White Paper

AON vs. PON A comparison of two optical access network technologies and the different impact on operations

2008-05-26

KEYMILE 2008

White Paper AON vs. PON

Table of content
1. Basic facts
1.1. Passive Optical Networks (PONs) 1.2. Active Optical Networks (AONs) 1.3. Network topologies with PON and AON

3
3 4 5

2. Comparison of the technologies AON vs. PON

2.1. Bandwidth 2.2. Security and quality of services 2.3. Business case aspects
2.3.1 Investment costs (CAPEX) comparison 2.3.2 A comparison of operating expenses (OPEX)

6
6 7 9
9 10

2.4. Flexibility and scope for usage

11

3. Summary 4. Glossary

12 13

2008-05-26

KEYMILE 2008

Page 2

White Paper AON vs. PON

AON vs. PON

The telecommunications industry has had more than ten years of experience with active and passive optical networks and debates about their advantages and disadvantages have been running for that long at the very least. Fibre optic networks can be laid directly to households (Fibre-to-the-Home [FTTH]) by using Passive Optical Networks (PONs) and Active Optical Networks (AONs). In the mid 1990s, the rst large-scale PON installations were commissioned in Japan. In many other parts of the world, FTTH concepts were a long way off. The Internet was still in its infancy, attractive online offerings for private customers were practically non-existent and the technology was much too expensive in any case. As a result, most end customers did not require more bandwidth (i.e. more than ISDN was capable of at the time) till the beginning of the new millennium. The subsequent escalation of bandwidth, fuelled by the availability of broadband DSL connections via copper wire, has turned the Internet and associated services into an unparalleled success story. Today, considering all the new services like high denition IPTV, online gaming and remote surveillance, ICT service providers are well advised to seek access network solutions with even more bandwidth for the post-DSL era. However, due to the physical properties of copper wire in the last mile, VDSL2 has reached its limits, even if technology called DSM (Dynamic Spectrum Management) is being developed to boost the transmission capacity on copper. Communication solutions like WiMAX, or LTE in mobile telephony, reach the limits of their capabilities even more quickly because of poorer physical transmission properties (in comparison with copper). To date, the only solution for seemingly innite bandwidths has been the optical wave guide, also called bre optics.

1. Basic facts
The key technical difference between active and passive access technology is that a passive splitter is used for passive optical networks. The splitter is basically a kind of multi-mirror that distributes the optical signal for the subscriber line to bre optic routes without any electrical current (which is why it is called passive). The rst active optical access networks used TDM technology. The rst passive optical networks on the other hand used ATM for voice and data trafc (APON, BPON, ITU-T Standard G.983). Because early PON systems could already transmit a TV broadcast signal on a separate wavelength in the optical spectrum, simultaneously to the voice-data signal, they were popular in cable TV networks. The topologies of PON and CATV networks are also very similar to one another, so existing cable lines, or ducts can be used and costs saved in the network rollout. The objective of both PON and AON is to get the bre optics as close as possible, ideally right into the subscribers houses and apartments. This FTTHsolution is technically the best option with respect to the transmission quality and the bandwidth.

1.1. Passive Optical Networks (PONs)

As regards the core network, the rst network element of a PON network is the OLT (Optical Line Termination Unit), that provides n x 1 Gbps and n x 10 Gbps Ethernet interfaces to the core network and the PON interfaces to the subscriber. The PON types used here today are usually Ethernet-PON (EPON), Gigabit-PON (GPON) or Gigabit-Ethernet-PON (GEPON). Ethernet technology is the common denominator in all these technologies. Nowadays, EPON installations tend to occur more in the Far East and GPON more in the USA and Europe. Consequently, we will be looking at the GPON-type (ITU-Standard G.984) below.

2008-05-26

KEYMILE 2008

Page 3

White Paper AON vs. PON

1.2. Active Optical Networks (AONs)

ket Pac twork Ne

AON is a point-to-point network structure (PTP), i.e. each subscriber has their own bre optic line that is terminated on an optical concentrator (Access Node [AN]).
ket Pac twork Ne

Line OLT) ( ical Opt ination m r Te

l tica e opter v i s Pas Split

ork etw ion N l ica nat Opt Termi NT) (O

Figure 1: Subscriber line in a PON

es Acc

sN

ode et k wor Net tion l a c a i Opt Termin NT) (O

GPONs current standard can provide a maximum of 2.5 Gbps towards the subscriber (downlink) and 1.25 Gbps towards the core network (uplink) per PON interface on the OLT. To the subscriber, a passive splitter, that is either tted to an outdoor cabinet in a collocation room, or in the end subscribers premises, multiplies the signal on the bre optics into n optical subscriber branches. In other words, the network structure is a point-to-multipoint structure (PMP). The structure is similar to a tree, colloquially called a PON tree, or a twig or branch is referred to in the subscriber access line (see gure 1). In an FTTH network architecture, subscriber access is implemented using optical network termination (ONT) that terminates the optical signal and converts it into one or more electrical interfaces, such as for example 100BaseTx, POTS, ISDN or Coax. If copper wire is used for the last mile, an optical network unit (ONU) can be used instead of the optical network termination in the PON, which then provides interfaces such as POTS, ISDN or DSL. In this case, the network architecture is a Fibre-to-the-Curb (FTTC) connection. All PON subscribers receive the same optical signal at the end of the bre optics. The personal allocation of data is carried out via a time multiplex procedure, i.e. each subscriber receives their own time slot to transmit and receive. Synchronisation of the right user time slot is carried out in the ONT.

al ptic

Eth

ern

Figure 2: Subscriber line in an AON

This type of AN can be designed differently, depending on specications. Usually MetroEthernet-Switches, IP-Edge routers or MultiService Access Nodes (MSANs) with optical Ethernet interfaces are used in this case. The bre optics can be terminated by an ONT here too, but also by any Ethernet switch or IP router with an optical uplink interface. If the last mile to the subscriber is to be bridged using copper wire, DSLAMs or other MSANs are used. When MSANs are used, both copper and optical lines can be used for the last mile from the same access node.

2008-05-26

KEYMILE 2008

Page 4

White Paper AON vs. PON

1.3. Network topologies with PON and AON

ket LT Pac t O ne T ket Pac t OL ne ket Pac twork ne ket Pac t OLT ne ket Pac twork ne 10 nx 00B ase FX OLT tte Spli r T DN S/IS plus 2 L POTDSL2 VDS A OLT ON U Spli tter ON U Spli tter ON U

CO

MDF

Curb

DN S/IS plus POTDSL2 A NT

NT lus L2p L2 NT ADS VDS NT NT

E FTT B

MDU s hold e s u pe Ho rk ty o w Net

FTT C

s Gbp s 2,5 5 Gbp link ,2 n 1 w k Do Uplin ON

Spli

tter

ON T

FTT H

FTT H

Copper double pair Optical fibre

FTT

Figure 3: Overview of network topologies in PON networks

As gure 3 and 4 show, PON and AON can be used to implement all network topologies, starting with Fibre-to-the-Exchange (FTTE), to Fibre-to-the-Curb (FTTC), Fibre-to-the-Building (FTTB) and Fibre-to-the-Home (FTTH). Both technologies have to take the bre optics to the end subscriber, but can also bridge the

last mile with copper wire. For PON this can be implemented directly from the OLT, or in AON from the access node. Optical Network Units (ONUs), or DSL Access Multiplexers (DSLAMs) can be integrated to provide the POTS or ISDN interfaces for telephony and various DSL types for High-Speed Internet (HSI).
ket Pac work net

CO
AN

ket Pac work net ket Pac work net ket Pac work net ket Pac work net 100 0Ba seF X AN et ern h Eth Switc et ern h Eth Switc AN

et ern h Eth Switc

MDF

Curb

DN S/IS plus POTDSL2 A NT

AN AN DN S/IS plus 2 L POTDSL2 VDS A

DSL

AM

NT lus L2p L2 NT ADS VDS NT NT

FTT B

MDU s hold e s e u Ho k typ r o w Net

E

nx

FTT C

link own bps k/D100 M n li Up ON T

ON

FTT H

FTT H

Copper double pair Optical fibre

FTT

Figure 4: Overview of network topologies in AON networks

Despite the obvious aspects both technologies have in common, there are variations inherent in the systems that affect operations, costs and the value they provide differently. Because

PON and AON technology is so widespread and changing from one to the other is costly, operators should be aware of all the facts. The main differences are shown below.

