Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

© 2007 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.Cisco PublicUpstream 64-QAM 1 HFC Plant Optimization for D3.0 John J. Downey Consulting Network Engineer.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "© 2007 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.Cisco PublicUpstream 64-QAM 1 HFC Plant Optimization for D3.0 John J. Downey Consulting Network Engineer."— Presentation transcript:

1 © 2007 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.Cisco PublicUpstream 64-QAM 1 HFC Plant Optimization for D3.0 John J. Downey Consulting Network Engineer Cisco Systems

2 © 2007 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.Cisco PublicUpstream 64-QAM 2 ATDMA General Deployment Recommendations  After increasing channel width to 6.4 MHz, measure & document US MER (unequalized would be best) –25 dB or higher Unequalized MER is recommended –Check US MER as well as per CM MER  Document unequalized MER with test equipment at multiple test points in plant –PathTrak Return Path Monitoring System linecard –Sunrise Telecom Upstream Characterization toolkit –Trilithic  Pick freq < 30 MHz away from diplex filter group delay  Turn on Pre-Equalization –Can exclude specific Mac or OUI

3 © 2007 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.Cisco PublicUpstream 64-QAM 3 US MER(SNR) Issues  Increasing ch width keeps same average power –Doubling ch width will drop MER by 3 dB or more  Equalized vs unequalized MER readings  Modulation profile choices –QPSK for maintenance, 64-QAM for Data, 16-QAM for VoIP? –Max output for 64-QAM is 54 dBmV Cab up n power-adjust continue 6  Pre-EQ affect –Great feature in 1.1 & > CMs, but could mask issues

4 © 2007 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.Cisco PublicUpstream 64-QAM 4 4 Pre-EQ Upstream 6.4 MHz bandwidth 64-QAM signal After Adaptive EQ: DOCSIS 2.0’s 24-tap EQ—was able to compensate for nearly all in-channel tilt (with no change in digital channel power). Result: No correctable or uncorrectable FEC errors and the CMTS’s reported US MER (SNR) increased to ~36 dB. Before Adaptive EQ: Substantial in-channel tilt caused correctable FEC errors to increment. CMTS’s reported US MER (SNR) was 23 dB. 4

5 © 2007 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.Cisco PublicUpstream 64-QAM 5 Post-Deployment Troubleshooting  MER per US with ability to drill-down for per-CM MER  Use US monitoring tools like PathTrak or Cisco Broadband Troubleshooter (CBT) to view 5-65 MHz for laser clipping –Need analyzer to read < 5 MHz for AM or ham radio ingress –New PathTrak card reads 0.5 MHz - 85 MHz & MacTrak  Cable Flap List monitoring for US or CM issues  Uncorrectable/Correctable FEC per US with ability to drill- down for per-CM counters  Bottom line is correctable & uncorrectable FEC –If correctable FEC is incrementing, then eventually it will lead to uncorrectable FEC, which equals packet drops

6 © 2007 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.Cisco PublicUpstream 64-QAM 6 CBT Display 6 6

7 © 2007 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.Cisco PublicUpstream 64-QAM 7 Impairment Increase vs Reporting CNRMER(SNR)Corr FECUncorr FEC AWGNBad Eventually Bad CW CarrierBadOk Impulse Noise / Laser Clipping BadOk Bad Group Delay / Micro- Reflections OkBad Eventually Bad Ingress cancellation will cancel some CPD CPD resembles AWGN when all DSs are digital

8 © 2007 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.Cisco PublicUpstream 64-QAM 8 Pre-eq Coeff Direct Load  CMs that drop > 3 dB MER in one SM period get direct load  CMTS support for Type 9 TLVs for DOCSIS 2.0 &> CMs  DOCSIS 1.1 CMs in this state re-register  Following message types added to "sh cab modem verbose" –Pre-Equalization Counters : 1205 good, 0 scaled, 24 impulse –Equalizer Coeffs Direct Load : 1 direct coeff loads Significant change in freq response may create scaled count When CMTS decides to return CM’s EQ taps to known state without direct load, an impulse value is sent Each time Type 9 TLV is sent to CM, direct load counter will increase by 1 When CM goes offline, counters are zeroed

9 © 2007 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.Cisco PublicUpstream 64-QAM 9 Determining per-CM Pre-EQ Taps  Poll pre-eq tap MIB directly from CM: –Raw values polled to determine red, yellow, green  Cablelabs Proactive Network Maintenance (PNM)  Charter’s “Node Slayer”  Comcast has “Scout Flux”

