Using in an FTTP Application

FTTP Application

FTTP with

Issues to Consider Equipment Availability Security Bandwidth Propagation distances Quality of Service

Service Offerings Data Services –5Mbps downstream / 2Mbps upstream –15Mbps downstream / 2 Mbps upstream –30 Mbps downstream / 5 Mbps upstream Video Services –Today optical wavelength overlay –Future – IP TV 3-4 Mbps per channel 19 Mbps per channel (high definition) Telephony Service –4 voice channels (analog today) –VOIP – 100Kbps per voice channel

Data Rates Data Rate (Mbps)802.11b802.11a802.11g (b)/6(a/g) (b)/12(a/g)

Quality Of Service Voice and video data have QOS requirements Data services can be supported using DCF Consider using PCF Enhanced QOS mechanisms are specified in e

Point Coordination Function ONT could be used as Point Coordinator ONT polls phones for voice traffic ONT can “pace” the downstream video traffic No control over upstream data packet size If VOIP packet size could be set, then PCF may achieve QOS Better alternatives available from e

802.11e QOS Methods

802.11e Traffic Priorities 8 traffic priorities are used from 802.1d –Background (1) –Background (2) –Best Effort (0) –Best Effort (3) –Video (4) –Video (5) –Voice (6) –Voice (7) These are mapped to 4 Access Categories –Voice –Video –Best Effort –Background

Arbitration Inter Frame Space

HCCA QOS equivalent to PCF Allows for contention period and contention free period Polling in contention free period include QOS details Allows HC to fairly allocate medium considering QOS Contention period uses EDCA

Results from Simulation DCF vs EDCA

Conclusions could be used to deliver current FTTP services e can provide QOS No growth path for HD TV Not useful for MDU application IP phones currently too expensive Security can be managed with pre-shared keys Unlikely to become a common ONT interface