Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Tech Challenges
Tech Challenges
Tech Challenges
Tech Challenges
Tech Challenges
Tech Challenges
Tech Challenges
Tech Challenges
Tech Challenges
Tech Challenges
Tech Challenges
Tech Challenges
Tech Challenges
Tech Challenges
Tech Challenges
Tech Challenges
Tech Challenges
Tech Challenges
Tech Challenges
Tech Challenges
Tech Challenges
Tech Challenges
Tech Challenges
Tech Challenges
Tech Challenges
Tech Challenges
Tech Challenges
Tech Challenges
Tech Challenges
Tech Challenges
Tech Challenges
Tech Challenges
Tech Challenges
Tech Challenges
Tech Challenges
Tech Challenges
Tech Challenges
Tech Challenges
Tech Challenges
Tech Challenges
Tech Challenges
Tech Challenges
Tech Challenges
Tech Challenges
Tech Challenges
Tech Challenges
Tech Challenges
Tech Challenges
Tech Challenges
Tech Challenges
Tech Challenges
Tech Challenges
Tech Challenges
Tech Challenges
Tech Challenges
Tech Challenges
Tech Challenges
Tech Challenges
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Tech Challenges

1,299

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,299
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
45
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Carrier Ethernet over HFC Networks High Tech Hurdles Srividya Iyer Motorola Charles Bergren CableLabs Brad Bignall Cisco Eli Baruch Arris Eric Doricko Calix 25th February 2007 1
  • 2. Agenda • Srividya Iyer Overview and perspective • Charles Bergren VPN and OAM basics • Brad Bignall OAM standards • Eli Baruch Provisioning and QoS • Eric Doricko GPON for SMB 2
  • 3. Abstract • This session will examine the technology and operational methods used to support the installation, provisioning, monitoring, and maintenance of SLA-backed Carrier Ethernet services on MSO networks. The discussion will cover provisioning of access devices, provider edge and core devices, and OAM. SLA monitoring topics will include OAM protocols (tunneled and un- tunneled) and multi-operator maintenance methods. Additional topics will include the mapping of QoS into DOCSIS and the backbone, and the challenges of a multi-protocol environment spanning DOCSIS and fiber. 3
  • 4. Objective • To illustrate the use of Carrier Ethernet across multi technology/ multi service networks, covering such topics as Provisioning (Network Element and Network Level), Subscriber and Traffic/QoS management. 4
  • 5. Benefits of an Ethernet service • Provides efficient delivery of voice, data and video service over a single service. • The Network is converging towards IP and Ethernet is the most efficient mechanism to transport IP. • The end user is transparent to the transport mechanism, since Ethernet is used in the LAN. 5
  • 6. Challenges, Ethernet over Multi-protocol Networks • Different Provisioning methods for Network Elements and Services. • Quality of Service at Layer 2 is managed differently – DOCSIS uses individual Service Flows and Ethernet has Class of Service IDs for prioritization of traffic. • OAM methods are different • Management (EMS/NMS) Interfaces are different 6
  • 7. A Multi-step approach • Managing Multi service and Multi Technology network as a unified entity is the most important aspect of providing a reliable service to the end user. • As the Networks and Services have evolved over time, the unified management of these services and networks have to be evolved incrementally as well. • Managing a Carrier Ethernet Network involves several aspects that are independent yet interdependent and are addressed in the next few slides. 7