10 © 2007 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.Cisco PublicUpstream 64-QAM 10 D3.0 US Issues  Frequency Stacking Levels –What is the max output with multiple channels stacked –Is it pwr/Hz & could it cause laser clipping?  Diplex Filter Expansion to 85 MHz –If amplifier upgrades are planned for 1 GHz, then pluggable diplex filters may be warranted to expand to 85 MHz on the US –Still must address existing CPE equipment in field & potential overload –RFoG could be perfect scenario (maybe even 200 MHz split)  CM must be w-online (requires 1.1 cm file) for US bonding  Monitoring, Testing, & Troubleshooting –Just like DOCSIS 2.0, test equipment needs to have D3.0 capabilities

11 © 2007 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.Cisco PublicUpstream 64-QAM 11 US Frequency and Level Issues  Freq assignments –5 to 42, 55, 65, 85 MHz ? Diplex filters, line EQs, step attenuators, CPE overload  Max Tx for D QAM for 1 ch is 54 dBmV  D3.0 US single ch max power –57 dBmV (32 & 64-QAM) –58 dBmV (8 & 16-QAM) –61 dBmV (QPSK)  Max Tx per ch for 4 freqs stacked at 64-QAM ATDMA is only 51 dBmV & 53 for S-CDMA –When stacking, level will not change unless max is reached

12 © 2007 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.Cisco PublicUpstream 64-QAM 12 Channel Placement  Each US channel used for bonding is individual channel  Transmitters (channels) are separate –Can have different settings; modulation, ch width, tdma or scdma, etc.  Frequencies do not need to be contiguous  Wise to keep relatively close so attenuation and tilt don’t cause issues  CMs have some dynamic range to allow few dB difference between channels

13 © 2007 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.Cisco PublicUpstream 64-QAM 13 Sample Upstream Spectrum Usage #FromToBWModulationStylePrimary Usage QAMATDMAD QAMATDMAD QAMATDMAD QAMATDMAD QAMATDMAD3.0 & QAMATDMAD3.0 & QAMTDMAD1.x QPSKTDMAD1.0 DSG QAMSCDMAD QAMSCDMAD3.0 TV IF Euro Split

14 © 2007 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.Cisco PublicUpstream 64-QAM 14 Total Power  Was only one US ch, now up to 4 chs Txing at same time –Possibly 6.4 MHz each; nearly 26 MHz US channel loading  Lots of power hitting US laser  Probability of laser clipping is increased, especially if using legacy Fabry-Perot (FP) lasers –Distributed Feedback (DFB) lasers have more dynamic range  Use US monitoring system capable of looking above 42 MHz to see second and third order harmonics  Any burst noise above diplex filter (i.e. 42 MHz) coming out of return path receiver is usually indicative of laser clipping

15 © 2007 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.Cisco PublicUpstream 64-QAM 15  Noise above ~40 MHz (~65 MHz in a Euro-DOCSIS network) is most likely caused by laser clipping Laser Clipping

16 © 2007 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.Cisco PublicUpstream 64-QAM 16 Laser Clipping  Blue trace shows case of strong laser clipping  Green line represents flat US laser noise floor with no clipping  Note that this US has four US bonded channels

17 © 2007 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.Cisco PublicUpstream 64-QAM 17 Laser Clipping Artifacts 1.5 MHz AM causing Laser Clipping Possibly getting in at power insertion port of node

18 © 2007 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.Cisco PublicUpstream 64-QAM 18 US Load Balance & Isolation Example  Attempting to “share” one US port across two other US ports –Can cause isolation issues –Load balance issues (ambiguous grouping) –Low Tx CM in HE/field can overcome isolation and show up on wrong ports Exacerbated with wide-open power adjust continue window  Note: D3.0 CMs in mtc-mode do not load balance on US 4-Way CMTS 24 MHz CMTS 24 MHz CMTS 31 MHz Fiber Optic Rx 1 Fiber Optic Rx 2 Filter Amplifier

19 © 2007 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.Cisco PublicUpstream 64-QAM 19 System Levels Reverse ’ 500’600’ 1.5 dB Input 43 dBmV PIII.5” cable MHz Reverse transmit the tap A total design variation of ~14 dB! CS(CEQ) tap 17 dB at 5 MHz & 32 dB at 1 GHz Eliminates max transmit CMs Eliminates high DS tilt to TV FEQ w/ US pad Step Attenuator or EQ tap 38 X Less noise from low value taps Reduces potential “bleed- over”/ isolation issues Note: pad creates grp delay at cutoff, whereas EQ does not

