3-2008 Cisco Fiber To The Home - · PDF file03.09.2015 · Motivation for Fiber to the Home ... Symmetric High-speed Connectivity Video download than real- ... - 1 downstream - 1 upstream

© 2007 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. Cisco Confidentialthmartin-FTTH 1

Fiber To The Home

Thomas Martin [email protected] Systems Engineer


Motivation for Fiber to the Home

FTTH Approaches

FTTH Deployment Aspects

Conclusion

222

AGENDA


Motivations ForFTTx


FTTH Motivations/Drivers

Need for a first mileAvailability of Local Loop UnbundlingDependency on Local Loop UnbundlingGreenfield Areas

Streamlining the Access NetworkConsolidation of Access networks

Competitive ThreatFrom cable companies & DOCSIS 3.0/Wideband DOCSISSP’s offering FTTH services

The need for speed!Bandwidth requirements driven by NGN applicationsVideo (HD is a key driver)On demand BW services


Bandwidth Drivers

Triple PlaySwitched Video at Home

Symmetric High-speed Connectivity

Video download than real-time streaming

Telepresence

Video High Definition!Bandwidth demandsgrowing


Bandwidth Drivers

Source: IDATE

Telepresence


FTTH The Way to Provide True High Speed Access

ADSL is reaching it’s limitations

The two major constraints inherent in ADSL technologies, asymmetry and bandwidth limitation, prevent operators from being able to supply the applications that digital homes will be demanding in the not too distant future.

With increased penetration download speeds beyond 1.5 to 2 km drops dramatically and the minimum 10Mbps for 3Play (SDTV) cannot longer be provided


Trend for access bitrates :exponential growth

1

10

100

1000

10000

100000

1000000

10000000

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

"High-speed connection," actualStraight line extrapolation assuming acceleration from 2004Straight line extrapolation

Source: Heavy Reading report “FTTH Worldwide Market & Technology Forecast, 2006-2011”


FTTx Access Topologies/Technologies


FTTH Access Topologies

Tree architecturesPassive Optical Network (PON) technology

Star architecturesPoint-to-point connection of customers to switches in a star topology


Passive Optical Networks (PON)


Core Network

Aggregation

Access

Main Point of Presence

Internet

PSTN

ONU in basement

Voice Gateway

SMB and residential

10 PassiveOptical Fiber

10 Mbit/s

WiFi

Videosurveillance

1:N split

Video source(VoD / Bcast)

ONT

PCTV Set

Ethernet

RJ-11

RJ-11Ethernet

Set-top Box

AnalogPhones

RF coax

ONT in Appartmentor office

ONT in home or business

ONT

ONU

ONT

PON Architecture


PON Physical Network Infrastructure

Drop Cables

DistributionCable

Feeder

Cable

Optical Distribution Frame (ODF)

Optical Line Terminal

(OLT)

IP Aggregation

Router

Primary Fiber Concentration

Point (FCP)

Central OfficeAccess Node

Serving Area

Aggregation Network

SingleFamily

Unit

SmallBusiness

Unit

MultiDwelling

Unit

Distribution Terminal(Splitter)

DistributionCable

DistributionCable



Drop Cables

MultiTenant

Building

Drop Cables


Motivations for PON deployment

Fiber saving between splitter and CO/POPrelevant in scenarios where existing cables or ducts need to be reused towards the splitter, or where fiber deployment is restricted (e.g., aerial cabling)Less relevant for Greenfield scenarios (marginal cost of fiber compared to digging, splicing, ...)

Analog video overlay for existing broadcast servicesemulates cable TV distribution plant on a separate downstream wavelength delaying introduction of IP TVrequires equivalent of cable headend at each OLT side

Port saving in the CO/POPneed to terminate thousands of fibers on switch portsPON can reduce this by 1...2 orders of magnitude compared to P2Pport costs on a per-customer base, however, are roughly equivalent

No deployment of active equipment in the outside plantin Europe & ME typically loops are sufficiently short so that also for P2P there is no need to put active equipment into the outside plant, unless the fiber saving argument becomes relevant

RF TV


PON Flavors Today

Ethernet, ATM, TDMEthernetATMTransmission

131013101310Upstream λ (nm)

1490 and 155015501490 and 1550Downstream λ (nm)

Downstream up to 2.5 Gbit/sUpstream up to 1.25 Gbit/s

Up to symmetric 1.25 Gbit/s

Downstream up to 622 Mbit/sUpstream 155 Mbit/s

Bandwidth

ITU-T G.984IEEE 802.3ahITU-T G.983Standard

GPONEPONBPON


PON Protocol Overview

OLT

C B A1490 nm

C B A

C B A

C B A

CBA1310 nm

A

C

B

ONT

ONT

ONT

A

CATV overlay

B

CATV overlay

C

CATV overlay

CATV overlay

CATV overlay

CATV overlay

CATV overlay

1550 nm


About Next-Gen PON:GPON vendors say ...