2008-05-26

KEYMILE 2008

Page 5

White Paper AON vs. PON

2. Comparison of the technologies AON vs. PON

2.1. Bandwidth
1000

EFM Active 1 Gbps EFM Active 100 Mbps 2.4 GPON (32-split) Bonded ADSL2plus

100

75 45 24 [Mbps]

VDSL2 ADSL2plus
[km] 1

The trend towards increasing bandwidth continues unabated. Due to the launch of TV-over-IP (IPTV) there is no sign of the increase in bandwidth tailing off, in fact quite the opposite. Because of the recent launch of (HDTV) and other technically complex services such as online gaming, network operators are being encourage to outdo one another by providing more and more bandwidth. The following table compares PON and AON transmission bandwidth.

Source: DSL Forum, FTTx Summit 2007, Munich

Figure 5: Bandwidth downstream and range

AON Bandwidth allocation Good The amount allocated to the subscriber is governed by the interface type, or trafc shaping on the access node and is therefore adjustable in kilobit increments.

PON

Assessment

Average The GPON interface on the OLT nowadays is 2.5/1.25 Gbps (downlink/ uplink). The bandwidth per subscriber is determined by the splitting factor (usually 1:32 or 1:64). Modern PON systems however permit bundling of several time slots and therefore an increase in bandwidth per PON terminal point. Satisfactory With regard to the PON standards available today, the maximum feasible capacity of bre optics is the same as the total capacity of an OLT port, i.e. 2.5 Gbps (PTP connection without a splitter). Therefore, realistically the bandwidth with splitter and a separation of usually 1:32 is 78 Mbps, or at 1:64 39 Mbps (all gures relate to downstream).

AONs advantage AON clearly has the edge because of its exibility. Due to the static splitting factor and the interfaces on the OLT, PON is at a disadvantage.

Maximum bandwidth per subscriber Good As each subscriber is connected with their own bre optics, bandwidth can today be implemented at between 100 Mbps and 1 Gbps per household or company. AONs advantage AON technology is clearly better as regards the bandwidth per subscriber. The maximum bandwidth per subscriber is a lot higher. The exibility to allocate different bandwidths to individual subscribers is also greater (e.g. for corporate customers) than when PON systems are used. Depending on the splitting factor, a PON connection via bre optics supplies less bandwidth than a VDSL2 connection via copper wire. AONs advantage In this case, the PTP architecture is superior to the PONs PMP architecture. Just by converting boards, subscribers can obtain an upgrade, without the network architecture or the service of other subscribers having to be changed.

Increasing bandwidth Simple As the active access node has a modular structure, subscriber interfaces can be upgraded to include more bandwidth. It is often sufcient to just switch the bre optic lead to be able to operate it again. Difcult Depending on the systems technology, it would be feasible in the future to bundle several time slots and therefore, at the cost of the maximum number of subscribers per PON branch, to increase individual bandwidth by a factor of n + 1. The bandwidth of the PON port on the OLT is the absolute limit, i.e.. 2.5/1.25 Gbps (down/up).

2008-05-26

KEYMILE 2008

Page 6

White Paper AON vs. PON

To sum up, the PON networks predened topology makes individual changes more difcult. By terminating all the bre optics at the OLT, i.e. the same bre optic topology as in the AON (point-to-point), this disadvantage can be overcome. Therefore, for future-proof infrastructure investment, reliable point-topoint bre optics technology should always be considered.

Nowadays, the Triple Play offerings, implemented via copper wire often consist of two television channels with standard resolution (SDTV), a high-speed Internet connection (>3 Mbps) and at least one POTS or ISDN telephone connection. The current state of the art is that network operators are planning approx. 15 Mbps downlink capacity. In the future the end customer will be demanding high denition TV (HDTV). Two simultaneous TV channels will mean an unacceptable restriction for a family of four in the long term. Furthermore, currently ADSL 16 Mbps Internet access is already being marketed to private customers and including n telephone lines. Online gaming in the Far East popular for years is also looking promising in Europe. In this case, top rates of 50 Mbps per subscriber line could easily be reached. Today, standard VDSL2 access would not be able to cope. The scenario described above indicates what the private consumer will look like in the near future. If such a scenario appears exaggerated, we only have to recall the situation 10 years ago when modern end customers still used 56 kbps dial-up modems to read e-mails, for sending faxes and for home banking. In comparison to todays standard 3.5 Mbps ADSL connection, the bandwidth has increased 62-fold! Special requirements from business customers, or demands for the backhaul of sub-networks, server connections or high performance IT applications would easily exceed these quality specications and require even greater high quality performance.

