1. 1 Understanding which market scenarios are best served by active Ethernet point-to-point (EP2P) and which are best served by point-to-multipoint PON architectures Johannes Weingart Director Global Business Development Ethernet Access jweingart@advaoptical.com

2. 2 Mission Statement The MEFs Mission: Accelerate the worldwide adoption of carrier-class Ethernet networks and services – independent from available/used infrastructure – independent from available/used topology

3. 3 Carrier Ethernet Defined Carrier Ethernet is a ubiquitous, standardized, carrier-class SERVICE defined by five attributes that distinguish Carrier Ethernet from familiar LAN based Ethernet It brings the compelling business benefit of the Ethernet cost model to achieve significant savings Carrier Ethernet Scalability Standardized Services Service Management Quality of Service Reliability Carrier Ethernet Attributes The 5 Attributes of Carrier Ethernet

4. 4 Agenda Introduction Comparing Capex and Opex of active versus passive architectures Identifying strengths and weaknesses of active versus passive architectures Outlook

5. 5 Introduction the MEF's view is a layer 2 view it's about –service types (E-Line, E-LAN,..) –traffic management (bandwidth profiles, service frame colour, CIR, CBS, EIR, EBS,..) –CFM, OAM, demarcation monitoring,.. –ubiquitous service it's not about –layer 1 physical infrastructure –active vs. passive –copper vs. fiber –what technology is used in the backbone (PBT,..)

6. 6 Comparing Capex and Opex there are several different approaches purely fiber based –P2P –GPON / EPON mixed approaches –fiber to the curb/building –usage of copper in the last (1/2) mile copper all the way from CO to CP

7. 7 P2P CO CP dedicated fiber for each user

8. 8 P2P Pro Capex most future proof infrastructure Opex no active equipment in street cabinets needed easier BW upgrades easier unbundling Con Capex higher investment in fiber, but digging similar higher number of IF Opex more CO rack space needed higher power consumption bigger distribution frames

9. 9 PON CO CP passive splitter combine drop – distribution and distribution – feeder fiber splitter

10. 10 PON Pro Capex less fiber / duct utilisation smaller number of active interfaces Opex no active equipment in street cabinets needed less CO rack space needed smaller power consumption Con Capex whole domain limited to common downlink speed asymmetric BW split does not meet business service requirements Opex more difficult for unbundling more complex trouble shooting

11. 11 mixed approaches / FTTC CO mini DSLAM in street cabinets connected via P2P fiber (or GPON) CP mini DSLAM in SC e.g. VDSL2

12. 12 mixed approaches / FTTC Pro Capex smaller cost for civil works, less digging reuse of existing copper infrastructure Opex less CO rack space needed Con Capex upgrade cost of street cabinets (power,..) higher cost for hardened equipment Opex active equipment in street cabinets

13. 13 from yesterdays presentations Source: IDATE from FTTx Summit 2007 Munich

14. 14 Identifying strengths and weaknesses Identifying strengths and weaknesses of active versus passive architectures, considering: –scalability –power requirements –maintenance –length of fibre deployed –coverage –OLT and ONT costs –utilisation –customer management –evolution to new services

15. 15 in more detail - P2P vs. PON scalability cable / duct size vs. OLT size / splitter ration PtP vs. smallest OLT power requirements P2P has more active interfaces both solution do not need active equipment in street cabinets maintenance P2P seams to be easier to troubleshoot, has more independence from other customers services

16. 16 in more detail - P2P vs. PON length of fibre deployed cable length / duct length is similar P2P uses more fiber between CO – distribution – drop locations coverage both solutions do need last mile fiber discussion between Ethernet over Fiber vs. Ethernet over Copper similar OLT and ONT costs needs a more detailed comparison P2P CPE may be more expensive than ONT but may be compensated by higher OLT cost

17. 17 in more detail - P2P vs. PON utilisation P2P provides independent, symmetrical bandwidth GPON/EPON is limited by the common downstream customer management P2P allows more easy, independent customer management and flexible upgrades PON provides a more centralised approach in line with consumer market requirements evolution to new services P2P seams to be more flexible towards new requirements, main assets are duct, fiber, distribution frames, floor/rack space

18. 18 Outlook between PON and P2P, WDM PON will find its place combining the strength of both sides common fiber, independent wavelength bandwidth demand will grow and push EPON / GPON towards their limits usual question is by when but the interface will an Ethernet interface the L2 will be Ethernet (Carrier Ethernet)

19. 19 Thank You