2006 2009 2010 2011+

More bandwidth.New optical components.

10G PON.

More capacity with Wavelenght multiplexing.

WDM-PON (CWDM)

More capacity and bandwidth with One wavelength per subscriber.

(DWDM)

GPON up andrunning.

None of this is standardized yet…None of this is standardized yet…


2006 2009 2010 2011+


10G PON.


WDM-PON (CWDM)


(DWDM)

GPON up andrunning.

ONT

ONT

ONTOLT

1x 10Gbps

Simple view of the solution

GPON Lambdas:- 1 downstream- 1 upstream

GPON

1x 1.25Gbps

About Next-Gen PON:GPON vendors say ...


GPON vendors say ...

2006 2009 2010 2011+


10G PON.


WDM-PON (CWDM)


(DWDM)

GPON up andrunning.

ONT

ONT

ONTOLT

GPON Lambdas:- N downstream- 1 upstream

4x 2.5Gbps

1x 1.25Gbps

GPON

Simple view of the solution


PON deployment – Splitter spliced into plant => LLU impossible

OLT opt.MDF

Splitter

ONT

ONT

1 fiberper n OLTs


PON deployment – remote ODF with splitters => Enables LLU at a cost

LLU through SP-specific splitter in ODF and SP-specific feeder fiber

OLT opt.MDF

ODF

ONT

ONT

1 fiberper Service Provider

Splitters

ONT

ONT


Main Issues with PONsData sent to all users on the tree: inefficient Video multicast & VoD

IGMP Proxy and snooping with limited support. IGMP process distributed between OLT(Proxy) and ONT(Snooper) instable. Zapping degrades with large number of channels selected. No state of IGMP on ONT kept. Troubleshooting by “mirroring” PONT tree, no focus on one sub (trace per user) possible Asymmetrical

All FTTH deployments that we are aware of universally assume a take rate of 25...35%. Only 25-35% of interfaces need to be accommodated on switches in a Eth. P2P scenario rather than 100% in PON.

Strong encryption required to prevent eavesdropping

No resilience–OLT optics is single point of failure for entire tree

–corrupt CPE can impact entire PON tree

Jamming is very easy–just transmit continuous light and the whole tree is OOS

In case of technology change all terminations on a tree need to be replaced (simultaneously?)

Every endpoint (OLT, ONT, ...) has to operate at the aggregate bitrate–e.g., a GPON ONT delivering 100 Mbit/s to an end customer has to operate at 2.5 Gbit/s

Theoretical maximum number of customers per tree is rarely reached due to take-up rates, unless very expensive ODFs in the field are used to optimize utilization


Main Issues with PONsData sent to all users on the tree: inefficient Video multicast & VoD

Asymmetrical

All FTTH deployments that we are aware of universally assume a take rate of 25...35%. Only 25-35% of interfaces need to be accommodated on switches in a Eth. P2P scenario rather than 100% in PON.

Strong encryption required to prevent eavesdropping

No resilience–OLT optics is single point of failure for entire tree

–corrupt CPE can impact entire PON tree

Jamming is very easy–just transmit continuous light and the whole tree is OOS

In case of technology change all terminations on a tree need to be replaced (simultaneously?)

Every endpoint (OLT, ONT, ...) has to operate at the aggregate bitrate–e.g., a GPON ONT delivering 100 Mbit/s to an end customer has to operate at 2.5 Gbit/s

Theoretical maximum number of customers per tree is rarely reached due to take-up rates, unless very expensive ODFs in the field are used to optimize utilization

OLT

ONT

ONT

ONT


PON CPE Aspects

CPE’s (a.k.a. ONU’s or ONT’s) are an integral part of the PON architectureSpecial functionality

Media Access ControlBurst-mode lasershigh optical powerencryption

makes PON-CPE’s inherently more expensive than native Ethernet CPE’sMulti-vendor interoperability left for the futureTypically deployed and owned by the Service Provider as corrupt CPE’s can impact the traffic of other customers and compromise security


Point-to-Point (P2P) orhome run fiber


Core Network

Aggregation

Access

Point of Presence

Internet

PSTN

Access switch in basement

Voice Gateway

SMB and residential

WiFi

Videosurveillance


NT

PCTV Set

Ethernet

RJ-11

RJ-11Ethernet

Set-top Box

AnalogPhones

ONT in Appartmentor office

ONT in home or business

NT

NT

Ethernet Star Architecture


Ethernet Physical Network Infrastructure

Drop Cables

DistributionCable

Feeder

Cable

Optical Distribution Frame (ODF)

Ethernet Switch

IP Aggregation

Router

Primary Fiber Concentration

Point (FCP)

