Thomas Martin Fiber to the Home

7/29/2019 Thomas Martin Fiber to the Home

1/56

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

Fiber To The Home

Thomas Martin [email protected]

Consult ing Systems Engineer


2/56


Motivation for Fiber to the Home

FTTH Approaches

FTTH Deployment Aspects

Conclusion

22

2

AGENDA


3/56


Motivations ForFTTx


4/562007 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. Cisco Confidentialthmartin-FTTH 4

FTTH Motivations/Drivers

Need for a first mileAvailability of Local Loop Unbundling

Dependency on Local Loop UnbundlingGreenfield Areas

Streamlining the Access NetworkConsolidation of Access networks

Competitive ThreatFrom cable companies & DOCSIS 3.0/Wideband DOCSIS

SPs offering FTTH services

The need for speed!

Bandwidth requirements driven by NGN applications

Video (HD is a key driver)

On demand BW services



Bandwidth Drivers

Triple Play

Switched Video at Home

Symmetric High-speed

Connectivity

Video download than real-time streaming

Telepresence

Video High Definition!Bandwidth demands

growing



Bandwidth Drivers

Source: IDATE

Telepresence



FTTH The Way toProvide True High Speed Access

ADSL is reaching its limitations

The two major constraints inherent in ADSLtechnologies,asymmetry and bandwidth limitation,prevent operators from being able to supply theapplications that digital homes will bedemanding in the not too distant future.

With increased penetration download speeds beyond1.5 to 2 km drops dramatically and the minimum10Mbps for 3Play (SDTV) cannot longer be provided


8/56


Trend for access bitrates :exponential growth

1

10

100

1000

10000

100000

1000000

10000000

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

"High-speed connection," actual

Straight line extrapolation assuming acceleration from 2004Straight line extrapolation

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


9/56


FTTx Access Topologies/Technologies


10/56


FTTH Access Topologies

Tree architectures

Passive Optical Network (PON) technology Star architectures

Point-to-point connection of customers toswitches in a star topology


11/56


Passive OpticalNetworks (PON)


12/56


Core Network

Aggregat ion

Access

Main

Point of Presence

Internet

PSTN

ONU in

basement

Voice

Gateway

SMB and residential

10

PassiveOptical Fiber10 Mbit/s

WiFi

Video

surveillance

1:N split

Video source

(VoD / Bcast)

ONT

PCTV Set

Ethernet

RJ-11

RJ-11Ethernet

Set-top Box

Analog

Phones

RF coax

ONT in

Appartmentor off ice

ONT in homeor business

ONT

ONU

ONT

PON Architecture


13/56


PON Physical Network Infrastructure

Drop

Cables

Distribution

Cable

Feeder

Cable

OpticalDistributionFrame (ODF)

Optical LineTerminal

(OLT)

IPAggregation

Router

Primary FiberConcentration

Point (FCP)

Central OfficeAccess Node

Serving Area

AggregationNetwork

SingleFamily

Unit

SmallBusiness

Unit

MultiDwelling

Unit

DistributionTerminal

(Splitter)

Distribution

Cable

Distribution

Cable

DistributionTerminal(Splitter)


(Splitter)

DropCables

Multi

TenantBuilding

Drop

Cables


14/56


Motivations for PON deployment

Fiber saving between splitter and CO/POPrelevant in scenarios where existing cables or ducts need to be reused towardsthe splitter, or where fiber deployment is restricted (e.g., aerial cabling)

Less relevant for Greenfield scenarios(marginal cost of fiber compared to digging, splicing, ...)

Analog video overlay for existing broadcast servicesemulates cable TV distribution plant on a separate downstream wavelengthdelaying introduction of IP TV

requires equivalent of cable headend at each OLT side

Port saving in the CO/POPneed to terminate thousands of fibers on switch ports

PON can reduce this by 1...2 orders of magnitude compared to P2P

port costs on a per-customer base, however, are roughly equivalent

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

RFTV


15/56


PON Flavors Today

Ethernet, ATM, TDMEthernetATMTransmission

131013101310Upstream (nm)

1490 and 155015501490 and 1550Downstream (nm)

Downstreamup to 2.5 Gbit/s

Upstreamup to 1.25 Gbit/s

Up to symmetric1.25 Gbit/s

Downstream up to622 Mbit/s

Upstream 155 Mbit/s

Bandwidth

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

GPONEPONBPON


16/56


PON Protocol Overview

OLT

C B A

1490 nm

C B A

C B A

C B A

CBA

1310 nm

A

C

B

ONT

ONT

ONT

A

CATV overlay

B

CATV overlay

C

CATV overlay

CATV overlay

CATV overlay

CATV overlay

CATV overlay1550 nm


17/56


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

2006 2009 2010 2011+

More bandwidth.New optical components.

