Shawn,
Re. 1) – the statements on flagship speeds apply really only to residential deployments. In terms of business services, there are no flagship speeds, and we deploy any data rates that make economic sense on the given platform. The evaluation of a breakpoint is typically done by comparing TCO for a P2P solution providing similar capacity, i.e., when it becomes cheaper to offer a specific number of Gbps to customer over dedicated fiber versus using shared medium. TCO in this case includes fiber cost, edge router cost, etc. to make sure that the comparison does make sense. From my perspective, the assumption in point 1) is false. The driver is to have ability to offer more than 25G in the future per customer, and that was the reason why we started looking at 50G and 100G options, meaning 50G and 100G MAC speeds, not aggregate for 4 independent channels. That is what was written into our objectives.
Re 2) – there is a lot of speculation as to where tunable optics will go. It is reasonably well established in long haul transport today, but even there cost delta is still there, after all the years of development and the reasons for deployment are different than in access. For some reason there is an underlying assumption that we need to build 4x25G system, that looks and feels like NG-PON2. I do not know where it came from and I do not believe this is what we were discussing in SG phase. I would be concerned that proving the need for such a project and its unique market identify would be rather hard, given that NG-PON2 is in development.
At this time, I would suggest we focus on delivering wat we set out to do: 25G system, 50G system, and 100G system – there are a lot of challenges without adding extra options to address undocumented requirements. Yes, we can bake in a lot of bells and whistles into this system, but the end goal is simple: low cost, scalable system, with typical Ethernet cost curve and reliability. We have a long way to cover in this project, and a lot of hurdles to come over, let’s not add to the already long list of technical challenges we need to address.
Regards
Marek Hajduczenia, PhD, CCNA CSCO12874393
Network Architect, Principal Engineer
Bright House Networks
From: Shawn Esser [mailto:shawn.esser@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2016 12:51 PM
To: Marek Hajduczenia; STDS-802-3-NGEPON@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [802.3_NGEPON] 25G ONU Options to increase Network Capacity
Some more explanation based on questions raised by Marek:
1. “Some assumptions do not make sense to me, for example, limiting capacity per ONU to 25G. If that was the case, we’d be working on 25G x 4 system, and not on 25/50/100G system.”
I am not limiting capacity per ONU to 25G. I am still assuming that there would be 3 major types of ONU’s with capacity of 25G, 50G and 100G. The purpose of the presentation is to focus on options for the 25G ONU since a few of my hypotheses lead to the conclusion that ONU’s with 25G capacity could satisfy a vast majority of premises even when network capacity goes to 50G and 100G. Slides 4-5 show this reasoning based on the attached email from Jorge Salinger that states that the top data service tiers are based on network capacity (not ONU capacity):
“- Flagship peak tiers (these are the ones that the majority of the subscribers take) are generally scaled up to 1/3 of the X network capacity
- Billboard peak tiers (these are the advertised highest tiers that very few subscribers take) are generally scaled up to 1/2 of the X network capacity”
It would be good to hear from cable operators on the hypothesis of ONU’s with 25G capacity being able to satisfy much of the service tiers expected even when going to 50G and 100G network capacity – of course, this would be looking into the crystal ball to predict 7-10 years from now. If this is a possibility, then I think there is value of the standard allowing 25G ONU’s to also exist at λ1, λ2, λ3 (and maybe λ4) . If the group does see potential value in this, then we need to discuss if there is value that the standard has provisions to allow wavelength-tunable 25G ONU’s. If the group thinks the standard should limit 25G ONU to only λ0, then obviously wavelength-tunability provides no value.