  • 8. A Multi-step approach • Network Element Management – Ethernet Interfaces across all devices supporting Carrier Ethernet Network should be managed uniformly. – Remote upgrade of devices with new features/technology. – Several Standards exist to support management of Ethernet Interfaces – ITU- SG15, MEF 15 and TM Forum MTNM 3.5 • Network Level Management – The Network Level management for all the devices participating in the Ethernet network includes Configuration, Fault and Performance Management across various technologies and devices. – Specifications include the TMForum‟s Multi Technology Network Management (a new Cable WG has been formed), MEF 7.1 8
  • 9. A Multi-step approach • Ethernet Services Management – Ethernet E-Line and E-LAN services across the Network should be provisioned and managed across the network. – Remote Provisioning of these services are required. – Currently there is no standard way of managing these services across various devices in the network. • Subscriber Management – A Radius or LDAP based User authentication to support Ethernet services across networks. 9
  • 10. A Multi-step approach • Traffic and QoS Management – Layer 2 QoS Mapping across technologies – Service flows in DOCSIS and the 802.1p/CoS ID have to be mapped. – Traffic Classification across Multiple Protocols (Ethernet, IPv4, Ipv6, MPLS to name a few) to provide end to end QoS. – Traffic Policing at the ingress port to ensure bandwidth availability for all subscribers. – PCMM has a Policy based architecture for managing QoS that can be leveraged to manage Ethernet networks. – Layer 3 (DiffServ) architecture can be used for providing Upstream and Downstream QoS guarantees at the IP layer. 10
  • 11. A Multi-step approach • Capacity Management – High Availability/High Performance networks are a requirement for large service providers. – Capacity Planning should be done in conjunction with Performance analysis, QoS management best practices and What–If scenario analysis. 11
  • 12. Agenda • Srividya Iyer Overview and perspective • Charles Bergren VPN and OAM basics • Brad Bignall OAM standards • Eli Baruch Provisioning and QoS • Eric Doricko GPON for SMB 12
  • 13. What are VPNs about ? Site with DOCSIS L2VPN Accessing Server2 using IP Example: Enterprise with 3 sites Site with DOCSIS L2VPN With Server 1, Server 2 Site with DOCSIS L2VPN Accessing Server1 using IPX • Service is just L2 connectivity • Customer DHCP Server and IP space • No Internet service or traffic management 13
  • 14. Another view, implemented with DOCSIS This L2VPN entity behaves like a 2 port switch Enterprise Site 1 CMTS L2VPN CMs Enterprise Site 2 BESMI interfaces embedded within each CM interface exchange BESMI frames to continually measure connectivity and performance L2VPN CMs move Enterprise frames across DOCSIS using their layer 2 headers. L2TPv3 CMs move Enterprise frames across DOCSIS using layer 3 pseudo-wires Both technologies make the dotted line entity „behave like a 2 port switch‟ 14
  • 15. L2VPN – DOCSIS details 5. Legacy core routers 4. PE VPN equipment 6. PE VPN equipment inspects Tag, then decrypts as needed, encrypts, forwards as then forwards necessary 3. „L2VPN‟ CMTS (MSO) 7. „L2VPN‟ CMTS (MSO) decrypts BPI, and adds removes Tag, Tag for traffic directed encrypts with BPI and off-site forwards to PC CMs 2. CM encrypts w/ BPI 8. CM decrypts BPI 1. Enterprise PC sends L2 9. Enterprise PC gets L2 Ethernet frame Ethernet frame 15
  • 16. L2TPv3 • Layer 1 agnostic – rides over any transport – Simplified L2 encapsulation techniques, like encapsulation in IP – No additional protocols required for support in the network i.e. MPLS • L2TPv3 requires configuration of end-points only – No configuration of intervening network elements required. – DOCSIS carries IP; DOCSIS edge CMs can encapsulate the L2 frames in IP • Allows connectivity to VPN from off-net (off plant) locations with minimal coordination between providers. – Simplifies NNI and peering considerations. • L2TPv3 is point to point, combined with MetroE becomes multipoint capable – Multipoint L2TPv3 – Hybrid approach, L2TPv3 end points combined with VPLS end points for multipoint flexibility • L2TPv3 tunnel allows HSD and VPN service off of same cable router 16
