GPON vs AON

[Geoff.D]

Only if you selectively read One post out of all the posts I made. And I did NOT say that, Go and read my post properly again and then see. I also did not say AON can't be used for residential.

Of course, there are others that have posted. Some of the posts are pretty much correct in their general descriptions of PON and AON. Others are just plain wrong and have already been pointed out in the rest of the thread.

Again your example depends on how the service provider designs his network and deploys the technology.
But your example of 200/200 on a typical GPON network would be a very interesting one. Would you elaborate under what conditions that one would work and how many additional customers would get service simultaneously on the passive single core fibre?

And just to be clear, were are not talking of upstream contention or congestion or network congestion at all here. That would affect both AON and PON almost equally, but without a very specific example, even that cannot be claimed as "equal".

The key words in your response are: "a correctly planned PON" and, of course, I was alluding to the issues of customers "hosting content on their site" because that makes a thin upstream pipe solution not suitable. So again just for clarity, assuming you read my other posts here is the post that seems to have ruffled feathers copied.


[QUOTEExcept that IF those businesses hog all the capacity, no one else will get any decent services! Ultimately GPON is NOT a suitable technology for business use! Businesses should be on AON.][/QUOTE]

 

[Geoff.D]

I said that your generalization was wrong as you said enterprise is the normal business. Thank you for selectively quoting.

Your 3 is also stupid. A business exists to generate as much profit as possible, if PON can be selected as it saves costs while still meeting demand, why would they ever go AON?

Nowhere did I use the words "enterprise is the normal business ". You read that into my responses all by yourself.

And no, point 3 is not stupid. It describes the industry in SA to the Tee. The suppliers decide what the market needs and then hopes like hell the market is happy. And, mostly, the market is happy, because the alternative is unknown to them.

 

[quovadis]

Only if you selectively read One post out of all the posts I made. And I did NOT say that, Go and read my post properly again and then see. I also did not say AON can't be used for residential.

No, you said it was a better choice for business.

But your example of 200/200 on a typical GPON network would be a very interesting one. would you elaborate under what conditions that one would work and how many additional customers would get service simultaneously on the passive single core fibre?

Because the single core fibre has a capability of 2.488Gbps / 1.244Gbps upstream (OLT->ONU) with the current standard. You can contend that any which way you want and shape it accordingly the same way a provider would do so with an AON connection unless you truly believe you get 1:1 from the aggregation point?

The key words in your response are: "a correctly planned PON" and, of course, I was alluding to the issues of customers "hosting content on their site" because that makes a thin upstream pipe solution not suitable. So again just for clarity, assuming you read my other posts here is the post that seems to have ruffled feathers copied.

Exactly how much bandwidth does your business customer need because its obviously in the top 0.01% of customers in the country. There are very few who would saturate 1.244Gbps upstream.

 

[natemaingard]

Join this page https://www.facebook.com/groups/www...551425994980296&notif_t=group_comment_mention

Its the Octotel facebook page for the Southern Peninsula network , an octotel rep will answer your questions

Thank you kindly

 

[ThatOtherDude]

No, you said it was a better choice for business.
Because the single core fibre has a capability of 2.488Gbps / 1.244Gbps upstream (OLT->ONU) with the current standard. You can contend that any which way you want and shape it accordingly the same way a provider would do so with an AON connection unless you truly believe you get 1:1 from the aggregation point?

Exactly how much bandwidth does your business customer need because its obviously in the top 0.01% of customers in the country. There are very few who would saturate 1.244Gbps upstream.

no man, you have the cat by its tail.


Single core fibre's capacity has not yet been determined yet.

a single fibre strand's bandwidth capacity is limitless.

the "limitation" that you're referring to, is of the equipment at both ends of the cable.