2. “ I fail to see how 3.5x cost of optics [for wavelength-tunable 25G ONU] is better than 1.5x for fixed solution [for fixed-wavelength 25G ONU]”
a. Moreover, I think the cost of wavelength-tunable 25G ONU (3.5X) needs to be compared with the cost of the 50G ONU (2.5X) and 100G ONU (5.5X). Individuals have stated that ONU’s with 50G and 100G capacity should be deployed in lieu of deploying 25G ONU’s at fixed wavelengths of λ1, λ2, λ3, even if the data service tier to the premise only need to be 25G or less. Only 1 set of optics would be active in the 50G and 100G ONU’s in this case. The argument is that OpEx is higher with 3 additional, different 25G ONU’s versus just using 50G ONU and/or 100G ONU even when only 25G ONU capacity is needed . Following this same reasoning, a wavelength-tunable 25G ONU would reduce part numbers thus reducing OpEx compared to 3 different fixed-wavelength 25G ONU’s. Also, a wavelength-tunable 25G ONU provides more flexibility than fixed-wavelength 25G ONU’s because a premise can be flexibly moved to another wavelength to manage bandwidth contention – this would provide further OpEx savings. A 100G ONU would have to be deployed to provide this same flexibility.
The cost for wavelength-tunable 25G ONU (3.5X for optics only) is estimated to be close to 50G ONU (2.5X for optics only) and less than 100G ONU (5.5X for optics only). 50G ONU and 100G ONU could have higher costs in other areas such as 50G/100G ASIC, larger enclosures, more power consumption, etc.
b. With regards to 3.5X cost premium for wavelength-tunable optics, I just took this from Glen’s information. It is possible that the cost premium could be lower. I am aware of work going on that could substantially lower the costs of wavelength-tunable lasers – I don’t know if this is already baked into the forecasted 3.5X premium or not. Again, it is very hard to predict prices of optics in 5-10 years. Do we want to exclude wavelength-tunable options based on forecasts that are almost always wrong?
Below is a decision tree that I created to try to move this forward. Some of the decisions can happen in parallel.
Thanks,
Shawn
From: Marek Hajduczenia [mailto:marek.hajduczenia@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Sunday, March 06, 2016 12:04 PM
To: STDS-802-3-NGEPON@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_NGEPON] 25G ONU Options to increase Network Capacity
Francois,
I am sure that we can draw different conclusions based on this deck, depending on discussion at the meeting. Some points made in Shaw’s presentation need further clarification. Some assumptions do not make sense to me, for example, limiting capacity per ONU to 25G. If that was the case, we’d be working on 25G x 4 system, and not on 25/50/100G system. We are not. Also, I fail to see how 3.5x cost of optics is better than 1.5x for fixed solution. This 2.5x times delta will be substantial, when looking at the past cost of ONU optics when it was coming into the market.
Also, note that any reason for going with tunable optics becomes moot when we consider 50G systems: then the cost for tunable optics would be 7x higher and for fixed, it is 2.5 higher when compared with fixed single channel 25G system. The delta seems to grow quite steeply.
I would suggest that we follow Shaw’s conclusion and try to settle on 25G single wavelength solution first, which will open opportunity to go and design other elements of the system (PCS, FEC, etc.).
Regards
Marek Hajduczenia, PhD, CCNA CSCO12874393
Network Architect, Principal Engineer
Bright House Networks
From: Francois Menard [mailto:fmenard@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Sunday, March 06, 2016 11:48 AM
To: STDS-802-3-NGEPON@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_NGEPON] 25G ONU Options to increase Network Capacity
Importance: High
Folks,
Here is a summary of my analysis of Shaw’s presentation on 25G ONU options for increasing network capacity in 100G EPON:
1. There are 9 use cases based on capacity shared by 32 ONUs per PON:
2. - Use case 1 = 25G ONU with 0.8 Gbps Sustained Speeds per ONU
3. - Use case 2 = 25G ONU allowing 8.3 Gbps Flagship Speed on the PON
4. - Use case 3 = 25G ONU allowing 12.5 Gbps Billboard Speed on the PON
5. - Use case 4 = 50G ONU with 1.6 Gbps Sustained Speed per ONU
6. - Use case 5 = 50G ONU allowing 16.6 Gbps Flagship Speed on the PON
7. - Use case 6 = 50G ONU allowing 25 Gbps Billboard Speed on the PON
8. - Use case 7 = 100G ONU with 3.1 Gbps Sustained Speeds per ONU
9. - Use case 8 = 100G ONU allowing 33.3 Gbps Flagship Speed on PON
10. - Use case 9 = 100G ONU allowing 50 Gbps Billboard Speed on PON
11. There are four kinds of λ pairs: λ0, λ1, λ2, λ3
12. An O-band fixed channel for λ0 makes the most sense to achieve the lowest costs (less burst mode dispersion compensation to deal with at the OLT) & Laser costs at par with 10G EPON.
