
Unfriendly attack can be identified through
standard security mechanism


NETWORK COMPONENTS

Network Components
ETHERNET PtP
PON
SPLITTER

Network Component Comparison Central Location (OLT)
GPON OLT
New system architecture, often different platform
for business customers needed
Fixed line rates on OLT ports (GPON, EPON, ...)
GPON Network management, different operational
processes
PtP Ethernet (KEYMILE)
Optical DSLAM, same architecture and chassis as
copper DSLAM
100 Mbps / 1 Gbps symmetrical for upstream and
downstream switchable speed for each optical
interface (subrates can be configured)
Same Network management, configuration and
operation exactly identical compared to xDSL
DSLAM

Network Component Comparison Customer Equipment (ONT, CPE)
GPON ONT
Vendor dependant devices, ONT portfolio limited
Operates on full OLT downstream speed
(GPON: 2.5 Gbps)
Depends on GPON NMS
Price evolution vendor dependant
PtP Ethernet
Vendor independent through Ethernet standard
interfaces
Price evolution:
Price decrease through tough competition
Could support e.g. TR069 (remote modem
configuration)
Cheapest device:
Lowest cost media converter 30-50 $

Network Component Comparison Optical Splitter
GPON
Passive optical device but effects optical
parameters
Wavelength dependent attenuation
Limits transmission range
Must be removed, if network shall be upgraded to
Ethernet Point-to-Point
Eventually needs to be changed for PON upgrade
PtP Ethernet
Not needed

GPON versus Ethernet-PtP: Vendor Interoperability
GPON
GPON is standardized acc. ITU-T G.984.2
In practice there is no interoperability between
different GPON vendors given ONT <> OLT
Due to system aspects also in future the optimal
performance of a GPON system can only provided
by one vendor delivering the ONT and OLT
Ethernet-PtP
Optical Ethernet Interfaces are standardized acc.
IEEE 802.3
Interoperability has been proven in practice by lots
of vendors for years due to optical Ethernet
interfaces are used in transport networks for a long
time


FIBRE-TO-THE-BUILDING (FTTB)

Fibre-to-the-Building (FTTB) Challenges
Questions to be answered
How to connect the different buildings for each
household one fibre or per building one fibre?
How to connect subscriber inside buildings copper
pairs, fibre or Ethernet cables?

Fibre-to-the-Building in GPON Networks

* New GPON systems allow dynamic bandwidth allocation
Standard interface:
78 Mbps downstream speed is shared by all customers*
Several lines can not be used

due to increased bandwidth on other lines*
Direct OLT connection

possible but expensive
Enhanced interface:
n x 78 Mbps downstream speed is shared by all customers*

Fibre-to-the-Building in PtP Ethernet Networks
For all scenarios the appropriate line speed can be used
Operate at 100 Mbps
Operate at 100 Mbps
Operate at 100 Mbps

up to 1 GbE
Operate at full GbE
NTU = Network Termination Unit (VDSL2 or Ethernet)

Homes passed Homes connected influence in GPON Networks
Even for customers without service, a splitter port is occupied Customer out of service
and the OLT port needs to be operated Customer in service

Homes passed Homes connected influence in PtP Networks
Customer out of service

Customers without service dont need to be connected to a DSLAM port Customer in service

FTTB Architecture Comparison
GPON
OLT up- and downstream line rate is fixed to
1.25/2.5 Gbps (GPON)
Customer line rate depends on splitting factor and ONT
capacity
For ONTs taking more than one timeslot (upstream),
bandwidth for other users need to be reduced or
oversubscription has to be activated (DBA)
Customers without service (homes passed) are occupying
a splitter port and 1/32 from the OLT port
PtP Ethernet
Line rate can be switched for each customer from
100 Mbps to 1 GbE
Due to direct point to point connections each customer line
can be upgraded individually
Only customer in service have to be connected


POWER CONSUMPTION

Comparison: Power Consumption Basic Information
GPON
Due to the splitter inside the passive network the
laser power is much higher on OLT and ONT side
The optical splitter has the same insertion loss in
both directions and depends on the splitting factor
(32-fold splitter: ca. 17 dB)
GPON needs about 22 W per GPON port
32-fold splitter: 0.7 W per port
16-fold splitter: 1.4 W per port
GPON simple CPE: 10 W consumption
PtP Ethernet
New low power designs require less laser power:
KEYMILE typical 1.5 W for 100 Mbps
Ethernet PtP simple CPE: 3 W consumption

