 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Early comments
editAnyone with info on progress of the standard by ITU-T, please update relevant explanations to the article and don't forget to include references. Extra stuff on the process of developing the standard or more detailed specifications could presumably be added to the G.987 page?
However, 10GPON is going to be around for a long time so lets make this a fairly comprehensive article! Any suggestions for section headings? Perhaps:
- Introduction
- User Applications
- ONU and ONT Equipment
- OLT and Access Nodes
- Layer 1: Optical Standards and Loss Budgets
- Layer 2: Network and Data Transmission Standards
- Advantages/Disadvantages of 10GPON Compared to Gigabit
- Advantages/Disadvantages of PONs Compared to Point-to-point Ethernet
- Installed 10GPON Networks
- Next Generation Telecommunications Industry
- Manufacturers
Webwat (talk) 09:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- It's great to see some quality content here. The Wikipedia coverage of FTTx is pretty lame really, and I'm just as guilty as anyone for not improving it much. Have you seen passive optical network? GPON doesn't even have a page as far as I can tell, which seems like quite an oversight.
- Here's my feedback on your heading suggestions:
- Introduction - er yes
- User Applications - not sure this merits its own section, a sentence or two as part of the introduction is all that is needed, applications are not unique to the technology.
- ONU and ONT Equipment - is there anything to say here that's unique to 10G-PON and not just about PON in general?
- OLT and Access Nodes - ditto.
- Layer 1: Optical Standards and Loss Budgets Yes
- Layer 2: Network and Data Transmission Standards Yes
- Advantages/Disadvantages of 10GPON Compared to Gigabit ??? Gigabit what?
- Advantages/Disadvantages of PONs Compared to Point-to-point Ethernet - Nooo! Technology and topology should be treated seperately, the PON vs P2P debate has moved on. In any case there's nothing you could add here that would be specific to 10G-PON, so this comparison does not belong here.
- Installed 10GPON Networks - I think it's at the demo stage right now, this is very interesting while there are so few installations
- Next Generation Telecommunications Industry - what does that mean?
- Manufacturers No, I think this might constitute advertising, which is not allowed on wikipedia.
--Opticalgirl (talk) 21:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
yes the PON page definitely needs a bit more info, and maybe a comparison of PON vs P2P belongs there under a new section if somebody gets around to covering that debate -- also what type of applications are more suited to each.
I think there does need to be something about terminal equipment, mainly because thats the bit that tends to be forgotten about in general discussions. There will be a few issues relevant to 10G networks such as the emerging G.hn home networking standard (ph line, coax, power line) that has not been available on most 1G networks, and may be crucial in getting improved uptake. Another issue could be with MDUs connecting more users with faster links, so the ONU might evolve into a chassis or something quite different from common G-PON or EPON gear.
Applications are really important because thats what has been driving development of both the 10G PON standards. So the question would be "what are users likely to adopt if faster speeds are there, and what do they want enough to demand and pay for the faster speed enabled by this technology?".
Name etc.
