Insight into EPON & GPON

Sept. 1st, 2007

2013/6/18

Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential

Outline

EPON vs. GPON

CTC EPON IOP

Summary

2013/6/18

Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential

EPON Vs. GPON

Protocol & Framing QoS & TDM Support System Costs

Upgrade Path
Interoperability & service migration Split ratios, maximum reach, & traffic management Users Forecast

2013/6/18

Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential

PON Framing
ITU-TGPON
125 sec 125 sec 125 sec

ATM

GEM

ATM

GEM

ATM

GEM

ATM

ATM

ATM

GPON Lite
GEM GPON is evolving GEM to look like EPON! GEM

IEEE EPON

OAM & MPCP No Fixed Frame

2013/6/18

Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential

GPON Frame Details

Downstream
125 us PCBd n Payload n PCBd n+1 125 us Payload n+1 Rate 1.244G 2.488G Frame Size 19440 38880

PSync 4 Bytes

Ident 4 Bytes

PLOAMd 13 Bytes

BIP 1 Byte

PLend 4 Bytes

Plend 4 Bytes

US BW Map N*8 Bytes

Coverage of this BIP (Includes Payload n-1)

Coverage of next BIP (Includes Payload n)

Upstream
125 us Frame n 125 us Frame n+1 Rate 1.244G 2.488G Frame Size 19440 38880

ONT 1

Gap

ONT 2

Gap

ONT n

Gap

Guard Time

PLOAMu 13 bytes Alloc #a Alloc #a SStart

PLOu

DBRu 1 Alloc #a

Payload 1 Alloc #a

PLOAMu 13 bytes Alloc #b

DBRu 1 Alloc #b

Payload 1 Alloc #b 5

2013/6/18

Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential

Protocol QoS
DBA (Out-of-Scope) OAM (In-Scope)
Framing (In-Scope) Physical Layer (In-Scope) 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.
2013/6/18 Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential 6

End-To-End Service Architecture

PSTN
C I S C O

SY

S T E M S

Core Network

Home Network

Soft Switch
OLT Triple-Play FTTH ONT

Video / IP STB

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 VoD Server

2013/6/18

Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential

TDM Services over xPON

Telco-grade QoS is required Jitter, wander, delay, Stratum-traceability Cell Site Apartment Building

Must be compatible with triple-play networks

EPON & GPON: identical service-layer requirements for TDM.
Network Mgmt Video Network n x E1 Data Network TDM Network Optical Line Terminal ONT Central Office PSTN ONT ONT
2013/6/18 Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential

Copper Channel Bank Ethernet Switch

E1
ONT ONT

GbE

Business
E1

GbE

ONT

Triple-Play Residential Customers

GPON 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

GPON
Classification

GPON ONU
Q0

GPON OLT
100s to 1000s of SAR buffers Frame from ONU must wait until all bytes are received upstream from ONU before it can be processed
Scheduling
NNI Port

Q0 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7

Frame Processing

Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7

Classification Classification
9

Q1

Scheduling

PON-IF

PON-IF

Segmentation & Re-assembly (SAR) Buffers

EPON OLT

EPON

EPON ONU
Q0

Scheduling

Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7

Scheduling

NNI Port

PON-IF

PON-IF

Segmentation buffers for every Port ID

Q1

Frame Processing

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7

2013/6/18

Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential

Port 2

Port 1

GPON ONU

Q0

Port 2

Port 1

EPON Uses Less Expensive Optics Proven

GPON Downstream data rate (Mbps) Upstream data rate (Mbps) Payload encapsulation Laser on/off AGC CDR (Clock Data Recovery) 1244 or 2488 155, 622, 1244 GPON Encapsulation Method (GEM) 13 ns * 44 ns * 1G/2G/10G EPON 1000, 2500, 10000 1000 Ethernet framing 512 ns 400 ns 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
2013/6/18 Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential 10

Two Very Different Choices

802.3ah EPON
Support for Advanced Services
Continuity of Services & Network Management. 100% Ethernet Seamless Migration

10 Gb/s EPON

100% Ethernet Seamless Migration

2.5 Gb/s EPON

1.25 Gb/s EPON

?
No roadmap beyond 2.5G for GPON.

X
ATM BPON
622 Mb/s
New Protocol Forklift Upgrade?

2.5 Gb/s GPON

Disruption of Services & Network Management.

