Professional Documents
Culture Documents
GPON Vs EPON Whitepaper
GPON Vs EPON Whitepaper
GPON
A Comparative Study
Table Of Contents
1 2
INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................................................3 EPON AND GPON OVERVIEW ......................................................................................................................4 2.1 PON CONCEPTS..............................................................................................................................................5 Layering and Multiplexing ....................................................................................................................5 Media Access .........................................................................................................................................7 ONT Discovery & Activation .................................................................................................................8 Encryption .............................................................................................................................................9 Protection Switching..............................................................................................................................9 PHY Related Features ...........................................................................................................................9
DEPLOYMENT ASPECTS ................................................................................................................................10 Quality of Service ................................................................................................................................10 Services................................................................................................................................................10 Bandwidth and Efficiency ....................................................................................................................11 Migration from BPON .........................................................................................................................12 Network Management..........................................................................................................................12 OSS Integration Options......................................................................................................................13 Network Uplink Options ......................................................................................................................13
PON DEVELOPMENTS...................................................................................................................................13
Page 2 of 17
1 Introduction
Background PON standardization activities have been going on for about ten years. With the continuing availability of more advanced technology, PON line rates have increased from 155Mbps up to 2.4Gbps. The timeline is shown in Fig. 1.
FSAN starts first formal PON activity. 155Mbps APON ITU G.983 series Enhanced to BPON 622/155Mbps with 3rd lambda, protection and DBA
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
FSAN starts GPON work G.984 series = extension of G.983 series, up to 2.4Gbps
Figure 1:
With the explosion of the Internet, it didnt take too long before ATM-based BPON systems proved to be very inefficient, as the vast majority of traffic through the access network consists of large, variable-sized IP frames. This created the opportunity for the development of the pure-Ethernet based EPON, taking advantage of emerging QOS-aware GigE switches and cost-effective integration with other Ethernet equipment. Ethernet has proven over time to be the ideal transport for IP traffic. EPON and GPON As a result, the IEEE 802.3 tasked the 802.3ah Ethernet in the First Mile work group with the development of standards for point-to-point and point-to-multipoint access networks, the latter specifying Ethernet PONs. EPON is currently part of standard Ethernet. Development of the Gigabit-capable Passive Optical Network (GPON) standard (G.984 series) really started after proposals by FSAN members (Quantum Bridge et. al) for a protocol-independent ATM/Ethernet Gbps PON solution were not very popular within the IEEE 802.3ah work group. FSAN then decided to continue this as a different competing standard in the ITU. EPON and GPON both draw heavily from G.983, the BPON standard, when it comes to general concepts that work well (PON operation, Optical Distribution Network (ODN), wavelength plan, and application). They both offer their own version of enhancements in order to better accommodate variable sized IP/Ethernet frames at Gbps rates. Deployments Today, BPON has gained a decent level of maturity representing about a quarter of the over 1.5 million FTTH (data-only) lines deployed in Japan so far. Maturity and stability may have motivated SBC, Verizon, and Bellsouth to commit to BPON for their multi-$Billion FTTP deployments, in spite of its obvious shortcomings. In the mean time, however, as a clear testimony to the future of PON, NTT is already upgrading and further expanding their FTTH network with EPON, not GPON. This is the common trend elsewhere in Asia. EPON is clearly taking off!
Page 3 of 17
This begs the question: Do we really need GPON next to EPON? In order to answer this question we will take a closer look at these two flavors, and compare their different approaches on technical and practical merits. We will show that EPON represents a far more elegant solution that is well in line with the evolution of the rest of the network towards an all-IP/Ethernet strategy.
Same
(BPON)
Class A; Class B; Class C (15-30 dB), 20 km Same AES-128 on ATM and GEM frame payload Down: 1.2, 2.4 Gbps
GPON adds Class C FEC (forward error correction) reduces an optical module cost, and aims to ease Tx power and Rx optical sensitivity Equivalent strategy, slightly different scope
Reed Solomon
Bit rate
Up: 155 Mbps, 622 Mbps, 1.2 Gbps, 2.4 Gbps ONT optical output power leveling In GPON, the ONT optical output can be adjusted in 2 steps to relieve automatic power distribution (APD) tolerance of OLT.
