2015-8-13fiberhome proprietary and confidential insight into epon & gpon sept. 1st, 2007
TRANSCRIPT
23/4/19 Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential
Insight into EPON & GPONInsight into EPON & GPON
Sept. 1st, 2007
23/4/19 Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential 3
EPON Vs. GPON EPON Vs. GPON
• Protocol & Framing
• QoS & TDM Support
• System Costs
• Upgrade Path
• Interoperability & service migration
• Split ratios, maximum reach, & traffic management
• Users Forecast
23/4/19 Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential 4
PON FramingPON Framing
ITU-TGPON
125 sec 125 sec 125 sec
ATM ATM ATM
GEM GEM GEM
IEEE EPON
OAM & MPCPNo Fixed Frame
GPON is evolvingto look like EPON!
ATM GEM ATM GEM GEMATM
“GPON Lite”
23/4/19 Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential 5
GPON Frame DetailsGPON Frame Details
PCBdn Payload n
125 us
PCBdn+1 Payload n+1
125 us Rate Frame Size1.244G 194402.488G 38880
PSync4 Bytes
Ident4 Bytes
PLOAMd13 Bytes
BIP1 Byte
PLend4 Bytes
Plend4 Bytes
US BW MapN*8 Bytes
Coverage of this BIP (Includes Payload n-1)
Coverage of next BIP (Includes Payload n)
Frame n
125 us
Frame n+1
125 us Rate Frame Size1.244G 194402.488G 38880
ONT 1 Gap ONT 2 Gap ONT n Gap
PLOu
Alloc #a
PLOAMu13 bytesAlloc #a
DBRu 1
Alloc #a
Payload 1
Alloc #a
PLOAMu13 bytesAlloc #b
DBRu 1
Alloc #b
Payload 1
Alloc #b
Guard Time
SStart
Downstream
Upstream
23/4/19 Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential 6
Protocol ≠ QoSProtocol ≠ QoS
• Neither the EPON nor the GPON specification defines the QoS mechanism
(DBA algorithm); it is out-of-scope, meaning it is up to the system/chip vendor.
• EPON and GPON have identical service requirements.
High-performance, QoS-capable systems can be built with either protocol.
Evaluate PON systems on performance and price, not protocol.
OAM(In-Scope)
Framing(In-Scope)
Physical Layer(In-Scope)
DBA(Out-of-Scope)
23/4/19 Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential 7
End-To-End Service ArchitectureEnd-To-End Service Architecture
Video / IPSTB
C I S C O S Y S T E M S
VoD Server
Soft Switch
PSTN
PON System: A L2/L3/L4 Ethernet Switch• Connects the Core & Home Networks• Multi-service • Strict enforcement of service contracts• Designed to reduce end-to-end cost
CoreNetwork
HomeNetwork
Triple-Play
FTTH ONT
OLT
23/4/19 Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential 8
TDMNetwork
DataNetwork
PSTN
VideoNetwork
NetworkMgmt
OpticalLine
Terminal
Central Office
Triple-Play Residential Customers
• Telco-grade QoS is required• Jitter, wander, delay, Stratum-traceability
• Must be compatible with triple-play networks
• EPON & GPON: identical service-layer requirements for TDM.
