Passive Optical

Networks

Hanif Muhammad
TELFIB, 2006

1
Contents
 Introduction
 PON Enabling Technologies
 PON Standards
 Standards Comparison
 The Future

2
Introduction
Fiber is the Future
 It is agreed that Fiber-to-the-Home (FTTH) is the future of
telecom-datacom Access-Networks
 But FTTH is still considered too expensive
 So some intermediate solutions are devised
 Using existing twisted-pair copper (with new electronics)–
xDSL
 Doesn’t usually go farther than 4 km
 Using existing Cable-TV distribution networks – Cable Modem
 Bandwidth limitation - shared with TV signals
 Deploying less fiber
 One fiber to a group of customers (neighborhood)
 Multiplexing at the neighborhood level
 Not all the way to the customers (FTTC, FTTB)
 Using less expensive passive optical components

3
PON Enabling Technologies
 Optical Splitters/Combiners
 PON Topologies
 Multiple Access Methods
 TDMA PON
 WDMA PON
 Burst Mode Transceivers

4
PON Enabling Technologies
The Case for the Passive Splitter

5
PON Enabling Technologies
Optical Coupler/Splitter
 Directional coupler
 combine and split signals in an optical network
 3-dB 2x2 coupler
 Half the power from each input appears at each output

  
  

  
  
6
PON Enabling Technologies
PON Topologies using Optical
Splitters

7
 PON Enabling Technologies
PON Multiple Access - TDMA
. PASSIVE
STAR

CO COUPLER/
SPLITTER


FEEDER 

t

TIME SLOT
ALLOCATED
CH1 TO SUBSCRIBER
CH2
TIME RCVR
.
. DEMUX
CHN

8
 PON Enabling Technologies
PON Multiple Access –WDMA
. N

CO 1
2 

FEEDER 
WDM




RCVR 1
RCVR 2 WDM

RCVR N

9
PON Enabling Technologies
Burst Mode Transceivers – “The Near-Far Problem”

10
PON Standards
Competing Standardization Efforts
 Full services Access Network – FSAN group
formed by telecom operators in 1995
 Developed a specification for ATM based PON
 Lobbied ITU for standardization
 Ethernet in the First Mile – EFM- interest
group formed by data communication
vendors
 To promote Ethernet in the Access Networks
 Lobbied IEEE for standardization

11
PON Standards
Standards Based PON Protocols
 Standards Bodies That Have Specified PON
Protocols
 International Telecommunication Union (ITU-T)
 Institute of Electrical & Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
 Three Fully Ratified PON Protocol Standards Exist
 IEEE Ratified EPON (802.3ah)
 ITU-T Ratified APON/BPON (G.983)
 ITU-T Ratified GPON (G.984)
 All are TDMA based

12
PON Standards
History
 First TDMA PON was suggested in 1988 by British Telecom [1]
 APON – ATM PON
 Standardized by ITU in1998 – renamed BPON in 2001 with
some enhancements
 BPON – Broadband PON
 Standardized by ITU in 2001 – Enhanced APON with Added
Video Capabilities
 EPON – Ethernet PON
 Standardized by IEEE in 2004 – Uses Ethernet for Best
Effort Data
 Gigabit PON – GPON
 Standardized by ITU 2003 – Best of BPON & EPON at
Gigabit Rates; Optimized for IP
13
PON Standards
BPON Standards
 Produced in the Full Services Access Network (FSAN) forum
 Established by the World’s Telecom operators
 Requirements driven approach
 Standardized in the ITU-T
 G.983.1 R– Basic architecture, PMD and TC for ATM-based B-PON
 G.983.2 R2 – Operations Management Communications Interface
 G.983.3 – WDM enhancement, for video overlays on B-PON
 G.983.3 A1 – Support for higher bit rates
 G.983.3 A2 – Optical best practices for B-PON
 G.983.4 – DBA enhancement, for efficient bandwidth distribution
 G.983.5 – Survivability enhancement, for protection switching

14
PON Standards
EPON Standard
 Promulgated in IEEE 802.3ah
 Technology and vendor driven process
 Tightly defined solution scope
 System provides very basic transport solution
 One data rate combination (1 Gb/s symmetric)
 Limited optical reach (20 dB, 10 km is practical system)
 Receiving a lot of attention in Far East (e.g. Japan)
 Data-only service is primary focus
 Missing pieces of standard are being driven by NTT (Japan)
 Not much interest in U.S.

15
PON Standards
GPON Standards
 GPON is chartered as the ‘next step’ of BPON evolution
 Address rates greater than 1 Gb/s
 To optimize the physical layer for these speeds
 More packet-oriented, but still full service
 GPON draws on the B-PON series, but is distinct from it

 GPON standards split into four layers

 G.984.1: Requirements
 G.984.2: Physical layer
 G.984.3: Transmission Convergence layer
 G.984.3 A1: Refinements to TC layer
 G.984.4: Management layer
 G.984.4 A1: Refinements to Management layer

16
PON Standards
ITU-T G.984.2 Physical Media Dependent Layer
 Digital Signal Nominal Bit Rate
 Transmission Line Rate = Multiple of 8 kHz
 Nominal Line Rates
 Downstream = 1244.16 Mbit/s
 Upstream = 622.08 Mbit/s
 Transmission Medium
 ITU-T G.652 Single Mode Fiber
 Operating Wavelength
 Downstream Wavelength on Single Fiber=1480–1500 nm
 Upstream Wavelength = 1260 – 1360 nm
 Attenuation Range
 CLASS B = 25 dBm link margin
 Maximum Fiber Distance Between OLT & ONU Points
 20km/12.4 miles