Other (optional)
The gray areas indicate similarities. The strategy of GPON is to continue to support legacy ATM as in BPON, but additionally support Gbps rates, better encryption, as well as a new frame-orientated mode that can better accommodate native TDM and variable sized IP/Ethernet frames. The justification for the continued support of ATM is often explained as serving the need for backhauling of first-generation DSL traffic. This remains to be seen, considering that todays IP DSLAMs are all Ethernet based.
Page 4 of 17
Layer 5+
Layer 5+
Layer 4 Layer 3
TCP+UDP etc IP
Layer 4 Layer 3 AAL 1/2/5 ATM cell GEM frame GTC TC frame
Layer 2
EPON Layering
GPON Layering
Figure 2:
The main purpose of the GEM frame is to provide a frame-oriented service, as an alternative to ATM, in order to efficiently accommodate Ethernet and TDM frames. Both ATM and GEM modes are mandatory at the OLT, but an ONT can be configured to support either one, or both. As an evolution step from the ATM-based BPON, this may sound like a big improvement. However, when compared to the simple EPON model, it becomes clear that the GEM/GTC encapsulation and inclusion of ATM are adding unnecessary complexity to solve the same problem. The different transport schemes are illustrated in Figure 3.
Page 5 of 17
uplink
transport
ingress
OLT
Service adaptation IP/ATM
ODN
ONU
Service adaptation IP/Ethernet
ATM XC
TDM ATM
ATM XC
TDM
BPON
Service adaptation ?
Service adaptation ?
TDM Ethernet
GFP/SONET?
GPON
Ethernet XC
Ethernet
Ethernet XC
IP/Ethernet
TDM/ Ethernet
EPON
Figure 3:
EPON clearly offers a much simpler and more straightforward solution than GPON. The support of ATM and the double encapsulation of GPON serve no real benefit over a pure Ethernet transport scheme.
Page 6 of 17
In GPON there are three different types of control messages: OMCI, OAM, and PLOAM. Their roles are shown in the table below. In either case, REPORTs are transported upstream as payload traffic. Control Messages in EPON and GPON
Control function Provisioning of ONT service defining layers above L2 BW granting, Encryption key switching, and DBA Auto discovery, and all other PMD and GTC mgt info. EPON IETF MIB / SNMP MPCP (higher layer for encryption key) MPCP and EFM OAM GPON OMCI (Ethernet or ATM) Embedded OAM (Header overhead) PLOAM (ATM)
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
MAC
LLID OLT
LLID
MAC MAC MAC MAC MAC MAC MAC
ONT
Figure 4:
An ONT is identified by the LLID. In addition, the VLAN_ID can be used for further addressing. A given VLAN is identified as LLID VLAN_ID. In the downstream direction, the OLT attaches the LLID to the preamble of frames, which is used to identify the right port on the bridge. Similar to the LLID, GPON uses a parameter called T-CONT to address ONTs. In the ATM mode, a given VC is addressed via ONT_ID T-CONT VPI/VCI. In the GEM mode, a port can be identified via ONT_ID TCONT Port_ID. Both the LLID and T-CONT provide a form of point-to-point emulation, except that GPON has no relationship to 802.1 bridge, and hence bridging has to be achieved upstream of the OLT.
Page 7 of 17
Similarly, GPON grants per T-CONT. Grants are carried in the downstream frame header overhead, via a map that holds multiple grants specifying {Alloc-ID+Start+End} for each granted upstream Window (timeslot). The two different schemes are shown in the figure below.
Downstream Frame header (PBCd)
Downstream
Payload
US BW Map
LLID 1
Start 100
Length 200
LLID 2
Start 400
Length 100
LLID 3
Start 520
Length 80
Alloc-ID 1
Start 100
End 300
Alloc-ID 2
Start 400
End 500
Alloc-ID 3
Start 520
End 600
Upstream
LLID 1 (ONU1) LLID 2 (ONU2) LLID 3 (ONU3)
T-CONT 1 (ONU1)
T-CONT 2 (ONU2)
T-CONT 3 (ONU3)
EPON
GPON
Figure 5:
Page 8 of 17
2.1.4 Encryption
Both EPON and GPON have endorsed 128-bit Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) encryption. 128-bit keys means that there are 3.4 x 1038 possible keys, i.e., very strong encryption. The GPON standard already includes this scheme and encrypts the GEM payload, which means that Ethernet frames and TDM data are completely encrypted. Key management messages are exchanged via PLOAM cells. EPON is expected to include this in the standard in 2005, encrypting the Ethernet payload. This includes complete IP payloads as well as TDM data. A group key protocol is additionally required for multicasting (e.g., IPTV). Details, including key management are still under discussion. Notice that some may consider the GPON approach stronger than that of EPON, citing concerns about exposing MAC addresses over the PON link. However the true severity of this threat has always been a controversial topic.
