Understanding which market scenarios are best served by
Understanding which market scenarios are best served by active Ethernet point-to-point (EP 2 P) and which are best served by point-to-multipoint PON architectures Johannes Weingart Director Global Business Development Ethernet Access jweingart@advaoptical. com 1
Mission Statement • The MEF’s Mission: Accelerate the worldwide adoption of carrier-class Ethernet networks and services – independent from available/used infrastructure – independent from available/used topology 2
Carrier Ethernet Defined The 5 Attributes of Carrier Ethernet • Carrier Ethernet is a ubiquitous, standardized, carrier-class SERVICE defined by five attributes that distinguish Carrier Ethernet from familiar LAN based Ethernet • It brings the compelling business benefit of the Ethernet cost model to achieve significant savings • Standardized Services Carrier Ethernet Attributes • Scalability • Service Management • Reliability • Quality of Service 3
Agenda • Introduction • Comparing Capex and Opex of active versus passive architectures • Identifying strengths and weaknesses of active versus passive architectures • Outlook 4
Introduction • the MEF's view is a layer 2 view • it's about – service types (E-Line, E-LAN, . . ) – traffic management (bandwidth profiles, service frame colour, CIR, CBS, EIR, EBS, . . ) – CFM, OAM, demarcation monitoring, . . – ubiquitous service • it's not about – layer 1 physical infrastructure – active vs. passive – copper vs. fiber – what technology is used in the backbone (PBT, . . ) 5
Comparing Capex and Opex there are several different approaches • purely fiber based – P 2 P – GPON / EPON • mixed approaches – fiber to the curb/building – usage of copper in the last (1/2) mile • copper all the way from CO to CP 6
P 2 P CP CP CO dedicated fiber for each user CP 7
P 2 P Pro Capex • most future proof infrastructure Opex • no active equipment in street cabinets needed • easier BW upgrades • easier unbundling Con Capex • higher investment in fiber, but digging similar • higher number of IF Opex • more CO rack space needed • higher power consumption • bigger distribution frames 8
PON splitter CP CP CO passive splitter combine drop – distribution and distribution – feeder fiber CP 9
PON Pro Capex • less fiber / duct utilisation • smaller number of active interfaces Opex • no active equipment in street cabinets needed • less CO rack space needed • smaller power consumption Capex • whole domain limited to common downlink speed • asymmetric BW split does not meet business service requirements Opex • more difficult for unbundling • more complex trouble shooting 10
mixed approaches / FTTC mini DSLAM in SC CP e. g. VDSL 2 CP CO mini DSLAM in street cabinets connected via P 2 P fiber (or GPON) CP CP 11
mixed approaches / FTTC Pro Capex • smaller cost for civil works, less digging • reuse of existing copper infrastructure Opex • less CO rack space needed Con Capex • upgrade cost of street cabinets (power, . . ) • higher cost for hardened equipment Opex • active equipment in street cabinets 12
from yesterdays presentations Source: IDATE from FTTx Summit 2007 Munich 13
Identifying strengths and weaknesses • Identifying strengths and weaknesses of active versus passive architectures, considering: – – – – – scalability power requirements maintenance length of fibre deployed coverage OLT and ONT costs utilisation customer management evolution to new services 14
in more detail - P 2 P vs. PON scalability cable / duct size vs. OLT size / splitter ration Pt. P vs. smallest OLT power requirements P 2 P has more active interfaces both solution do not need active equipment in street cabinets maintenance P 2 P seams to be easier to troubleshoot, has more independence from other customers services 15
in more detail - P 2 P vs. PON length of fibre deployed cable length / duct length is similar P 2 P uses more fiber between CO – distribution – drop locations coverage both solutions do need last mile fiber discussion between Ethernet over Fiber vs. Ethernet over Copper similar OLT and ONT costs needs a more detailed comparison P 2 P CPE may be more expensive than ONT but may be compensated by higher OLT cost 16
in more detail - P 2 P vs. PON utilisation P 2 P provides independent, symmetrical bandwidth GPON/EPON is limited by the common downstream customer management P 2 P allows more easy, independent customer management and flexible upgrades PON provides a more centralised approach in line with consumer market requirements evolution to new services P 2 P seams to be more flexible towards new requirements, main assets are duct, fiber, distribution frames, floor/rack space 17
Outlook • • between PON and P 2 P, WDM PON will find its place combining the strength of both sides common fiber, independent wavelength bandwidth demand will grow and push EPON / GPON towards their limits • usual question is by when but • the interface will an Ethernet interface • the L 2 will be Ethernet (Carrier Ethernet) 18
Thank You 19
- Slides: 19