20 © 2007 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.Cisco PublicUpstream 64-QAM 20 Transmit Level Possibilities  Running D3.0 CM in low mod scheme allows higher power  Use D3.0 CM in 2.0 mode –Single frequency on D3.0 CM offers 3 dB higher power  Minimum level of 20 dBmV could cause issues in lab or HE test CM –Pmin = +20 dBmV, 2560 ksym/s –Pmin = +23 dBmV, 5120 ksym/s  Sample ATDMA Mod Profile

21 © 2007 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.Cisco PublicUpstream 64-QAM 21 US Summary  Targeted insertion of D3.0 –Leverage existing US chs while adding more US capacity –Load balance 1.x/2.0 and enable D3.0 when needed  Leverage D3.0 bonding for D2.0 tiers & services –Better stat-mux efficiency  Account for phy connectivity, not just ch capacity –Not advantageous to combine noise to satisfy connectivity  Fix Max Tx issues now –Design for tight “bell-curve” (43-48 dBmV), if possible  Good News – ECR to increase US Tx levels –61 dBmV max, with 3 dB typical

22 © 2007 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.Cisco PublicUpstream 64-QAM 22 Reasons CM Does Not Bond on Intended USs  CM not in w-online mode or maybe using 1.0 cm file  Mtc-mode off  Mtc-mode required-attribute & no attribute in cm file  No BG configured or incorrect fiber node config  CM not set for bonding or firmware issue  All US chs not “sta” –US(s) shut –Max or Min Tx issues –Poor MER, plant issues, mis-wired  Oversubscribed CIR –Call signaling (nRTPS), min US guaranteed speed, –Could have multiple single ch bonding groups  Note: US service flows like UGS & RTPS assigned to single ch bonding

23 © 2007 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.Cisco PublicUpstream 64-QAM 23  Why it’s Needed –Competitive pressure, offering higher tiers of service, more customers signing up  Frequency Stacking Levels & Placement –What is the e-qam max output with four channels stacked –Do channels have to be contiguous?  Isolation Concerns –Applications w/ different service grps lead to overlaid networks –Signals destined for one node could “bleed” over to another  DS Frequency Expansion to 1 GHz –Amplifier upgrades are occurring now. It’s best to make the truck roll once, so think about diplex filters, spacing, taps, etc. DS Questions & Potential Concerns

24 © 2007 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.Cisco PublicUpstream 64-QAM 24 Impairments That Could Affect DOCSIS 3.0  Isolation  Off-air Ingress  Attenuation  Freq assignments –Spectrum allocation –Plant limits

25 © 2007 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.Cisco PublicUpstream 64-QAM 25 Difficult Architecture for Narrowcast DS 0 US 0 US 1 US 2 US 3 LC 1x4 CMTS Optical splits create large service group (SG) sizing Small narrowcast area or big mxn domain for large SG? Small narrowcast area = small targeted area, but costly node splits Large SG = better stat muxing & sharing, but more spectrum needed

26 © 2007 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.Cisco PublicUpstream 64-QAM 26 M-CMTS = 100 Mbps Service Tier 5, 4x4 MAC domains with ATDMA & TDMA USs DS connector overlaid for 2 nodes 4 DS freqs 2 US freqs 16-QAM 64-QAM 3.2 MHz 6.4 MHz Primary Bonding

27 © 2007 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.Cisco PublicUpstream 64-QAM 27  Frequency assignments –CMTS may be limited to 860 MHz or 1 GHz –Legacy CMs (1.x & 2.0) limited to 860 MHz bandedge –E-qam limited to contiguous 24 MHz or 4 channel slots –CMs may be limited to 50 or 60 MHz passband  M-CMTS architecture requires DTI and local USs –Distance limitation, time offset differences, level differences  Resiliency is another topic to address –If one DS frequency goes bad in field, how do CMs recover or react?  E-qam licensing?  CM requires 1.1 config file DOCSIS 3.0 DS Considerations

28 © 2007 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.Cisco PublicUpstream 64-QAM 28  More DS = more US  Testing and maintaining multiple DS channels –Physical chs have not changed for DOCSIS 3.0 –Test equip with built-in CMs need to support bonding May need to exclude from LB and other feature like pre-eq  DS ch bonding max power with 4 freqs stacked –Four chs stacked on 1 connector limited to 52 dBmV/ch DOCSIS 1.x/2.0 DS is 61 dBmV max output  DS isolation issues DOCSIS 3.0 DS Considerations (cont)

