ANNUAL REPORT OASE PeriodicReport D1.9 P3 …...THIRD YEAR - 2012-2013 - ANNUAL REPORT...

“THIRD YEAR - 2012-2013 - ANNUAL REPORT”

D 1.9

‘OASE_PeriodicReport_D1.9_P3_20122012_V2.0.docx

Version: 2.0

Last Update: 17/09/2013

Distribution Level: PU

Distribution level PU = Public, RE = Restricted to a group of the specified Consortium, PP = Restricted to other program participants (including Commission Services), CO= Confidential, only for members of the OASE Consortium (including the Commission Services)

THIRD YEAR - 2012-2013 - ANNUAL REPORT OASE_PeriodicReport_D1.9_P3_20122012_V2.0.docx

OASE FP7 – ICT– GA 249025

Page: 2 of 80

PROJECT PERIODIC REPORT

Grant Agreement number: 249025

Project acronym: OASE

Project title: Optical Access Seamless Evolution

Funding Scheme: SEVENTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME

ICT-2009.1.1: The Network of the Future (IP)

Date of latest version of Annex I against which the assessment will be made: October 13th

, 2009

Periodic report: 1st □ 2

nd □ 3

rd x 4th □

Period covered: from January 1st, 2012 to February 28th, 2013

Project co-ordinator name, title and organisation: POINT Jean-Charles, CEO, JCP-CONSULT

Tel: +33 223 271 246

Fax: + 33 299 277 782

E-mail: [email protected]

Project website address: http://www.ict-oase.eu



Page: 3 of 80

Declaration by the project coordinator

I, as co-ordinator of this project and in line with my obligations as stated in Article II.2.3 of the Grant

Agreement, declare that:

The attached periodic report represents an accurate description of the work carried out in this

project for this reporting period;

The project (tick as appropriate):

has fully achieved its objectives and technical goals for the period;

□ has achieved most of its objectives and technical goals for the period with relatively

minor deviations1;

□ has failed to achieve critical objectives and/or is not at all on schedule.

The public website, if applicable

is up to date

□ is not up to date

To my best knowledge, the financial statements which are being submitted as part of this report

are in line with the actual work carried out and are consistent with the report on the resources used

for the project (section 3.6) and if applicable with the certificate on financial statement.

All beneficiaries, in particular non-profit public bodies, secondary and higher education

establishments, research organisations and SMEs, have declared to have verified their legal status.

Any changes have been reported under section 5 (Project Management) in accordance with

Article II.3.f of the Grant Agreement.

Name of Coordinator: Jean-Charles Point

Date: 24/04/2013

Signature of Coordinator:

1 If either of these boxes is ticked, the report should reflect these and any remedial actions taken.



Page: 4 of 80

Table of content

DECLARATION BY THE PROJECT COORDINATOR ................................................................................................. 3

1. PUBLISHABLE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................... 5

2. PROJECT OBJECTIVES FOR THE PERIOD .......................................................................................................... 8

3. WORK PROGRESS AND ACHIEVEMENTS DURING THE PERIOD ................................................................. 9

3.1 WP2 - REQUIREMENTS FOR EUROPEAN NEXT-GENERATION OPTICAL ACCESS NETWORKS .......... 9

3.2 WP3 - NEXT-GENERATION OPTICAL ACCESS ARCHITECTURES ............................................................ 12

3.3 WP4 - SYSTEM CONCEPTS NEXT-GENERATION OPTICAL ACCESS NETWORKS ................................. 15

3.4 WP5 - TECHNO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT .................................................................................................... 18

3.5 WP6 - BUSINESS MODELLING AND REGULATORY ASPECTS .................................................................. 20

3.6 WP7 - EXPERIMENTAL VALIDATION ............................................................................................................. 23

3.7 WP8 - DISSEMINATION OF RESULTS .............................................................................................................. 25

4. DELIVERABLES AND MILESTONES TABLES.................................................................................................. 34

5. PROJECT MANAGEMENT .................................................................................................................................... 36

6. EXPLANATION OF THE USE OF THE RESOURCES ........................................................................................ 51

7. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS – FORM C AND SUMMARY FINANCIAL REPORT .......................................... 73

8. CERTIFICATES – TO BE UPDATED .................................................................................................................... 73

9. ANNEX 1 – POST REVIEW – 2011 _ “HOW WE ADDRESSED REMARKS” .................................................. 75



Page: 5 of 80

1. Publishable summary

http://www.oase.eu

Duration: 01/2010– 02/2013 Total Cost: 7,664,241.00 €

EC Contribution: 4,980,257.00€

Grant agreement n° 249025

OASE: Optical Access Seamless Evolution

Partners: JCP-Consult (F), Deutsche Telekom AG (D), iMinds vzw (B), Technische Universität München

(D), Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan (S), ADVA Optical Networking SE (D), Ericsson AB (S), Ericsson

Telecomunicazioni S.p.A (I), ACREO SWEDISH ICT AB (S), Magyar Telekom (H), Slovak Telekom (SK),

University of Essex (UK)

The OASE Integrated Project has examined Fibre-to-the-Home (FTTH) within a multi-disciplinary study

to provide a self-consistent and coherent set of technological solutions. The OASE project federated

partners from all over Europe and is composed of major operators, industrial leaders in FTTH

technologies, and European universities.

Main Objectives

The aim of the OASE project is the assessment and development of next-generation optical access (NG-

OA) network architectures and systems concepts for the “2020” timeframe, focusing particularly on

European requirements. The OASE project has examined FTTH solutions based on four multidisciplinary

approaches: regulatory, technical and financial aspects, and business models. In combination with these

aspects, NG-OA network architectures has been developed featuring the highest potential of enabling:

1 Gbit/s per customer

1000 customers per fibre feed

100 km transmission distance

at economically competitive prices within a well-regulated and open market environment.

OASE has achieved the following objectives:

Study current and future requirements for NG-OA networks from economic, business, operational

and regulatory Europe-centric perspectives,

Identify possible network architectures, and employ a set of energy-efficiency metrics and models to

analyse their suitability, as well as assess the most appropriate migration strategies,

Identify network technologies that may be employed by using relevant cost and technical factors,

Examine the interactions between businesses in an “open network” marketplace by studying how

increased convergence may offer new value chains and business opportunities,

Validate the findings of the comparative merits for the identified network architectures and

technologies in a controlled environment via experimental testing.

Technical Approach

The aim of the project was to address in a coordinated way all aspects of NG-OA networks: architectures,

technical aspects, feasibility, techno-economic issues, business modelling, and regulation. WP2 and WP3,

which respectively examined requirements and architectures, were the core WPs around which the other

WPs interact:

WP2 has identified technical, economic, operational and regulatory needs, and also served to

establish a basis for broad acceptance in the operator and vendor communities to provide

consolidated requirements for European NG-OA solutions.



Page: 6 of 80

WP3 has reviewed existing optical access

network architectures, proposing novel

solutions, and evaluated them in terms of

complexity, reliability performance,

resource allocation, and energy

consumption etc.

WP4 has developed new system concepts

based on existing and new technical

solutions defined by WP3, taking into

account migration scenarios.

WP5 and WP6 closely interacted together

to perform the following: WP5 provided

the techno-economic modelling of

CapEx/OpEx for the identified solutions

and the assessment and analysis of the scenarios while WP6 performed business modelling, and also

considered regulatory impact on the final business models.

WP7 took inputs from all WPs and performed experimental validation via extensive laboratory testing.

The impact of the project including: standardisation, dissemination of the results within the industry through

the creation of an industry board, industry events and workshops, and publications, was ensured by WP8.

The project includes major vendors and operators ensuring relevant standardisation and exploitation of the

results.

Key Issues

The OASE project addressed 5 key issues: Open Access – open interfaces, enabling the simple and easy use

of third party infrastructure, clear definitions of services and their quality, and operational responsibilities.

Key achievements

In 2010 extensive work was done to identify and analyse key requirements, potential technologies and

architectures. With respect to techno-economic assessment and business analysis for co-operation models a

joint framework and scenarios were established.

In 2011 extensive work was done to further investigate the suitability of the different system concepts and

proposed architectures for their suitability to support node consolidation scenarios. This work was

accompanied by intensive investigations on CapEx and initial OpEx studies. The key requirements as

outlined in the previous yearly report served as a basis and reference for the investigations.

In 2012-2013, among others, followings main objectives were successfully achieved:

This third period of activity completes the requirement review and allowed establishing consolidated

requirements (WP2) towards European NGOA networks.

While in 2010 and 2011 major architectures and system concepts (WP3 - WP4) where defined, those were

analysed in 2012–2013 with a focus on potential for lowest total cost of ownership; this was made possible

by analyzing the proposed architectures and system concepts with respect to operational processes, e.g.

OpEx models based methodologies and tools developed and approved previously. Optimal path trajectories

to enable minimum-risk migration strategies were identified, enabling co-operation models by developing

and applying decision models and risk assessment methodologies for NGOA migration scenarios.

Cost and business evaluation (WP5 – WP6) of different case studies for NGOA networks were developed,

including different architectures and technologies, different migration strategies and different business

models and (open) value networks, also taking into account the regulatory impact on the final business

models.

Technology feasibility and basic operational aspects were demonstrated in lab trials as it as been reported

under WP7. Main outcomes from OASE were brought to standardization bodies (WP8) with respect to

European solutions for NGOA network architectures and technologies



Page: 7 of 80

Finally, as a conclusion of these highly productive three years, a white paper (entitled “Integrated OASE

results overview” - D8.5) has been written; This paper gives an overview of potential Next Generation

Optical Access (NGOA) solutions, enabling optical access network technologies, architecture principles and

related economics taking CAPEX and OPEX into account.

Project website: www.ict-oase.eu

Project Coordinator: Jean-Charles POINT- JCP-CONSULT SAS - Tel: +33 2 23 27 12 46- Fax: +33 2 99

27 77 82 –

Email: [email protected]

Project Technical Leader: Dirk BREUER - DEUTSCHE TELEKOM AG -Tel: +49 30 835358828- Fax:

+49 391 580 240 533

Email: [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]



Page: 8 of 80

2. Project objectives for the period

A. As a reminder, during Period 1 (2010), following objectives were targeted and results were

presented during the review held on March 22nd, 2011

Objective 1: Establish European-based requirements for next-generation optical access networks

(horizon 2020) by discussions among major European network operators and system vendors.

Objective 2: Define a next-generation optical access network domain boundary based on European

requirements.

Objective 3: Establish an overview of methodologies and models for assessing TCO, CapEx, OpEx,

and different business models

Objective 4: Develop test cases, test lab requirements, and set-up of small-scale test-labs

infrastructure suitable for research on new architectures and concepts

B. During Period 2 (2011), following objectives were targeted and results were presented

during the review held on March 27th, 2012

Objective 5: Develop a next-generation optical access technology roadmap by evaluating the

potential of available and emerging next-generation passive and active access technologies and all-

packet transport methods,

Objective 6: Define the optimum NG-OA architectures including mobile backhaul and broadband

business customers. At the demarcation points between home and NG-OA, and NG-OA and metro-

core the potential need for network related functionalities will be identified.

Objective 7: Develop a generic cost model for the most important processes in next-generation

optical access networks and include them in a first version of the TCO evaluation tool

Objective 8: Identify anticipated innovative business roles, market players, networks of open value

chains, valuable market demand and revenue models, and preliminary co-operation models

C. Following objectives were targeted during Period 3 - activities (2012-2013), and results will

be presented during the review to be held on April 24th, 2013

Objective 9: Identify architectures and system concepts with potential for lowest total cost of

ownership by analyzing the proposed architectures and system concepts with respect to operational

processes, e.g. OpEx models based methodologies and tools developed and approved under

Objective 7.

Objective 10: Establish consolidated requirements towards European NGOA networks.

Objective 11: Develop and assess next-generation optical access network architectures and system

concepts with respect to the reviewed requirements.

Objective 12: Identify optimal path trajectories to enable minimum-risk migration strategies and

enabling co-operation models by developing and applying decision models and risk assessment

methodologies for NG optical access migration scenarios.