13. λ1, λ2 & λ3 should be DWDM in C-band and DWDM (to be in the contiguous tuning range of a Tunable DBR laser (limited to 10 nm))
14. There are 7 kinds of ONUs Types A,B,C,D,E,F,G
15. - ONU Type A = 1X relative cost = 25G/λ0 (1 O-Band ch.)
16. - ONU Type B = 1.5X relative cost = 25G/λ1 (1 C-Band DWDM ch.)
17. - ONU Type C = 1.5X relative cost = 25G/λ2 (1 C-Band DWDM ch.)
18. - ONU Type D = 1.5X relative cost = 25G/λ3 (1 C-Band DWDM ch.)
19. - ONU Type E = 2.5X relative costs = 50G fixed on λ1..2 (Two C-Band DWDM ch.)
20. - ONU Type F = 3.5X relative costs = 25G Tunable in Tx & Rx across λ1..3 (1 Tuneable C-Band DWDM ch.)
21. - ONU Type G = 5.5X relative costs = 100G fixed on λ0..3 (1 O-Band + 3 C-Band DWDM ch.)
22. There are 3 options for network expansion all the way to 100 Gbps short of use cases 8 & 9: 1, 2A & 2B
23. - Option 1 uses ONU Types A, E ,G
24. - Option 2A uses ONU Types A, B, C, D
25. - Option 2B uses ONU types A & F
26. The relative costs for use cases 1 to 7 for each option are calculated as follows:
27. - Option 1 = 8*1X + 8*2.5X + 16*5.5X = 116X
28. - Option 2 = 8*1X + 8X 1.5X + 8*1.5X + 8*1.5X =44X
29. - Option 3 = 8*1X + 24 * 3.5X = 92X
30. The relative costs for use cases 8 & 9 are not calculated as depending on the number of ONUs servicing 33.3 Gbps Flagship or 50 Gbps Billboard Speeds on the PON
From draw I propose to draw the following conclusions:
1. Use cases 4, 5, 6 & 7 associated with 50G & 100G ONUs can be accommodated by Type F ONUs
2. Type F ONUs avoid use of CWDM/DWDM Mux Demux inside ONU
3. Type F ONU can replace use of Type B,C,D ONUs
4. Type F ONUs can satisfy Use Cases 1 to 7
Shaw’s presentation supports my postulate. Should the relative costs of the Type F ONU be reduced from 3.5X to become that of a Type B, C or D ONU, i.e. 1.5X, then the relative costs of Option 2B becomes 8*1X + 25*1.5X = 44X, which is same as 2A. Another option would be 2B’ based on 32 * 1.5X = 48X with the number of ONU types being reduced to 1, should λ0 is be the same tuning range as λ1..3. Since Option 2A with a relative cost of 44X requires four kinds of ONUs, its deployment OpEx will be much greater than option 2B or 2B’.
Therefore I offer the following proposal which may accommodate the best of both worlds. Having a low cost λ0 at part with 10G EPON, along with that of accommodating the use case of allowing Type F ONUs to be used on λ0, thus allowing all users with Type F ONUs to make use of 100% of the capacity of the 100G E-PON. Further, a low cost Type E ONU which may be able to be manufactured with two instances of a Type F ONUs and a Type G ONU may be able to be manufactured with four instances of a Type F ONU. Further, should the number of channels be greater than 4, the ability to re-use multiple instances of Type F ONUs for channel bonding will make sense. Furthermore, should there be more than one instance of 100G EPON on two sets of 4 channels on the same PON, ONUs based on Type F components tunable across all instances of 100G EPON will allow the same ONU to roam across all instances of 100G EPON.