Central OfficeAccess Node

Serving Area

Aggregation Network

SingleFamily

Unit

SmallBusiness

Unit

MultiDwelling

Unit

Distribution Terminal

(One-to-One Cable)

DistributionCable

DistributionCable


(Eth Switch)


(Eth Switch)

Drop Cables

MultiTenant

Building

Drop Cables


Ethernet Star Architecture Characteristics(a.k.a. P2P, Point-to-Point

Direct fiber access to individual subscribers(e.g. single family residences, apartments)

Access switches in CO or decentralized on customer premiseSingle mode single fibre

MTU deployments for residential, SMB, and Enterprise customers

Access switches in basement of MTU; last drop via UTP (Cat6/7) or fiber (SM/MM)

Very flexible and future proof solution as it provides virtually unlimited bandwidth per customer


Ethernet Star Architecture Characteristics(a.k.a. P2P, Point-to-Point)

Pay as you grow possibility

Fiber topology is technology neutral

Migration to new technologies / higher speeds can be done on a customer by customer basis (enabling competition among different technologies / speeds)Higher number of fibers to CO/POPSlightly more equipment needed in theCO/POP


CPE Aspects

CPEs can be commodity items purchased at retail storesNo interoperability issuesNo special functionality required

No Media Access ControlNo Burst-mode lasers

CPE’s inherently less expensive than PON CPEsCan be deployed and owned by the customer as corrupt CPE’s can not impact the traffic of other customers or compromise security

just switch off the port in case of non-compliant CPE behavior


Ethernet Point-to-Point Advantages

Dedicated Bandwidth Per User

Greenfields: Fiber topology is not tailored to- and limited by a given technology

Ethernet is a commodityLower port pricesWide interoperability

Allows cost-effective and still future proof hybrid deploymentsMix of Fiber To The Home and Fiber To The Curb with Copper(UTP)

connection to the subscriber

Co-Existence of Business and Residential SubscribersResidential subscribers cannot interfere with business services and SLA’s


FTTxDeployment


Cost of Equipment and ConstructionDeployment models

Source: Corning and FTTH Council Europe

Civil Works68%

Ethernet12%

Fiber6%

Cabinets 2% Installation

3%Other Services

9%

Civil Works cost is the major share of FTTx deployment and is common to both PON and P2PFiber Cost is only 6% of a FTTxnetwork cost

Fiber lifetime varies between 15 and 25 yearsIncreased fiber cost of P2P vs. PON is only a minor part of the overall cost of deployment and has to be regarded in 15-25 years depreciation


SPs need to make three significant investments for FTTH deployment

Step 2: Connect the building~35% of capex

Step 1: Roll out in the region~15% of capex

Step 3: Connect the customer~50% of capex

Source: Cisco IBSG

Only for step 1 there are any differences resulting from access network architectures


FTTH capex

Source: IDATE, Study for French Government, April 2006

Costs for GPON and E-P2P quite closeCivil engineering represents 70% of the costs

Compared costs for GPON and E-P2P (€ per Home Passed )

404 469

1,637 1,727443 352

443 351

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

Metro GPON Metro E-P2P Suburban GPON Suburban E-P2P

passive active


FTTH Subscriber Connection

Access Switch

Home Network

Residential Gateway

FTTH Network

STB


FTTx Point-to-PointPhysical Subscriber Connection

1. New multi/single mode fiberSimple to deploy, Quick User Activation, Unlimited Bandwidth, Easy upgrade to GE access Multimode up to 500m, for in-building wiringSinglemode-single fiber for 100Mb/s and 1000Mb/s up to 10kmQuick Installation in existing risers (no safety/interference issues)

2. UTP Copper CAT V-VIIIn New Buildings (dedicated ducts) Installation quicker and simpler than fiberNetwork Components (U-PE & CPE) have lower cost than fiber equivalent Future Proof Media for Speeds Up to 1Gb/sLimited to 90m of distance (100m including patching)


Customer Premises Equipment

Gaming TV Service Voice and Fax Service Internet Service

Residential Gateway

FTTH Network

STB


Customer Premise Equipment

SP’s regard the CPE as demarcation point for the service and termination of the FTTH line

2 types of CPE approaches, depending on the service offering

ONT (Optical Network Termination)Terminates incoming fiber and converts 100BaseFX/BX/LX10 to 100BaseTCustomer connection via UTP

HAG (Home Access Gateway)Combined ONT and Service terminationMostly Voice/Data combinations


Home Access Gateway Architecture

VoiceAdaptor

(H.323, MGCP, SIP)

VoiceAdaptor

(H.323, MGCP, SIP)

FXSFXS FXSFXS

Analogue PhonesUSER DEVICES Video STB

Ethernet10/100BaseTX

Switch

Ethernet10/100BaseTX

Switch

UPLINK10/100BaseT100BaseXX


CPE

E-ONT: Scientific Atlanta Prisma Series100BaseBX10 to 100BaseTXOptional RF Video Overlay