editAfter a quick look, it seems the standard calls it XG-PON, so that might be a better name for the article. To me, having a separate article for G.987 does not make any sense. Just point it to here or unlink it. One relatively jargon-free article about both the technology and its standardization committee would be a better service to a reader like me. Also need to clarify relation to 10G-EPON and the 10 Gigabit Ethernet WAN PHYs. I did realize that G.984 is the article on the family, and oddly includes sections on G.987 and G.988 as well, which does not seem consistent. W Nowicki (talk) 19:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
- XG-PON is hardly used as far as I know (but could get more popular...), maybe because technology gets promoted before its standardised or maybe standards bodies just aren't trendy. Anyway, I think G.984 was the standard for G-PON but they are designed to be compatible and G.988 has been separated from G.984 so that its now a standalone one that might cover other technologies as well. Since there is no page for G-PON at all except for the G.984 stub, perhaps that stub and a new section on G-PON could be merged with this page? Or is the G-EPON precedent even sensible (where it's part of 10G-EPON), instead of having its own page? Still, I don't think G-PON should just redirect to Passive optical network as it does now. -- Webwat (talk) 05:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Glad to hear at least someone will help, it needs it. Generally my attitude is that we could use fewer articles with more text and references before we create new stubs. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so each "term" does not get its own article, but only "topics" that are independently notable. My suggestion would be to beef up, say, the Passive optical network article first into a coherent narative. Yes, passive optical has a long history before GPON as I understand, and we need to make that clear. We should use full citations instead of inline links. And then if a section gets too big, spin it off to its own article with summary there. I also prefer fully spelled out words as titles, and not acronyms nor standard numbers. That way if future standards or acronyms apply to he same concept, the article conveys a complete story. Right now, for example, Optical Distribution Network and Optical distribution network redirect to ODN which is a disambig page, not a good idea. Is this what you meant? I vote for lower case full words by the way as article titles; acronym are not always proper nouns (although some are). I also ran across Next-generation access which bothers me. I these all could merge into Fiber to the x which is not the best title in the world either for that matter, but covers the basic concept. W Nowicki (talk) 23:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
- I was hoping someone could write a new article for distribution networks, but I did find an article called Access network and added an brief ODN section there. Do you think we should redirect all ODN links to the subsection on that page? I don't have time to research and write a whole page, or the expertise either, but it could be very detailed if that was warranted. The PON page covers quite a lot, so probably should only be introductory for topics that don't have their own article.
- Webwat (talk) 01:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- I noticed there was once an article about optical networks but was deleted
- 12:41, 15 June 2008 Lid (talk | contribs) deleted "Optical access network" (G11: Blatant advertising)
- will redirect that to Access network as well as the link on disambig page. -- Webwat (talk) 02:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- I noticed there was once an article about optical networks but was deleted
I though I added a comment yesterday but somehow did not "take". Perhaps I forgot to save before shutting down. Anyway, thanks, that is a step. I also fixed the lower-case Optical distribution network redirect. That is where the article would go, since it is a general concept and not a proper noun (there can be more than one in the world) even if it is often acronymed as above. I should note there is also a Backhaul (telecommunications) article which overlaps too. I suspect that term might be more common in wireless (mobile phone) networks? Again, "topics" get an article, not each term for the same concept. W Nowicki (talk) 19:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Back to the name of this topic: it seems the standards are officially "10-Gigabit-capable passive optical network systems" with the XG-PON abbreviation used. However, the marketing prefers to use the "10G" moniker. My guess is this is intended to sound "bigger and better" than the fairly meaningless 4G marketing term? After all, ten is bigger than four so it must be better. W Nowicki (talk) 23:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- ODN is of course the topic for generic distribution or access networks, specifically Layer 1 infrastructure, while backhaul is necessary but completely separate since its the way that access networks connect to core networks. There is no way backhaul could be classed as part of the distributionn topic. I have never heard of 4G optical networks, although 40G is the next speed step after 10G. Its basically 10 gigabit as opposed to 1 gigabit. Webwat (talk) 09:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Dead link
editDuring several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
--JeffGBot (talk) 22:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Will update it to the Version 2.0 link — http://www.ftthcouncil.eu/resources/ftth-business-guide-2011--second-edition?media_id=1376 Webwat (talk) 06:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Dead link 2
editDuring several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
--JeffGBot (talk) 22:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
New edition 4 so will update the link to http://www.ftthcouncil.eu/resources/ftth-handbook-2011--fourth-edition?media_id=1382
Thanks Webwat (talk) 06:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC) Daveburstein (talk) 02:29, 22 October 2021 (UTC) Application section mostly worked in GPON, not requiring 10 Gbps. Unhelpful. Added XGS to XG PON, now becoming important. AT&T described 15M lines of XGS. Sasktel and others also doing XGS Dave