  • 17. L2VPN extended across the core VPLS MAC Addr Learning L2VPN CMTS submits VPN Tagged Frames from Enterprise local Tier 3 local ISP local local ISP ISP ISP ISP Tier-2 ISP Tier-2 ISP Only new, VPLS- Tier 1 ISP aware PE gear No MAC Addr does MAC Addr learning in the core. learning, (North of So legacy gear works CMTS) for VPNs too. Tier 1 ISP Tier 1 ISP Tier-2 ISP local Tier-2 ISP Tier-2 ISP local local local ISP ISP ISP ISP 17
  • 18. OAM frames injected into VPN data New L2 layer shims add OAM frames to VPN data as „tracers‟ Network Element support MEPS inside their interfaces -next slide MEPs check OAM frames for connectivity, loss, latency, and jitter local Tier 3 local ISP local local ISP ISP ISP ISP Tier-2 ISP Tier-2 ISP Tier 1 ISP MEPS Tier 1 ISP Tier 1 ISP Tier-2 ISP local Tier-2 ISP Tier-2 ISP local local local ISP ISP ISP ISP 18
  • 19. DOCSIS with simple OAM This L2VPN entity behaves like a 2 port switch Enterprise Site 1 CMTS L2VPN CMs Enterprise Site 2 OAM interfaces embedded within each CM interface exchange BESMI interfaces embedded within each CMCI interface exchange OAM frames to continually measure connectivity and performance BESMI frames to continually measure connectivity and performance 19
  • 20. DOCSIS with more complex OAM This slide shows a L2VPN Service spanning two CMs and a third interface across the Internet core OAM MEPs need only be added at CM interfaces. Provider Edge Switches (PE/SW) will already support them anyway. Thus, no modifications needed for CMTSs. CMTSs L2VPN Cable Modems PE/SW PE/SW 20
  • 21. OAM – MEP structure inside an interface LLC Layer OAM MEP Control Frame Processor VPN frames OAM go frames straight get Output Multiplexer Input Frame Parser through processed MAC Layer 21
  • 22. OAM – Multiple Maintenance levels ME 6 SUBSCRIBER ME 5 TEST ME 4 EVC ME 2 OPERATORS ME 1 UNI ENNI UNI 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 OPERATOR B EQUIPMENT OPERATOR A EQUIPMENT SUBSCRIBER SUBSCRIBER EQUIPMENT SERVICE PROVIDER EQUIPMENT = DOWN MEP = UP MEP = MIP Different parties can initiate and observe OAM frames to accumulate OAM data within their ME level 22
  • 23. Agenda • Srividya Iyer Overview and perspective • Charles Bergren VPN and OAM basics • Brad Bignall OAM standards • Eli Baruch Provisioning and QoS • Eric Doricko GPON for SMB 23
  • 24. E-OAM Fault Management Summary of Protocols and Mechanisms Fault Protocol Mechanism Management Fault 802.1ag Continuity Check Message (CCM) Detection 802.3ah Link Monitoring Remote Defect Indication (RDI) 802.1ag Port Status, Interface Status TLVs Fault Y.1731 Alarm Indication Signal (ETH-AIS) Notification Remote Failure Indication (RFI) 802.3ah Event Notification OAMPDU E-LMI Status Message Fault 802.1ag Loopback protocol (LBM, LBR) Verification Y.1731 Multicast Loopback (ETH-LB) Fault Isolation 802.1ag Linktrace protocol (LTM, LTR) 24
  • 25. Ethernet LMI Overview • Provides protocol and mechanisms used for: – Notification of Remote UNI status to CE – Notification of EVC addition, deletion or status (Active, Not Active, Partially Active) to CE User Network Interface – Communication of UNI and EVC attributes (UNI) to CE (e.g. CE-VLAN to EVC map) UNI-C UNI-N Metro – CE auto-configuration CE Ethernet • Asymmetric protocol based on Network Frame Relay LMI, mainly applicable to the UNI (UNI-C and UNI-N) E-LMI • Specification completed by MEF: http://www.metroethernetforum. org/PDFs/Standards/MEF16.doc 25