Cell Site
TDM Services over xPONTDM Services over xPON
ONT
Apartment Building
Channel Bank Ethernet Switch
E1 GbE
Copper
Business
E1
GbE
ONT
ONT
n x E1
ONT ONT
ONT
23/4/19 Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential 9
GPON Has More Complex Chips and BuffersGPON Has More Complex Chips and Buffers
• GPON uses GEM to Segment and Reassemble Ethernet frames• Each connection (Port-ID) requires a separate SAR buffer• An additional 1MB external buffer memory is required
GPON OLT• 100’s to 1000’s of
SAR buffers• Frame from ONU
must wait until all bytes are received upstream from ONU before it can be processed
GPON ONU• Segmentation
buffers for every Port ID
Segmentation &Re-assembly(SAR) Buffers
GPON ONU
Por
t 1P
ort 2Cla
ssifi
catio
n
Sch
ed
ulin
g
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q0
Q5
Q6
Q4
Q7
PO
N-I
F
GPON OLTN
NI P
ort
Cla
ssifi
catio
n
Fra
me
Pro
cess
ing
PO
N-I
F
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q0
Q5
Q6
Q4
Q7
Sch
ed
ulin
g
EPON ONU
Por
t 1P
ort 2Cla
ssifi
catio
n
Sch
ed
ulin
g
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q0
Q5
Q6
Q4
Q7
PO
N-I
F
EPON OLT
NN
I Por
t
Fra
me
Pro
cess
ing
PO
N-I
F
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q0
Q5
Q6
Q4
Q7
Sch
ed
ulin
g
GPON
EPON
23/4/19 Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential 10
EPON Uses Less Expensive Optics – ProvenEPON Uses Less Expensive Optics – Proven
GPON 1G/2G/10G EPON
Downstreamdata rate (Mbps)
1244 or 2488 1000, 2500, 10000
Upstreamdata rate (Mbps)
155, 622, 1244 1000
Payload encapsulation GPON Encapsulation Method (GEM) Ethernet framing
Laser on/off 13 ns * 512 ns
AGC44 ns *
400 ns
CDR (Clock Data Recovery) 400 ns
* Short laser on/off times in GPON require high-speed laser drivers
* Short AGC intervals in GPON require optical power leveling
– Additional protocol to negotiate power level
– Digital interface to transceiver to set the values
* Relaxed optical specification parameters in EPON less expensive devices
23/4/19 Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential 11
Two Very Different ChoicesTwo Very Different Choices
1.25 Gb/sEPON
ATMBPON
2.5 Gb/sEPON
2.5 Gb/sGPON
10 Gb/sEPON
100% EthernetSeamless Migration
100% EthernetSeamless Migration
New Protocol -Forklift Upgrade?
?No roadmap beyond
2.5G for GPON.
Continuity of Services & Network
Management.
Disruption of Services & Network Management.
802.3ah EPON
ITU-T GPON
X
X
622 Mb/s 1.25 Gb/s 2.5 Gb/s 10Gb/s Speed
Su
pp
ort
fo
r A
dva
nce
d S
ervi
ces
23/4/19 Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential 12
1.25 & 2.5 Gb/s EPON: Line Rates & Framing1.25 & 2.5 Gb/s EPON: Line Rates & Framing
1518 Byte Packet 1518 Byte PacketPRE PRE
64 bits ofPreamble
1518 Byte P
64 bits ofPreamble
1518 Byte P 1518 Byte P 1518 Byte P
Line Rate: 2.5 Gb/s (.4 ns per bit)Data Rate: 2 Gb/s (.5 ns per bit)Line Encoding: 8B/10BMPCP Timing: Time Quanta (16ns units)
2.5 Gb/s Downstream
Line Rate: 1.25 Gb/s (.8 ns per bit)Data Rate: 1 Gb/s (1 ns per bit)Line Encoding: 8B/10BMPCP Timing: Time Quanta (16ns units)
1.25 Gb/s Downstream
23/4/19 Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential 13
Backward & Forward CompatibilityBackward & Forward Compatibility
1.25G1.25G
1.25G
1.25G
1.25G
1.25G
1.25G
1.25G
2.5G
1.25G
1.25G
2.5G
2.5G
1.25G
1.25G
1.25G
2.5G
1.25G
1.25G
1.25G
2.5G
2.5G
2.5G 2.5G
2.5G
23/4/19 Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential 14
Progression from 1G to 10G EPONProgression from 1G to 10G EPON
802.3ah: 1 Gbps downstream / 1 Gbps upstream The first commercial FTTH technology with Gigabit bandwidth deployed in the world Currently specified in IEEE Std. 802.3-2005
IPTV (200 Mbps), On-Demand (200 Mbps), Internet (600 Mbps)
HTTP, FTP, Gaming, Video Telephony (1 Gbps)
ONU
PSOLT
Option 1: 10 Gbps downstream / 1 Gbps upstream Providing more downstream bandwidth to support advanced digital TV services CATV replacement
IPTV (5 Gbps), On-Demand (2.5 Gbps),Internet, Gaming, etc. (2.5 Gbps)
HTTP, FTP, Gaming, Video Telephony (1 Gbps)
ONU
PSOLT
Option 2: 10 Gbps downstream / 10 Gbps upstream Support for advanced, bandwidth-intensive upstream and downstream services Support for more subscribers / dense deployments / MDU markets
IPTV (5 Gbps), On-Demand (2.5 Gbps),Internet, Gaming, etc. (2.5 Gbps)
Massively Multiplayer Gaming, VideoSurveillance, Video Telephony (10 Gbps)
ONU
PSOLT
23/4/19 Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential 15
Interoperability & Service MigrationInteroperability & Service Migration
DBA Algorithm, etc.