Comparison: Power Consumption GPON versus PtP Compared Bandwidth
Power Consumption per Subscriber in W

12 11.4
10.7
10 10
10
6 OLT
6
CPE
4.5 Total
4
3 3 3
2 1.4 1.5
0.7
0
GPON - 32 Splitter GPON - 16 Splitter Ethernet PtP 100 Mbit/s Ethernet PtP 100 Mbit/s
KEYMILE Competitor

Comparison: Power Consumption Practical Case
GPON
In a typical GPON deployment there are unused
splitter ports due to a not 100% customer take rate
Calculation Basis:
Homes passed. 100%
Homes connected: 30%
PtP Ethernet
In an Ethernet PtP environment only the
subscribers which are taking the service are
connected to an active port

Comparison: Power Consumption GPON versus PtP Practical Case
Power Consupmtion per connected Subscriber in W

30 % Homes connected
16
14.66
14
12.33
12
10 10
10
8 OLT
CPE
6.5
Total
6
4.66 4.5
4 3.5
3 3
2.33
2 1.5
0
GPON - 32 Splitter GPON - 16 Splitter Ethernet PtP 100 Mbit/s Ethernet PtP 100 Mbit/s
KEYMILE Competitor


TECHNICAL SUMMARY

FTTx: PON vs. Point-to-Point (PtP)
PON PtP
Number of optical low high (1:1)
But higher demand on ONU
interfaces (CO)
TV support IPTV/CATV IPTV/CATV

(Broadcast support) (Broadcast support)
LLU Not supported supported
Flexibility low high

(architecture, technology, technical upgrade of OLT leads to replacement per subscriber
Subscriber basis) of all ONUs
Resilience Low high

one faulty ONU can jeopardize the whole PON individual subscribers can be isolated
no impact on the whole region
Trouble shooting complex simple

PON vs. PtP Ethernet Technical Summary
Bandwidth Resilience
Upgradeability
Standard Troubleshooting
Flexibility
Conformance Maintenance
PON
PtP Ethernet


COMMERCIAL ASPECTS

PON vs. PtP Ethernet CAPEX
PON Infrastructure
Cheaper for the initial investment > optical splitters
are saving number of fibres in the aggregation
network
Passive splitter to be changed or removed in the
network for bandwidth upgrade
Upgrade to PtP infrastructure needs additional
investments
The passive infrastructure takes
PtP Infrastructure
75% - 85% of the total investment
Needs about 5% more initial investment
From the first day on the most sustainable
infrastructure lives for the next 20 xx years

The right Investment in optical Networks
Laying optical fibres causes the major share of

costs
Important: choose the right topology now
(Compare Ethernet shared medium with PtP)
Any network architecture has to be future-proof for
the next 20 to 30 years
Todays optical fibres (single mode) have an almost
unlimited transport capacity:
160 colours@10 Gbps = 1.6 Tbps)
FTTC demands much lower investments
The right way for an evolutionary approach
Further investments into the network structure will
follow after 5 to 10 years

PON vs. PtP Ethernet CAPEX
PON Equipment
Cheaper for the initial investment for pure
residential applications > uses less number of
lasers in OLT
Depending on FFTB and business customer
strategy CAPEX will be heavily increased
Complete Equipment comes from one vendor
normal price erosion in question
The equipment costs are only
PtP Equipment
15% - 25% of the total investment
Initial investment higher for pure residential
applications due to number of lasers
Advantages for business applications and FTTB
connections

PON vs. PtP Ethernet OPEX
PON Equipment
Needs less installation space
Maintenance and failure localisation takes more
time
New system concept needs dedicated skills and
different way of operation
PtP Equipment
Needs more installation space
Easy operation of customer lines due to point to
point connection
Same operational concept like today for residential
and business customers
Optical DSLAM

PON vs. PtP Ethernet Commercial Summary
Residential, All Applications

Pure Residential,
Business, FTTB High Bandwidth
Low Bandwidth
medium Bandwidth Sustainability
3 Years Horizon
5 Years Horizon 10 20 Years Horizon
PON
PtP Ethernet
Do not compare only port prices Compare all aspects in a real network environment

CONCLUSION

Conclusion
FTTx investments are mandatory to ensure

operators revenues
FTTB/FTTH point-to-point is the network

architecture of the future
PtP Ethernet technology offers the best scalability

and is future proof for a FTTB/FTTH point-to-point
applications
For a sustainable fibre network strategy PtP

Ethernet delivers cost effective solutions
KEYMILE delivers a complete product spectrum for

FTTH / FTTB applications

FTTH-FTTB PTP Vs Pon

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

FTTH-FTTB PTP Vs Pon

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

KEYMILE

FTTH/FTTB: Point to Point vs. PON

BANDWIDTH/RESILIENCE COMPONENTS FTTB CONSUMPTION TECHNICS COMMERCIAL

18.03.2011 I Page 2 KEYMILE

BANDWIDTH/RESILIENCE COMPONENTS FTTB CONSUMPTION TECHNICS COMMERCIAL

Comparison of PON vs. PtP Ethernet

18.03.2011 I Page 3 KEYMILE

BANDWIDTH/RESILIENCE COMPONENTS FTTB CONSUMPTION TECHNICS COMMERCIAL

COMPARISON PON VS PTP ETHERNET

18.03.2011 I Page 4 KEYMILE

BANDWIDTH/RESILIENCE COMPONENTS FTTB CONSUMPTION TECHNICS COMMERCIAL

100/1000 Mbps 100/1000 Mbps

1 ... 480 subscriber lines

78 Mbps* 39 Mbps* 2.5 Gbps 1.25 Gbps

1 ... 32 subscriber lines/splitter

* Depending on splitting factor

18.03.2011 I Page 5 KEYMILE

BANDWIDTH/RESILIENCE COMPONENTS FTTB CONSUMPTION TECHNICS COMMERCIAL

18.03.2011 I Page 6 KEYMILE

BANDWIDTH/RESILIENCE COMPONENTS FTTB CONSUMPTION TECHNICS COMMERCIAL

Resilience Comparison Line Measurement

Reflexion measurement easy due to point to point

1 ... 480 subscriber lines

Reflexion measurement complicated due to optical splitter

1 ... 32 subscriber lines/splitter

18.03.2011 I Page 7 KEYMILE

BANDWIDTH/RESILIENCE COMPONENTS FTTB CONSUMPTION TECHNICS COMMERCIAL

Resilience Comparison broken Line, bad Fibre Quality

Only one customer connection affected

1 ... 480 subscriber lines

Depending on location up to 32 customer connections affected

1 ... 32 subscriber lines/splitter

18.03.2011 I Page 8 KEYMILE

BANDWIDTH/RESILIENCE COMPONENTS FTTB CONSUMPTION TECHNICS COMMERCIAL

Resilience Comparison defect CPE, unfriendly Attack

Only one customer connection affected, easy to identify/isolate

SIGNAL DIRECTED TO ONE DSLAM PORT

1 ... 480 subscriber lines

Continuous Signal from one CPE affects entire GPON port,

1 ... 32 subscriber lines/splitter

18.03.2011 I Page 9 KEYMILE

BANDWIDTH/RESILIENCE COMPONENTS FTTB CONSUMPTION TECHNICS COMMERCIAL

Telecom Italia Study regarding GPON Safety

Source: ETSI Security Workshop, France, January 2009

18.03.2011 I Page 10 KEYMILE

BANDWIDTH/RESILIENCE COMPONENTS FTTB CONSUMPTION TECHNICS COMMERCIAL

18.03.2011 I Page 11 KEYMILE

BANDWIDTH/RESILIENCE COMPONENTS FTTB CONSUMPTION TECHNICS COMMERCIAL

COMPARISON PON VS PTP ETHERNET

18.03.2011 I Page 12 KEYMILE

BANDWIDTH/RESILIENCE COMPONENTS FTTB CONSUMPTION TECHNICS COMMERCIAL

18.03.2011 I Page 13 KEYMILE

BANDWIDTH/RESILIENCE COMPONENTS FTTB CONSUMPTION TECHNICS COMMERCIAL

Network Component Comparison Central Location (OLT)

18.03.2011 I Page 14 KEYMILE

BANDWIDTH/RESILIENCE COMPONENTS FTTB CONSUMPTION TECHNICS COMMERCIAL

Network Component Comparison Customer Equipment (ONT, CPE)

18.03.2011 I Page 15 KEYMILE

BANDWIDTH/RESILIENCE COMPONENTS FTTB CONSUMPTION TECHNICS COMMERCIAL

Network Component Comparison Optical Splitter

18.03.2011 I Page 16 KEYMILE

BANDWIDTH/RESILIENCE COMPONENTS FTTB CONSUMPTION TECHNICS COMMERCIAL

GPON versus Ethernet-PtP: Vendor Interoperability