  • 26. Link OAM (IEEE 802.3ah, Clause 57) Overview • Provides mechanisms useful for „monitoring link operation‟, OSI Model such as: LAN – Link Monitoring Application CSMA/CD Layers – Remote Failure Indication Presentation – Remote Loopback Control Higher Layers Session • Defines an optional OAM sublayer LLC • Intended for single point-to-point Transport OAM (Optional) IEEE 802.3 links Network • Uses “Slow Protocol”1 frames MAC called OAMPDUs which are Data Link Physical Layer never forwarded by MAC clients • Standardized: IEEE 802.3ah, Physical clause 57 (now in 802.3-2005) (1) No more than 10 frames transmitted in any one-second period 26
  • 27. 802.1ag (aka “CFM”) • What is IEEE 802.1ag? Provides for FAULT management of EVC- based service offerings. 802.1ag allows troubleshooting an end- to-end Ethernet Virtual Circuit (EVC) across multiple providers / vendors. • What is “CFM”? – CFM stands for “Connectivity Fault Management – CFM and 802.1ag are used interchangeably • 802.1ag is currently at revision 8.1 (CFM 8.1) • Family of protocols that provides capabilities to detect, verify, isolate and report end-to-end Ethernet connectivity faults • Employs regular Ethernet frames that travel in-band with the customer traffic – Devices that cannot interpret CFM Messages forward them as normal data frames • Standardized by IEEE (P802.1ag) in late 2007 – IEEE std. 802.1ag-2007 27
  • 28. Y.1731 • What is ITU Y.1731? Provides for both – (a) FAULT management – (b) PERFORMANCE management • Relationship to 802.1ag? – 802.1ag specifies the FRAME FORMAT used by Y.1731 – 802.1ag and Y.1731 bodies worked closely together; hence, the standards provide extremely similar functionality • Y.1731 provides for both : – (a) FAULT management & – (b) PERFORMANCE management 28
  • 29. Challenges Implementing Ethernet OAM Core Connectivity Customer Access E-LMI Access Fault Management Customer Business Business Backbone Backbone Bridges Bridges Provider Provider Bridges Bridges Residential Residential Ethernet Link OAM IP/MPLS UNI NNI NNI NNI UNI • Customer needs and requirements for Ethernet OAM? – Negotiating Parameters, what thresholds are relevant, attainable? – Placement of MEPs, hierarchy, disposition of collected data. – E-NNI with other providers • Network Management Systems that incorporate Ethernet OAM. – Event/SNMP driven or timing driven? – Operations personnel trained to react appropriately to threshold crossing alerts. • OAM Interworking – Event translation, not necessarily 1:1 event mapping 29
  • 30. Challenges with Delivering Carrier Ethernet • Technical challenges of integrating multiple end-points in a multipoint EVC. – SONET & Dark Fiber End points, i.e. VLAN and/or VPLS, L2TPv3. – Maintaining end to end QOS • Non-Native Ethernet Networks that carry 802 frames – DOCSIS end-points • Out of Footprint EVC end-points. – Between operating units – Between Service Providers – Cross Provider agreements 30
  • 31. Agenda • Srividya Iyer Overview and perspective • Charles Bergren VPN and OAM basics • Brad Bignall OAM standards • Eli Baruch Provisioning and QoS • Eric Doricko GPON for SMB 31
  • 32. Ethernet Services Model • Services described as seen by CE, UNI to UNI • Ethernet Definitions – Ethernet Line Services (ELINE) – Ethernet LAN Services (ELAN) – Circuit Emulation Service (CES) • Bandwidth Profiles Parameters – Committed Information Rate (CIR) – Excess Information Rate (EIR) Customer User Network Equipment Interface (CE) (UNI) Metro Ethernet Network Service Provider Responsibility 32