Page: 9 of 80

Objective 13: Cost and business evaluation of different case studies for next-generation optical

access networks, including different architectures and technologies, different migration strategies

and different business models and (open) value networks, also taking into account the regulatory

impact on the final business models.

Objective 14: Demonstrate technology feasibility and basic operational aspects in lab trials.

Objective 15: Drive standardization bodies with respect to European solutions for next-generation

optical access network architectures and technologies by active participation and submission of

contributions to the appropriate institutions.

3. Work progress and achievements during the period

3.1 WP2 - Requirements for European next-generation

optical access networks

Workpackage number 2 Start date: M1- End date: M34

Activity type RTD

WPL DTAG

Sub-tasks

Task 2.1: Identification and analysis of common European requirements

[MT]

Task 2.2: Requirements for European next-generation optical access

networks [DTAG]

Deliverables / P3

[Due date]

D2.2.2 Consolidated requirements for European next-generation optical

access networks [M34]

Milestones / P3

[Due date]

/

Participant MM expenses – Total Project (TP) / Cumulated expenses Period 3 (CE)

Cumulated expenses Year 1+Year2 (CE2Y)

JPC DTAG IMINDS TUM KTH

TP CE CE2

Y TP CE CE2Y TP CE CE2Y TP CE

CE2

Y TP CE CE2Y

0 0 0 6 1 4,6 2 0,55 1,4 3 0,50 0,9 3 1 2

ADVA EA TEI ACREO MT

TP CE CE2


CE2

Y TP CE CE2Y

0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 4 0,7 2,6 4 0,7 2,6

ST UESSEX TOTAL

TP CE CE2

Y TP CE CE2Y TP CE CE2Y

4 0 0,4 3 0,99 0,8 30 5,44 17,6



Page: 10 of 80

Overall Men/Months (MM) table, detailed information per partner and graphical representation of

MM spending are to be found in Chapter 5 “Project Management” – Section 5.4 – page 38”

According to the Annex I, the objectives of WP2 are as follows:

Objective 1: Provide consolidated requirements for European NG-OA solutions regarding

technical, economic, operational, and political regulatory aspects to establish a basis for

broad acceptance in the operator and vendor community thus achieving necessary market

volumes

Objective 2: Establish a broad basis (of operators, vendors) to drive standardisation

activities and to drive a European based standard for NG-OA networks by initiating a

network operator board

These objectives were successfully achieved within this second period’s plan.

During the kick-off meeting, the work plan had been clarified: WP2 and WP8 are jointly working

on the communication with other operators with respect to e.g. Industry Board that is lead by

IMINDS within the WP8.

Task 2.1 Identification and analysis of common European requirements

It fulfils objectives 1 and 2 according to the work plan.

Finalised in year 1

Task 2.2 Requirements for European next-generation optical access networks

It fulfils objectives 1 and 2 according to the work plan.

Significant results:

Based on the requirements and their backgrounds which were provided in OASE Deliverable D2.1

and the requirements review provided in the intermediate Deliverable D2.2.1 (that took previous

review recommendations into account), the last deliverable related to task 2.2 was submitted on

Nov. 14, 2012; the D2.2 entitled "Consolidated requirements for European next Generation optical

access network". summarizes the key requirements consolidated during the course of third OASE

project year in 2012 and which need to be taken into account for system and architecture design.

This revised version addresses the categories “service and network requirements” as well as

“business and operation” requirements. They cover, for example, network architecture and system

design, network topology, geographical distribution and coverage of customers, future traffic

growth, service penetration evolution, and open access solutions amongst others.

In addition, an economic evaluation of the NGOA requirements has been performed and the impact

of the major cost-driving requirements were analysed and considered for the refinement of the

requirements.

Furthermore, external sources as the Industry board meetings of OASE, related FP7 projects and the

Full Service Access Network Initiative (FSAN) have been used to review the requirements in order

to ensure a wide acceptance to enable a cost efficient design.



Page: 11 of 80

The main conclusions can be summarized as follows:

According to the quantitative OASE results, most of the requirements can be fulfilled with some

exceptions (table 1 below); there is an issue with the quality requirement: availability ≥99.99%

cannot be fulfilled. For the residential market this requirement has been adjusted to ≥99.98%.

Another issue is the backhaul requirement: delay < 1ms and jitter << 1ms, especially required for

some mobile use cases. This might become critical if one considers extreme node consolidation

scenarios where the distance becomes close to the upper end of the protected distance of 90 km.

Furthermore, the use of dynamic resource allocation within a concept might seriously compromise

fulfilment of the backhaul delay and jitter requirements. Hence, for clients with the most stringent

backhaul requirements, backhaul should be based on static resource allocation and preferably utilise

dedicated PtP links or wavelengths.

For the architecture requirements, with respect to migration, the studies have shown that three out

of the NGOA architecture options (WR-WDM PON, NG-AON, and two-stage WDM PON) could

not reuse a power splitter based ODN infrastructure and would also not allow a seamless migration

(i.e. no user-wise switchover) on a PtP based ODN infrastructures. A migration starting from a non-

coexisting architecture would lead to additional effort in upgrading network infrastructure. For

Greenfield scenarios this has no relevance.

However, there are no knock-out criteria that exclude any concept from the technical point of view,

because all technical constraints could be overcome with additional measures and money.

Results from the economic evaluation and from the business analyses are therefore of major

importance for the adjustment of the requirements. The impact of major cost driving requirements

on system and architecture design, network operation and open access has been analysed in a

sensitivity study.

From the business perspective, multiple network providers in an area must be supported, taking into

account isolation functions and dynamic allocation of resources depending on market share. There

should also be a coordinating rule set in place. Furthermore, network interconnection via

standardized interfaces and open-access-enabling interoperability across different carrier networks

must be supported.

The NGOA requirements specified in OASE are essentially in-line with the key requirements for

the NG-PON2 system concepts defined in FSAN as well as with feedback received form the

Industry board meetings. The related FP7 projects have, of course, different targets, but in general

they are also quite well aligned with the OASE requirements. The technical focus of these projects

is in most cases complementary to OASE, and can deliver interesting input on OFDMA-PON

(ACCORDANCE), higher network layers (SPARC), and core network aspects (STRONGEST), as

well as on low-cost system design (GigaWaM). ALPHA and SARDANA are most in line with the

OASE project, and in general their requirements are very similar.



Page: 12 of 80

Table 1 Requirements fulfilment by NGOA architectures

* Note: Seamless migration starting from a PtP/AON architecture will by all architectures not be supported, because

user-wise manual switchovers are required in all cases.

�Open issues: none

3.2 WP3 - Next-generation optical access architectures

WP number 3 Start date: M1 - End date: M36

Activity type RTD

WPL KTH

Sub-tasks

Task 3.1: Architecture options [Acreo]

Task 3.2: Co-operation models [Acreo]

Task 3.3 Assessment of architectures [KTH]

Task 3.4: Migration paths [IMINDS]

Deliverables / P3

[Due date]

D3.2.2 - Description and assessment of architecture options [M34]

D3.3.2 - Co-operation models [M35]

D3.4 - Migration paths [M36]

Milestones/ P3

[Due date]

M3.5 _ Preliminary evaluation of architectures II [M26]

M3.6 - Architecture options [M31]



Page: 13 of 80




TP CE CE2


CE2

Y TP CE CE2Y

0 0 0,1 11 3,95 6,3 15 6,02 8,9 4 1,28 2,4 20 6,02 14,1


TP CE CE2


CE2

Y TP CE CE2Y

12 3,4 8,8 4 1,32 2,7 5 2,39 3,1 18 10,5 15,1 6 2,2 3,8

ST UESSEX TOTAL

TP CE CE2


4 0,25 4,2 17 5,17 9,7 116 42,5 79




Objective 1: To define the boundaries of NG-OA network domains

Objective 2: To review existing optical access architectures and study both, passive and

active concepts

Objective 3: To propose novel optical access network architectures according to the

requirements provided by WP2 which support open access scenarios and site reduction

Objective 4: To evaluate the proposed network architectures in respect to complexity,

scalability, reliability, energy and cost efficiency, and resource allocation

Objective 5: To study migration paths from the existing infrastructures to the NG-OA

networks

The first two objectives have been fulfilled in Year 1. Objective 3, 4 and 5 were partly achieved within

Year 2 and have been finalized in Year 3. Furthermore, intensive interactions with other WPs have

been carried out.

Task 3.1 Architecture options

Fulfilled objectives: WP3 Objective 3

Significant results: Based on a survey of architectures (D3.1) with potential of fulfilling the identified

requirements from WP2, four main groups of solutions have been selected by OASE for next generation

optical access (NGOA) networks, which are referred to as: WDM-PON, hybrid WDM/TDM-PON, two-stage

WDM-PON (or WDM-PON backhaul), and NG-AON. All of them are able to support node consolidation

and open access. A comprehensive assessment in terms of key architectural aspects by mapping them in

different node consolidation scenarios has been carried out within Task 3.3. Regarding open access, a

detailed analysis has been included in Task 3.2.

Furthermore, we noticed that efficient resource allocation is extremely important for hybrid WDM/TDM-

PON to mitigate performance degradation caused by an increased reach required by NGOA. Therefore,



Page: 14 of 80

several new algorithms have been developed to improve delay and jitter. Regarding resilience, protection of

the central access node and feeder fibre have been proposed for all four selected NGOA architectures, since

it can effectively avoid the single point of failure affecting a large number of users and decreasing the impact

on the whole network operation. Meanwhile, providing protection only for the shared part is not sufficient

for business access, which would pay more for high connection availability (99.99%). Cost efficient

protection down to the selected end users has also been investigated.

Task 3.2 Co-operation models


Significant results: Task T3.2 continued in Year 3 and finally completed in M35. This task has introduced

and evaluated various architectural concepts for next-generation open access based network infrastructures.

Such a study has been performed within the scope of OASE concerning specific challenges of the several

aspects, in terms of layers (i.e. fibre, wavelength or bit-stream) to open networks, impact on monitoring,

traffic models, and access and aggregation/metro architectures. Regarding open access on wavelength level,

it is relatively easy to be realized in WR-WDM-PON, e.g., using M:N AWG to replace 1:N AWG. However,

for all the other types of PONs the required power splitter in optical distribution network (ODN) causes

isolation issue while it is even not possible for some variants of two-stage WDM-PON and NG-AON. A

short list of open access concepts have been proposed to be further evaluated in WP5 and WP6 in terms of

cost and business aspects.

Task 3.3 Assessment of architectures


Significant results: A detailed assessment by mapping them in different node consolidation scenarios has

been done to compare the selected NGOA options in terms of different architectural aspects, such as power

consumption, resiliency, operation complexity, resource allocation, control and management as well as

impact on aggregation network. According to the obtained evaluation results, most of passive NGOA

architectures, i.e., WS-WDM-PON, UDWDM-PON and hybrid WDM/TDM-PON consume obviously

higher power than their active counterpart, namely two-stage WDM-PON and NG-AON; while the passive

architectures have better resiliency than the active approaches. From the operators’ perspective, i.e., without

considering the equipment located at the user side, thanks to its high splitting ratio hybrid WDM/TDM-PON

always performs best on the operational aspects, such as footprint, failure rate, and operator related power

consumption, among all four OASE architectures. On the other hand, resource allocation to schedule

upstream bandwidth is an issue mainly for hybrid WDM/TDM-PON. An efficient algorithm for hybrid PON

is needed to mitigate the performance degradation caused by reach extension due to the node consolidation.

It should be noted that apart from these technical-based aspects, the ultimate choice of deployment of a

particular NGOA architecture option also depends on the standard commercial criteria (techno-economic

modelling, OpEx/CapEx, business models etc.) and regulatory environment that may be present. The

assessment of these economic, business and regulatory aspects have been carried out in WP5 and WP6 to

achieve the final conclusions for the project.