Management Layer
(Out-of-Scope)Management Layer
(Out-of-Scope)
Services Layer
(Out-of-Scope)
System Layer
(Out-of-Scope)
“Upper” PON Layer
(Out-of-Scope)
“Lower” PON Layer
(In-Scope)
“Open” Specification(IEEE EPON)
Allows Telcos & OEMs to differentiate products
Management Layer
(In-Scope)
Services Layer
(In-Scope)
System Layer
(Out-of-Scope)
“Upper” PON Layer
(Out-of-Scope)
“Lower” PON Layer
(In-Scope)
“Full” Specification(ITU-T GPON)
Why are these different?
Different Objectives Different Objectives Different Scopes Different Scopes
23/4/19 Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential 16
Scope of the IEEE 802.3 StandardScope of the IEEE 802.3 Standard
MediumDependentInterface (MDI)
Gigabit MediaIndependentInterface (GMII)
Logical Link Control
MAC Control
Media Access Control (MAC)
Reconciliation
Physical Coding Sublayer (PCS)
Physical Medium Attachment (PMA)
Physical Medium Dependent (PMD)
Medium
Data Link
Physical
Network
Session
Presentation
Application
Transport
Open SystemsInterconnection (OSI)
Reference Model
IEEE 802.3Layering Diagram
IEEE 802.3 covers only the Physical Layer & part of the Data Link Layer
23/4/19 Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential 17
Interoperability: Two World Views Interoperability: Two World Views
World View 1: PON equipment that complies with a complete specification, such as ITU-T GPON, is mandatory.
• Aspiration: A “complete” specification leads to interoperable equipment from multiple suppliers, leading in turn to lower cost.
World View 2: PON equipment that allows transparent re-use of existing IP-based services is mandatory.
• Aspiration: Interoperability at the service and management layers with other access systems (e.g., DSL).
23/4/19 Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential 18
Split-Ratio Myths Split-Ratio Myths
Logical vs physical split-ratio limits• Logical
– One BPON OLT can address 253 BPON ONUs;– One GPON OLT can address 4k GPON ONUs;– One EPON OLT can address 32k EPON ONUs.
• Physical– In real deployments, all technologies are limited to 1x32 or 1x64, depending on
reach, condition of the fiber plant, service mix, optical performance.– There is no practical split-ratio limit for any of the PON protocols; all have ample
“ONU address space.”
Myth: “EPON is only a 1x16 solution, while GPON supports 1x128”• Statements like this combine willful mis-reading of the EPON spec, which specifies a
minimum split-ratio of 1x16, not a maximum split-ratio, with some very simplistic BW utilization calculations.
Myth: “GPON has twice the split-ratio” because it’s downstream is twice as fast as EPON’s• 2.5G EPON is here and 10G EPON is coming soon this issue will disappear.• Latency requirements, bandwidth guarantees, and fairness requirements are more
important than raw bandwidth.• Stated another way, if solution A has more raw bandwidth than solution B, but cannot
distribute that bandwidth with enough precision and accuracy to meet the SLAs, then solution A, and its higher bandwidth, are useless.
23/4/19 Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential 19
Traffic Management & Maximum ReachTraffic Management & Maximum Reach
Too much emphasis is placed on the PON protocol (EPON vs GPON), and too little attention is paid to the traffic-management and service-level issues. • The magic of EPON is not so much that it uses Ethernet framing (although that does
lead to the lowest costs), but rather that Fiberhome has built in the traffic management functions that are really needed to make the services work properly.
• High-performance (or low-performance) systems in principle could be built with either protocol, hence manufacturers and carriers should place highest priority on feature set and performance, not details of the framing.
Comments on maximum reach• Optics performance, split-ratio, and fiber-plant particulars determine the reach, not the
PON protocol. Again there is FUD that confuses minimum requirements in the EPON standard with what is actually achievable (and legal) in real systems.
• Basically, you can dial up very long-reach PONs using any of the protocols, provided you are willing to choose the right optics, reduce the split ratio, etc.
• None of the framing definitions contain any long-distance magic; it’s all about optics and physics.