  • 33. Basic MEF Services Point-to-Point Multipoint-to-Multipoint EVC EVC UNI A UNI D CE UNI UNI CE MEN MEN CE CE UNI C UNI B CE CE Ethernet Privet Line (EPL) Ethernet LAN Service (E-LAN) Service UNI UNI A Multipoint-to-Multipoint EVC 1 Multiplexed at Service B Multiplexed UNI D UNI D CE at UNI A CE CE UNI B MEN MEN UNI CE CE CE C CE UNI C UNI E Multipoint-to-Multipoint EVC 2 Ethernet Virtual Privet Line (EVPL) Ethernet LAN Service (E-LAN) 33
  • 34. Use Case 1: P2P EPL, 1 EVC, BE CoS Sources: Cox Jan 2008 • Point to Point leased line (Frame Relay) replacement • 10Mb/s Data traffic (delay tolerant) • Port based mapping of QoS 34
  • 35. Use Case 1: P2P EPL, 1 EVC, BE CoS Use Case 2: P2P EPL, 1 EVC, BE and RT CoS Sources: Cox Jan 2008 35
  • 36. Use Case 3: Hub & Spoke, 2 EVC, RT and BE CoS Sources: Cox Jan 2008 • Three locations, different BW between Site 1 & HQ, and Site 2 & HQ • VoIP traffic and Data Traffic • Multiplexes services on HQ UNI 36
  • 37. Use Case 4: ELAN, Multipoint EVC, BE CoS Sources: Cox Jan 2008 • Any to any connection (Mash) • Data traffic (delay tolerant 37
  • 38. Simplified View 38
  • 39. The Provisioning Challenge End to End Ethernet Service Ethernet Packet Switched Network (PSN) Ethernet over Network using IP or MPLS as the mechanism for packet forwarding over DOCSIS DOCSIS Packet Packet Packet Packet DOCSIS Switched Switched Switched Switched DOCSIS Router / Network Network Network Network Router / Switch MEF Enabled Distribution Distribution MEF EnabledSwitch DOCSIS CPE CMTS Router Core Router CMTS DOCSIS CPE Customer Customer Edge 1 Edge 2 Provider Provider Edge 1 Edge 2 • Administrative and provisioning system that sets up the VLAN connections are essential • DOCSIS provisioning is usually a single ended solution • SLA and CoS – difficult to monitor and ensure • Multiple devices to configure • Possibly crossing several provisioning domains • Do we need to make a change every time we add a customer or a VLAN? • Can we scale effectively without automation? 39
  • 40. L2VPN provisioning • CMs – Uses standard DOCSIS provisioning with BPI • CMTSs – Must provision a table associating the VPN .1Q tag with the MAC address of the L2VPN CM • PEs – Must accept different .1Q tags from each VPN – Must connect VPN segments together across: • DOCSIS only – by associating .1Q tags • The core – by supporting VPLS (or equal) 40
  • 41. L2TPv3 tunnel provisioning Two main alternatives: 1. L2TPv3 CPE and Aggregator/Concentrator Architecture 2. L2TPv3 CPE Architecture 41
  • 42. L2TPv3 tunnel provisioning • CMs – Uses standard DOCSIS provisioning – Must provision a Pseudo-Wire to the next L2TPv3 hop – Since L2TPv3 adds an extra IP header around the frames, MTU size may become an issue • L2TPv3 CMs need to cooperate to discover the Path MTU size and agree to fragment at the edge to keep the core happy. • CMTSs – should require no special provisioning • PEs – May need to terminate the L2TPv3 tunnels of each VPN (in concentrator/Aggregator arch. only) – May need to support VPLS, if backbone is MPLS. – If layer 3 (IP) is used as backbone transport – no change or special provisioning is required. 42
  • 43. QoS Provisioning – Goals and outline • The goals – Transport Enterprise frames with QoS meeting the SLA • The implementation – The forwarding mechanism for the frames is irrelevant as long as the SLA is met – OAM provides mechanisms to detect problems • Forwarding mechanisms – Most forwarding entities examine tags on the data to determine forwarding needs • IP header – DiffServ Code Point (DSCP) • Ethernet header – .1Q tag p bits, and others • MPLS – cos – Tags may be used at each network element to give passing data different queue priority, routing, etc based on its tag. – Most standardization efforts are centering on defining classes of service (like VOIP, video, best effort, etc) so they may be assigned to the different tag values in the different QoS mechanisms 43
  • 44. QoS Provisioning – Interoperation • Forwarding mechanisms – Where networks interface, forwarding may change from one method to another. – Tag usage methods must be changed in a predictable manner (for interoperation). This is “QoS mapping”. – Often this means changing focus from one tag to another, or swapping out tags to different types. – QoS for forwarding L2 frames is accomplished by giving QoS to the container the frames are in, even if it‟s an L3 container. • Standards – Everyone has always been working on this! – MEF has a Class of Service (CoS) team and the NNI specification team working on these issues using L2 tags – Cable has an MSO backbone group working on peering using IP tags 44
  • 45. Possible QoS mapping 45
  • 46. Agenda • Srividya Iyer Overview and perspective • Charles Bergren VPN and OAM basics • Brad Bignall OAM standards • Eli Baruch Provisioning and QoS • Eric Doricko GPON for SMB 46
  • 47. Ethernet Business Services Ethernet is the Hottest Data Service • Ethernet service is the hottest worldwide data service – Carrier Ethernet revenue will grow to $31 Billion yearly (2012) – Ethernet revenue will soon trump TDM revenue $11 Billion (2007) ITFacts Telecom • GPON is a well equipped FTTx service delivery platform – GPON captures new services revenue growth market – GPON also integrates TDM clocked services growth 47
  • 48. ETHERNET BUSINESS SERVICES MEF Optical Ethernet is Easy Simplified service offerings (Ethernet WANs) – What locations, Mr. Customer? • How much BW?, What VLANs? E-Line – Uniform Provisioning (Rapid CPE turn-up) – Simplified Up-sell • On-demand BW, Self-service E-Tree E-LAN • Simple MEF-9 VLAN switching – Untagged, tagged, add tags 48
  • 49. FIBER ETHERNET BUSINESS SERVICES What is GPON? (ITU G.984) Point-to-Multipoint Passive Optical network (like HFC) – Layer 2 technology, just like DOCSIS, One fiber splits to 64 drops (ONTs) – Embedded CWDM enables bi-directional operation (several wavelengths) – Converges multiple networks & services: (voice, data, video, gaming) – Leverage GPON cost points for Business connections (>5Meg) • Lowest CAPEX provisioning 10/100 & GE Bandwidth drops & service layering • Lowest OPEX via embedded service activation, monitoring, OSP immunity • Point-to-point Active-E is higher cost per megabit provisioning model TDM & GE 20km @ 1:32 split 30k  50+km reach (Long reach PON) CENTRAL OFFICE REMOTE Data Center Hosting TERMINAL 80km (Point to Point) 49
  • 50. GPON Advantages in the SMB • Small-Medium Business represent opportunity for MSOs – Stable revenue stream, more diverse revenue base – Sticky customer base that will pay for value added services • GPON future-proofs delivery of commercial services to SMBs – GPON & optical splitters remain in tact when upgrading system bandwidth • Coaxial bandwidth upgrades require changes (e.g. 450MHz  870MHz  1GHz ) – Immune to ingress noise (no sweeping needed) – Optical passive connection from CO directly into the SMB – Works in harmony with HFC and current models – Passive outside plant (no electronics, no power, no amps, etc) – Simple additions of new customers to the service in surrounding areas – Low electronics cost, high bandwidth, any service drop-off 50
  • 51. Targets for GPON Services Commercial Service Types Transparent LANs, VOIP, Voice – Small to medium enterprise • Home based businesses • Retail services • Mixed use residential/business – Hospitality and health care – Cell site backhaul – Resorts & smart communities 51