ITU-T GPON
2.5 Gb/s Speed 10Gb/s

1.25 Gb/s

2013/6/18

Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential

11

1.25 & 2.5 Gb/s EPON: Line Rates & Framing

1.25 Gb/s Downstream
Line Rate: Data Rate: Line Encoding: MPCP Timing: 1.25 Gb/s (.8 ns per bit) 1 Gb/s (1 ns per bit) 8B/10B Time Quanta (16ns units)

64 bits of Preamble
1518 Byte Packet PRE 1518 Byte Packet PRE

2.5 Gb/s Downstream

Line Rate: Data Rate: Line Encoding: MPCP Timing: 2.5 Gb/s (.4 ns per bit) 2 Gb/s (.5 ns per bit) 8B/10B Time Quanta (16ns units)

64 bits of Preamble
1518 Byte P 1518 Byte P 1518 Byte P 1518 Byte P

2013/6/18

Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential

12

Backward & Forward Compatibility

1.25G 1.25G
1.25G

2.5G 1.25G
1.25G

1.25G 1.25G

1.25G 1.25G

1.25G 2.5G
1.25G

1.25G 1.25G

2.5G 2.5G
2.5G

2.5G 2.5G
1.25G

2.5G 2.5G

1.25G
1.25G
13

2013/6/18

Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential

Progression 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
PS

OLT

Option 1: 10 Gbps downstream / 1 Gbps upstream

Providing more downstream bandwidth to support advanced digital TV services CATV replacement
PS

OLT

IPTV (5 Gbps), On-Demand (2.5 Gbps), Internet, Gaming, etc. (2.5 Gbps)
HTTP, FTP, Gaming, Video Telephony (1 Gbps)

ONU

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, Video Surveillance, Video Telephony (10 Gbps)
PS

ONU

OLT

2013/6/18

Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential

14

Interoperability & Service Migration

Full Specification (ITU-T GPON) Management Layer (In-Scope)
Why are these different?

Open Specification (IEEE EPON) Management Management Layer Layer (Out-of-Scope) (Out-of-Scope) Services Layer (Out-of-Scope)
Allows Telcos & OEMs to differentiate products
DBA Algorithm, etc.

Services Layer (In-Scope) System Layer (Out-of-Scope)

System Layer (Out-of-Scope)

Upper PON Layer (Out-of-Scope)

Lower PON Layer (In-Scope)

Upper PON Layer (Out-of-Scope)

Lower PON Layer (In-Scope)

Different Objectives Different Scopes

2013/6/18 Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential 15

Scope of the IEEE 802.3 Standard

Open Systems Interconnection (OSI) Reference Model IEEE 802.3 Layering Diagram

Logical Link Control Application MAC Control Media Access Control (MAC) Reconciliation Session Gigabit Media Independent Interface (GMII) Physical Coding Sublayer (PCS) Network Physical Medium Attachment (PMA) Physical Medium Dependent (PMD) Medium Dependent Interface (MDI) Medium

Presentation

Transport

Data Link

Physical

IEEE 802.3 covers only the Physical Layer & part of the Data Link Layer
2013/6/18 Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential 16

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).

2013/6/18

Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential

17

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 its downstream is twice as fast as EPONs 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.
2013/6/18 Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential 18

Traffic 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; its all about optics and physics.

2013/6/18

Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential

19

EPON 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+%.

2013/6/18

Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential

20

20042009 PON Subscribers

Worldwide PON Subscribers
~ 5M EPON end CY2006
21.6

25 20 15
Subscribers (M)

EP

N O N PO BP N O

6.8 2.5

10 5

CY04

CY05

CY06

CY07

CY08

0 CY09

Calendar Year

Source: Infonetics Metro Ethernet Equipment, April 2006

With permission: Copyright 2006 by Infonetics Research, Inc
2013/6/18 Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential 21

20052011 FTTH Subscribers

Source: HEAVY READING | VOL. 4, NO. 9, JUNE 2006 | FTTH WORLDWIDE MARKET & TECHNOLOGY FORECAST
2013/6/18 Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential 22

Connecting two Ethernet networks

Ethernet-over-GEM-over-SDH or Ethernet? ITU-T GPON or IEEE EPON?

2013/6/18 Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential 23

Lessons 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.

2013/6/18

Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential

24

Outline

EPON vs. GPON

CTC EPON IOP

Summary

2013/6/18

Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential

25

CTC EPON IOP Key Features

2013/6/18

Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential

26

CTC EPON System Evaluation Test

2013/6/18

Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential

27

CTC EPON System Evaluation Test Achievements

2013/6/18

Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential

28

CTC 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

2013/6/18

Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential

29

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

2013/6/18

Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential

30

NTT 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 FLETs 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)

2013/6/18

Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential

31

Outline

EPON vs. GPON

CTC EPON IOP

Summary

2013/6/18

Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential

32

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.

2013/6/18

Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential

33

Thank you for attention!

2013/6/18

Fiberhome Proprietary and Confidential

34