Performance evaluation of GPON vs EPON for multi-service access

Recently both ITU and IEEE have standardized solutions for passive optical networks (PONs) operating at gigabit per second line rates and optimized for the transport of packet-based traffic to improve the efficiency of previously standardized broadband PONs, which used the ATM cell as the data transport unit. The efficiency and performance of PON systems depend on the transmission convergence layer and mainly on the implemented medium access protocol. Although the latter is not part of the standards and left to the implementer, the standards describe a set of control fields that constitute the tool-set for the media access control (MAC) operation. Though starting from a common and quite obvious basis, the two standards present significant differences with the legacy of Ethernet marking the IEEE approach, while the emphasis of ITU is on demanding services. In this paper we compare the efficiency and performance of the two systems assuming the implementation of as close as possible MAC protocols. The target is twofold: assess and compare the traffic handling potential of each of the two standards and identify the range of applications they can support. Useful insight can also be gained to the MAC tools that could be designed into the next generation extra large WDM PONs. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

[1]  H. T. Mouftah,et al.  QoS control schemes for two-stage Ethernet passive optical access networks , 2005, IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications.

[2]  John D. Angelopoulos,et al.  Efficient transport of packets with QoS in an FSAN-aligned GPON , 2004, IEEE Communications Magazine.

[3]  John D. Angelopoulos,et al.  A TDMA based access control scheme for APON's , 1993 .

[4]  Biswanath Mukherjee,et al.  IPACT: A dynamic protocol for an Ethernet PON (EPON) , 2002, IEEE Commun. Mag..

[5]  John D. Angelopoulos,et al.  Efficient resource allocation with service guarantees in passive optical networks , 2007 .

[6]  Pertti Raatikainen,et al.  Link utilization and comparison of EPON and GPON access network cost , 2005, GLOBECOM '05. IEEE Global Telecommunications Conference, 2005..

[7]  Martin Reisslein,et al.  Ethernet PONs: a survey of dynamic bandwidth allocation (DBA) algorithms , 2004, IEEE Communications Magazine.

[8]  Maode Ma,et al.  A bandwidth guaranteed polling MAC protocol for Ethernet passive optical networks , 2003, IEEE INFOCOM 2003. Twenty-second Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies (IEEE Cat. No.03CH37428).

[9]  Biswanath Mukherjee,et al.  Interleaved Polling with Adaptive Cycle Time (IPACT): A Dynamic Bandwidth Distribution Scheme in an Optical Access Network , 2004, Photonic Network Communications.

[10]  John D. Angelopoulos,et al.  Efficient medium arbitration of FSAN-compliant GPONs: Research Articles , 2006 .

[11]  Nasir Ghani,et al.  Intra-ONU bandwidth scheduling in Ethernet passive optical networks , 2004, IEEE Communications Letters.

[12]  John D. Angelopoulos,et al.  Delay priorities enhance utilisation of ATM PON access systems , 1997, Comput. Commun..

[13]  Chadi Assi,et al.  Statistical bandwidth multiplexing in Ethernet passive optical networks , 2005, GLOBECOM '05. IEEE Global Telecommunications Conference, 2005..

[14]  John D. Angelopoulos,et al.  Efficient medium arbitration of FSAN-compliant GPONs , 2006, Int. J. Commun. Syst..

[15]  C.M. Assi,et al.  Jitter performance in ethernet passive optical networks , 2005, Journal of Lightwave Technology.

[16]  Philip F. Chimento,et al.  IP Packet Delay Variation Metric for IP Performance Metrics (IPPM) , 2002, RFC.

[17]  Chase Cotton,et al.  Packet-level traffic measurements from the Sprint IP backbone , 2003, IEEE Netw..

[18]  John D. Angelopoulos,et al.  TDMA multiplexing of ATM cells in a residential access SuperPON , 1998, IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun..