70 likes | 204 Views
NOBEL WP2 Meeting. CR3 Alcatel CIT Contributions D15 results and D31 continuation Issy-les-Mlnx, 08-10.02.05. D15 main activity. Metro access study case (Milan wide area metro reference network) See reference network in section 6.1.1 Study case description section 6.2.1
E N D
NOBEL WP2 Meeting CR3 Alcatel CIT Contributions D15 results and D31 continuation Issy-les-Mlnx, 08-10.02.05 NOBEL WP2 Feb 05 1
D15 main activity • Metro access study case (Milan wide area metro reference network) • See reference network in section 6.1.1 • Study case description section 6.2.1 • Aim is to find the “optimum” solution for DSLAM traffic backhauling comparing different network archiectures • Solution description & Dimensioning results • SONET/SDH aggregation ring • RPR aggregation ring • Star Ethernet • Dual Bus Optical Ring Network (DBORN) • Dimensioning on different sub-areas comprising different numbers and size of DSLAMs NOBEL WP2 Feb 05 2
High Level view of compared solutions RPR SONET/SDH Star Ethernet NOBEL WP2 Feb 05 3
High Level view of compared solutions (1) DBORN • Very similar to existing metro solutions, except: • Optical transparency via passive Optical Ethernet A/D • Upstream/downstream resource separation • Burst Mode equipment for Upstream • Very similar to access PONs, except: • Ring topology (Protection and Traffic Engineering features) • Up to 40km ring • « coloured »: WDM/CWDM capacity compatible with metro-access constraints NOBEL WP2 Feb 05 4
Highlight of Results:e.g. UA2, 8 remote DSLAMs • Star Ethernet with GE i/f is efficient in terms of net capacity, not in terms of # of i/f. Upgrade less flexible • SONET/SDH (A/D @ STM-1, transport @2.5G): not bad in terms of # of i/f, but not efficient in Net. Capacity as no stat. Mux between nodes. • RPR (A/D @ GE, transport @2.5G): efficient in terms of # of i/f and net. Capacity when the total traffic is limited. Less efficient in upgrade due to the lack of transparency. • DBORN: more flexibility to choose transport granularity wrt A/D granularity as transparent transit. Surprisingly, 1G transport i/f seems the best trade-off in the study cases. Better support of asymmetric traffic. NOBEL WP2 Feb 05 5
Global conclusions • Point-to-multipoint/Multipoint-to-point solutions seems more adapted than point-to-point solutions: • sharing of Metro-core (Mc) Node interfaces to avoid strong threshold effects and mismatching of the node capacity with interface granularity • packet add/drop multiplexing between DSLAMs and of broadcasted packets for Video services allows saving transport resources • Optical transparency is interesting when traffic is increasing: • GE granularity gave better results mainly due to the asymmetry of the traffic (2.5G would be fine for down but overdimensioned for up) • flexible out-of-the-line optical interfaces to allows efficiently changing the wavelength allocation during the time for a better sharing of transport resources between the DSLAMs in the time NOBEL WP2 Feb 05 6
Next studies. Continuation for D31 • We planned to use as much as possible the CAPEX NOBEL model for a cost comparison of the solutions • Most of equipment/infrastructure costs already exist in the current model. Few new costs to be considered (Burst Mode???) • No plan for OPEX comparisons but could be foreseen in collaboration with an interested partner • Improvement of dimensioning tool to be able to quickly change some network parameters and see the impact in the network comparison • Today, global dimensioning of DSLAM resources is automated but wavelength allocation is still done manually !!! • Other architectures to be considered • Interaction with other partners could enable to enlarge the study case and make it more interesting for the NOBEL community? Mandatory Optional NOBEL WP2 Feb 05 7