HFC Architecture In The Making
2 likes1,666 views
This document presents an architecture called the mini-fiber node (mFN) technology that was being tested by AT&T Broadband and AT&T Labs to address bandwidth demands on cable networks. It describes the initial mFN architecture using fiber to the mFN and passive coaxial cable between the mFN and subscribers. It also outlines challenges with current networks and proposes a migration path to a new integrated platform using muxnodes and mFNs to reduce active components and power consumption while supporting current and future services. Finally, it provides an update on an mFN field trial underway in Salt Lake City to evaluate cost savings and operation benefits.
HFC Architecture In The Making
- 1. HFC Architecture In The Making Oleh Sniezko, Tony Werner, Doug Combs and Esteban Sandino AT&T Broadband & Internet Services Xiaolin Lu, Ted Darcie, Alan Gnauck, Sheryl Woodward Bhavesh Desai and Xiaoxin Qiu AT&T Labs Rob Mclaughlin AT&T Broadband Services Engineering XL 6/11/99
- 2. What is this? The first joint presentation (AT& Labs and AT&T Broadband – former TCI) on NCTA Cable Show 1999 The invention and evolution of the mini Fiber Node (mFN – Lightwire and later OXiom) technology At that time an extensive field trial was going on in Salt Lake City And why we do this XL 6/11/99
- 3. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Adel Saleh ABIS ABSE (former A-Laber) Patrick O’Hare Mark Dzuban Larry Cox Cameron Gough Tim Peters Marty Davidson Sam Barney Bill Scheffler Quasar, Inc Bogdan Lomnicki XL 6/11/99
- 4. HFC IN THE MAKING SH FN Primary SH Hub FN SH Segmentation FSS DWDM Node Splitting DWDM SONET Ring-In-Ring BDR DOCSIS Modem XL 6/11/99
- 5. CHALLENGES Bandwidth Demands Take rate and multiple lines New services (streaming) User behavior (always-on, SOHO) Operation Savings Network Sweep Evolution Maintenance Powering Performance Reliability QoS XL 6/11/99
- 6. ARCHITECTURES Tree-and-Branch Broadcast FN Cascaded ??? Cell-Based Narrowcast RN Clustered XL 6/11/99
- 7. FIBER OPTICS ? Node 2,000+HP 1,200HP 600HP 200HP 100HP Size HOW Deep ? HOW To ? XL 6/11/99
- 8. Initial Mini-Fiber Node Architecture Mini- FN HE mFN mFN Local Signaling for MAC New Services Analog video 5 50 550 1G Fiber to mFN For Digital Overlay 550/750 - 1000 MHz Two-Way per 50 HHPs Two- Low-Power- Low-Power-Consumption Digital Path Simple Protocol and Terminals XL 6/11/99
- 9. Initial Mini-Fiber Node Architecture Mini- FN HE mFN mFN XL 6/11/99
- 10. Initial Mini-Fiber Node Architecture Mini- FN HE mFN mFN XL 6/11/99
- 11. SIX MONTH STUDY completed 3/99 Define Network Upgrade Strategy to Balance Near- Near-term and Long-term Needs Long- Network Design and Cost Analysis: 600+ miles, multiple scenarios Key Results: Incremental cost with deep fiber penetration Opportunities in: Reducing power consumption for 2-way services Reducing terminal and operation cost Ability to support future demands Opportunities to Improve Current System While Migrating to New Infrastructure XL 6/11/99
- 12. MULTIPLEXED FIBER PASSIVE COAX XL 6/11/99
- 13. LightWire TM HUB MuxNode mFN mFN Existing/reduced New fiber along coax branch Passive coax between mFN and subscribers Reduced actives, power consumption, and maintenance MuxNode to reduce cost of deep fiber penetration Multi-dimension Multiplexing/demultiplexing XL 6/11/99
- 14. TM LightWire HUB MuxNode TV New IP DTV DOCSIS New IP New IP New IP Analog & TSD Digital TV Today 10 50 550 750 1G Increased bandwidth and flexibility for DOCSIS-based services Simultaneously support current & future (new IP) systems XL 6/11/99
- 15. MIGRATION Phase 1: Establish A New Infrastructure Reduce actives and system power consumption Create more bandwidth for DOCSIS-based services Improve reliability Phase 2: Future Proofing More capacity & flexibility (10-100Mbps/50-100 HHP) Low-cost, low-power-consumption user terminals Provisioning for future opportunities XL 6/11/99