2.1.6 PHY Related Features 2.1.6.1 Physical Medium Dependent layer (PMD)
EPON and GPON both support the same wavelength plan as BPON, i.e., Upstream {1260-1360 nm}, Downstream {1480-1500 nm} and Video distribution {1550-1560 nm}. Three different PMD classes, defined in G.982, are specified for transceivers in GPON. Key parameters are shown in the table below, compared with EPON . <Review this table w/Ketan> ODN Classes
GPON Class A Rates Reach Splits OLT Rx sensitivity ONT Tx on/off time Class B Rates Reach Splits OLT Rx sensitivity ONT Tx on/off time Class C Rates Reach Splits OLT Rx sensitivity ONT Tx on/off time 155, 622Mbps; 1.25Gbps 10km 16 ? 16ns 155, 622Mbps; 1.25Gbps 20km 32 ? 16ns 155, 622Mbps; 1.25Gbps 2.4Gbps > 20km 64 ? 16ns EPON 1.25Gbps 10km 16 ? 512ns 1.25Gbps 20km 32 ? 512ns N/S N/S N/S N/S N/S EPON 1000PX-20 Note EPON 1000PX-10
Page 9 of 17
2.2.2 Services
It is sometimes claimed that EPON is only appropriate for data-only services and GPON for triple-play. The reality is however, that today EPON-based systems are being deployed worldwide, successfully delivering carrier-grade triple-play services. The EPON protocol was deliberately designed to allow the simultaneous support of loss- and delay-sensitive traffic. Combining this with versatile QoS-aware switches and proper system architecture techniques (including VLANs, queue design, priority-based scheduling, etc) results in powerful solutions, capable of transporting any type of service (IP Data, TDM, POTS, VOIP, IPTV, RF Video). In fact, when it comes to certain IP/Ethernet services, it turns out that GPON is the one that fall short, as is shown below.
Page 10 of 17
2.2.2.2 Bridging
Since in the GPON architecture the cross-connect at the OLT is not an Ethernet switch, GPON cannot support standard Bridging, which can be of interest in FTTB deployments. Some form of GEM-bridging could probably be implemented that allows port-port bridging (TDM or Ethernet), but this would not be very inefficient. In order to support standard bridging, there would be the need for an Ethernet switch upstream of the OLT crossconnect, either in an aggregation point in the same chassis, or externally. Bridging is a standard feature of EPON systems, supported via point-to-point emulation (see figure 4).
One apparent advantage of the multi-tiered bandwidth scheme is that it can be configured for 1.2 or 2.4 Gbps downstream and 622 Mbps upstream, and take advantage of lower cost lasers at the ONT. Today, however, rates of 1.2Gbps/622Mbs for downstream vs. upstream are a more realistic target (similar to extended BPON), sharing similar technology with EPON. <any comments on the cost of 1.2G/622M vs. 1G/1G?>
Page 11 of 17
Notice also that 2.4 Gbps is not a common rate, and lacks volumes to draw from in order to drive down ONT transceiver costs. Upstream rates higher than 622Mbps are also not economical due to mode partition noise, until narrow spectral width FP lasers become economical.
2.2.3.2 Efficiency
Due to its use of NRZ scrambling as opposed to 8B10B encoding, GPON does not pay the 20% overhead penalty as in Ethernet. This makes it appear even more attractive, with efficiency potentially in the upper 90% (of 1.244 Gbps). This is often contrasted to EPON, which is frequently incorrectly claimed to be only 50% efficient. Efficiency has to be considered in both directions of a PON. Each PON protocol introduces its own overhead in either direction. The downstream efficiency is significantly more important because of the asymmetric nature of PON bandwidth usage. Notice e.g., that for data services in a typical FTTH deployment at least 40% of the upstream BW consists of a low load of small packets (internet TCP ACKs). In addition, one has to take in consideration the actual upstream demand. PON efficiency is a function of protocol encapsulation and scheduling efficiencies. In the downstream direction, the impact of either one is relatively low. EPON efficiency can be shown [3] to reach theoretically up to about 72% (downstream) and 68% (upstream) of 1.25Gps (i.e., about 900Mbps/850Mbps) while GPON in GEM mode can achieve about 95% of 1.25Gbps in either direction [4]. In practice, upstream efficiency values are often much lower due to vendors design choices and component selection. Often, however, a few 100s Mbps upstream is sufficient for standard FTTH applications, especially when DBA is used. Of course, what actually matters is the remaining usable bandwidth, and whether or not it is sufficient for the intended PON application (e.g., FTTH, 32 splits, triple play, HDTV or regular IPTV, etc.).
