TECHNICAL
Network cost components of traditional PON FTTx architecture
Figure 3a: Network cost components of traditional PON FTTx architecture
Network cost components of mixed PON/active FTTx architecture based on Ciena’s UA solution
Figure 3b: Network cost components of mixed PON/active FTTx architecture based on Ciena’s UA solution
brownfield deployment scenario, where network cost components include: • CO/OLT node: electronics (Ciena’s 5170), software, and power • Feeder loop: cable material/installation • Cabinet node: optical splitters, electronics (Ciena’s 5170), power, enclosure, CEV For optical split of feeder fibre: 1->128 (average bitrate/subscriber: 77.8Mb/s): the mixed PON/active architecture based on Ciena’s UA solution becomes more cost-effective at a feeder distance of 6.2km and results in cost- savings of 15.7 and 32 per cent at feeder lengths of 10 and 20km, respectively.
3.8km. The CAPEX savings increases to 27.5 and 42.3 per cent at feeder distances of 10 and 20km, respectively. Conclusions: Cost comparison of 10G XGS-PON solutions: Traditional PON versus pluggable mixed PON/active architectures based on Ciena’s UA solution Figure 5 shows the CAPEX savings achieved with mixed PON/active architecture based on Ciena’s UA solution, at different optical split ratios of a feeder fibre as a function of the feeder [CO to cabinet] distance. A CAPEX business model is assumed in a
16. Cabinet node: optical splitters, electronics (Ciena 5170), power, enclosure, Controlled Environmental Vault (CEV) Cost modeling results: CAPEX savings achieved by mixed PON/active architecture based on Ciena’s UA solution versus traditional PON architecture Figure 4 shows the crossover point—at which mixed PON/active architecture becomes more cost-effective for an optical split ratio of 1->32, versus the traditional PON architecture—to be
May 2024 Volume 46 No.2
103
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online