17
PON Standards
ITU-T G.984.3 Transmission Convergence Layer
 Multiplexing Architecture
 Two Multiplexing Mechanisms: ATM and GEM (GPON Encapsulation Mode)
 Frame can be Mix of ATM or GEM
 GEM = 10% More Efficient than BPON in Carrying IP Traffic
 GPON Does not Require 8b/10b Ethernet Encoding Requirement of EPON
 GPON = 20% More Efficient than EPON in Carrying IP Traffic
 Downstream Frame Structure
 125 Micro-seconds in Length = 8 kHz = Clocking Implicit in Frame

18
Standards Comparison
Speeds and Feeds
Standard Status Official Key parameters Comments
Standards
body
EPON Approved 2004 IEEE 1.2 Gigabits/sec downstream Ethernet in first mile
(802.3ah) 1.2 Gigabits/sec upstream implementation
16 way split
10 km reach

BPON/APON Approved 2001 ITU 622 Mb/s downstream Primarily ATM

APON version approved (G.983) 155 Mb/s upstream based protocol
1998 RF Video overlay APON with an RF
16 and 32 way split overlay for video
10 km reach delivery
GPON Approved April 2003 ITU 1.24or 2.4 Gigabits/sec IP based protocol
(G.984) downstream designed for IP
622 Mb/sec or up to 2.4 traffic and taking the
Gigabits/sec upstream best of EPON and
Optional RF video overlay BPON in the
Up to 64 way split development of the
20 Km reach standard

19
Standards Comparison
Important differences
ITU (GPON) IEEE ( EPON)
Mission/Objective Full Service Access Ethernet in the First Mile
Network (FSAN) (EFM)
Attendees Service Provider focused Enterprise and consumer
market focused
Committee Operating Carriers drive and approve One person- One vote
Protocol vendors technical
recommendations
Wavelengths Specified Specified
Attenuation Range Specified Specified
QoS Specified Left to vendor
Network timing Specified Left to vendor
Security Specified Left to vendor
20
Standards Comparison
GPON vs EPON Reach Advantage

EPON = 10km
GPON = 20km
GPON = 40 km REACH

EPON = 20km REACH

21
Standards Comparison
Hidden Costs of EPON or P2P
 EPON/Ethernet do not provide QoS
 QoS is left to a higher layer
 QoS through manual provisioning of VLAN
tags
 For Residential applications, VLAN tags will not scale
 Similar to an ATM PVC
 QoS through semi-automatic provisioning of VLAN
tags – separate tag per Ethernet Port
 QoS through snooping at higher layers.
 Not supported by the 802.3ah standard.

22
 Standards Comparison
Overhead Comparison
1400

1200 scheduling OH : frame

PON burst OH delineation
1000 scheduling OH : PHY burst OH
Line Coding OH
scheduling OH : control
800
messages
Mb/s

payload encapulation OH
600

line coding
400

payload
200

0
EPON GPON BPON

Note 1 : GPON @ 1.24 Gb/s, BPON @ 622 Mb/s

Note 2 : case = 16 ONUs, 0.5 ms service time 23
Standards Comparison
Link Utilization of EPON vs GPON

24
Standards Comparison

25
Standards Comparison
The GPON advantage !
 Standard of choice for high-volume Telecom carriers (legacy
Telecom operators – FSAN memebrs)
 Huge volumes result in lower cost
 Big US operators in the process of installing GPON !

 Higher Split Ratios

 28 dB loss budget enables 1:64 split ratios

 Higher Speeds – 1.2 Gbps

 Scalable to still higher speeds with the on-going decreases in optics costs

 Recognition of IP Networking
 (Full Services Access Network !)

 GigaBit Ethernet interfaces

26
 The Future
The battle at the marketplace
21M
Worldwide
North America 3.8M
6.9M
6.9M

GPON
EPON
GPON 10.6M
10.6M

EPON

95K BPON 3.5M

1.5M BPON 3.5M
2004 2008
2004 2008
27
Source: Infonetics 2005
Bibliography
1. Glen Kramer, “Ethernet Passive Optical Networks”, McGraw Hill, 2005
2. Glen Kramer and Garry Pasavento, “Ethernet Passive Optical Network
(EPON): Building a Next-Generation Optical Access Network”, IEEE
Communications Magazine, pp. 66-73, February 2002
3. J.R. Stern, C.E.Hoppitt, D.B. Payne, M.H. Reeve, K.A. Oakley, “TPON- A
passive optical network for telephony” Fourteenth European conference on
Optical Communication (ECOC’88),vol. 1, pp. 203-206, Brighton, UK,
September 1988
4. Russell P. Davey, Peter Healey, Ian Hope, Phil Watkinson, Dave B. Payne,
Oren Marmur, Jörg Ruhmann, and Yvonne Zuiderveld, “DWDM Reach
Extension of a GPON to 135 km” JOURNAL OF LIGHTWAVE TECHNOLOGY,
VOL. 24, NO. 1, JANUARY 2006
5. Sami Lallukka and Pertti Raatikainen, “Link Utilization and Comparison of
EPON and GPON Access Network Cost”, IEEE GLOBECOMM Conference
2005. Volume 1, 28 Nov.-2 Dec. 2005 Page(s):301 - 305

6. R.Ramaswami and K.N.Sivarajan, “Optical Networks”, Ed. Morgan

Kaufmann Publisheres,2002
7. The LightReading Magazine – www.lightreading.com
8. Infonetics Research - www.infonetics.com

28