29 © 2007 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.Cisco PublicUpstream 64-QAM 29 M-CMTS, DS Overlay and Isolation Issues DS Combiner DSs 0-3 = 603 MHz Overlay = 609, 615 & 621 MHz DS Tx DS 0 DS 1 DS 2 DS 3 Edge-QAM Potential Isolation Path  E-QAM with DTI DS Licensing? Contiguous QAMs? Level granularity?  Load balance between local & remote DSs could have timing issues

30 © 2007 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.Cisco PublicUpstream 64-QAM 30 Isolation Amp Can this device handle 50 dBmV input with 4-8 ch loading? W

31 © 2007 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.Cisco PublicUpstream 64-QAM 31  D3.0 spec goes to 1 GHz, some equipment may not  D3.0 CM spec requires 60 MHz capture window  DPC3000 capture of 96 MHz over most spectrum –82 MHz max window supported over entire spectrum  TI 4x4 CM (60 MHz window)  Brcm 8x4 CM (2, 32 MHz bands or 1, 96 MHz band) –DS freqs must be contiguous within tuner block unlike 4x4 CMs –Can use RCC templates to setup both tuners –New feature called Split Tuner creatse 2 Rx modules and moves tuners automatically without RCC templates  Put voice call service flows on a primary DS –cable docsis30-voice downstream req-attr-mask 0 forb-attr-mask Design Rules & Restrictions

32 © 2007 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.Cisco PublicUpstream 64-QAM 32  Targeted insertion of D3.0 –Leverage existing US chs while adding more DS capacity –Load balance 1.x/2.0 and enable D3.0 when needed  Leverage D3.0 bonding for D2.0 tiers & services –Better stat-mux efficiency & improved consumer experience  Enable seamless upgrade to higher D3.0 tiers –Wire once & add QAM chs as tiers or service take-rates go up  Can also disable DS bonding –No cable mrc-mode –Per-CM exclude with vendor specific MIB or TLV DS Summary

33 © 2007 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.Cisco PublicUpstream 64-QAM 33 What Does This Bandwidth Graph Represent? Time Mbps

34 © 2007 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.Cisco PublicUpstream 64-QAM Points to Ponder 1.Many speed sites report at layer 3 of OSI model –Configure cm file for 5-10% higher than marketed 2.No control over actual frame size ( B) –Frame size overhead 18/64 (28%) vs 18/1518 (1.2%) –MTU affected by wireless, VPN, …. 3.Small frames = small DOCSIS pipes –Only 35 Mbps when all frames are DS VoIP of 229 B 4.PowerBoost™ can give perception of greater speed –Could cause issues when deciding to do node splits –How to control peak rate

35 © 2007 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.Cisco PublicUpstream 64-QAM Points to Ponder (cont) 5.DS TCP requires US acks –US pipe could slow down DS speed tests –Small US acks make US pipe worth less DOCSIS overhead usually 11 B per frame Mbps raw = 9 Mbps usable, but only 7.5 with acks! 6.More frames = more PPS = higher CPU usage –At some point CPU in modem could (will) be bottleneck –TCP (typically 2 DS per 1 US ack) 7.During congestion, you still want priority for VoIP signaling, maybe video acks, and CM registration 8.Load balancing is good, but what speed tier pushes customer to bonding? –Maybe >50% of linerate

36 © 2007 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.Cisco PublicUpstream 64-QAM Points to Ponder (cont) 9.Netflix/Hulu TV are using ABR, which is TCP-based –Will cause US traffic in form of acks –New CMs may have ack suppression on by default –Typical US to DS TCP ratio of ~2% –With ack suppression, that can drop below 1% Ack suppression doesn’t alleviate CM CPU –DS IP video of 3-7 Mbps and may make ack suppression inefficient –Implement PHS, but more testing needed 10.Many tweaks needed to get per-CM US speeds > 3 Mbps –Lots of concatenation leads to fragmentation –Fragmentation adds headers –Preamble & gaurdtime added to each fragment –D3.0 US bonding can do concatenation and keep < 2000 B May not require fragmentation, so less overhead

37 © 2007 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.Cisco PublicUpstream 64-QAM 37


Download ppt "© 2007 Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved.Cisco PublicUpstream 64-QAM 1 HFC Plant Optimization for D3.0 John J. Downey Consulting Network Engineer."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google