Page 12 of 17
Non-standard provisioning and control architectures Incompatible network management interfaces These areas have been addressed with the introduction of Ethernet in the First Mile (802.3ah), and continue to be the focus in different standards organizations. EPON system vendors have been successful in filling any remaining gaps with innovative solutions. These areas should also be reasonably well covered in GPON, as it inherits some of the ATM functionality and was designed with the input of a few service providers. For an EPON system, management of PON operation and OLT/ONT interoperability are defined through EFM OAM and IETF MIBs. Equivalently, GPON has outlined its management capabilities through a series of OMCI specs. Because of its inherent Ethernet simplicity and collapsed layering model, management should be much simpler for EPON than GPON. Regardless of the flavor of PON, the rest of the system is commonly managed through traditional telecom system models using MIBs that include management functions for equipment, service cards, services, alarms, PM data, etc. (ITU, Telcordia, ANSI, ETSI, etc)
Page 13 of 17
Product-wise, the common trend is still: Triple play in the North America; data-only in Asia. PON Vendors
Loc. AFC Alcatel Alloptic Calix Carrier Access Ciena ECI Telecom Entrisphere Fiberhome Networks Flexlight Fujikura / Alcoa Fujitsu GW Technologies Hitachi iamba LG Lucent Mitsubishi Motorola (QB) Nayna NEC Oki Optical Solutions Salira Samsung Siemens Sumitomo Terawave TTS Communications UTStarcom Vinci Systems Wave7 Zhone USA France USA USA USA USA Israel USA China Israel Japan Japan China Japan Israel Korea USA Japan USA USA Japan Japan USA USA Korea Germany Japan USA USA USA USA USA USA BPON S S L S S S L S* S S S S S S S S* ? L S ? S S S ? L? L ? GPON L L ? L L S L L ? L? EPON S L S S S (S) S*/L S S* S S S? S*/L L? L L S*/L Oki+Fujitsu venture OFN working with Centillium awarded NTT contract CWDM PON shares GPON market with Flexlight today Teknovus chipset; Lucent reselling Doing something with ETRI Broadlight chipset Working with Passave Active participant in 802.3ah WG Hybrid PON? Working With Passave / huge presence in China ONT only AnyPON Apparently upgrading to EFM compliant system. (old NEC eLumnant BPON) GPON blade for Stinger planned; Reselling Salira EPON Working with Passave awarded NTT contract Co-author of GPON spec (with Flexlight) 200k data-only ONTs deployed by NTT . Partners with Wave7 for triple-play ONT. Comments (incl. Marconi product) Embarking on large BPON deployment in 2005 (Verizon) Embarking on large BPON deployment in 2005 (SBC) C-COR reselling Blade in C7 ONT vendor (Old Catena Networks BPON product) Working on a GPON blade Nortel reselling ONT vendor; Partnering with Fujitsu Teknovus chipset Key author of GPON spec Half-Gig EPON 155Mbps APON product did fairly well for NTT
Page 14 of 17
Notice that AFC, ECI, Entrisphere, Calix, Siemens, Zhone and Ciena are currently all developing BPON systems using Broadlights chipset, which includes 1.25Gbps/622Mbps extended BPON rates as well as pin-compatible GPON options. This provides them with a built-in migration path to GPON.