The proposal is to accomodate at least a a fifth channel λ4 on top of λ0..3, only applicable in the direction of the ONU to the OLT. This 5th channel would not need to exist in the direction of the OLT to the ONU, as the OLT will not need tunable transceiver like in NG-PON2. Further, unlike NG-PON2, in NG-EPON, it is not yet anticipated that an external wavelength multiplexer would be utilized and rather, it seems to be expected that any increase in speed on the PON will require swapping out the OLT transceiver with a single 25 channel pair with one with two or four instances of 25G channel pairs and that the OLT transceiver will include an integrated Mux/Demux. NG-PON2 allows for an external mux/demux with individual 10G channels coming from different OLT ports.
The reason why the 5th channel will not be required in the direction of the OLT to the ONU, is that I expect the 1.5X relative cost of Type F ONU to remain exactly the same for an ONU capable of Tunable Rx across λ0..4 versus that of λ1..3, given the use of discrete tunable filters in front of a single instance of a wideband avalanche photodetector. This is unlike the case of a III-V gain chip, which is limited in its gain range with the laws of physics defying the possibility of covering O-band and C-band with a single III-V chip instance.
The use case I fear is that of having to implement λ0 inside a Type G ONU requiring to include an O-Band as well as a C-Band transmitter in the same ONU, which would not make sense from the perspective of a photonics integrated circuit design, as well as would nullifying the benefits of allowing NG-EPON to evolve its tuning range beyond that of four channels.
CONCLUSION: Thanks to Shawn for putting together this nice relative cost framework fulfilling IEEE’ policy for openly discussing about the costs of implementing standards. I have used it to show how the relative costs for Option 2B (44X) could become at par with that of Option 2A (44X). I have also show how the marginally higher relative cost of Option 2B’ (48X) (if λ0 is in the same tuning range as λ1..3) would evidently have a lower OpEx for operators than Option 2A (as only 1 kind of 25G ONU would be needed in Option 2B’ versus that of four kinds of ONUs in Option 2A). I have used the framework to demonstrates that a single kind of Type F ONU could cover 7 out of the 9 use cases of 100G EPON.
Since the deployment of 100G EPON is years away, users of 100G EPON will be disadvantage once Type F ONUs become available at a 1.5X relative cost over that of Type A ONUs, should 100G EPON not accommodate use of Tunable ONUs.
-=Francois=-
--
Francois Menard
CTO & Co-Founder
AEPONYX inc.
Cell: +1 (819) 609-1394
E-Mail: francois.menard@xxxxxxxxxxx
From: Shawn Esser <shawn.esser@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: Shawn Esser <shawn.esser@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 18:34
To: "STDS-802-3-NGEPON@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <STDS-802-3-NGEPON@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [802.3_NGEPON] 25G ONU Options to increase Network Capacity
I put together the attached presentation to try to move the 25G ONU philosophy forward. I will not be at Macau but maybe this will help the rest of the group. From the Preface slide:
Limiting wavelengths and/or optics capability (i.e. wavelength-tunability) for 25G ONU makes writing the standard simpler, may reduce R&D expenses for vendors, and may provide lower product costs due to increased manufacturing volumes.
More wavelengths and optics capability (i.e. wavelength-tunability) for 25G ONU may reduce CapEx and/or OpEx for operators to deploy additional wavelengthsλ1, λ2, λ3. It may not.
Lowest cost for optics at λ0must remain #1 priority no matter what
Excluding capabilities in the standard at this early stage risks:
PON solution that is too expensive to deploy for λ1, λ2, λ3 -> bad for everyone
re-writing the standard in the future
Standard could have provisions for these capabilities and allow time & market forces to determine if they make sense to develop and deploy
Either way, a decision needs to be made quickly so we can move forward on the standard
At the end, I propose a straw vote question on this topic.
Any feedback is appreciated.
If anyone likes the graphics in the presentation, you are welcome to re-use them.
