Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
GPON
A Comparative Study
Table Of Contents
1 INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................................................3
3 CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................................................................15
4 APPENDIX ........................................................................................................................................................17
Page 2 of 17
EPON vs. GPON
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.
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
With the explosion of the Internet, it didn’t 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
EPON vs. GPON
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.
Downstream:
1480-1500 nm Capable of multiplexing
• Wavelength
downstream for video Same (BPON)
arrangement Upstream: 1260- distribution (1550-1560 nm)
1360 nm
Page 4 of 17
EPON vs. GPON
Layer 3 IP Layer 3 IP
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
EPON vs. GPON
IP/ATM IP/Ethernet
ATM ATM
XC XC
TDM ATM TDM
BPON
Service Service
adaptation adaptation
? ?
GPON
Service Service
adaptation adaptation
TDM TDM
Ethernet Ethernet
IP/Ethernet
IP/Ethernet XC XC
Ethernet
TDM/
Ethernet
EPON
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
EPON vs. GPON
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.
Provisioning of ONT service defining layers above L2 IETF MIB / SNMP OMCI (Ethernet or ATM)
BW granting, Encryption key switching, and DBA MPCP (higher layer for encryption key) Embedded OAM (Header overhead)
Auto discovery, and all other PMD and GTC mgt info. MPCP and EFM OAM PLOAM (ATM)
LLID
OLT
LLID
ONT
An ONT is identified by the LLID. In addition, the VLAN_ID can be used for further addressing. A given VLAN
is identified as LLIDÆVLAN_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 ONT’s. In the ATM mode, a given VC is
addressed via ONT_IDÆT-CONTÆVPI/VCI. In the GEM mode, a ‘port’ can be identified via ONT_IDÆT-
CONTÆPort_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
EPON vs. GPON
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)
Payload
Downstream US BW Map
Upstream
EPON GPON
Reporting unit ATM: ATM cell / GEM: fixed length block MPCP REPORT frame
Page 8 of 17
EPON vs. GPON
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.
ODN Classes
GPON EPON Note
Splits 16 16
OLT Rx sensitivity ? ?
Splits 32 32
OLT Rx sensitivity ? ?
Splits 64 N/S
Page 9 of 17
EPON vs. GPON
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
EPON vs. GPON
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 cross-
connect, 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).
2.2.3.1 Bandwidth
Probably the most heralded benefit of GPON is the fact that it is specified to scale up to 2.448 Gbps in both the
upstream and downstream directions. Rates are shown in the table below.
GPON Rates
Downstream (Mbps) Upstream (Mbps)
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
EPON vs. GPON
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 vendor’s design choices and component
selection. Often, however, a few 100’s 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
EPON vs. GPON
Page 13 of 17
EPON vs. GPON
Product-wise, the common trend is still: Triple play in the North America; data-only in Asia.
PON Vendors
Loc. BPON GPON EPON Comments
AFC USA S L - (incl. Marconi product) Embarking on large BPON deployment in 2005 (Verizon)
Ciena USA S L - (Old Catena Networks BPON product) Working on a GPON blade
Fujitsu Japan S - S 155Mbps APON product did fairly well for NTT
GW Technologies China - - S
Hitachi Japan S L S 200k data-only ONTs deployed by NTT . Partners with Wave7 for triple-play ONT.
iamba Israel S - -
LG Korea S - -
Lucent USA - L (S) GPON blade for Stinger planned; Reselling Salira EPON
Nayna USA S - S
NEC Japan S* S*
Oki Japan - - S Oki+Fujitsu venture OFN working with Centillium – awarded NTT contract
Optical Solutions USA ? S - CWDM PON – shares GPON market with Flexlight today
*) lower-rate pre-standard version <Q: what about China’s ZTE and Huawei?>
Page 14 of 17
EPON vs. GPON
Notice that AFC, ECI, Entrisphere, Calix, Siemens, Zhone and Ciena are currently all developing BPON systems
using Broadlight’s 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.
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 it’s 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 today’s 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
EPON vs. GPON
• 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
• GPON’s 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
• GPON, in reality, represents an evolutionary step from BPON to EPON
References
[1] GPON spec ITU G.984.3
[2] EPON spec IEEE 8023ah
[3] “How efficient is PON?” By Glen Kramer/Teknovus
[4] GPON efficiency paper by Alcatel
Page 16 of 17
EPON vs. GPON
4 Appendix
Recommendations for BPON and GPON
Rec. Title GPON comments EPON comments
BPON
G.983.1 Broadband optical access systems based on Passive Optical Networks (PON) Based on this Based on this framework
framework
G.983.2 ONT management and control interface specification for B-PON Included Equivalent MIBs via IETF
G.983.3 A broadband optical access system with increased service capability by Based on this Based on this framework
wavelength allocation framework
G.983.4 A broadband optical access system with increased service capability using Based on this Out of IEEE scope
dynamic bandwidth assignment (DBA) framework
G.983.5 A broadband optical access system with enhanced survivability Included Out of IEEE scope
G.983.6 ONT management and control interface specifications for B-PON system with Included Out of IEEE scope
protection features
G.983.7 ONT management and control interface specification for dynamic bandwidth Based on this Out of IEEE scope, controls
assignment (DBA) B-PON system framework supported
G.983.8 B-PON OMCI support for IP, ISDN, video, VLAN tagging, VC cross-connections Included Equivalent MIBs via IETF
and other select functions
G.983.9 B-PON ONT management and control interface (OMCI) support for wireless Local Included Equivalent MIBs via IETF
Area Network interfaces
G.983.10 B-PON ONT management and control interface (OMCI) support for Digital Included Equivalent MIBs via IETF
Subscriber Line interfaces
GPON
G.984.1 Gigabit-capable Passive Optical Networks (GPON): General characteristics (=GPON) See table 1
G.984.2 Gigabit-capable Passive Optical Networks (GPON): Physical Media Dependent (=GPON) Class A and B, relaxed
(PMD) layer specification parameters
G.984.3 Gigabit-capable Passive Optical Networks (G-PON): Transmission convergence (=GPON) Pure-Ethernet based
layer specification
G.984.4 Gigabit-capable Passive Optical Networks (G-PON): ONT management and (=GPON) Equivalent MIBs via IETF
control interface specification
The gray areas indicate where GPON and EPON are more or less equivalent.
Page 17 of 17