3 Conclusions
Key advantages vs. disadvantages of GPON and EPON are compared in the table below. GPON vs. EPON
Advantages GPON -Can be operated at different rates w/different transceivers -Higher theoretical BW, up to 2x that of EPON -Can be configured in asymmetric fashion and take advantage of lower ONT laser costs, e.g., 1.2G/622M or 2.4G/622M -Encrypts the full payload, ie., full Ethernet frames -- no exposed MAC addresses Better chances for interoperability -Standard supports TDM -Standard ONT service-level management EPON -Native transport of Ethernet frames -Simple and familiar, lower cost management -Benefits from true Ethernet switching -Fully compatible with IP -Supports TLS -Broadcast, Multicast --IGMP -IGMP support means better support for IPTV with high scalability -lower costs optics due to relaxed timing parameters Mostly interoperability obstacles: -Non-standard service-level interoperability - non-standard TDM -non-standard encryption -non-standard protection switching Disadvantages -Complex layering model Ethernet/GEM/GTC encapsulation means complex management -More expensive at comparable rates as EPON -Transceivers at 2.4Gbps rates are expensive today, no volumes -upstream BW limited to 622Mbps today
In conclusion, GPON can be seen as a me-too specification that duplicates EPON functionality, but than in a rather complex way. The actual practical need for the GPON standard in addition to EPON remains questionable. Notice the following observations: Ethernet can be transported in its native format and support all services very well, as demonstrated with carrier-grade TDM suport in EPON ATM traffic is insignificant or not-existent in todays access networks, adding unnecessary complication to GPON GPON and EPON are equally capable of providing the QoS capabilities required for triple play service differentiation I.e., EPON is not limited to data-only services, but can support triple-play services as well as GPON
Even though GPON is capable of transporting Ethernet traffic, it lacks several key capabilities inherent to pure Ethernet switches. EPON is more appropriate for IP/Ethernet services:
Page 15 of 17
Large-scale IPTV deployment, which is often seen as a key driver for Gbps PON deployments Business applications that include TLS, Bridging EPON solutions are more popular with service providers where IPTV and VOIP strategies are important. Today this is mostly the case in Asia.
Management and OSS integration of EPON is much easier than GPON, due to the following EPON is part of standard Ethernet, which is very simple to manage The collapsed layering model of EPON results in less complex management than GPON OSS integration is much easier with EPON due to the wide support of IP/Ethernet in most NextGen OSS systems.
EPON is receiving considerable endorsements in Asia today, while in the US leading RBOCs are embarking on large-scale, ATM-limited BPON deployments The lack of any significant GPON RFP clearly illustrates its relevance today Most key BPON vendors are working on GPON follow-on products, often sold as a future-proof strategy Most key Asian vendors are focused on EPON GPONs flagship Class-C ODN and 2.4Gbps transceivers are in reality very expensive and do not have the advantage of volumes that can help drive down costs. Partition Noise currently limits the GPON upstream speed to 622 Mbps, until narrow spectral width FP lasers become economical
I.e., in reality, GPON and EPON solutions offer about the same bandwidth today with GPON slightly better in the downstream direction, and EPON slightly better upstream
Page 16 of 17
4 Appendix
Recommendations for BPON and GPON
Rec. Title BPON G.983.1 G.983.2 G.983.3 G.983.4 G.983.5 G.983.6 G.983.7 G.983.8 G.983.9 G.983.10 Broadband optical access systems based on Passive Optical Networks (PON) ONT management and control interface specification for B-PON A broadband optical access system with increased service capability by wavelength allocation A broadband optical access system with increased service capability using dynamic bandwidth assignment (DBA) A broadband optical access system with enhanced survivability ONT management and control interface specifications for B-PON system with protection features ONT management and control interface specification for dynamic bandwidth assignment (DBA) B-PON system B-PON OMCI support for IP, ISDN, video, VLAN tagging, VC cross-connections and other select functions B-PON ONT management and control interface (OMCI) support for wireless Local Area Network interfaces B-PON ONT management and control interface (OMCI) support for Digital Subscriber Line interfaces GPON G.984.1 G.984.2 G.984.3 G.984.4 Gigabit-capable Passive Optical Networks (GPON): General characteristics Gigabit-capable Passive Optical Networks (GPON): Physical Media Dependent (PMD) layer specification Gigabit-capable Passive Optical Networks (G-PON): Transmission convergence layer specification Gigabit-capable Passive Optical Networks (G-PON): ONT management and control interface specification (=GPON) (=GPON) (=GPON) (=GPON) See table 1 Class A and B, relaxed parameters Pure-Ethernet based Equivalent MIBs via IETF Based on this framework Included Based on this framework Based on this framework Included Included Based on this framework Included Included Included Based on this framework Equivalent MIBs via IETF Based on this framework Out of IEEE scope Out of IEEE scope Out of IEEE scope Out of IEEE scope, controls supported Equivalent MIBs via IETF Equivalent MIBs via IETF Equivalent MIBs via IETF GPON comments EPON comments
The gray areas indicate where GPON and EPON are more or less equivalent.
Page 17 of 17