2.4Gbps per port. (downstream) for a GPON line card port
16 ports per line card
a max (depending on the chassis) of 12-odd line cards)

16 ports x 12 line cards =192 ports per card.
192 ports (each split 64 ways) = around 12000 GPON customers per OLT.

each port has a 2.4Gbps bandwidth capacity
192 ports
the bottleneck you may be referring to is NEVER between the OLT and the customer

bottlenecks are upstream...
between the OLT and it's upstream provider
or between the upstream provider and its internet facing link,

Most (all?) GPON infrastructure providers in SA work on 64 way split ratio.

they split once (2 ways) in the street cabinet / POP, and again (32 ways) in a joint on a pole or in a man hole.

there is ZERO contention on GPON - the way you understand "contention" that exists on DSL.

and nobody uses all 32 splitter legs
one provider assigns 24 legs (leaving 8 spares) while another assigns 29 legs (leaving 3 spares)

a) not all customers (in a street) wants fibre.
some people in the street (that splitter A feeds) like their ADSL..
other people are not interested in fibre..

as an example: 12 customers in a street uses fibre - of the available 32 splitter legs.

of the 12 clients:
4 have a 4/10 connection
5 have a 10/50 connection.
2 have a 100/100
and 1 has a 200/200

= 690Mbps downstream sustained.


that's MAX capacity when all 12 guys are behind their PC's at the same time
downloading large files that saturate their individual connection limits.

this still leaves the line card port with an available 1.7Gbps capacity.


SA's GPON providers work on teh premise that one can easily supply 100+ users on a single 2.4Gbps OLT port and all 100 clients will get their 100/100Mbps..

as long as they are not all connected (and downloading at maximum connecting limit) at the same time.




worst case scenario: (FTTB GPON).

16 companies (in the same street, connected to the same 32 way splitter) all want 200/200 CIR (Commited Information rate)


16 x 200 = 3.2Gbps = a problem - 1 x line card port cannot support that.

solution: send a splice technician to the 32 way splitter (in the man hole).

cut clients 1-8 off splitter A and splice them onto splitter B.

8 x 200Mbps - 1.6-ishGbps.

the provider now uses 1 additional upstream fibre but the clients are happy.




PS: to the rude individual who said I have no idea what I'm talking about?

let's hope that you are wrong as I most probably installed the fibre in your area.

 

[Geoff.D]

You are getting closer to understanding the technology.

The post just before this one illustrates why I made the statement somewhere on the GPON/AON forums that many of the companies involved in FTTH are going to see their arses because they have no clue how the technology works.

Especially when it comes to understanding the limitations. They are all blinded by the supposed unlimited capacity fibre can handle. It is not about the medium. It is about the equipment attached to the fibre, and how the technology works.

 

[quovadis]

no man, you have the cat by its tail.
<snip>

No, a single fibre strand is not limitless. The theoretical maximum by order of magnitude is probably 1 Pbit/s but that's theoretical and practically impossible based on current transceiver technology, but I digress.

Let's get something out of the way - You will never have any bottleneck if you can add additional fibre - that's obvious - but you are limited by the technology which is deployed. The entire thread related to GPON vs AON and it's use cases where I argued you could just as well provide GPON as AON for the majority of use cases. My reference to 2.44gbps/1.244Gbps was the current GPON standard.

You introduce contention at the physical splits and the uplink from GPON chassis upwards. No provider will uplink a chassis at full capacity.

One can EASILY supply 100+ users on a single 2.4Gbps OLT port and all 100 clients will get their 100/100Mbps..

Not simultaneously and it will be contended heavily. 100 customers x100mbps = 10gbit/s not taking into consideration the TX bandwidth needed? Now see below on the assymetrical nature.

16 companies (in the same street, connected to the same 32 way splitter) all want 200/200 CIR (Commited Information rate) = guaranteed line speed AT ALL TIMES.

16 x 200 = 3.2Gbps = a problem - 1 x line card port cannot support it.

solution: send a splice technician to the 32 way splitter (in the man hole).

cut clients 1-8 OFF splitter A and splice them onto splitter B.

8 x 200Mbps - 1.8Gbps = problem solved + some extra capacity for future upgrades.

the provider is now using 1 additional upstream fibre but everyone's happy.