Task 3.4 Migration paths


Significant results: Task T3.4 includes 2 activities, both of which have been completed in the end of the

project. Four groups of migration assessment criteria have been identified, mapping to four migration

challenges (i.e. support of coexistence, reuse of legacy infrastructure, minimizing disruption time and

introduction of node consolidation). For each of the considered NGOA architectures, the migration starting

from a point-to-point (P2P) and a power splitter based ODN has been assessed. It is clear that a P2P ODN as

starting point offers the highest flexibility for migration, but in many cases such an ODN is not available. For

a power splitter based ODN, the (passive) hybrid WDM/TDM-PON and WS-WDM-PON (and UD-WDM-

PON) are most suitable from a migration perspective. The other NGOA architectures are less optimal to

migrate to, but may offer other opportunities like a better support for open access, protection, energy saving

techniques, etc. as discussed in other WP3 tasks. A set of migration scenarios has been provided to WP5 as



Page: 15 of 80

an input for the cost study.


3.3 WP4 - System concepts next-generation optical access

networks

WP4 Start date: M1 - End date: M32

Activity type RTD

WPL EAB

Sub-tasks

Task 4.1 - Technology scanning [TEI]

Task 4.2 - Technical assessment of system concepts based on

requirements [UESSEX]

Task 4.3 - Operational impact on system concepts [DTAG]

Task 4.4 - Implementation and integration into new system concepts

[TEI]

Deliverables / P3

[Due date]

D4.2.2 - Technical assessment and comparison of next-generation

optical access system concepts [M27]

D4.3.2 - Operational impact on system concepts [M27]

D4.4.1 - Development of selected system concepts [M33]

D4.4.2 - Development of selected system concepts (Public version,

confidential data removed when necessary) [M33]

Milestones / P3

[Due date]

M4.3 - System concepts for next-generation optical access; Further

development results [M30]

Participant MM expenses – Total Project (TP) / Cumulated expenses Period 3(CE)



TP CE CE2


CE2

Y TP CE CE2Y

0 0 0 10 0,95 9 13 6,02 7,1 2 0,99 1,6 18 4,8 13,2


TP CE CE2


CE2

Y TP CE CE2Y

12 2,22 13,5 8 1,14 6,6 8 4,2 6,8 17 8,32 7,3 4 0,75 3,3

ST UESSEX TOTAL

TP CE CE2


0 0 0 16 4,55 10,3 108 33,94 78,8



Page: 16 of 80




Objective 1: Comprehensive survey of suitable NG-PON system concepts, which will result

in a Technology Roadmap.

Objective 2: Assessment and comparison of the system concepts with respect to technical

requirements (from WP2 and WP4), space and power consumption, cost, etc.

Objective 3: Understanding of the operations aspects of the candidate systems, such as

installation, configuration, maintenance, fault management and resilience, performance

monitoring, etc.

Objective 4: Selection of candidate system concepts to be further investigated

These objectives were partially fulfilled within this first year, to large extent fulfilled during the second

year and completely fulfilled during the third year.

T4.1 Technology scanning [M1 - M10]

Fulfilled objectives: Objective 1

Significant results: Finalized during year 1

T4.2 – Technical assessment of system concepts based on requirements [M11 – M26]


Significant results: In the final deliverable D4.2.2, we have provided a detailed comparison of the

different system concepts (and different implementation options) with respect to technical

performance parameters such as bandwidth, reach, fan-out, cost, power consumption, footprint, etc,

We have also provided additional qualitative discussions of the resilience, security, upgradeability

and mobile backhaul requirements that each system variant needs to satisfy. Different concepts

provide favourable performance with respect to different parameters, i.e. DWDM-PON (low cost,

long passive reach, but low fan-out), hybrid-TDM/WDM PON (low cost, large fan-out, but short

passive reach), UDWDM-PON (large fan-out, long passive reach, but high cost), etc

The quantitative results have been provided to the parallel workpackage WP5 which used the raw

data to conduct a comprehensive techno-economic (total cost of ownership, TCO) calculation for

the various system variants. The results presented in T4.2 provide additional important insights into

the most-likely evolution paths of next-generation optical access networking complementing results

emerging from WP6 which considers additional regulatory and competition (open access) impacts,

as well as the migration studies arising from WP3,

T4.3 – Operational impact on system concepts [M11– M26]


Significant results: A comparison of the different system concepts with respect to operational

aspects such as basic requirements on operation, power consumption, floor space, service

provisioning, fault and performance management, etc, is presented in D4.3.2. With respect to



Page: 17 of 80

parameters such as floor space and power consumption a quantitative comparison is performed.

With respect to other aspects a qualitative comparison is performed. Input data such as MTBF for

modelling of e.g. availability in WP3 or fault management costs in WP5 is also provided by the

task. From T4.3 it is found that basic operational requirements can be fulfilled within all concepts.

With respect to some aspects differences are found between the concepts. The importance of these

differences depend on their contribution to the total cost of ownership with is addressed in WP5.

T4.4 – Implementation and integration into new system concepts [M18 - M32]


Significant results: T4.4 provides an in-depth study of selected challenges of the OASE system

concepts for next-generation optical access (NGOA). Key areas of improvement for various

candidate concepts within the scope of WP4 are addressed. With WP7 coving research related to the

optical PHY, T4.4 covers topics relating to sleep modes, bandwidth allocation, fault localization,

etc. D4.4.1 and D4.4.2 provide a summary of research in different areas on different system concept

performed by partners within the scope of the task.

The main summarized outcomes from D4.4 are presented hereafter:

For mobile/business backhaul it has been shown that the initial requirements defined in D2.1 can be

supported within all the presented concepts with limited or some additional effort, where some

additional effort may at most consist of manual patching work for service provisioning.

For the effect of power saving techniques a comparison was made of ONU power saving modes for

the different system concepts. The ONU represents the dominating contribution to access network

power. Although results rely heavily on assumptions on traffic, it can generally be said that power

saving modes can reduce average ONU power consumption by about 90% when it is applied to

NGOA system concepts with a burst mode transmission and reception like high bit rate TDMA-

PONs and about 80% in hybrid TWDM-PONs. Moderate savings between 35 to 41% are found for

WDM-PON, AON and PtP systems. We have also described an innovative master-slave scheme that

can enable significant energy-efficiency savings across a range of equipment and system types in

the next-generation access network area. In particular, the master-slave approach offers a generic

scheme to enable devices and equipment (e.g. optical amplifiers, wavelength-selective switches,

routers, port aggregators etc.) to have a quasi-elastic power consumption profile with respect to the

offered traffic load. Whereas on their own, these types of equipment tend to have a high, fixed

power consumption, so that the overall energy dissipated during operation is inelastic with varying

incoming traffic load, when configured into a master-slave scheme, the overall power dissipation is

more elastic with respect to traffic load, and enables useful power saving. Offering a degree of

equipment redundancy, this also has the advantage of making the overall architecture/system more

resilient and robust. Although this may have higher CapEx implications, the combined higher

resilience and improved energy-efficiency should offer OpEx savings. In addition, we have

identified an innovative upgrade trajectory solution, which re-uses master units as slave units in a

subsequent generation upgrade, so saving on CapEx and offering still more TCO savings. These

master-slave schemes are applicable to all the NGOA architectures discussed in the OASE project,

and are complementary to the more conventional sleep/idle/hibernation modes that can also be

employed to reduce the overall carbon footprint of NGOA architecture solutions.

For the WDM-PON architecture, work related to implementation of efficient ODN fault-

localization was presented. The development enables accurate identification of faults in a wave-

length routed ODN providing operational advantages for this particular ODN with respect to ODN

fault localization and repair costs.



Page: 18 of 80

For the hybrid WDM/TDM-PON architecture resource allocation is a critical point. The deliverable

presents work related to development of efficient TDMA resource allocation in the long-reach limit

where the large round-trip-time presents a challenge. The deliverable also presents work related to

dynamic wavelength allocation and expected efficiency of different wavelength allocation schemes.

Regarding power saving techniques a scheme for sleep mode control based on service requirements

was delevloped and evaluated in a simulation demonstrating some of the assumed energy saving

opportunities within this architecture.

For the NG-AON architecture a control plane implementation was implemented in order to

demonstrate intelligent control mechanisms, which enable reduction of network energy

consumption, reduction in core load and reduction in transit costs.

Finally, for the WDM-PON backhaul architecture to which much of the work associated with the

WDM-PON architecture and NG-AON applies, the deliverable reports work related to future

developments in mobile networks and support for CPRI transport.


3.4 WP5 - Techno-economic assessment


Activity type RTD

WPL TUM

Sub-tasks

Task 5.1- Overview of tools and methods [DTAG]

Task 5.2 - Modelling CapEx and OpEx [IMINDS]

Task 5.3 – Assessment and analysis of scenarios [TUM]

Deliverables / P3

[Due date] D5.3 - “Techno-economic” assessment studies [M36]

Milestones/ P3

[Due date]

M5.2 - First cost studies for different architectures and technologies

[M27]

M5.3 - TCO modelling and proposed TCO evaluation tool [M33]




TP CE CE2


CE2

Y TP CE CE2Y

0 0 0 10 4,8 6,2 15 6 9 17 5,96 11,3 12 6,1 5,9


TP CE CE2


CE2

Y TP CE CE2Y

0 0 0 1 0,3 0,3 1 0,48 0,2 9 5,79 6,2 4 1,55 2,5



Page: 19 of 80

ST UESSEX TOTAL

TP CE CE2


0 0 0 6 1,81 2,8 75 32,79 44,4




Objective 1: Survey of existing methods and tools and selection of the most suitable ones for

NG-OA networks (year 1)

Objective 2: Soundly cost classification to perform a detailed cost evaluation (year 1)

Objective 3: Detailed and accurate process-based cost modelling able to identify the cost

drivers (year 2)

Objective 4: Implementation of a TCO evaluation tool (first version in year 2, complete

version in year 3)

Objective 5: Analysis of different case studies, which would allow operators to identify the

most cost effective fibre roll out strategies given the deployment area, business scenario, etc.

(year 3)

Objective 6: Cost assessment of other work packages’ scenarios as for example, refinement

on the architecture to decrease its associated cost. (Year 3)

Objectives 1 and 2 were successfully achieved within this first period’s plan. The outputs regarding

objectives 3 and 4 were included in D5.2 and M5.3. Furthermore, objectives 5 and 6 were targeted

by task T5.3 and presented in D5.3.

T5.1– Overview of tools and methods [M1 – M9]

It fulfils WP5 objectives 1 and 2.

Significant results: Finalized during year 1

T5.2- Modelling CapEx and OpEx [M8 – M33]


Significant results: At the end of T5.2, a complete cost modelling of NGOA and its migration from

existing solutions has been presented. The cost modelling includes CAPEX (required investment,

its installation, etc.) as well as OPEX (fault management, power consumption, service provisioning,

etc.). A detailed cost model has been proposed for more complex operation processes such as fault

management and service provisioning.

The proposed TCO evaluation tool is able to dimension and evaluate cost of different architectures

(GPON, XGPON, Hybrid PON, WS WDM PON, WR WDM PON, AON + WDM Backhaul) for

different areas (dense urban, urban, rural) and different network consolidation scenarios (non-node

consolidation, conservative node consolidation, and aggressive node consolidation). Given this

dimensioning and the initial migration scenario and year, the yearly cost evaluation is presented.

Furthermore, NP and PIP costs are distinguished so that they can be used for business studies

(WP6). Last but not least, the tool considers the increase of salaries and energy cost per year and

provides discounted and non-discounted values.



Page: 20 of 80

T5.3- Assessment and analysis of scenarios [M19-M36]


Significant results: Task 5.3 aimed at comparing the cost of different NGOA solutions on different

areas and node consolidation scenarios. The first study focused on the migration from an existing

traditional optical access network such as GPON or AON to an NGOA solution or any upgrade able

to offer 300Mpbs per user. In this migration scenario, the investments in terms of infrastructure and

equipment are considered assuming an existing optical distribution network (ODN). The cost

assessment showed that all the architectures have higher OPEX than CAPEX costs when summing

the costs from 2020 to 2030 (NGOA operational time) for any type of area (i.e. DU, U and R). The

most costly architecture is the UDWDM for any area, whereas the less costly solutions is to upgrade

existing optical access networks: upgrade existing GPON by reducing the splitting ration from 32 to

8 so that the bandwidth increases or to keep the AON as it is. However, when considering node

consolidation, the upgrade of GPON by reducing the splitting ratio is not an option due to the high

costs related to the new LL5 links (increases more than 1 CU/year per user). In that case, the

migration from GPON to HPON architecture is the most effective solutions for any type of area.