2.2. Security and quality of services

An aspect in public networks that is regaining importance is Quality-of-Service (QoS), which considering todays nancial restraints is often forced to take a back seat. At the dawn of the ADSL rollout, the majority of services offered took a best effort approach, i.e. the data channel guaranteed neither a minimum bandwidth, nor any other quality features worth mentioning. As today however, Triply Play services (telephony, data and TV down one single line) are already transmitted to the subscriber, QoS applies more than ever. When surng the Web, short delays of 1 2 seconds, e.g. when clicking on a link, do not really matter. During a phone call, this level of delay is however completely unacceptable. When watching TV, it is also no fun if the picture freezes before a goal is scored. As a result, the Triple Play services must be clearly separate and allocated priority. Although theoretically unlimited bandwidth is available in a bre optic line, QoS not be forgotten. Not all QoS aspects can be responded to with bandwidth and neither PON nor AON can really provide unlimited bandwidth.

AON

PON

Assessment

Temporary increase in bandwidth (e.g. server back-up over night) Simple In an active access node, trafc shaping can regulate the bandwidth from the NMS control centre and for example during constant operation be switched to 100 Mbps, or ad-hoc to 1 Gbps. Difcult Due to the TDM procedure, a xed time slot is allocated to each customer. The signal must also be separated using a passive splitter, as passive splitters are not manageable. A further allocation of another time slot must be carried out. Simple Standard mechanisms at Ethernet/IP level can be used. AONs advantage Compared with an AON, the structure of the PON limits the exibility to make any changes in bandwidth.

Prioritising services Simple Standard mechanisms at Ethernet/IP level can be used. Undecided In this case there are no signicant differences.

2008-05-26

KEYMILE 2008

Page 7

White Paper AON vs. PON

AON Delay, jitter and other effects on quality Low Mainly inuenced by the design of the core network. Impact of faults in the access node Low As n subscribes in an active access node use n optical interfaces and the subscriber density of the interface card is relatively low compared with a PON-OLT, relatively few subscribers are affected if there is a malfunction. Effect of malfunctions and manipulation Low Thanks to the PTP architecture, each path can be assessed exactly right up to the end customers ONT at the very least. In the worst case scenario, the laser on the AN for each subscriber can be deactivated by the control centre.

PON

Assessment

Low Mainly inuenced by the design of the core network. High In an OLT, a passive splitter separates the optical subscriber interfaces into 32 or 64 signals. A subscriber subrack usually provides several subscriber interfaces. In comparison with an AON AN, a lot of subscribers are affected if a port, or even a card fails. High Within a PON tree, all the subscribers are on the same optical point. If a faulty ONT causes faulty synchronisation, or produces an optically indenable signal, a remote localisation of the malfunction in the ONT involved is not possible. As the ONTs are often in the end customers home, it is impossible to estimate how long it will take to exchange an ONT. High A PON tree is known as a shared medium, i.e. all subscriber signals are on one bre optic terminal point. By allocating the time slot, the data is separated. The setup is in the customers network termination.

Undecided In this case there are no signicant differences. AONs advantage Any faults in the AN affect fewer customers than in an OLT.

AONs advantage In the worst case scenario, a single ONT can bring an entire PON tree with up to 64 subscribers down if a technical malfunction or deliberate manipulation occurs. A faulty subscriber line on the AON can be very easily identied and eradicated.

Risk of eavesdropping (espionage) Low Each customer has dedicated bre optics. In general, eavesdropping is not possible. AONs advantage The data in the PON network is encrypted in a similar way to WLAN, nevertheless it is technically still possible to eavesdrop on another subscriber on the same PON tree. However, in-depth technical knowledge is required to do so.

Reliability of the subscriber line (between the customer and AN and passive splitter) Good In an active network, a customer can basically be connected in a ring, or using dual-homing. In other words, a customer can be connected twice. Poor If the connection is cut here, several hundred bre optics are interrupted and have to be repaired. Poor To date, there are no plans to connect customers twice in one PON. AONs advantage Availability of the PON, compared with the AON, is much worse.