Thanks,
Shawn
From: Barry Colella [mailto:barry.colella@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2016 8:08 AM
To: STDS-802-3-NGEPON@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_NGEPON] ONU ASIC and wavelength plans
Francois,
I’m saying that ideally 25G ONU and 50G ONU can be fixed or tunable if not disallowed by wavelength selection (and technical feasibility)
On point 2 I agree with Marek
-Barry
From: Marek Hajduczenia [mailto:marek.hajduczenia@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2016 6:51 AM
To: STDS-802-3-NGEPON@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_NGEPON] ONU ASIC and wavelength plans
Francois,
Just one note: we are already using 1260 – 1280nm band for 10G-EPON. XGS-PON is nothing more than 10G-EPON in disguise (yes, they did change a few things at logical layer, so what). I am not sure though what point you’re trying to make – reuse of 1260-1280 band for NG-EPON would block the coexistence / backward compatibility with 10G-EPON, which is one of our goals for the project.
If we forgot backward compatibility with 1G-EPON, we have plenty of real estate in O band to work with, without the need to kill off compatibility with 10G-EPON.
Marek
From: Francois Menard [mailto:fmenard@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2016 1:31 AM
To: STDS-802-3-NGEPON@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_NGEPON] ONU ASIC and wavelength plans
Barry wrote > I agree with Ed that the second, third fourth channel is where we can start adding the cost and this is where a tunable may make sense. Of course the cost of a tunable must not exceed 2x the cost of a non-tunable.
Barry, are you making the point that until such time the OLT has a Gen2 or Gen3 transceiver on the PON, it makes no sense for the ONU to be tunable ?
My view is that even if the OLT has a Gen2 or Gen3 transceiver, it would still make sense for a Gen1 ONU to be tunable across all two channels of a Gen 2 OLT transceiver or across all four channels of a Gen 3 OLT transceiver. To the same end, a Gen2 ONU could be tunable on both of its channels, so it could roam on any of the four channels of a Gen3 OLT transceiver. Only Gen3 ONUs would not take advantage of tunability, for having a quad transmission / receiver array. Of course, if the number of channels is greater than four ( NG-PON2 already has eight), such as the use case I’ve pointed to earlier where two NG-EPON instances on two sets of four channels could be there on the same PON and the 100 Gbps ONU could roam any of its four channels onto any of the channels of the two instances of NG-EPON on the same PON.
Barry wrote > If the goal is to just provide a lot of inflexible cheap incremental bandwidth (not a bad goal) than we can declare that all ONU will use 4 CWDM channels in the O band and be done with the discussion.
I’m not sure CWDM is an adequate solution at this bitrate. I’ve been meaning to run some simulations on the effect of four wave mixing in the O-band at high bitrates. I like the idea that gain chips with quantum dots are potentially easier to make in the O band (and less expensive) than in the C band, allowing better resiliency to back reflections and possibly sparing the costs of having to package an isolator in the ONU. Finally, I’m not sure CWDM technology lasers have the required linewith to combat chromatic dispersion at such a high bitrate, even if its 25 Gbps over distances of 20 km. I think there is merit in being able to consider the 1260-1280 spectrum proposed for XGS-PON for more than a single channel.
F.
From: Harstead, Ed (Nokia - US) [mailto:ed.harstead@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 3:06 PM
To: STDS-802-3-NGEPON@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_NGEPON] ONU ASIC and wavelength plans
Absolutely. A gen-1 25 Gb/s single-lane EPON should provide 2.5x more bandwidth than 10G EPON at less than 2.5x the cost. That won’t happen if you toss in a tunable laser (and tunable receiver filter) in the ONU, and put wavelengths on a DWDM grid. Let’s defer that cost and complexity to the 2nd lane.
Ed
From: EXT Glen Kramer [mailto:glen.kramer@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 2:14 PM
To: STDS-802-3-NGEPON@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_NGEPON] ONU ASIC and wavelength plans
Somehow, just because the end target is 100G-EPON, people think that we need to utilize the 100G EPON capacity from day one. And if we don’t have 100G ONUs at day one, then we have to fill this capacity with 25G ONUs.