For AON, the best options is to connect AON AS with a WDM Backhaul.

If an operator do not start with a traditional optical access but has a non optical access solution, the

increase of cost with respect the previous study is mainly on the service provisioning (due to the

higher effort required to connect all users), as well as on the infrastructure cost (especially in rural

areas where the distances are significantly longer). Furthermore, the delta cost when considering a

purely greenfield scenario and implementing an NGOA has also been calculated for the node

consolidation scenario. The impact of duct availability on the infrastructure cost differs on the

architecture and on the area: higher for DU than rural areas, higher for AON P2P and WRWDM

PON than HPON solutions.

These studies show the key cost factors of each solution at each area and scenario. Furthermore, the

dependence of these results on different parameters such as regional differences, architecture fan

out, etc. have been studied in a sensitivity study. The salary and the adoption curves are the most

important impacting factors to the cost.


3.5 WP6 - Business modelling and regulatory aspects


Activity type RTD

WPL IMINDS

Sub-tasks

Task 6.1 Overview of tools and methods and identification of roles, actors

and value networks (DTAG)

Task 6.2 Market place models (UESSEX)

Task 6.3 Value network evaluation (IMINDS)



Page: 21 of 80

Task 6.4 Regulatory impact (Acreo)

Deliverables / P3

[Due date]

D6.3 - Value network evaluation [M36]

D6.4 - Regulatory impact [M36]

Milestones/ P3

[Due date] M6.3 - Market place models and adapted value network results [M27]




TP CE CE2


CE2

Y TP CE CE2Y

3 1,64 0,2 15 6,06 8,5 20 7,57 12,4 6 1,6 2 0 0 0


TP CE CE2


CE2

Y TP CE CE2Y

0 0 0 2 1,12 1 2 0,94 0,9 12 5,96 8,3 0 0 0

ST UESSEX TOTAL

TP CE CE2


0 0 0 12 3,15 6,8 69 28,03 40,2




Objective 1: Survey of existing tools and methods

Objective 2: Identification of roles, actors and value networks

Objective 3: Development of tools and methods for evaluating new business models and value

networks.

Objective 4: Evaluation of different business models and value networks taking into account

cooperation, competition, strategic decisions and regulatory aspects

Objective 5: Meeting requirements related to new business and cooperation models e.g.,

common use of infrastructure, demarcation lines and corresponding monitoring

Objective 6: Inspecting the regulatory impact on the business model and value network

WP6 objectives 4 and 5 were successfully achieved within the last reporting period, within task 6.3.

Objective 6 was successfully achieved within task 6.4.

T6.1– Overview of tools and methods and identification of roles, actors and value networks

[M1-M10]

Finalised in year 1



Page: 22 of 80

Fulfils: WP6 objective n°1, 2, 3

T6.2 Market place models [M9-M27]

Partially fulfils: WP6 objective n°4


Within this task, market demand and revenue models for next-generation optical access (NGOA)

networks have been described, based on a variety of methodological approaches: adoption models,

surveys, econometric analysis and case studies. Based on econometric analysis on a per country

basis, we have studied drivers and barriers for FTTH deployment. Lower level analysis was added

by different case studies. Starting from an overview of 11 deployments in Western Europe, we have

divided our analysis into three parts: urban cases, rural cases and large-scale deployments, and have

discussed the different characteristics for each of them. Revenue scenarios have been developed for

the timeframe 2011-2030, considering different levels of (inter- as well as intra-platform)

competition. Finally, we have reviewed the technologies to be employed in NGOA networks from

the perspective that they should be able to function within cooperative or open access environments.

T6.3 – Value network evaluation [M11-M36]

Fulfils: WP6 objective n°4, 5


Within this task, we have combined the costs and revenues from WP5 and D6.2 to evaluate

different business models and scenarios. We focused on the passive infrastructure (PIP) and active

equipment (NP), as well as on the cost and consequences for providing open access. We

furthermore investigated the impact of competition on the business case, and looked how demand

aggregation, longer planning horizons, duct reuse and flexibility options can improve the business

case for both actors. Finally, we also looked into other sources of revenues, so-called indirect

effects that could help to enhance the incentive to deploy for market players or increase the

willingness to pay of end-customers.

T6.4- Regulatory impact [M28-M36]

Fulfills WP6 objectives n°6


Within task 6.4, a thorough overview of the current regulatory situation was given, together with

reviews of regulatory trends and future directions. We described main stakeholder understandings

and presented quantitative evaluation of the impact of regulation by calculating the missing

revenues to come to a positive business case for the physical infrastructure provider. This was done

by applying extended game theoretic analysis, and by comparing the expected equilibrium to the

social optimum. The main conclusion of this analysis is that regulation can have a decisive impact

on the success of NGOA deployment and user take-up.

Finally, we formulated some regulatory guidelines to encourage and stimulate the deployment of

fiber-based infrastructure, the necessary profitability of the business case for the different NGOA

stakeholders, and a high service take-up rate among the European citizens in order to fullfill the

Digital Agenda for Europe.



Page: 23 of 80


3.6 WP7 - Experimental Validation

WP7 Start date: M1 - End date:M36

Activity type RTD

WPL ADVA

Sub-tasks

Task 7.1 - Initial Lab Study [TEI]

Task 7.2 - Hardware Lab Trials [ADVA]

Task 7.3 – Basic Operational Concepts Trials [DTAG]

Deliverables / P3

[Due date]

D7.2.2 - Description of the test cases and specifications, and detailed

summary of the related test results of the hardware lab tests

(broken down into D7.2a/b), [M36]

D7.3.2 - Description of the test cases and specifications and detailed

summary of the related test results of the basic operational concepts lab

tests

(broken down into D7.3a/b), [M36]

Milestones/ P3

[Due date] /




TP CE CE2


CE2

Y TP CE CE2Y

0 0 0 12 3,58 4,1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


TP CE CE2


CE2

Y TP CE CE2Y

35 8,22 16,2 0 0,05 0 11 5,02 7,6 0 0 0 5 5 0,8

ST UESSEX TOTAL

TP CE CE2


10 15,9 1,9 0 0 0 73 37,77 29,9



WP7 objectives are:

Objective1: Provide two independent testbeds in order to test, and compare against each

other, two versions of NG-OA systems as specified in WP3 and WP4



Page: 24 of 80

Objective 2: Experimentally verify and, if applicable, quantify all relevant architecture-

related and systems hardware parameters as defined in WP3 and WP4

Objective 3: Experimentally verify and, if applicable, quantify selected (basic) operational

concepts functionalities and parameters (as defined in WP3/4 and in particular in T7.3a/b)

Objective 4: Provide feedback to WP2-WP6 and WP8.

T7.1 – Initial Lab Study [M1 – M12]

Finalised in year 1

T7.2 – Hardware Lab Trials [M13 – M36]

Fulfilled objectives 2, 4

Significant results: T7.2, associated with Objectives 2 and 4, was continued and finalized in Year

3. The hardware-related work in WP7 concentrated on various aspects of the WDM layer of next-

generation PON systems. As such, it covers both, relevant aspects of NG-PON2 (according to draft

recommendation G.989.2) and also future systems beyond NG-PON2. The work also covers pure

WDM-PON and WDM-based PON like Hybrid WDM/TDMA-PON or OFDM-PON running on

several wavelengths.

The hardware-related work focused on two approaches for the WDM layer: seeded reflective

transmitters and tunable lasers. Regarding seeded reflective transmitters, the wavelength-reuse

approach with combined IRZ/RZ coding (Inverse Return-to-Zero / Return-to-Zero) was followed.

Regarding tunable lasers, wavelength-control schemes which enable low cost were followed. In

both areas, significant advances were made in Year 3 (compared to end of Year 2, or the beginning

of the project).

The IRZ/RZ wavelength-reuse scheme was improved towards higher bit rates and higher reaches.

This addressed the requirements which were defined in WP2. Bit rates of 10 Gb/s per channel were

achieved with distances up to 20 km. For 2.5 Gb/s per channel, distances up to 60 km were

achieved. Both bit-rate reach products represent significant advances over former prior art.

For tunable lasers, the work of Year 2 was continued. A new wavelength-control scheme was

developed and successfully tested. Together, the wavelength-control schemes investigated and

developed in OASE are the formerly missing enabler for low-cost tunable lasers which can be used

in the PON context. Altogether, several schemes were tested with several types of lasers, including

DS-DBR and Y-Branch lasers.

Throughout the project, feedback was given to the other work packages. The T7.2 work also led to

several dissemination activities.

T7.3 – Basic Operational Concepts Trials [M25 – M36]

Fulfilled objectives 3, 4

Significant results: T7.3 directly addressed Objectives 3 and 4. Here, the focus was on operational

aspects, rather than hardware and related performance. This work split into two major parts:

migration-related tests with a commercial WR-WDM-PON which were conducted as a lab trial by

Magyar Telekom and a field trial by Slovak Telekom, and complementing investigation of

operations-related aspects in the ADVA lab.

The field trial in Bratislava confirmed that WR-WDM-PON is able to coexist with GPON on the

same PON feeder fibre between the remote node and the OLT in the central office. It does not



Page: 25 of 80

support full coexistence in the first mile, i.e., between the end user and the remote node, due to the

need of WDM filters (AWGs). Therefore, for full coexistence, parallel operation of two systems is

required. This finding holds for all WDM-filtered PON variants.

In addition, the lab trial in Budapest confirmed that the (commercial) WR-WDM-PON system is

easy to configure and manage. Set-up of an access line only required Ethernet VLAN configuration,

as compared to GPON which in addition required configuration of the MAC layer.

The originally planned operations-related work in the ADVA lab had to be re-scheduled during the

project runtime due to lack of availability of key components. In particular, low-cost tunable lasers

will only become available around 2015. This delayed tests regarding ONU self-tuning and self-

installation. These tests will later be conducted, and results reported in either the EU PIANO+

projects TUCAN/IMPACT, or the EU project COMBO. As a replacement, several tests regarding

reach extension (where covering extended reach is an operational aspect) were conducted. These

tests successfully confirmed that with remotely-pumped Erbium fibres, up to 100 km reach can be

achieved for tunable-laser-based WDM-PON. Here, it has to noted that remotely pumped amplifiers

have significant (management, power-supply) advantages over lumped active components placed

somewhere in the ODN.

Similar to T7.2, feedback was given to the other work packages.


3.7 WP8 - Dissemination of results


Activity type RTD

WPL ACREO

Sub-tasks

Task 8.1 Dissemination material & publication policy (JCP)

Task 8.2 – Standardisation (DTAG)

Task 8.3 – Collaborations (Acreo)

Deliverables / P3

[Due date]

D8.2 - Dissemination material and publication policy [M36]

D8.4 - Report on standardization and dissemination activities [M36]

D8.5 - OASE - key results presentation [M38]

Milestones/ P3

[Due date] /




TP CE CE2


CE2

Y TP CE CE2Y

7,5 3,03 4,2 13,5 4,3 8,2 7,5 1,84 5,1 5,5 2,11 4 8,5 3,2 5,2




Page: 26 of 80

TP CE CE2


CE2

Y TP CE CE2Y

17,5 4,6 11,8 4,5 1,8 2,1 2 0,57 2,7 14,5 10,3 7,9 1 0,25 0,8

ST UESSEX TOTAL

TP CE CE2


3 0,15 0,7 6 1,82 3,7 87 33,67 56,2



The objectives of WP8 are:

Objective 1: To make the objectives and the scope of the project publicly available and to

coordinate and handle the dissemination of OASE results

Objective 2: To recommend the findings and results of OASE with respect to a European

NG-OA solution to standardisation bodies

Objective 3: To communicate with relevant European projects and European network

operators to establish a broad consensus for standardisation activities

T8.1 – Dissemination material & publication policy [M1 – M36]

Fulfilled objectives: Objective 1 for year 3 was fulfilled

At the end of year 1, this objective had been specified in more detailed targets, which were

successfully met during the all project duration

To complete and update the “communication kit” (leaflet, new logo, updated poster and

website)

To produce project newsletters (four totally)

To disseminate the project results to the research community (over 100 papers, several

invited presentations, over ten workshops)


OASE was extremely visible.