Reliability of the subscriber line (between passive splitter and OLT, or AN and edge switch) Good In this case, only one bre optic line has to be maintained. PONs advantage In reality cables are cut more often than is generally thought. A PON link between the splitter and OLT consists of a tiny bre optic that can be repaired in a few hours.

2008-05-26

KEYMILE 2008

Page 8

White Paper AON vs. PON

2.3. Business case aspects

Using bre optic cable promises virtually unlimited bandwidths, however the network operator only ever has just the copper wire line in the last mile. That means that if the DSL technology is no longer adequate, new optical cables must always be laid. The high investment costs of this infrastructure, combined with telecommunications providers falling revenue at the same time, mean it is often difcult to put a business case to investors and network providers management boards. Nowadays the ICT industry is spoilt with returns on investment of 1 3 years. But when expanding FTTH and FTTC networks, (regardless of whether PON or AON technol-

ogy is used), it sometimes takes more than 10 years. Nevertheless, depending on the application and conditions at the time, business cases vary greatly, depending on whether passive or active access technology is used for an FTTH rollout. The main differences in investment costs (capital expenses, CAPEX) and operating costs (operational expenses, OPEX) are compared with one another below.

2.3.1 Investment costs (CAPEX) comparison

AON PON Assessment Costs of the subscribers terminal equipment (CPE) Low As standard Ethernet technology can be used. Today, simple ONTs (e.g. Ethernet media converters), with functions similar to an ADSL-NT, are available for under $30. High As ONTs in the PON environment are (despite standardisation) not interchangeable between different manufacturers. Which means the selection of models is restricted and the savings provided, because a larger number is produced, are negligible. AONs advantage The CAPEX bonus of AON networks should not be underestimated, because the CPE share in the total costs is usually the greatest (often >50 %).

Costs of the network technology (active components) High Because each subscriber has a dedicated laser port on the AN. If a bre optic path is divided up into several customer connections, additional active equipment is required. High Because of the greater number of optical subscriber interfaces in the access node. Network rollout costs High Each subscriber must be connected individually in a star shape. Different Depends on the bre optic topology. If the same topology is used as in an AON, the costs are similar (bre-rich approach). If the bre optic network is tree shaped, cost savings are possible compared with an AON. A PON network architecture using a small splitter with 2 or 4 branches allows costs to be shared efciently (e.g. in terraced houses). PONs advantage Depending on the bre optic topology, PON network architecture can be cheaper in large-scale rollouts. Low As a single port on the OLT can be shared by several customers. If a bre optic has to be shared by several customers, a simple passive splitter can be used. Low As one laser on the OLT is shared by n subscribers because the passive splitter is used. PONs advantage Because optical paths can be used by several subscribers, PON is a bonus because of the price per subscriber.

Costs of the network technology (passive components and infrastructure) PONs advantage In this case, passive technology clearly has the upper hand.

2008-05-26

KEYMILE 2008

Page 9

White Paper AON vs. PON

2.3.2 A comparison of operating expenses (OPEX)

AON Space required for systems technology High Because of the port density of the active AN, the space required is just as great as for a DSLAM. Low Because a single optical port on the OLT for up to 64 customers is used, the space required at the OLT for systems technology is very low. Over 8,000 subscribers can be placed on a single rack using todays technology. PONs advantage PONs space-saving potential in the collocation room is greater compared with AON. Due to the wide ranges of PON paths, in comparison with copper wire, some MDF sites may not be necessary at all. PON Assessment

Space required by cable Great One bre optic cable at the AN per subscriber. Energy consumption High Because of the high number of laser interfaces. Level of maintenance High Active access nodes require an external power supply, plus battery to supply emergency electricity. This is a disadvantage, above all in FTTC networks, where the AN is on the outdoor cabinet. Low Because in AON networks it is easy to carry out an end-to-end diagnosis right into the subscriber's home, due to the PTP topology and the possibility of assessing the dedicated optical transmission path via the NMS. Follow-up costs for upgrades Low Because of the better granularity of the ANs and the separation of the customers (PTP), individual upgrades can be carried out in the AON and for example CPE can be exchanged. High An entire PON tree is affected by an upgrade. All ONTs have to be exchanged at the same time. As a result, individual upgrades are virtually precluded. AONs advantage Because of the greater individual exibility, AON has an advantage where upgrades are concerned. Low In an outdoor cabinet, the passive splitter needs virtually no maintenance. External power supply is not required. Malfunctions are very seldom. PONs advantage In this case, the PON is also at an advantage because there are fewer active components in the network. Low Because of the passive splitting. PONs advantage Because of the passive splitter and higher subscriber density on the OLT, the PON is much better in this case. Low One bre optic cable can supplied to up to 64 subscribers. PONs advantage The space PON saves in bre optic cable is particularly critical in central OLT locations.

