Johannes weingart director global business development ethernet access jweingart@advaoptical com
Download
1 / 19

Johannes Weingart Director Global Business Development Ethernet Access [email protected] - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 121 Views
  • Uploaded on

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.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Johannes Weingart Director Global Business Development Ethernet Access [email protected]' - felice


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Johannes weingart director global business development ethernet access jweingart@advaoptical com

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
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


Carrier ethernet defined
Carrier Ethernet Defined

The 5 Attributes of Carrier Ethernet

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

Carrier Ethernet Attributes

  • Standardized Services

  • Scalability

  • Service Management

  • Reliability

  • Quality of Service


Agenda
Agenda

  • Introduction

  • Comparing Capex and Opex of active versus passive architectures

  • Identifying strengths and weaknesses of active versus passive architectures

  • Outlook


Introduction
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, ..)


Comparing capex and opex
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


P2P

CP

CP

CP

dedicated fiberfor each user

CO


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

P2P


PON

CP

CP

CP

splitter

splitter

passive splittercombinedrop – distribution anddistribution – feeder fiber

CO


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

Con

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

PON


Mixed approaches fttc
mixed approaches / FTTC

CP

CP

CP

CP

miniDSLAMin SC

e.g.VDSL2

mini DSLAM instreet cabinetsconnected via P2Pfiber (or GPON)

CO


Mixed approaches fttc1

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

mixed approaches / FTTC


From yesterdays presentations
from yesterdays presentations

Source:

IDATE

from

FTTx

Summit

2007

Munich


Identifying strengths and weaknesses
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


In more detail p2p vs pon
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


In more detail p2p vs pon1
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


In more detail p2p vs pon2
in more detail - P2P vs. PON

utilisation

P2P provides independent, symmetrical bandwidth

GPON/EPON is limited by the common downstream

customer management

P2P 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

P2P seams to be more flexible towards new requirements, main assets are duct, fiber, distribution frames, floor/rack space


Outlook
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)



ad