The assymentrical limitation of GPON and current standard you wouldn't be able to serve 200/200 CIR to more than 6 if you are 1:1 RX/TX on a single fibre strand. So for your example to ensure zero 1:1 ratio with no contention on upstream or downstream you would require 3 fibre strands if all customers maxed their TX/RX.

 

[Geoff.D]

And that does even allow for the bandwidth-delay product effects and other fiddly factors within the OS of most PCs and other devices connected to the FTTH links. And then the overheads required by the GPON/AON? Where is the allowance for that?

GPON is a shared physical layer technology. So is AON. Understand what those limitations are first. THEN understand the sharing limitations introduced by the equipment hung onto that technology.
AND make sure you know WHAT the customers are going to do with the connection.
THEN start talking about how to properly manage the number of simultaneous connections, and hence the total number of customers you can connect to a shared fibre technology.

The conclusion is the FTTH service deployers ARE going to out of nothing but ignorance, oversell their services and kill off the technology just because very few of them have taken the trouble to ensure they and their employees actually know how GPON/AON works.

 

[quovadis]

And that does even allow for the bandwidth-delay product effects and other fiddly factors within the OS of most PCs and other devices connected to the FTTH links. And then the overheads required by the GPON/AON? Where is the allowance for that?

GPON is a shared physical layer technology. So is AON. Understand what those limitations are first. THEN understand the sharing limitations introduced by the equipment hung onto that technology.
AND make sure you know WHAT the customers are going to do with the connection.
THEN start talking about how to properly manage the number of simultaneous connections, and hence the total number of customers you can connect to a shared fibre technology.

Agreed. Unfortunately I try not to get too technical because I've been in one too many meetings where you literally see people's eyes roll back into their heads.

 

[Geoff.D]

And because all those people in meetings are interested is in is the $ sign! Ignore the real technology issues and you will always end up with no business.

 

[ThatOtherDude]

lolz,
for your purposes (Meneer Big Bandwidth Home User) a single fibre strand's capacity is limitless.
You'll NEVER consume it's full capacity.

whatever bandwidth issues you may experience, it's not due to the fibre.

it's the devices at both ends... or something upstream... or your mother switching off your router as punishment for watching too much midget p0rn.




Below find some data on standard fibre speeds (not the speciality stuff with super expensive equipment)
Just the usual run-of-the mill equipment being used by carriers.

65Tbps over 6600 Kilometers?
That's impressive by anyone's standards.

 

[quovadis]

lolz,
for your purposes (Meneer Big Bandwidth Home User) a single fibre strand's capacity is limitless.
You'll NEVER consume it's full capacity.

whatever bandwidth issues you may experience, it's not due to the fibre.

it's the devices at both ends... or something upstream... or your mother switching off your router as punishment for watching too much midget p0rn.




Below find some data on standard fibre speeds (not the speciality stuff with super expensive equipment)
Just the usual run-of-the mill equipment being used by carriers.

65Tbps over 6600 Kilometers?
That's impressive by anyone's standards.




View attachment 642242

I'm not quite sure why you're reverting to thus type of response. It would've been nice if you read my reply. Fibre is not limitless and there will always be an upper limit for obvious reasons - this is a fact - it's not debatable.

 

[Geoff.D]

lolz,
for your purposes (Meneer Big Bandwidth Home User) a single fibre strand's capacity is limitless.
You'll NEVER consume it's full capacity.

whatever bandwidth issues you may experience, it's not due to the fibre.

it's the devices at both ends... or something upstream... or your mother switching off your router as punishment for watching too much midget p0rn.




Below find some data on standard fibre speeds (not the speciality stuff with super expensive equipment)
Just the usual run-of-the mill equipment being used by carriers.

65Tbps over 6600 Kilometers?
That's impressive by anyone's standards.




View attachment 642242

The more of these types of reply we get from you, the more you reveal how little you know about the subject.
Forget all of the issues about the fibre itself. Get back to the rather el cheapo equipment and technology used in deploying GPON and AON and concentrate on that. All very well to quote top of the line highly sophisticated equipment deployed on under sea cables. This thread is about HOW GPON is deployed by the FTTH service providers in SA, and whether they understand the limitations of the technology to ensure they deliver the services they promise.
There is always a limit, even if no one knows what that limit is at the moment.