This is not what we set to do. The generation 1 is a single-lane EPON. Yes, starting with tunable optics and utilizing 4 lanes will provide 4x of sustained throughput per ONU. But that would be at more than 4x the cost.
According to my latest market data, the cost of tunable ONU optics today is ~9x that of 10G/10G-EPON ONU optics. Projections out to 2020 show it to drop to 3.5x the cost of 10/10 ONU optics, which is still very high.
Is this not why after completing NG-PON2 standard, SG15 shifted focus to XGS-PON that uses a fixed single wavelength 10/10 optics?
If the same cost ratio between tunable and fixed optics remains for the 25G tunable and 25G fixed, then the cost of 50G ONUs will likely be lower than tunable 25G ONUs. A 50G ONU obviously can burst at 50Gb/s peak rate, but additionally can operate as a 25G ONU on either of the channels, or even can operate as two independent 25G ONUs. So, we may spend time and efforts developing the first generation based on tunable optics, but then why wouldn’t operators just skip gen 1 and go directly to 50G ONUs with 2 fixed channels?
Glen
From: Francois Menard [mailto:fmenard@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 7:02 AM
To: STDS-802-3-NGEPON@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_NGEPON] ONU ASIC and wavelength plans
Marek,
Here is what I understand so far:
Per what Glen has presented: The OLT starts with a Gen 1 transceiver, which is stuck at 25 Gbps until it is replaced with a Gen 2 at 50 Gbps. Only the OLT transceiver is replaced with a Gen 3 transceiver, would it then become possible to add 100 Gbps ONUs on the PON. With a Gen 1 OLT transceiver on the PON, 100 Gbps ONUs would be limited to 25 Gbps.
However, in NG-PON2, the use of an external WM allows for different OLT ports (or different OLT’s) to be the source of the additional instances of 10 Gbps channel (up to 8 from 8 different line cards or OLT shelves is allowed). Therefore this allows pay as you grow, in service, with no downtime without requirement of retiring out OLT transceivers. Is this a benefit or a pain in the rear end for operators ? Benefits allow for greater reliability, pay as you grow from cheaper 10 Gbps fixed XFPs/SFP+ with burst mode receivers. Pain in the butt means dealing with the WM and increased footprint.
With regards to the benefits of being able to get a 25 Gbps Tunable Tx / Tunable Rx ONU to roam across channels, here are the benefits:
- Serviceability of the PON port. If an ONU can move to another channel while the one that is down is being serviced, then everybody is happy.
- Enhanced average throughput on the PON at the expense of peak speed. For instances, with 32 ONUs and 8 lambdas @ 25 Gbps, average throughput would be 25 Gbps / 4 = 6.25 Gbps rather than 25 Gbps / 32 = 0.78 Gbps, which is 8 times greater. Perhaps this is not required for all applications, but as soon as you have mobile fronthaul, or business services on the PON, this capability becomes important.
- As soon as the tuning range at the ONU exceeds the number of users on the PON (and you have an equally sized multi-wavelength Comb laser + Rx Array in the OLT transceiver like what is being done in the OpenOptics MSA), then it becomes possible to turn off burst mode operation both for transmission on the ONU as well as for reception in the OLT. You’re now doing WDM-PON on power splitters. Each user gets a dedicated channel. This is where we want to go in the end with all of this.
- Achieving greater 4 times the throughput of the maximum line rate of a single channel, is all about packaging the cost structure of 4 tunable ONUs in one ONU and to have the MAC and ASIC to deal with the four transceivers. It is perfectly possible to imagine the OLT transceiver would support 32 channels and that an ONU would only be able to bond 4 channels. Then the question becomes which 4 channels to bond in a pool of 32. If the ONU is not tunable, then you are not able to take advantage of assigning different bonded channels to different ONUs.
-=Francois=-
--
Francois Menard
CTO & Co-FounderAEPONYX inc.
Cell: +1 (819) 609-1394
E-Mail: francois.menard@xxxxxxxxxxx