10G PON.

More capacity withWavelenght multiplexing.

WDM-PON (CWDM)

More capacity and bandwidth wi thOne wavelength per subscriber.

(DWDM)

GPON up andrunning.

None of this is standardized yetNone of this is standardized yet


18/56


2006 2009 2010 2011+


10G PON.


WDM-PON (CWDM)


(DWDM)

GPON up andrunning.

ONT

ONT

ONTOLT

1x 10Gbps

Simple view of the solution

GPON Lambdas:

- 1 downstream- 1 upstreamGPON

1x 1.25Gbps

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


19/56


GPON vendors say ...

2006 2009 2010 2011+


10G PON.


WDM-PON (CWDM)


(DWDM)

GPON up andrunning.

ONT

ONT

ONTOLT

GPON Lambdas:

- N downstream- 1 upstream

4x 2.5Gbps

1x 1.25Gbps

GPON

Simple view of the solution


20/56


PON deployment Splitter spliced into plant=> LLU impossible

OLT opt.

MDF

Splitter

ONT

ONT

1 fiberper n OLTs


21/56


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

LLU through SP-specif ic spli tter in ODF and SP-specific feeder fiber

OLT opt.MDF

ODF

ONT

ONT

1 fiberper Service Provider

Splitters

ONT

ONT


22/56


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

IGMP Proxy and snooping with limited support. IGMP process distributed between OLT(Proxy) and ONT(Snooper)

instable. Zapping degrades with large number of channels selected. No state of IGMP on ONT kept. Troubleshooting

by mirroringPONT tree, no focus on one sub (trace per user) possible Asymmetrical

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

Strong encryption required to prevent eavesdropping

No resilience

OLT optics is single point of failure for entire tree

corrupt CPE can impact entire PON tree

J amming is very easy

just transmit continuous light and the whole tree is OOS

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

Every endpoint (OLT, ONT, ...) has to operate at the aggregate bitrate

e.g., a GPON ONT delivering 100 Mbit/s to an end customer has to operate at 2.5 Gbit/s

Theoretical maximum number of customers per tree is rarely reached due to take-up rates, unless very

expensive ODFs in the field are used to optimize utilization


23/56


Main Issues with PONs

Data sent to all users on the tree: inefficient Video multicast & VoD

Asymmetrical

All FTTH deployments that we are aware of universally assume a take rate of 25...35%. Only 25-35% of

interfaces need to be accommodated on switches in a Eth. P2P scenario rather than 100% in PON.

Strong encryption required to prevent eavesdropping

No resilience

OLT optics is single point of failure for entire treecorrupt CPE can impact entire PON tree

J amming is very easy

just transmit continuous light and the whole tree is OOS

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

Every endpoint (OLT, ONT, ...) has to operate at the aggregate bitrate

e.g., a GPON ONT delivering 100 Mbit/s to an end customer has to operate at 2.5 Gbit/s

Theoretical maximum number of customers per tree is rarely reached due to take-up rates, unless very

expensive ODFs in the field are used to optimize utilization

OLT

ONT

ONT

ONT


24/56


PON CPE Aspects

CPEs (a.k.a. ONUs or ONTs) are an integral part of the PONarchitecture

Special functionalityMedia Access Control

Burst-mode lasers

high optical power

encryption

makes PON-CPEs inherently more expensive than native EthernetCPEs

Multi-vendor interoperability left for the future Typically deployed and owned by the Service Provider as corrupt

CPEs can impact the traffic of other customers and compromisesecurity


25/56


Point-to-Point(P2P)or

home run fiber


26/56


Core Network

Aggregation

Access

Point of Presence

Internet

PSTN

Access

switch inbasement

Voice

Gateway

SMB and residential

WiFi

Video

surveillance

Video source(VoD / Bcast)

NT

PCTV Set

Ethernet

RJ-11

RJ-11Ethernet

Set-top Box

Analog

Phones

ONT in

Appartmentor off ice

ONT in home

or business

NT

NT

Ethernet Star Architecture


27/56


Ethernet Physical Network Infrastructure

Drop

Cables

Distribution

Cable

Feeder

Cable

OpticalDistributionFrame (ODF)

EthernetSwitch

IPAggregation

Router

Primary FiberConcentration

Point (FCP)

Central OfficeAccess Node

Serving Area

AggregationNetwork

SingleFamily

Unit

SmallBusiness

Unit

MultiDwelling

Unit


(One-to-OneCable)