The communication kit (Poster, leaflet) was updated and shown at several events partners attended.

Project results have been published through articles, papers and presentations at various

international and national conferences and workshops. Among others, OASE has had a presence at

the following major events:

• OFC/NFOEC 2012

• CTTE 2012

• ICTON 2012

• ECOC 2012

• ACP 2012

• ONDM 2012



Page: 27 of 80

• FTTH Forum 2012

Moreover, the project results will be presented at few more prestigious events during the spring of

2013, including ONDM 2013, where the OASE project has been invited to organise a dedicated

workshop. Information was largely distributed through the 5th

and final newsletter that was

distributed early February 2013.

As already done during previous years, some of the academic partners of the project have

disseminated the project vision and results within their students in the form of lectures and courses.

Dissemination was also achieved by actively contributing to Concertation and Cluster Meetings

organised by the EC but also towards the FTTH Council Europe, the Technology Platforms such as

the Photonics21 events, the NEM Summit and FIA events or the Future Network & Mobile

Summit.

As reported in previous years, Collaboration was established not only with several EC funded

projects, (namely NoE TREND, ACCORDANCE,ALPHA, SPARC, COMBO & C-3PO projects)

but also with with various relevant national projects.

The complete dissemination activities have been detailed in D8.4.



Page: 28 of 80

Authors Paper title/ Tutorial title Name of journal,

conference, etc.

Vol., no.,

pages,

location

Date Status

1

Marilet De Andrade, Jiajia

Chen, Björn Skubic, Jawwad

Ahmed and Lena Wosinska

Enhanced IPACT: Solving the Over-Granting

Problem in Long-Reach EPON

Telecommunicati

on Systems Accepted

2

Bart Lannoo, Goutam Das,

Abhishek Dixit, Didier Colle,

Mario Pickavet, Piet

Demeester

Novel hybrid WDM/TDM PON architectures to

manage flexibility in optical access networks

Telecommunicati

on Systems Accepted

3

Goutam Das, Bart Lannoo,

Abhishek Dixit, Didier Colle,


Demeester

Flexible hybrid WDM/TDM PON architectures using

wavelength selective switches

Optical Switching

and Networking

(OSN)

Vol. 9, Iss.

2, pp. 156-

169

Apr.

2012 Accepted

4

Abhishek Dixit, Bart Lannoo,

Goutam Das, Didier Colle,


Demeester

AMGAV: Adaptive Multi-GATE polling with Void

filling for Long-Reach Ethernet Passive Optical

Networks

IEEE Network

Magazine Submitted

5

K. Grobe, R. Huelsermann, D.

Breuer, C. Cehovin, J.-P.

Elbers

Combined OLT Form-Factor and Power-

Consumption Analysis for WDM-based Next-

Generation PON

ITG Workshop

Photonic

Networks

Leipzig,

Germany

April

2012 Submitted

6

Orthodoxos Kipouridis,

Carmen Mas Machuca,

Achim Autenrieth, Klaus

Grobe

Cost assessment of Next-Generation Passive Optical

Access Networks on Real-Street Scenario

OFC/NFOEC

2012

Los

Angeles,

USA

Mar.

4-8,

2012

Accepted

7

Markus Roppelt, Michael

Eiselt, Klaus Grobe and Jörg-

Peter Elbers

Tuning of an SG-Y Branch Laser for WDM-PON OFC/NFOEC

2012

Los

Angeles,

USA

Mar.

4-8,

2012

Accepted



Page: 29 of 80

8 D. Breuer Results from the OASE projects ONDM 2012 USA

9

Björn Skubic, Alberto

Bianchi, Stefan Dahlfort,

Fabio Cavaliere

Cost, Power and Performance Analysis of WDM-

PON Systems Based on Reflective Transmitters for

Next-Generation Optical Access

OFC/NFOEC

2012

Los

Angeles,

USA

Mar.

4-8,

2012

Accepted

10 K. Grobe, J.-P. Elbers Overview on WDM-PON – the NG-PON2

Perspective

ITG Conf.

Breitband-

versorgung in

Germany

Berlin,

Germany

Mar.

19-20,

2012

Accepted

11

Marlies Van der Wee, Crister

Mattsson, Anand Raju,

Olivier Braet, Alberto

Nucciarelli, Bert Sadowski,

Sofie Verbrugge, Mario

Pickavet

Measuring the success rate of fiber-based access

networks. Evaluation of the Stokab case and

comparison to other Western European cases

Journal of the

Institute of

Telecommunicati

ons Professionals

(ITP)

2012

(uploa

ded in

2011,

see

comm

ent)

Accepted

12 M. Forzati and C. Mattsson The uncaptured values of FTTH FTTH Conference

2012

Munich,

Germany

Mar.

14-16

2012

Accepted

13 M.C. Parker, S.D. Walker

Stochastic Energy-Efficiency Optimization in

Photonic Networking by use of Master-Slave

Equipment Configurations

ONDM 2012 Colchester

, UK

April

2012 Accepted

14

Orthodoxos Kipouridis,

Carmen Mas Machuca,

Achim Autenrieth, Klaus

Grobe

Street-aware infrastructure planning tool for Next

Generation Optical Access networks ONDM 2012

Colchester

, UK

April

2012 Accepted

15

Marlies Van der Wee, Koen

Casier, Karel Bauters, Sofie

Verbrugge, Didier Colle,

Mario Pickavet

A modular and hierarchically structured techno-

economic model for FTTH deployments.

Comparison of technology and equipment placement

as function of population density and number of

flexibility points

ONDM 2012 Colchester

, UK avr-12 Accepted

16 Carmen Mas Machuca, Jiajia

Chen, Lena Wosinska Cost-Efficient Protection in TDM PONs IEEE COMMAG

vol. 50,

pp. 110-

Aug.

2012 Accepted



Page: 30 of 80

117

17

Mozhgan Mahloo, Carmen

Mas Machuca, Jiajia Chen,

Lena Wosinska

Protection cost evaluation of WDM-based Next

Generation Optical Access Networks

Optical Switching

and Networking

(OSN)

Accepted

18 Lech Wosinski, Jiajia Chen

and Lena Wosinska,

Si-based monolithically integrated triplexer

transceiver for FTTH applications

SPIE Photonics

North Canada

June

2012 Accepted

19

Abhishek Dixit, Jiajia Chen,

Mozhgan Mahloo, Bart

Lannoo, Didier Colle and

Mario Pickave

Efficient Protection Schemes for Hybrid WDM/TDM

Passive Optical Networks ICC 2012 Canada

June

2012 Accepted

20 Carmen Mas Machuca Complete cost analysis of Hybrid PON architectures

for Next Generation Optical Access Networks ACP 2012

Guangzho

u

nov-

12 Accepted

21 Carmen Mas Machuca Energy evaluation of NGOA architectures on

different deployment scenarios ACP 2012

Guangzho

u

nov-

12 Accepted

22 S. Verbrugge, K. Casier, C.

Mas Machuca,

Business models and their costs for the next

generation optical access networks ICTON 2012

Conventry

, UK

juil-

12 Accepted

23 Carmen Mas Machuca NGOA cost modeling and its application to HPON

cost evaluation CTTE 2012

Athens,

Greece

juin-

12 Accepted

24 C. Mas Machuca, K. Wang,

M. Kind, K. Casier

Total Cost Comparison of Next Generation Optical

Access Networks with Node Consolidation NOC 2012

Vilanova,

Spain

juin-

12 Accepted

25 C. Mas Machuca, K. Wang,

M. Kind, K. Casier

Cost-based assessment of NGOA architectures and

its impact in the business model CTTE 2012

Athens,

Greece

juin-

12 Accepted

26 Marlies Van der Wee Business modeling for NGOA - Impact of revenue

potential and multiple actors on the business case CTTE 2012

Athens,

Greece

juin-

12 Accepted

27

Jawwad Ahmed, Jiajia Chen,

Biao Chen, Lena Wosinska

and Biswanath Mukherjee

Efficient Inter-Thread Scheduling Scheme for Long-

Reach Passive Optical Networks IEEE COMMAG Accepted

28

Michele Chincoli, Luca

Valcarenghi, Jiajia Chen,

Paolo Monti, and Lena

Wosinska

Investigating the Energy Savings of Cyclic Sleep

with Service Guarantees in Long Reach PONs ACP 2012

Guangzho

u

nov-

12 Accepted

29 Jiajia Chen, Mozhgan Reducing the Impact of Failures in Next Generation ACP 2012 Guangzho nov- Accepted



Page: 31 of 80

Mahloo, and Lena Wosinska Optical Access Networks u 12

30

Marlies Van der Wee, Menno

Driesse, Bernd

Vandersteegen, Pierre Van

Wijnsberge, Sofie Verbrugge,

Bert Sadowski, Mario

Pickavet

Identifying and quantifying the indirect benefits of

broadband networks: a bottom-up approach

19th ITS Biennial

Conference

Bangkok,

Thailand

nov-

12 Accepted

31

Sofie Verbrugge, Marlies Van

der Wee, Maria Fernandez-

Gallardo, Kristaps Dobrajs,

Mario Pickavet

Some insights in regulation and potential profitability

of passive fiber infrastructure in Europe

19th ITS Biennial

Conference

Bangkok,

Thailand

nov-

12 Accepted

32 M. Forzati Socio-economic effects of FTTH/FTTx in Sweden ICTON 2012 Coventry,

UK

juin-

12 Invited

33 M. Forzati, C. Mattsson, S.

Aal E-Raza

Early effects of FTTH/FTTx on employment and

population evolution, an analysis of the 2007-2010

time period in Sweden

CTTE 2012 Athens,

Greece

juin-

12 Accepted

34 Jiajia Chen, Patryk Urban and

Lena Wosinska

Fast Fault Monitoring Technique for Reliable WDM

PON: Achieving Significant Operational Saving OFC 2013 USA Accepted

35

Paweł Wiatr, Jiajia Chen,

Paolo Monti and Lena

Wosinska

Green WDM-PONs: Exploiting Traffic Diversity to

Guarantee Packet Delay Limitation ONDM2013

Budapest,

Hungary Accepted



Page: 32 of 80

T8.2 – Standardisation [M13 – M36]

Fulfilled objectives: WP8 objective n°2 fulfilled for year 2

Driving the various standardisation bodies towards a European-based standard for next-generation

access was an important objective of the project. As such, the OASE industrial partners have

participated in and sent contributions to meetings organised by institutions such as the IEEE, ITU-

T, OIF, MEF; in particular, the findings and results of OASE with respect to a European NG-OA

solution have been heavily promoted towards the FSAN forum, which is the gateway to ITU

standardisation (see D8.4 for more details)

Significant results: Made an impact on standardisation via FSAN

Date Host(s) and

venue

Meeting Contribution

November 2009 Mitsubishi,

Kyoto

FSAN Meeting

Q4/2009

ADVA poster on NG-PON

February 2-4

2010

Cortina Systems,

San Francisco,

CA, USA

FSAN Meeting

Q1/2010

ADVA contribution on WDM-PON

April 20-22

2010

Huawei, China

August 31-

September 2

2010

Nokia Siemens

Networks,

Munich,

Germany

FSAN Meeting

Q3/2010


DTAG contribution on requirements

(FSAN operator group)

November 2010 Vitesse, Las

Vegas

FSAN Meeting

Q4/2010


January 2011 OKI, Tokyo FSAN Meeting

Q1/2011

ADVA contribution on OASE WP4

results

Joint ADVA+EA contribution on

solutions for NG-PON2

May 2011 DTAG, Berlin FSAN Meeting

Q2/2011

Joint ADVA+NSN contribution on

WDM-PON components, ADVA

contribution on WDM-PON,

EA contribution on protection for

WDM-PON

June 2011 ITU, Seoul ITU-T Q.6&7/SG15

interim meeting

EA and ADVA contribution on

G.sdapp, together with ZTE and

others

September 2012 ITU, Geneva ITU Geneva meeting Contributions by ADVA to

SG15/Q6, Metro WDM (Q2 and Q6

are somewhat overlapping)

February 2013 Fuzhou, China FSAN meeting Two joint contributions NSN-ADVA

regarding the WDM point-to-point

part of NG-PON2.