- 16. PLATFORM COMPARISON HUB MuxNode mFN B Mux/Demx Phase / MAC 1 R RFI Data AM-VSB DTV AM- Voice 5 5 550 750 1G RF End-to-End B Phase / MAC 2 R Mux/ Demx RFI Current Services 1G 100 750 1G MAC Demarc Digital Baseband RF Demarc XL 6/11/99
- 17. AN INTEGRATED PLATFORM -- Option #1 PH SH MuxNode mFN TV XTR RCV-A D D TSD ITU-A W W XTR Today RCV-A D D Filter RCV M M ITU-A 1:8 Coupler XTRV Modem RCV-D New RCV-D DWDM C ITU-D Mux IP C RCV-D Demux Phase 2 ITU-D DWDM ITU-A: Analog ITU ITU-D: Digital ITU RCV-A: Analog RCV RCV-D: Digital RCV Integrated Platform with Phased Development Off-the-shelf for Phase 1 with Phase 2 provisioning XL 6/11/99
- 18. AN INTEGRATED PLATFORM -- Option #2 PH SH MuxNode mFN TV XTR RCV-A D D TSD ITU-A W W XTR Today RCV-A D D Filter RCV M M ITU-A 1:8 Coupler XTRV Modem RCV-D New RCV-D DWDM C ITU-D Mux IP C RCV-D Demux Phase 2 ITU-D DWDM ITU-A: Analog ITU ITU-D: Digital ITU RCV-A: Analog RCV RCV-D: Digital RCV Integrated Platform with Phased Development Off-the-shelf for Phase 1 with Phase 2 provisioning XL 6/11/99
- 19. MUXNODE PLATFORM 1:8 RCV ITU-A 1:8 XTRV ASK Dem ITU-D Mux RCV-D Demux Multi-dimension (RF, optical, and digital) mux/demux XL 6/11/99
- 20. mFN PLATFORM RCV Standard Fiber Node D D Platform XTR-A RCV-D Phase 2 FSK ASK FSK HPF HPF Add-on Mod Mod Demod HPF FPGA HPF GaAs high-gain amplifiers for maximum mFN coverage Phase 2: RF and MAC demarcation XL 6/11/99
- 21. ADVANTAGES Operation Savings 61% reduction in active components Reduced power consumption Simplification of maintenance Improved Performance Reduced ingress noise funneling (10-48MHz operation) Increased RF bandwidth Improved reliability Future Proof Flexibility between current track and future opportunities Improved QoS and potential terminal cost reduction XL 6/11/99
- 22. OPERATION SAVINGS Current Network: 5.5 actives/mile XL 6/11/99
- 23. OPERATION SAVINGS 61% reduction in active components 21+% improvement in reliability XL 6/11/99
- 24. COST AND SAVING Potential Saving: 250 200 Mitigates Future Node Capital Cost/HHP Splitting 150 Customer Satisfaction 100 $11/HHP/year Operating Saving: 50 $5 - 8/HHP Sweep $1 - 2/HHP Powering 0 $1/HHP Service call Current MFPC $1/HHP Customer call Fiber Optics mFN Amplifier Reverse Sw eep Passive $1/HHP Credit/churn Pow er Supply Engineering Taxes Potential Terminal Cost $40/HHP Incremental Cost Reduction XL 6/11/99
- 25. DELAY COMPARISON 1000 100 Average delay (ms) 10 mFN-NAD CM 1 0.1 mFN-NAD Cable modem 0.01 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Number of active users XL 6/11/99
- 26. PRIORITY PROVISIONING Low (20) Medium (10) High (20) 50 40 Utilization (%) 30 150Kbps 240Kbps 20 100Kbps 10 0 26 51 77 102 128 154 179 205 230 256 282 307 Request Packet Rate (Kbps/station) 26 XL 6/11/99
- 27. BOUNDED DELAY 6 Average Delay (ms) 5 Low Priority (20) 4 3 Medium Priority (10) 2 1 High Priority (20) 0 100 200 300 Request Packet Rate (Kbps/station) XL 6/11/99
- 28. Field Trial Objective: Support planned upgrade: bandwidth expansion Test technology, verify cost & operation saving Trial Scope: 520 miles (66,619 HHP) in Salt Lake Metro Phased development and implementation Schedule: Service launching: October, 1999 Data collection: January, 2000 XL 6/11/99
- 29. PROJECT SCOPE Design Optimization Maximize the number of amplifiers replaced per mFN Minimize overall network power consumption Define design limiting factors Investigate MDU compatibility Equipment Development: Technology feasibility Cost and time to market Implementation and Data Collection Front-end labor cost Baseline and new data (service call, number of failures, MTTR, etc) Change in sweeping and certification due to the new architecture XL 6/11/99
- 30. CURRENT STATUS Vendor Selection: 4/29/99 Trial Area Selection: 4/29/99 Design Guideline: 5/3/99 Project Scope Documentation: 5/7/99 First Unit Delivery: 6/16/99 Installation: 6/22/99 Service Launching 10/99 Data Collection/Proposition 1/2000 XL 6/11/99
- 31. We’ll see XL 6/11/99