Johannes Weingart Director Global Business Development Ethernet Access jweingart@advaoptical
19
1 Understanding which market scenarios are best served by active Ethernet point-to- point (EP2P) and which are best served by point-to-multipoint PON architectures Johannes Weingart Director Global Business Development Ethernet Access [email protected]
description
Understanding which market scenarios are best served by active Ethernet point-to-point (EP2P) and which are best served by point-to-multipoint PON architectures. Johannes Weingart Director Global Business Development Ethernet Access [email protected]. Mission Statement. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Transcript of Johannes Weingart Director Global Business Development Ethernet Access jweingart@advaoptical
1
Understanding which market scenarios are best served by active Ethernet point-to-point (EP2P) and which are best served by point-to-multipoint PON architectures
Johannes WeingartDirector Global Business DevelopmentEthernet [email protected]
2
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
3
Carrier Ethernet Defined
• 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
Carrier Ethernet
• Scalability
• Standardized Services
• Service Management
• Quality of Service
• Reliability
Carrier Ethernet Attributes
The 5 Attributes of Carrier Ethernet
4
Agenda
• Introduction
• Comparing Capex and Opex of active versus passive architectures
• Identifying strengths and weaknesses of active versus passive architectures
• Outlook
5
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, ..)
6
Comparing Capex and Opex
there are several different approaches
• purely fiber based– P2P– 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
7
P2P
CO
CP
CP
CP
dedicated fiberfor each user
8
P2P
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
9
PON
CO
CP
CP
CP
passive splittercombinedrop – distribution anddistribution – feeder fiber
splitter
splitter
10
PON
ProCapex• less fiber / duct utilisation• smaller number of active
interfacesOpex• no active equipment in
street cabinets needed• less CO rack space
needed• smaller power
consumption
ConCapex• 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
11
mixed approaches / FTTC
CO
mini DSLAM instreet cabinetsconnected via P2Pfiber (or GPON)
CP
CP
CP
CP
miniDSLAMin SC
e.g.VDSL2
12
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
13
from yesterdays presentations
Source:IDATEfromFTTxSummit2007Munich
14
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
15
in more detail - P2P vs. PON
scalability
cable / duct size vs. OLT size / splitter ration
PtP vs. smallest OLT
power requirements
P2P has more active interfaces
both solution do not need active equipment in street cabinets
maintenance
P2P seams to be easier to troubleshoot, has more independence from other customers services
16
in more detail - P2P vs. PON
length of fibre deployed
cable length / duct length is similar
P2P 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
P2P CPE may be more expensive than ONT but may be compensated by higher OLT cost
17
in more detail - P2P vs. PON
utilisationP2P provides independent, symmetrical bandwidthGPON/EPON is limited by the common downstream
customer managementP2P allows more easy, independent customer
management and flexible upgradesPON provides a more centralised approach in line
with consumer market requirementsevolution to new services
P2P seams to be more flexible towards new requirements, main assets are duct, fiber, distribution frames, floor/rack space
18
Outlook
• between PON and P2P, 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 L2 will be Ethernet (Carrier Ethernet)
19
Thank You