T8.3 – Collaborations [M1 – M36]

Fulfilled objectives: WP8 objective n°3 fulfilled for year 2

OASE has had extensive collaboration with several European projects (mainly through workshops),

various relevant national projects (Belgian, Swedish, German) or organisations, some technology

Platforms (Photonics21, NEM, FIA) and European network operators (mainly through bilateral



Page: 33 of 80

meetings within the Industry Board, and the newly formed Alternative Operator Board); see D8.4

for more details.


Discussion on requirements with other operators through the activity of the Industry Board

(IB - that includes the major incumbent telecom operators in Europe today: Telecom Italia

(TI) represented by Mr. Paolo Solina (currently Chair of FSAN) , France Telecom (FT)

represented by Mr. Bruno Capelle (member of the FSAN management); British Telecom

(BT) represented by Mr. Derek Nesset and Telefonica (TID) represented by Rafael Canto

Palancar

Establishment of Alternative Operator Board (AOB) chaired by iMinds including

representatives from alternative (non-incumbent ) operators with a potential interest in

optical access network deployment; The purpose of this board was, on one hand, to gather

views and directions from actors on the requirements and the choice made by the project in

order to complement the feedback received by the IB and ,on the other hand , Equally

importantly, to provide inputs regarding transaction costs, and business operation

considerations on open networks.

Several joint workshops with other EU projects, namely with ALPHA, ACCORDANCE,

SARDANA, STRONGEST, NoE TREND and GIGAWAM)




Page: 34 of 80

4. Deliverables and milestones tables

Del. no. Deliverable name WP

no.

Lead

participant Nature

Dissem.

level

Due

delivery date

Annex I

Delivered

Yes/No

delivery

date Comments

D4.2.2 Technical assessment and comparison of next-

generation optical access system concepts 4 UESSEX R PU 27 Yes 03/04/2012 Delivered on time

D4.3.2 Operational impact on system concepts 4 DTAG R PU 27 Yes 03/04/2012 Delivered on time

D4.4.1 Development of selected system concepts 4 TEI R RE 33 Yes 08/10/2012 Delivered on time

D4.4.2

Development of selected system concepts (Public

version, certain confidential data is removed if

necessary)

4 TEI R PU 33 Yes 08/10/2012 Delivered on time

D2.2.2 Consolidated requirements for European next-

generation optical access networks 2 DTAG R PU 34 Yes 14/11/2012 2 weeks delayed

D3.2.2 Description and assessment of architecture options 3 KTH R PU 34 Yes 02/11/2012 Delivered on time

D3.3 Co-operation models 3 Acreo R PU 35 Yes 07/12/2012 Delivered on time

D3.4 Migration paths 3 IMINDS R PU 36 Yes 31/03/2013 Delayed

D5.3 “Techno-economic” assessment studies 5 TUM R PU 36 Yes 21/01/2013 3 weeks delayed

D6.3 Value network evaluation 6 IMINDS R PU 36 Yes 08/02/2013 4 weeks delayed

D6.4 Regulatory impact 6 ACREO R PU 36 Yes 27/12/2012 Delivered on time

D7.2.2

Description of the test cases and specifications, and

detailed summary of the related test results of the

hardware lab tests

(broken down into D7.2.1 and D7.2.2),

7 TEI R RE 36 Yes 27/12/2012 Delivered on time

D7.3.2

Description of the test cases and specifications and

detailed summary of the related test results of the

basic operational concepts lab tests (broken down

into D7.3.1 and D7.3.2),

7 DTAG R RE 36 Yes 27/12/2012 Delivered on time



Page: 35 of 80

D8.2 Dissemination material and publication policy 8 ACREO R PU 36 Yes 28/02/2013 Delivered on time

D8.4 Report on standardization and dissemination

activities II 8 ACREO R PU 36 Yes 28/02/2013 Delivered on time

D8.5 OASE - key results presentation 8 DTAG R PU 38 Yes 18/03/2013 2 weeks delayed

D1.9 Third year Annual Report 1 JCP R PU 38 Yes 08/04/2013 2 weeks delayed

D1.10 Final Report 1 JCP R PU 38 Not yet /

Planned to be

delivered by

18/04/2013

Table 2 - Deliverables submitted during 2012-2013

*Remark: all the Public deliverables are available for download on the OASE Website

Milestone

no. Milestone name

Due date

From

Annex I

Achieved

Yes/No

Actual /

Forecast

achievement

date

Comments

M1.1x QMR 7 to 10

27

30

33

35

Yes

June 1st, 2012

Sept. 5th 2012

Nov.15th

, 2012

Feb. 26, 2013

Reports, submitted to EC

M3.5 Preliminary evaluation of architectures II M26 Yes Available in due time

M3.6 Architecture options M31 Yes Available in due time

M4.3 System concepts for next-generation optical

access; Further development results M30 Yes Available in due time

M5.2 First cost studies for different architectures and

technologies M27 Yes Available in due time

M5.3 TCO modelling and proposed TCO evaluation tool M33 Yes Available in due time

M6.3 Market place models and adapted value network

results M27 Yes Available in due time

Table 3 - Milestones produced within 2012-2013



Page: 36 of 80

5. Project management

WP1 Start date M1 - End date M38

Activity type MGT

WPL JCP-Consult

Sub-tasks

Task 1.1 - Project Organization and Management [JCP]

Task 1.2 - Project Quality Management [JCP]

Task 1.3 – Project Risk Management [JCP]

Deliverables /P3 D1.9– Annual Periodic report (M38+2)

Milestones/ P3

QMR M25-M27 (M28)

QMR M28-M30 (M31)

QMR M31-M33 (M34)

QMR M34-M36 (M37)




TP CE CE2


CE2

Y TP CE CE2Y

22 8,5 14,2 6 1,4 4,3 1 0,5 0,5 1 0,41 0,5 1 0,4 0,7


TP CE CE2


CE2

Y TP CE CE2Y

1 0,42 0,8 1 0,38 0,6 1 0,27 0,9 1 0,35 0,7 1 0,5 0,6

ST UESSEX TOTAL

TP CE CE2


1 1,42 -0,1 1 0 0,4 38 14,54 25,1

WP1 aims at addressing all the administrative and financial management of the project.

The main objectives that follow were successfully addressed during this third period

Establish appropriate relationships and communication channels with the funding

actors as well as between consortium partners

Administer the project resources and monitor the overall project performance

Coordination/operation management

Risk management

Reporting to the EU



Page: 37 of 80

5.1 Task 1.1 - Project Organisation and Management

During this third reporting period (January 2012-February 2013), WP1 coordinated the financial,

legal and administrative work in the consortium.

After several iterations, latest modifications to the DoW were accepted and the official version is

dated January 25th

, 2013, the main modification being related to the project overall duration

extension (from 36 to 38 months) and the introduction of an additional deliverable (D8.5). The

contract was amended and officially notified by registered letter dated February 25th

, 2013.

During that third period, WP1 took care of all the administrative and financial questions related to

the second Annual review that took place on March 27th

, 2012; several iterations were provided on

D1.8 (2011 Annual report), additional information on financial statements were provided by

partners and the NEF session was submitted by the end of November 2012; we received notification

of payment processing by November 30th

and payment (531 182 €) arrived on bank account on

January 22nd

2013; payment was made to partners on February 21st, 2013.

With regard to the legal aspect of the project, the fifth General Assembly was convened on March

4th

, 2013 mostly to acknowledge funds’ receipts and to comment overall results generated by the

project that just ended.

Table 4 – 4th funds distribution – February 21

st, 2013

The table below summarizes the overall financial situation after the second yearly review

A

Beneficiary

short name

Total requested

grant

JCP 366 631,00

DTAG 741 403,00

IBBT 639 860,00

TUM 296 300,00

KTH 577 808,00

ADVA 635 626,00

EA 128 958,00

TEI 238 562,00

Acreo 769 821,00

MT 76 820,00

ST 83 418,00

UESSEX 425 050,00

≠ due to

rounded figures

4 980 257,00

*total Paid after 3rd payment including prepayments made on jan & sept 2010 and 3rd payment madecearly oct 2011

**before end of project (90% ceiling - EC guarantee) -

OASE (GA 249025) - 4 Payment proposal (February 2013)

B

CE

Guarantee

18 332 €

37 070 €

31 993 €

14 815 €

28 890 €

31 781 €

6 448 €

11 928 €

38 491 €

3 841 €

4 171 €

21 253 €

-1 €

249 012 €




C D

total Paid

after 3rd

payment*

2nd review

accepted

funding

294 750 € 124 514 €

534 744 € 220 121 €

454 772 € 245 709 €

223 756 € 86 765 €

459 541 € 229 306 €

454 440 € 129 909 €

97 521 € 56 492 €

160 034 € 51 206 €

589 927 € 242 333 €

55 643 € 15 049 €

48 659 € 12 058 €

328 251 € 160 498 €

3 702 036 € 1 573 960 €




E F G H

4th payment

proposal90% ceiling

max to be

paid**

achieved after

4th payment

16 886 € 329 967,90 € 311 636,35 € 311 635,98 €

95 449 € 667 262,70 € 630 192,55 € 630 192,77 €

89 109 € 575 874,00 € 543 881,00 € 543 880,66 €

28 099 € 266 670,00 € 251 855,00 € 251 854,66 €

31 596 € 520 027,20 € 491 136,80 € 491 136,86 €

85 842 € 572 063,40 € 540 282,10 € 540 282,22 €

12 094 € 116 062,20 € 109 614,30 € 109 614,70 €

42 744 € 214 705,80 € 202 777,70 € 202 777,96 €

64 421 € 692 838,90 € 654 347,85 € 654 348,14 €

9 654 € 69 138,00 € 65 297,00 € 65 296,67 €

12 058 € 75 076,20 € 70 905,30 € 60 716,70 €

33 042 € 382 545,00 € 361 292,50 € 361 292,83 €

520 994 €






Page: 38 of 80

Table 5 - OASE Consolidated (2010-2011) financial Overview



Page: 39 of 80

In addition to the emails exchanges addressing daily activity of the project (assistance to partners),

WP1 assisted partners who hosted the project meetings in organizing them; WP1 distributed

information related to the practical aspects such as accommodation, list of attendees & agenda but

also took care of the completion of the minutes and follow-up action items.

In addition to the face-to-face meetings, WP1 helped in setting-up several conferences calls on

technical matters, and, when needed, on administrative matters.

With regards to the reporting matters, WP1 organised the monthly (internal purposes) and Quarterly

Management report (QMR contractual) reporting tools

The 9th QMR (QMRM25-M27) has been delivered to the EC on June 1st, 2012.

The 10th QMR (QMRM28-M30): has been delivered to the EC on September 5th 2012.

The 11th QMR (QMRM31-M33) a first has been delivered to the EC on October 29th

, 2012 and

the released version was delivered by November 15th

, 2012

The 12th

QMR (QMRM34-M36) has been delivered to the EC on February 26, 2013

Specific time slots to prepare the second review (held in March 2012) were defined and organised:

2 PMC telcos (January 13 and March 2nd

, 2012), one WPLs 's telco (January 26 and 2 review

preparation days (February 10th

and March 26th

).

The preparation of the third annual review was launched during plenary meeting that was organised

on December 4 to 6, 2012 in Berlin; the initial review was planed to be co-located with the ONDM

conference (April 16-April 18, Brest France) where OASE planed to present its overall project

results in a dedicated workshop. Due to unavailability of some reviewers at that period, those plans

were modified by the end of January 2013 and the review date and location were finally defined to

be Brussels, April 24th

, 2013.

5.2 Task 1.2 - Project Quality Management

During the third period of activity, the quality of results provided stayed the first concern of the

consortium.

As for previous period, a high level of communication was maintained within the consortium; WP1

allocated a constant effort in organising regular project meetings and, in between them, teleconferences

(general and/or technical).

As for previous period, each first Friday of the month, monthly teleconferences have been organised

where the Project Management Committee (PMC) and at least one representative per partners attended.

In parallel, as reported in the WP technical description of activities, each WP Leader has set-up regular

teleconferences with the partners involved. For each of these teleconferences, a document summarizing

the minutes and action points has been uploaded on the collaborative tool.