23/4/19 Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential 20
EPON in Asia, 2007EPON in Asia, 2007
• Japan: 300k+ lines/month.• NTT, KDDI, Tepco, K-Opticom, Chubu Electric, Energia, Kintetsu, & many others.
• Korea: Now in mass deployment, KT and others, 1M+ new subscribers in 2007.• China: 50+ EPON deployments currently underway, 400k+ new subscribers in 2007.• Taiwan, Malaysia, Singapore, Hong Kong, Thailand, Indonesia, Australia, etc.
• 6 EPON deployments currently underway (including 3 PTTs).• Cost is key.
• Since IEEE 802.3ah approval in 2004, EPON equipment costs have decreased by 60+% and optics costs have decreased by 80+%.
23/4/19 Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential 21
Source: Infonetics Metro Ethernet Equipment, April 2006
2004–2009 PON Subscribers 2004–2009 PON Subscribers
With permission: Copyright © 2006 by Infonetics Research, Inc
21.6
6.8
2.50
5
10
15
20
25
Sub
scrib
ers
(M)
CY04 CY05 CY06 CY07 CY08 CY09
Calendar Year
Worldwide PON Subscribers
~ 5M EPONend
CY2006
23/4/19 Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential 22
Source: HEAVY READING | VOL. 4, NO. 9, JUNE 2006 | FTTH WORLDWIDE MARKET & TECHNOLOGY FORECAST
2005–2011 FTTH Subscribers 2005–2011 FTTH Subscribers
23/4/19 Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential 23
Connecting two Ethernet networksConnecting two Ethernet networks
Ethernet-over-GEM-over-SDH or Ethernet?
ITU-T GPON or IEEE EPON?
23/4/19 Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential 24
Lessons from HistoryLessons from History
• Ethernet has won every time it has competed with “higher speed” and “higher efficiency” technologies– Ethernet vs. Token Ring– Ethernet vs. FDDI– Ethernet vs. ATM– Ethernet vs. SONET– Ethernet vs. ATM in the DSLAM – Ethernet vs. Multi-service in the Metro
• Ethernet is cheap, simple, easy to install & manage
Prediction
Ethernet all the way will win a large fraction of the market.
23/4/19 Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential 25
Outline Outline
EPON vs. GPON
CTC EPON IOP
Summary
23/4/19 Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential 26
CTC EPON IOP Key FeaturesCTC EPON IOP Key Features
23/4/19 Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential 27
CTC EPON System Evaluation TestCTC EPON System Evaluation Test
23/4/19 Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential 28
CTC EPON System Evaluation Test AchievementsCTC EPON System Evaluation Test Achievements
23/4/19 Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential 29
CTC View of EPONCTC View of EPON
EPON is mature and suitable for mass deployment in CTC
–Simple, easy to develop
–Sufficient chip and system vendors
–Large-scale, all-around, chip-level and system-level IOP
–Mass deployment in east Asia
–Stable operation in the field trial of CTC for one and a half years
–Decreasing cost
23/4/19 Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential 30
CTC View of EPON (Cont.)CTC View of EPON (Cont.)
After improved by CTC spec, EPON has no distinctive and essential difference in technical capability compared with GPON
-Transport capability
-DBA & QoS
-Operation & Management
-Security
-Multicast
-Fiber protection
-Multi-play support
23/4/19 Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential 31
NTT View of EPONNTT View of EPON
“Two types of giga-bit PON systems have been standardized: G-PON by ITU-T and GE-PON by IEEE. Now the question is which one is more promising? ... In Japan, we have seen a drastic price reduction of media converters which could be realized by sharing the technology and products of the LAN market. For services, high quality IP Telephone and IP video are becoming critical basic FTTH services. And for the core network, in NTT we have a full IP backbone network for the FLET’s service. Switches and routers in the network employ Ethernet interfaces. Given these factors, we decided to develop GE-PON as the next-generation FTTH system.” ----Hiromichi Shinohara, Director of NTT Access Labs (IEEE Communications Magazine, September 2005)
23/4/19 Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential 32
Outline Outline
EPON vs. GPON
CTC EPON IOP
Summary
23/4/19 Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential 33
Summary Summary
1. EPON is more mature & cost-effective than
GPON.
2. Both GPON & EPON will coexist in a long time.
3. Fiberhome is a FTTH leader in China.
4. With our effort, Fiberhome FTTH system will be
deployed worldwide soon.