  • 52. GPON Access Solution DCCS Class 5 GR303/SoftSwitch 2.4 Gbps IP-MPLS Internet Core 1.2 Gbps IPTV PASSIVE SPLITTERS 1:4, 1:8, etc RF Video 1:32, 1:64 MDU Central Office 761 GE/T1 Transport Remote Terminal – ITU-T G.984.1/.2/.3/.4 compliant GE & DS1-over-PON – Supports Multi-Gigabit services 761 – Native IP/Ethernet services Cell Tower – Native TDM & RF Transport Backhaul GE & DS1-over-PON – Layer 3 provisioning model, Layer 2 Transparent LAN Services Cell Tower – TDM over GE/MPLS Cores Backhaul 52
  • 53. Business & Wholesale ONT models Several Options at the Business Micro-node NxDS1- Module MDU Business park ONTs 10/100/1000 Ethernet – MDU ONTs support 8 unit – Uses only one splitter PORT of the 32 or 64 way split Cell Backhaul ONTs – 2-8 DS1s for cellular TDM/VOIP traffic – Up to 8 GE ports for WiFi and WiMAX – PWE3 and TDM modes 2.5 Gbps GPON RF Video 53
  • 54. RFOG and GPON Combined Network • Network Layout – EDFA Output: 19 - 21.5 dBm – ONT RF Optical Receive : +2 to -5 dBm – ONT 1590nm Output (at port): -1.5 Interactive Services dBm – Reverse Path Receive : -8 to -25 dBm Manager Video Encoders Satellite Forw ard Path Tx Out-of-Band Control – Max Transmission Distance is 17 km Off-AIr – 4W CWDM with RF video overlay EDFA • 2.4 dB loss PEG- Local Content Reverse Path Rx Set-top Box Internet 725 ONT 1550 nm RF Video Access 1590 nm RF Return PON 1490 nm GPON 4 λ CWDM 1310 nm GPON Voice Sw itch 54
  • 55. Service Harmony with HFC+GPON GPON and HFC are more alike than you may think – Both systems use the same RF video transmitter – HFC and GPON systems have an identical optical architecture • GPON systems use more fibers • HFC system requires coaxial amplifiers Benefits of using GPON FTTx – Complementary high bandwidth SMB services where customer will not pay extra for protected service – Used to augment cable modem services where symmetrical bandwidth is desired by the customer – Lower operational cost, reducing outside plant trouble shooting Disadvantages of GPON FTTx – GPON electronics cost is $350 premium over HFC Cable modem – Coax is ubiquitous in businesses passed, fiber is not – CO Electronics cost: GPON OLT port serves only 32-64 max • A CMTS port serves 100s of businesses served by cable modems 55
  • 56. GPON O&M Expenses per Mile of Plant GPON Technical Supervision $ 0.00 Service Trouble Truck Rolls (for plant problems) $ 0.00 Plant Maintenance Truck Rolls $ 0.00 Material Inventory $ 0.00 Electricity Consumption $ 0.00 Power Supply Battery Replacement $ 0.00 Power Supply Equipment Repair $ 0.00 RF Line Equipment Repair $ 0.00 Vehicle Accident Loss $ 0.00 Employee Injury Loss $ 0.00 Emergency Cable Repair $ 85.11 Total annual O&M expense per mile of OSP plant $ 85.11 MSO Presented to ITU, June 2004. 56
  • 57. Conclusions GPON ONTs deliver complete portfolio of commercial services – Over a future-proofed multiservice operator infrastructure • Integrated 10/100 and GE drops (VLAN rate limiting, QOS and COS) • Embedded DS1/T1 backhaul for voice and data T1s • Multiple services over glass  the end game • Fully compatible with existing RF delivery and digital return – Service stability through passive & optical plant (retain customers) • Annual operating savings of FTTH plant is substantial over copper – The cost to deploy FTTH is around $350 per business above HFC • HFC is significantly less bandwidth per business – 2.5 GPON systems support 1GE bursting today • And can be designed for symmetrical 75 Mbps per business; sustained • DOCSIS systems are designed for much lower bandwidths – Pay back for FTTx & commercial GPON ranges from 1 to 6 years • GPON prices are declining more rapidly than HFC 57
  • 58. Q&A • Srividya Iyer Overview and perspective • Charles Bergren VPN and OAM basics • Brad Bignall OAM standards • Eli Baruch Provisioning and QoS • Eric Doricko GPON for SMB 58

×