The internal monthly report was maintained as it allows an easy follow-up of resources, spending and

track of activities.

Following to the rules described in the D1.3 "project Quality Insurance Manual" all the deliverables

submitted this year, except the deliverables produced in WP1 and WP8 reviewed by all the consortium

members, were controlled by at least two internal reviewers appointed inside the consortium

companies.



Page: 40 of 80

5.3 Task 1.3 - Project Risks Management

During this third year of activities, risks aspects were continuously controlled during the meetings

but also during monthly PMC conference calls. Reaching the end of the project, we can now report

that none of the major risks, which we had been able to identify, previously applied to any of our

activities.

The biggest challenge has been to aggregate all results within the defined and agreed deadlines.

5.4 Project person per month resources declared in Year 3

JCP

TOTAL

nb of

PM

spent Y3

Expenses

Y1+Y2

TOTAL

SPENT

Remaining

WP1 Project Management and

Coordination 22,00 8,50 14,14 22,64 -0,64

WP2 – Requirements for European

next-generation optical access networks - - - - -

WP3 Next-generation optical access

architectures - - 0,06 0,06 -0,06

WP4 System concepts for next-

generation optical access networks - - - - -

WP5 Techno-economic assessment - - - - -

WP6 Business modelling and

regulatory aspects 3,00 1,64 0,16 1,80 1,20

WP7 Experimental Validation - - - - -

WP8 Dissemination of results 7,50 3,03 3,99 7,02 0,48

Total PM 32,50 13,17 18,35 31,52 0,98

DTAG

TOTAL

nb of

PM

spent Y3

Expenses

Y1+Y2

TOTAL

SPENT

Remaining


Coordination 6,00 1,40 4,30 5,70 0,30


next-generation optical access networks 6,00 1,00 4,57 5,57 0,43


architectures 11,00 3,95 6,27 10,22 0,78


generation optical access networks 10,00 0,95 9,02 9,97 0,03



Page: 41 of 80

WP5 Techno-economic assessment 10,00 4,80 6,17 10,97 -0,97



WP7 Experimental Validation 12,00 3,58 4,14 7,72 4,29


Total PM 83,50 26,03 51,16 77,19 6,31

iMinds

TOTAL

nb of

PM

spent Y3

Expenses

Y1+Y2

TOTAL

SPENT

Remaining


Coordination 1,00 0,50 0,54 1,04 -0,04




architectures 15,00 6,02 8,88 14,90 0,10


generation optical access networks 13,00 6,02 7,14 13,16 -0,16



regulatory aspects 20,00 7,57 12,44 20,01 -0,01



Total PM 73,50 28,50 44,50 73,00 0,50

TUM

TOTAL

nb of

PM

spent Y3

Expenses

Y1+Y2

TOTAL

SPENT

Remaining


Coordination 1,00 0,38 0,46 0,84 0,16




architectures 4,00 1,28 2,39 3,67 0,33








Page: 42 of 80


WP8 Dissemination of results 5,50 2,11 3,96 6,07 -0,57

Total PM 38,50 12,82 22,62 35,44 3,06

KTH

TOTAL

nb of

PM

spent Y3

Expenses

Y1+Y2

TOTAL

SPENT

Remaining


Coordination 1,00 0,40 0,70 1,10 -0,10


next-generation optical access networks 3,00 1,00 2,00 3,00 -


architectures 20,00 6,02 14,10 20,12 -0,12


generation optical access networks 18,00 4,80 13,20 18,00 -



regulatory aspects - - - - -



Total PM 62,50 21,52 41,11 62,63 -0,13

ADVA

TOTAL

nb of

PM

spent Y3

Expenses

Y1+Y2

TOTAL

SPENT

Remaining


Coordination 1,00 0,42 0,58 1,00 -




architectures 12,00 3,40 10,52 13,92 -1,92








Total PM 77,50 18,86 59,44 78,30 -0,80



Page: 43 of 80

EAB

TOTAL

nb of

PM

spent Y3

Expenses

Y1+Y2

TOTAL

SPENT

Remaining


Coordination 1,00 0,38 0,61 0,99 0,01


next-generation optical access networks 1,00 - 1,00 1,00 -


architectures 4,00 1,32 2,67 3,99 0,01



WP5 Techno-economic assessment 1,00 0,30 0,30 0,60 0,40



WP7 Experimental Validation - 0,05 - 0,05 -0,05


Total PM 21,50 6,11 14,31 20,42 1,08

TEI

TOTAL

nb of

PM

spent Y3

Expenses

Y1+Y2

TOTAL

SPENT

Remaining


Coordination 1,00 0,27 0,97 1,24 -0,24




architectures 5,00 2,39 3,09 5,48 -0,48






WP7 Experimental Validation 11,00 5,02 7,65 12,67 -1,67


Total PM 30,00 13,87 22,27 36,14 -6,14



Page: 44 of 80

ACREO

TOTAL

nb of

PM

spent Y3

Expenses

Y1+Y2

TOTAL

SPENT

Remaining


Coordination 1,00 0,35 0,67 1,02 -0,02




architectures 18,00 10,50 15,09 25,59 -7,59








Total PM 75,50 41,92 48,14 90,06 -14,56

MT

TOTAL

nb of

PM

spent Y3

Expenses

Y1+Y2

TOTAL

SPENT

Remaining


Coordination 1,00 0,50 0,65 1,15 -0,15




architectures 6,00 2,40 3,80 6,20 -0,20






WP7 Experimental Validation 5,00 5,00 - 5,00 0,00


Total PM 25,70 11,55 13,65 25,20 0,50



Page: 45 of 80

ST

TOTAL

nb of

PM

spent Y3

Expenses

Y1+Y2

TOTAL

SPENT

Remaining


Coordination 1,00 1,42 1,06 2,48 -1,48


next-generation optical access networks 4,00 - 0,40 0,40 3,60


architectures 4,00 0,25 4,20 4,45 -0,45


generation optical access networks - - - - -




WP7 Experimental Validation 10,00 15,90 1,89 17,79 -7,79


Total PM 22,00 17,72 8,20 25,92 -3,92

UESSEX

TOTAL

nb of

PM

spent Y3

Expenses

Y1+Y2

TOTAL

SPENT

Remaining


Coordination 1,00 -0,00 0,40 0,40 0,60


next-generation optical access networks 3,00 0,99 2,18 3,17 -0,17


architectures 17,00 5,17 9,73 14,90 2,10








Total PM 61,00 17,48 35,99 53,47 7,53



Page: 46 of 80

TOTAL OASE PROJECT

TOTAL

planned

2010

+

2011

Remaining

Period 3

theoretical

nb of PM

spent P3

Difference

% P3


Coordination 38,00 25,08 12,92 14,51 -12,36


next-generation optical access

networks 30,00 17,62 12,38 5,44 56,02


architectures 116,00 80,80 35,20 42,70 -21,31








Total PM 603,70 379,74 223,96 229,56 -2,50

TOTAL OASE PROJECT (1st January 2010 - 28 February 2013)

TOTAL

planned TOTAL SPENT

Difference %


Coordination 38,00 39,60 -4,20


next-generation optical access networks 30,00 23,07 23,11


architectures 116,00 123,50 -6,47


generation optical access networks 108,00 114,24 -5,78

WP5 Techno-economic assessment 75,00 77,11 -2,81

WP6 Business modelling and regulatory

aspects 72,00 68,25 5,21

WP7 Experimental Validation 73,00 71,39 2,21

WP8 Dissemination of results 91,70 92,15 -0,49

Total PM 603,70 609,30 -0,93

in Percent 100,00 100,93



Page: 47 of 80

Comments on MM spending

WP1: a slight overspending due – for JCP - mainly to contract amendment

WP2: remaining budget – this can be explained by the fact that WP2 strongly interacted with other

WPs where time spent have been declared.

WP3 – WP4 and WP5: small overspending, respectively of 6%, 5% and 2 %, can be partly

explained by the balance of under spending in WP2

WP6 & WP7: almost aligned with plan

WP8: overspending by 0,49 PM –

In general, the project PM spending is well aligned with initial plans; it presents a total

overspending lower than 1 % while the total financial budget presents an under spending of about 5

%.

5.5 Problems and solutions

No specific issue is to be reported.

.

5.6 List of project meetings, dates and venues

Plenary meeting (Feb 8 to 10th, 2012) in Tallinn (Estonia / co-located to the joined

ACCORDANCE-Alpha-OASE workshop (Feb 7th

), hosted by JCP through its subsidiary

EPC.



Page: 48 of 80

Review preparation meeting was organized on March 26st in a meeting room in Hotel Du

Congrès at Rue du Congres 42 in 1000 Bruxelles and the review meeting took place on

March 27th

in the EC premises, avenue de Beaulieu 25 in Bruxelles (BE)

A WP3 Workshop was organized on April 19th

, 2012 in Stockholm, hosted by KUNGLIGA

TEKNISKA HOEGSKOLAN (KTH) at 79 Valhallavaegen in STOCKHOLM (SW)

Plenary meeting organized from May 22nd to May 24th, 2011 in Rennes (FR), hosted by

JCP.

1 day WP Leaders meeting on August 14th

, 2012 hosted by Deutsche Telekom AG at

Winterfeldtstraße 21 10781 Berlin (DE)

Plenary meeting organised from September 11 to 13, 2012 in Meiningen (DE) hosted by

ADVA,

Plenary meeting organized from December 4th to 6th 2012 in Berlin (DE), hosted by

DTAG,

1 day WP Leaders meeting on February 22nd, 2013 hosted by ACREO at 79 Valhallavaegen

in STOCKHOLM (SW)



Page: 49 of 80

5.7 Project planning and status

Figure 1: OASE Gantt – Period 3 (from Jan 1

st 2012 up to Feb 28

th, 2013)



Page: 50 of 80

5.8 Impact of possible deviations from the planned

milestones and deliverables

No major deviations to be reported

5.9 Beneficiaries legal status

Along with the latest DoW modification (dated January 25th

, 2013), three partners legal status

modification were also registered in the 2nd

contract amendment.

IMINDS VZW

ACREO SWEDISH ICT AB

ADVA OPTICAL NETWORKING SE

These changes had no impact on the project.

5.10 Project website

The OASE website (www.ict-oase.eu) has been set-up at the very beginning of the project and

was officially delivered to the EC (Deliverable D1.1) in M2.

It has been maintained and populated with news, events and publications during 2012-2013.

5.11 Use of Foreground

No commercial use of Foreground has to be reported after this third period of activities but as stated in WP8, the OASE consortium has been very active in disseminating the results achieved.

http://www.ict-oase.eu/index.php?page=143&



Page: 51 of 80

6. Explanation of the use of the resources

6.1 Use of the resources Period 3 – 01/01/2012 to 28/02/2013



Page: 52 of 80



Page: 53 of 80



Page: 54 of 80



Page: 55 of 80



Page: 56 of 80



Page: 57 of 80



Page: 58 of 80



Page: 59 of 80



Page: 60 of 80



Page: 61 of 80



Page: 62 of 80



Page: 63 of 80



Page: 64 of 80



Page: 65 of 80

6.2 Adjustment to Use of the resources Period 1

Beneficiary number 3 – iMinds – 1139,00 €

Beneficiary number 6 – ADVA – 35821,00 €

Beneficiary number 12 –UEssex – 792,00 €



Page: 66 of 80



Page: 67 of 80



Page: 68 of 80



Page: 69 of 80

6.3 Adjustment to Use of the resources Period 2

Beneficiary number 1 – JCP – 38,00 €

Beneficiary number 3 – iMinds – -276,00 €

Beneficiary number 6 – ADVA – 22 683,00 €

Beneficiary number 9 –ACREO – 18 021,00 €

Beneficiary number 12 –UEssex – -1065,00 €



Page: 70 of 80



Page: 71 of 80



Page: 72 of 80



Page: 73 of 80

7. Financial statements – Form C and Summary

financial report

A separate financial statement from each beneficiary together with a summary financial report

which consolidates the claimed EU contribution of all the beneficiaries in an aggregate form

will be provided through the NEF tool.