Distribution

Cable

Distribution

Cable


(Eth Switch)


(Eth Switch)

DropCables

Multi

TenantBuilding

Drop

Cables


28/56


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

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

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

MTU deployments for residential, SMB, and Enterprisecustomers

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

Very flexible and future proof solution as it provides

virtually unlimited bandwidth per customer


29/56


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

Pay as you grow possibility

Fiber topology is technology neutralMigration to new technologies / higher speeds

can be done on a customer by customer basis

(enabling competition among differenttechnologies / speeds)

Higher number of fibers to CO/POP

Slightly more equipment needed in theCO/POP


30/56


CPE Aspects

CPEs can be commodity items purchased at retailstores

No interoperability issues

No special functionality required

No Media Access Control

No Burst-mode lasers

CPEs inherently less expensive than PON CPEs

Can be deployed and owned by the customer ascorrupt CPEs can not impact the traffic of othercustomers or compromise security

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


31/56


Ethernet Point-to-Point Advantages

Dedicated Bandwidth Per User

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

technology Ethernet is a commodity

Lower port prices

Wide interoperability Allows cost-effective and still future proof hybrid deployments

Mix of Fiber To The Home and Fiber To The Curb with Copper(UTP)connection to the subscriber

Co-Existence of Business and Residential Subscribers

Residential subscribers cannot interfere with business services and

SLAs


32/56


FTTxDeployment

Cost of Equipment and Construction


33/56


Cost of Equipment and ConstructionDeployment models

Source: Corning and FTTH Counci l Europe

Civil Works68%

Ethernet12%

Fiber

6%

Cabinets2% Installation

3% Other Services9%

Civil Works cost is the major share ofFTTx deployment and is common to

both PON and P2P Fiber Cost is only 6% of a FTTx

network cost

Fiber lifetime varies between 15 and

25 yearsIncreased fiber cost of P2P vs. PON isonly a minor part of the overall cost ofdeployment and has to be regarded in15-25 years depreciation

SPs need to make three significant


34/56


SPs need to make three significantinvestments for FTTH deployment

Step 2: Connect the building

~35% of capex

Step 1: Roll out in the region

~15% of capex

Step 3:

Connect thecustomer

~50% of capex

Source: Cisco IBSG

Only for step 1 there are any differences resulting fromaccess network architectures


35/56


FTTH capex

Source: IDATE, Study for French Government, Apri l 2006

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

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

404 469

1,637 1,727

443 352

443 351

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

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

passive active


36/56


FTTH Subscriber Connection

AccessSwitch

Home

Network

ResidentialGateway

FTTH

NetworkSTB

FTTx Point to Point


37/56


FTTx Point-to-PointPhysical Subscriber Connection

1. New multi/single mode fiberSimple to deploy, Quick User Activation, Unlimited Bandwidth, Easy

upgrade to GE access

Multimode up to 500m, for in-building wiring

Singlemode-single fiber for 100Mb/s and 1000Mb/s up to 10km

Quick Installation in existing risers (no safety/interference issues)

2. UTP Copper CAT V-VIIIn New Buildings (dedicated ducts) Installation quicker and simpler than

fiber

Network Components (U-PE & CPE) have lower cost than fiber equivalent

Future Proof Media for Speeds Up to 1Gb/s

Limited to 90m of distance (100m including patching)


38/56


Customer Premises Equipment

Gaming TV Service Voice and Fax Service Internet Service

ResidentialGateway

FTTH

Network

STB


39/56


Customer Premise Equipment

SPs regard the CPE as demarcation point for theservice and termination of the FTTH line

2 types of CPE approaches, depending on the serviceoffering

ONT (Optical Network Termination)

Terminates incoming fiber and converts 100BaseFX/BX/LX10 to100BaseT

Customer connection via UTP

HAG (Home Access Gateway)

Combined ONT and Service termination

Mostly Voice/Data combinations


40/56


Home Access Gateway Architecture

VoiceAdaptor

(H.323, MGCP, SIP)

Voice

Adaptor(H.323, MGCP, SIP)

FXSFXS FXSFXS

Analogue PhonesUSER DEVICES Video STB

Ethernet

10/100BaseTXSwitch

Ethernet

10/100BaseTXSwitch

UPLINK10/100BaseT100BaseXX


41/56


CPE

E-ONT: Scientific Atlanta Prisma Series

100BaseBX10 to 100BaseTX

Optional RF Video Overlay

HAG: Deployments with Partner CPE

HAG Partner:

Tilgin (former i3micro) www.tilgin.com

Telsey www.telsey.it

Genexis www.genexis.nl


42/56


Core

Distribution

Access

Customer Premise

Core

Switch

Main POP

STB

Aggregat ion

POP

GE

InternetPSTN

Voice Gateway

SS7 InterconnectSS7 Interconnect

Video Servers

Set-Top Box

CPE

Residential Access

Business AccessGE

Distribution

Switch

Access

Switch

FTTH Deployment Example


43/56


Core Network

Aggregat ion

Access

Internet

PSTN

Voice

Gateway

Video Source

(VoD / Bcast)

Centralized POP Approach

HAG

HAG

HAG

HAG

HAG

HAG

HAGHAG

U-PE

N-PE


44/56


Centralized POP Approach

4510 with up to 384 ports

n x GE or 10GE uplinks

3 x 4510 per 42RU Rack

1182 Subscriber per Rack

Pay as you grow

Modular line-card with SFP

Add (pay for) transceiver onlywhen a subscriber is connected

100Mb/s per Subscriber

Centralized Equipment

1 point for AC and UPS

Central cable management andtroubleshooting

HAG HAGHAG HAG HAG HAG

Cisco 4510

100BaseBX10

Core Network


45/56


Centralized Access Pop

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

Known POP sizes vary from 2 000 to 20 000 connected customersCitynet in Amsterdam has designed POP with 10 000 & 12 000 fibres

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

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


46/56


Novel mechanical solution

ODF for 2304 fiber terminations Rack for 1502 active fiber

interfaces 50% take rate up to 100% take rate

achievable with secondswitch rack

Source: Huber & Suhner


47/56


Core Network/P

Aggregation

Access

PE-AGG

Internet

PSTN

Voice

Gateway

Video source(VoD / Bcast)

Distributed Access

HAG

HAG

HAGHAGHAGHAGHAG

HAGHAGHAG

HAGHAG

N-PE

U-PE

Multi Tenant Building Solution


48/56


gDecentralized Access

Access Switch located inBasement/Utility Area

UTP in-house cabling up to90m distance

Cost effective Deployment

U-PE operates in L2 Modeand can provides access forBusiness services Layer2 &Layer3 VPN services as wellas for Layer3 3Play services

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

ResidentialResidential MTU AccessMTU Access

To the

DP/POP

U-PE

HAG

Multi Tenant UnitSwitch Cabinet Solution


49/56


Switch Cabinet Solution

Compact Form Factor allows forwall mountingPower Distribution Panel withoptional UPS (UninterruptiblePower Supply)

Fiber Tray for incoming fiberUTP Patch Panels for in-housecablingSwitches tilt-mounted to optimizedepthEnclosure chassis act as heat-sinkVandalism proof


50/56


FTTx Conclusion

Wh t h b d l d f ?


51/56


What has been deployed so far?

In the US some of the incumbents are currently deployingGPON

Utilization of existing Infrastructure: Re-use of existing duct and

outside cabinet structureVideo overlay

In J apan NTT and KDDI are deploying EPON

Aerial deployment in many regions does not allow large fibercounts

Regulatory situation enforced lowest common denominator

Virtually anywhere else

Deployment of Point-to-Point/Star Ethernet

Only very little traction for PONs

C l i


52/56


Conclusion

Fiber deployment to residences is a largeinvestment into the future

Every deployment scheme for FTTxnetworks has its own merits

Every deployment scheme for FTTx networksh it it


53/56


has its own merits

PONs can optimize deployment cost in the veryshort term, but do not represent a very future-proof investment.

Ideal for existing FTTC (Fiber To The Curb)topologies

Residential services in areas with FTTC deploymentsService offerings with low SLA (Service LevelAgreements)

Every deployment scheme for FTTx networksh it it


54/56


has its own merits

Ethernet Point-to-Point architectures representthe most future-proof solution which canprovide virtually unlimited bitrates tosubscribers.

Optimal choice for Greenfield deployments

Individual subscribers can be migrated to morepowerful technologies as needed without impactingthe service to other subscribers

Ideal to support mixed service offeringsConcurrent support for residential and businessservices utilizing the same infrastructure


55/56


In terms of equipment, both PON and P2P solutionshave their merits, In terms of network topology, P2Parchitectures have significant advantages. They aremore flexible and scalable, and therefore haveeconomic lifetimes in excess of 20 years.

Gartner Group

Choose the Right Topology for Your Fiber-to-the-Home Network


56/56


Thomas Martin Fiber to the Home

Documents

Transcript of Thomas Martin Fiber to the Home