Level of difculty in identifying and eradicating malfunctions High As in the worst case scenario, a faulty ONT cannot be deactivated by the NMS centre. A local visit to the customer is required. Depending on the accessibility of the ONT, this can take a long time. AONs advantage Identifying and eradicating faults in the AON is a lot easier than in the PON, due to the PTP topology. Nevertheless, in the PON the ability to analyse faults by using monitoring systems can be improved.

2008-05-26

KEYMILE 2008

Page 10

White Paper AON vs. PON

2.4. Flexibility and scope for usage

Previous ndings in the comparison of AON and PON have already highlighted key differAON PON

ences. Apart from technological differences, there are further differences between the two optical access technologies, depending on the operators business strategy.
Assessment

Suitability for connecting up housing estates (green eld) Satisfactory The requirements for rolling out active networks are higher. Good The bre optic infrastructure is simpler. The requirements for passive splitters in outdoor cabinets are low (no power needed, no problems with heat/cold). Poor The customers in a PON tree are all treated the same. Individual features can only be implemented at protocol level above layer 3. PONs advantage Because of the lower requirements, a PON network can be installed more quickly and cheaply.

Level of suitability for connecting large-scale/business customers Very good In this case advantages on exibility, security and performance really pay out. A router or switch can be used as an optical network termination to separate services. AONs advantage Requirements from bulk customers are always special, PON network concepts tend to be more static. Therefore, in this case the active approach is a lot better.

Level of suitability to provide telephony and high-speed Internet (HIS) at the same time Good No major restrictions. Good No major restrictions. Undecided From a technical point of view, both PON and AON can be used here without any problems. AONs advantage An optical network rollout is a long term investment. If we assume that HDTV will be the standard format in the future, active networks have the upper hand, due to their high levels of bandwidth reserves. AONs advantage The requirements for additional and possibly new services when designing a new network are often not specied to the last detail. PON's limits could signicantly inhibit business cases in the future. AONs advantage In this case, the operator of an AON network can act more exibly and make use of real price savings. When using feature-rich IP equipment instead of an ONT, the provider can expand his range of services by leasing additional features (additional VPNs, hosted PBX) AONs advantage Optical components can be selected individually AONs advantage As an active access node is similar to an Ethernet switch in the way it works and provides standard Ethernet interfaces, it can also be used for various backhaul jobs.

Level of suitability to provide telephony, HSI and television (Triple Play) at the same time Good For transmitting n HDTV channels, AON can also mobilise enough bandwidth reserves. Satisfactory PON does have the advantage that some systems are capable of transmitting analogue TV (similar to a CATV network), however the usual bandwidth for broadcasting several HDTV channels might not be sufcient. Poor The range of specialised terminal equipment is very limited because of dependency on manufacturers. The rather inexible bandwidth management, based on TDM procedures, is a disadvantage. Poor Today there is no real interoperability between rival PON technologies, even within the same PON technology. Operators are forced to purchase the ONTs and ONUs from the OLT supplier (dependency).

Suitability to provide additional services Good AON technology can be adapted to suit individual requirements.

Flexibility of usages as regards optical network termination Good As AON uses standardised Ethernet interfaces, a variety of different devices can be used for network termination.

Ranges (max. length of the subscriber access line) Very good Maximum of about 70 km without repeaters. Good A normal AN subscriber interface can also be used for backhaul jobs (e.g. of a DSLAM, radio equipment etc). Good Up to 20 km depending on passive splitter. Poor A PON interface board can only be used for implementing PON trees.