According to Article II.4.4 of the Grant Agreement, no certificate on financial statements

shall be submitted by the any beneficiaries as the requested grant threshold of 375 000 € has

not been reached.

8. Certificates – to be updated

Beneficiary Organisation

short name

Certificate on

the financial

statements

provided?

yes / no

Any useful comment, in

particular if a certificate is not

provided

1 JCP No Expenditure threshold not reached

See summary table below

2 DTAG No CFS provided end of P2 (2011)

Expenditure threshold reached


3 iMinds No CFS provided end of P2 (2011)

2nd

Expenditure threshold not reached


4 TUM No Expenditure threshold not reached


5 KTH No CFS provided end of P2 (2011)

2nd

Expenditure threshold not reached


6 ADVA Yes Expenditure threshold reached


7 EA No Expenditure threshold not reached


8 TEI No Expenditure threshold not reached


9 ACREO Yes CFS provided end of P2 (2011)

2nd

Expenditure threshold reached


10 MT No Expenditure threshold not reached


11 ST No Expenditure threshold not reached




Page: 74 of 80

12 UESSEX Yes Expenditure threshold reached


Organisatio

n short

name

Budgeted

Funding

Cumulated

Funding after P2

Requested funding

P3

(incl Adjustments)

Overall

Requested

funding

CFS

1 JCP 366 631 242 059 112 367 354 426 /

2 DTAG 741 403 396 520 222 596 619 116 P2

3 iMinds 639 860 391 215 264 405 655 620 P2

4 TUM 296 300 167 309 96 471 263 780 /

5 KTH 577 808 409 573 208 430 618 003 P2

6 ADVA 635 626 277 130 164 841 441 971 P3

7 EA 128 958 91 683 40 713 132 396 /

8 TEI 238 562 95 935 104 688 200 623 /

9 ACREO 769 821 460 180 432 283 892 463 P2 – P3

10 MT 76 820 33 562 25 577 59 139 /

11 ST 83 418 20 398 40 820 61 218 /

12 UESSEX 425 050 283 308 120 433 403 741 P3

TOTAL 4 980 257 2 868 872 4 702 496

Remaining budget 277 761 €

Table 6 - Partners CFS needed



Page: 75 of 80

9. ANNEX 1 – Post review – 2011 –

“How we addressed remarks”

9.1 OVERALL COMMENTS

The OASE project [Optical Access Seamless Evolution - GA nr. 249025] has had its second

year activity review meeting organised on March 27, 2012 in Brussels.

The following experts performed this review meeting:

Prof. Ton Koonen, Eindhoven Univ. of Technology

Prof. Andreas Kirstädter, Stuttgart University

Dr. Karin Ennser, Swansea University

Dr. Alessio Giorgetti, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna

Thierry Boulangé, Project Officer, chaired the meeting.

On April 25th, 2012, the consortium received the review report containing the reviewers’

assessments and recommendations.

First of all, we would like to thank the reviewers for the very detailed analyze of the work and

their valuable recommendations.

In this document, we will provide an answer on the way we intend to address all of those

recommendations.

b. Recommendations concerning the period under review:

The remark will be addressed by

1 Some deliverables are partially overlapping. For instance, open access tables

are contained in both D3.2.1 and D6.2. Cross-referencing would be better. WP3 & WP6

2 WP3 states that some of the requirements defined in WP2 cannot be fulfilled

by all the OASE NG-OA architectures. More detailed insight into requirements

that cannot be achieved is required, which should be added in D3.2. WP3

3 Public deliverables D4.1 and D5.1 need a further formatting revision to resolve

cross-reference issues. WP4 & WP5

4 In D5.2 some further clarification needs to be given regarding the impact of

regional differences on the techno-economic modelling. WP5

5 Preliminary results in D5,2 show only slight differences between GPON and

AON in terms of CapEx. This not-expected result should be better explained. WP5

6 In D6.2 details about rural deployment should be added, and inputs from

alternative operators should (at least at some first rudimentary level) be

included. WP6

7 The annual report should include a section about the plans for the last period. WP1 + WPLs



Page: 76 of 80

8 Justification for personnel costs and travel costs for some partners is missing.

Further detailed information such as names of the persons involved and effort

spent per person should be added.

WP1 + some

partners

c. Recommendations concerning future work:

The remark will be addressed by

1 ...to add an extra deliverable "D3.5 Recommendations and guidelines for NG-

OA in Europe (white paper) (M38)" WP8

2 The Alternative Operator Board should be established .... WP6

3 Interaction with other (FP7) projects should be intensified ... WP8

4 Not all technology options are inventoried yet; e.g. the pros/cons of OFDMA

have not been considered in OASE sufficiently. WP4 + WP7

5 ... OpEx assessment seems however still to be in the starting phase, and should

be speeded up. WP5

6 MAC layer testing of hybrid WDM-TDMA technology (cooperation btwn

WP4 and WP7) WP4 + WP7

7 As the selected architectures are not able to meet all OASE NGOA

requirements, a clear optimum mapping of architecture options .... WP3 + WP8

8 The studies on regulatory impact should start with high urgency... WP6

9 Regarding the business modelling, new broadband drivers continuously need

to be scouted (e.g. cloud computing). WP6

10 The assessment of the architectures should include all technical requirements

set by OASE. WP4

11 ... to make the TONIC tool (with proper documentation!) available to a wider

audience. WP5

12 The annual report should ....also list the conclusions and guidelines resulting

from these activities. WP1 + ALL

13 ... (especially work of WP5 and WP6) ... more publications in technical

journals should be made. WP8 + ALL

14 The scope of the user survey should be enlarged considerably (» 20 people) to

have a statistical meaning. WP6



Page: 77 of 80

9.2 WPs COMMENTS

9.2.1 WP1: Project Management

Recommendations concerning the period under review: Bullet point 7 & 8

The annual report should include a section about the plans for the last period.

Justification for personnel costs and travel costs for some partners is missing. Further

detailed information such as names of the persons involved and effort spent per person

should be added.

Recommendations concerning future work:

Rec. 12: The annual report should not only present the activities done, but also list the

conclusions and guidelines resulting from these activities.

Plans for future (in this case for last period) were presented in the slides during the

review.

No specific comments from WP1 – will be addressed accordingly

9.2.2 WP2: Requirements for European next-generation

optical access networks

Recommendations concerning the period under review: None

Recommendations concerning future work: the recommendations and remarks related

to D2.2.1 will be taken into account in the final/full version of D2.2

9.2.3 WP3: Next-generation optical access architectures


Some deliverables are partially overlapping. For instance, open access tables are

contained in both D3.2.1 and D6.2. Cross-referencing would be better.

WP3 states that some of the requirements defined in WP2 cannot be fulfilled by all the

OASE

NG-OA architectures. More detailed insight into requirements that cannot be achieved is

required, which should be added in D3.2.


Rec 1 D3.5 Recommendations and guidelines for NG-OA in Europe (white paper) (M38)"

It was proposed to consider this additional deliverable rather under WP8 than in WP3.

It will be under the lead of DTAG with interaction of all WPLs.

Rec 7: As the selected architectures are not able to meet all OASE NGOA requirements, a

clear optimum mapping of architecture options…..



Page: 78 of 80

This will be addressed in the final D3.2 as well as in the D8.5 “Recommendations and

guidelines for NG-OA in Europe (white paper) (M38)"

9.2.4 WP4: System concepts for next-generation optical

access networks

Recommendations concerning the period under review: bullet point 3

D4.1 - cross-reference issues.

Will be solved easily and quickly

Recommendations concerning future work

Rec 4: the pros/cons of OFDMA

With regards to the FSAN position, WP7 will not address the point and WP4 will

comment briefly (refer to Accordance results)

Rec 6: MAC layer testing of hybrid WDM-TDMA technology

This topic was never promised. IBBT will address it partially in T4.4 with their internal

testbed (by testing e.g. long reach or QoS).

Rec 10: The assessment of the architectures should include all technical requirements set

by OASE

Will be taken into account in D4.2.2

9.2.5 WP5: Techno-economic assessment

Recommendations concerning the period under review: Bullet point 3, 4 & 5

D5.1 - cross-reference issues.

Will be solved easily and quickly

In D5.2 some further clarification needs to be given regarding the impact of regional

differences on the techno-economic modelling.

Preliminary results in D5,2 show only slight differences between GPON and AON in

terms of CapEx. This not-expected


Rec 5: n the second period there was a lot of survey and modelling work going on. OpEx

assessment seems however still to be in the starting phase, and should be speeded up.

Results starting to be available (Munich workshop in April)

Rec 11: to make the TONIC tool (with proper documentation!) available to a wider

audience.



Page: 79 of 80

Tonic tool is already available but the specific use of TONIC (with Database) as done in

OASE will not be made available as it would request a lot of resource to have proper

and adequate documentation + a live “help/maintenance” desk

Rec 13: … more publications in technical journals should be made.

It is planed – also refer also to WP8

9.2.6 WP6: Business modelling and regulatory aspects


Some deliverables are partially overlapping. …D3.2.1 and D6.2. Cross-referencing

Will be removed from D6.2, only a reference to D3.2.1 will be kept.

In D6.2 details about rural deployment should be added, and inputs from alternative

operators should (at least at some first rudimentary level) be included.

A case study for a rural deployment will be added: Säffle, a municipality in Värmland

County in west central Sweden with population 15,000.

Inputs from alternative operators will be gathered from the AOB (see below).


Rec 2: Alternative Operator Board (AOB) should be established....

We will work more formally with the AOB. This will include the following steps. First

the AOB members (5 up till now, maybe 1 or 2 more to be added) will be provided with

a list of questions. Second, there will be a form of one-to-one interaction between the

individual AOB members and the OASE project. Third, we will stimulate open

discussion between OASE and the AOB in the form a workshop. Two options are

considered for the latter point: the open access workshop we are doing at ECOC in Sept.

as well as a dedicated workshop in Ghent in Nov.

The involvement of cable operators in this board remains difficult to achieve. So far we

didn’t succeed in adding a cable operator to our AOB. In case the EC would be aware of

any cable operators working in other EC projects and willing to cooperate with OASE

on this point, we would be most happy to include these cable operators in our AOB.

Rec 8: The studies on regulatory impact should start with high urgency...

Official starting date of the task is M28;

Pending action towards the EC that should provide a contact point

Rec 9: Regarding the business modelling, new broadband drivers continuously need to be

scouted (e.g. cloud computing).

As we are constantly monitoring the field of FTTH, new broadband drivers are

definitely scouted.

Rec 13: ... (especially work of WP5 and WP6) ... more publications in technical journals

should be made.

It is planned – also refer also to WP8

Rec 14: The scope of the user survey should be enlarged considerably (» 20 people) to

have a statistical meaning.



Page: 80 of 80

We feel that the reviewers have misunderstood the scope and aim of the study. The

objective was to sample a small number of experts in the field to provide a euro-centric

validation of the other cited surveys which have investigated added-value services for

NGOA. The results correlate well, and it is therefore unclear what different result is to

be expected with a larger survey.

9.2.7 WP7: Experimental Validation



Rec 4: the pros/cons of OFDMA

With regards to the FSAN position, WP7 will not address

Rec 6: MAC layer testing of hybrid WDM-TDMA technology

Technology already standardized, and some extensions (e.g. long reach or QoS) will be

partially tested in T4.4; WP7 will not address this point.

9.2.8 WP8: Dissemination of results



Rec 1: ...to add an extra deliverable "D3.5 Recommendations and guidelines for NG-OA

in Europe (white paper) (M38)"

As mention in WP3, it will be proposed as a WP8 add. Deliverable under the lead of

DTAG

Rec 2: The Alternative Operator Board should be established ....

Jointly with WP6: assessment to drop to results in/from other projects

Rec 3: Interaction with other (FP7) projects should be intensified …

Rec 13: ... (especially work of WP5 and WP6) ... more publications in technical journals

should be made.

---End of Document ---

ANNUAL REPORT OASE PeriodicReport D1.9 P3 …...THIRD YEAR - 2012-2013 - ANNUAL REPORT...

Documents

Transcript of ANNUAL REPORT OASE PeriodicReport D1.9 P3 …...THIRD YEAR - 2012-2013 - ANNUAL REPORT...