HAG: Deployments with Partner CPE

HAG Partner:Tilgin (former i3micro) www.tilgin.comTelsey www.telsey.itGenexis www.genexis.nl


Core

Distribution

Access

Customer Premise

CoreSwitch

Main POP

STB

AggregationPOP

GE

InternetPSTN

Voice Gateway

SS7 InterconnectSS7 Interconnect

Video Servers

Set-Top Box

CPE

Residential Access

Business Access GEDistributionSwitch

AccessSwitch

FTTH Deployment Example


Core Network

Aggregation

Access

Internet

PSTN

Voice Gateway

Video Source(VoD / Bcast)

Centralized POP Approach

HAG

HAGHAG

HAGHAG

HAG

HAGHAG

U-PE

N-PE


Centralized POP Approach4510 with up to 384 ports

n x GE or 10GE uplinks 3 x 4510 per 42RU Rack1182 Subscriber per Rack

Pay as you growModular line-card with SFPAdd (pay for) transceiver only when a subscriber is connected

100Mb/s per Subscriber

Centralized Equipment1 point for AC and UPSCentral cable management and troubleshooting

HAG HAGHAG HAG HAG HAG

Cisco 4510

100BaseBX10

Core Network


Centralized Access Pop

ODF relative position to Cisco 4510R Cisco 4510R in a rack ODF

•Known POP sizes vary from 2 000 to 20 000 connected customers

•Citynet in Amsterdam has designed POP with 10 000 & 12 000 fibres

•New French Deployment (2M ports) with more than 10000 fibers per Pop

•Loop lengths deployed:In average 3.5 km, maximum 5 km


Novel mechanical solution

• ODF for 2304 fiber terminations• Rack for 1502 active fiber

interfaces• 50% take rate• up to 100% take rate

achievable with second switch rack

Source: Huber & Suhner


Core Network/P

Aggregation

Access

PE-AGG

Internet

PSTN

Voice Gateway


Distributed Access

HAGHAGHAGHAG

HAGHAGHAGHAGHAGHAG

HAGHAG

N-PE

U-PE


Multi Tenant Building SolutionDecentralized Access

Access Switch located in Basement/Utility Area

UTP in-house cabling up to 90m distance

Cost effective Deployment

U-PE operates in L2 Mode and can provides access for Business services Layer2 & Layer3 VPN services as well as for Layer3 3Play services

GE (L2) link(s) to the PE-AGG

ResidentialResidential MTU AccessMTU Access

To the DP/POP

U-PE

HAG


Multi Tenant UnitSwitch Cabinet Solution

•Compact Form Factor allows for wall mounting•Power Distribution Panel with optional UPS (Uninterruptible Power Supply)•Fiber Tray for incoming fiber•UTP Patch Panels for in-house cabling•Switches tilt-mounted to optimize depth•Enclosure chassis act as heat-sink•Vandalism proof


FTTx Conclusion


What has been deployed so far?In the US some of the incumbents are currently deploying GPON

Utilization of existing Infrastructure: Re-use of existing duct and outside cabinet structureVideo overlay

In Japan NTT and KDDI are deploying EPONAerial deployment in many regions does not allow large fiber countsRegulatory situation enforced lowest common denominator

Virtually anywhere elseDeployment of Point-to-Point/Star EthernetOnly very little traction for PONs


ConclusionFiber deployment to residences is a large investment into the future

Every deployment scheme for FTTxnetworks has its own merits


Every deployment scheme for FTTx networks has its own meritsPONs can optimize deployment cost in the very short term, but do not represent a very future-proof investment.

Ideal for existing FTTC (Fiber To The Curb) topologiesResidential services in areas with FTTC deploymentsService offerings with low SLA (Service Level Agreements)


Every deployment scheme for FTTx networks has its own meritsEthernet Point-to-Point architectures represent the most future-proof solution which can provide virtually unlimited bitrates to subscribers.

Optimal choice for Greenfield deploymentsIndividual subscribers can be migrated to more powerful technologies as needed without impacting the service to other subscribersIdeal to support mixed service offeringsConcurrent support for residential and business services utilizing the same infrastructure


“In terms of equipment, both PON and P2P solutions have their merits, … In terms of network topology, P2P architectures have significant advantages. They are more flexible and scalable, and therefore have economic lifetimes in excess of 20 years.”

Gartner Group“Choose the Right Topology for Your Fiber-to-the-Home Network”


Documents

3-2008 Cisco Fiber To The Home - · PDF file03.09.2015 · Motivation for Fiber to the Home ... Symmetric High-speed Connectivity Video download than real- ... - 1 downstream - 1 upstream