Backhaul of sub-networks and network elements

2008-05-26

KEYMILE 2008

Page 11

White Paper AON vs. PON

3. Summary
Finally we should not forget that a generic comparison of technologies, such as this one, cannot always apply in all cases. The balance can easily shift from one side or the other depending on statutory, commercial or structural constraints. Basically, passive optical networks are a better choice for network operators who want to supply a very large number of subscribers, like the (previous) network operators who had a monopoly. These operators tend to aim more for the mass and private customer market. In this case, PON can throw its commercial benets into the balance and at the end of the day compensate for various operational disadvantages. Active optical technology is more suitable for private network operators, that either lay their own bre optic infrastructure, or use debundled bre optic lines (Fibre Local Loops). AON is perfect for high-prot end customer segments (such as for example business
Requirement Bandwidth Bandwidth allocation Maximum bandwidth per subscriber Bandwidth increase Security and quality services Temporary increase in bandwidth e.g. Overnight server mirroring Prioritising services Delay, jitter and other effects on quality Impact of malfunctions in the access node Effect of malfunctions and manipulation Risk of eavesdropping (espionage) Transmission reliability, I. Transmission reliability, II. Operating costs (OPEX) Place required for systems technology Room required by cable Energy consumption Level of maintenance Level of difculty in identifying and eradicating faults Follow-up costs for upgrades Investment costs (CAPEX) Costs of the subscribers terminal equipment (CPE) Costs of the network technology (active components) AONs suitability PONs suitability Individual assessment

customers, multi-dwellings, universities, local authorities etc), as in these cases exibility, quality and security are demanded. And because of the way they are structured, PON networks struggle to full these requirements. As standardised ONTs are used, the commercial aspects of supplying households on a large scale should be weighed up too and can compete with PON systems. Nevertheless, as PON networks are on the increase, it is likely that some of the disadvantages of PON listed here will gradually be eliminated. However some of the inherent features of a PON will remain. But one thing is almost certain, the bre optic based access network, and therefore end customer products too, will constantly be upgraded to handle more than 50 Mbps. The whole issue is set to stay an exciting one

2008-05-26

KEYMILE 2008

Page 12

White Paper AON vs. PON

Requirement Costs of the network technology (infrastructure) Rollout costs Flexibility and scope for usage Suitability for connecting up housing estates (green eld) Suitability for connecting bulk/business customers Suitability for providing telephony and high-speed Internet (HSI) Suitability for providing telephony, HIS and TV Suitability for providing additional services Flexibility of usage re optical network termination Ranges Backhaul of sub-networks and network elements

AONs suitability

PONs suitability

Individual assessment

4. Glossary
Abbreviation 100BaseTx 3G 4G ADSL AN AON APON ATM BPON CaTV CO DSL DSLAM EFM EPON FTTC FTTE FTTH GEPON GPON HDTV ICT IP IPTV Description 100Mbit/s Ethernet, copper interface Third generation of the mobile telephony standard Fourth generation of the mobile telephony standard Asymmetrical DSL Access node Active Optical Network ATM PON Asynchronous Transfer Mode Broadband PON Cable television Central Ofce Digital Subscriber Line DSL Access Multiplexer Ethernet First Mile Ethernet PON Fiber-to-the-Curb Fiber-to-the-Exchange Fiber-to-the-Home Gigabit Ethernet PON Gigabit PON High Denition TV Information Communication Technology Internet Protocol Television over IP Abbreviation ISDN ITU-T Description Integrated Services Digital Network International Telecommunication Union, Telecommunication Standardisation Sector Long Term Evolution Main Distribution Frame Multi Dwelling Unit Multi-Service Access Node Network Management System Optical Line Termination Optical Network Termination Private (Automatic) Branch Exchange Point-to-Multipoint Passive Optical Network Plain Old Telephony Service Point-to-Point Quality of Service Subscriber access line Standard Denition TV Time Division Multiplex Very high-speed Digital Subscriber Line Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access

LTE MDF MDU MSAN NMS OLT ONT P(A)BX PMP PON POTS PTP QoS SAL SDTV TDM VDSL WiMAX

2008-05-26

KEYMILE 2008

Page 13

White Paper AON vs. PON

Publisher KEYMILE International GmbH

Europaring F15 202 2345 Brunn am Gebirge, Austria Phone Fax Internet Mail +43 22 36 32 045-3231 +43 22 36 32 045-3239 www.keymile.com info@keymile.com

2008-05-26

KEYMILE 2008

Page 14