 

[Biscuit1018]

Frogfoot and Octotel and both trenching in our suburb (Lakeside) and im trying to decide which network provider to sign with. Octotel have indicated that they run a GPON network (passive optical network) and Frogfoot seems to use AON (active optical network) technology (assumed)

Ive been reading various posts on the forum which seem to indicate that peak time congestion is a problem on the Octotel network due to this passive design.

Is this really a major issue ? Do you think its better to sign up with the network provider using AON ? HELP!!

Both are fine. Naturally providers will say their own is superior.
I am on Openserve (GPON) and have 200/100. Have never experienced network congestion

 

[ArtyLoop]

And because all those people in meetings are interested is in is the $ sign! Ignore the real technology issues and you will always end up with no business.

That's what I said about Octotel many times... All Joe cares about is a new Ferrari

 

[Geoff.D]

Both are fine. Naturally providers will say their own is superior.
I am on Openserve (GPON) and have 200/100. Have never experienced network congestion

So there are two related matters applicable.
(1) Openserve do know how to deploy the technology and have dones so correctly.
(2) At the moment most FTTH systems are not particularly heavily utilised.

I am much more inclined to accept (1) from someone like Openserve than say Octotel. Can't say the same for (2) because Openserve certainly did not hesitate to oversubscribe ADSL when that was all that was available.

As the only ADSL subscriber left on the cable behind our properties and one of only a handful left on the MSAN, I can with complete satisfaction say that my ADSL service has never been better, aside for that incredibly irritating ASSIA rubbish forced on us.

Outcome -----> customers do not experience network congestion.

 

[ArtyLoop]

So there are two related matters applicable.
(1) Openserve do know how to deploy the technology and have dones so correctly.
(2) At the moment most FTTH systems are not particularly heavily utilised.

I am much more inclined to accept (1) from someone like Openserve than say Octotel. Can't say the same for (2) because Openserve certainly did not hesitate to oversubscribe ADSL when that was all that was available.

As the only ADSL subscriber left on the cable behind our properties and one of only a handful left on the MSAN, I can with complete satisfaction say that my ADSL service has never been better, aside for that incredibly irritating ASSIA rubbish forced on us.

Outcome -----> customers do not experience network congestion.

I am also on VDSL after having dumped the FTTH because its a piece of junk.
Zero congestion. I told them to disable ASSIA and I am probably the only one in the area with a DSL line.
I am extremely happy, it works well. No congestion, no problems.

The point to be made here is that these companies are all so greedy they will even sell their own mothers for a buck- to hell with customer experience, customers, in their mind, are just suckers.

 

[quovadis]

So there are two related matters applicable.
(1) Openserve do know how to deploy the technology and have dones so correctly.
(2) At the moment most FTTH systems are not particulrly heavily utilised.

I am much more inclined to accept (1) from someone like Openserve. Can't say the same for (2) because Openserve certainly did not hesitate to oversubscribe ADSL when that was all that was available.

As the only ADSL subscriber left on the cable behind our properties and one of only a handful left on the MSAN, I can with complete satsifcation say that my ADSL service has never been better, aside for that incredibly irritating ASSIA rubbish forced on us.

Outcome -----> customers do not experience network congestion.

Regarding 2 it's very unlikely that the fibre will experience congestion to the same extent as most of the DSL infrastructure uplinks were and still are copper-based. Copper tech is heavily affected by distance thus there are more points of aggregation/points of congestion to deal with.

 

[quovadis]

I am also on VDSL after having dumped the FTTH because its a piece of junk.

That's odd - Which provider?

 

[ArtyLoop]

Regarding 2 it's very unlikely that the fibre will experience congestion to the same extent as most of the DSL infrastructure uplinks were and still are copper-based. Copper tech is heavily affected by distance thus there are more points of aggregation/points of congestion to deal with.

Wrong... it was even worse than ADSL congestion... at least with ADSL congestion some stuff still worked.