2015-8-13Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential Insight into EPON & GPON Sept. 1st, 2007

23/4/19 Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential

Insight into EPON & GPONInsight into EPON & GPON

Sept. 1st, 2007

23/4/19 Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential 2

Outline Outline

EPON vs. GPON

CTC EPON IOP

Summary


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


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”


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


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)


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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).


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.


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.


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+%.


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


Source: HEAVY READING | VOL. 4, NO. 9, JUNE 2006 | FTTH WORLDWIDE MARKET & TECHNOLOGY FORECAST

2005–2011 FTTH Subscribers 2005–2011 FTTH Subscribers


Connecting two Ethernet networksConnecting two Ethernet networks

Ethernet-over-GEM-over-SDH or Ethernet?

ITU-T GPON or IEEE EPON?


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.


Outline Outline

EPON vs. GPON

CTC EPON IOP

Summary


CTC EPON IOP Key FeaturesCTC EPON IOP Key Features


CTC EPON System Evaluation TestCTC EPON System Evaluation Test


CTC EPON System Evaluation Test AchievementsCTC EPON System Evaluation Test Achievements


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


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


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)


Outline Outline

EPON vs. GPON

CTC EPON IOP

Summary


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.


Thank you for attention!

Documents

2015-8-13Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential Insight into EPON & GPON Sept. 1st, 2007