‘iar2018 Centralized Spliting vs Disinbutes Splting in PON Based FTTH Networks Home> WDM & FTTX> Centralized Spitting vs Distributed Splting in PON Based FTTH Notworks Centralized Splitting vs Distributed Splitting in PON Based FTTH Networks Posted on oxsbe 18,2015 by FS,.COM Passive optical network (PON) based FTTH access network is a point-o-mulpoint, ber tothe premises network architecture in which passive optical spltars are used to enable a single optical fiber to serve multiple premises. The optcal sliter can be placed in diferent locations ofthe PON based FTTH notwork, which involves using centralized (single-stage) or distributes (mutstage) splting configurations In the aistibution portion of the network. In fact, bath methods have its own advantages and disadvantages. Which one should you deploy? Comparison between centralized spliting and distributed spliting willbe provided in hs atte ‘A cenvalzed spliting approach generally uses a combined spt rato of 1:64 (wih a 4:2 spliter in the central offce, and a 1:82 ina cabinet) These single-stage spliters can be placed at several locations in the network or housed at a central location. But in most cases, the centralize spliters are placed in the outside plant (OSP) o roduce the amount of overall ber requiod. The optical line terminal (OLT) active pot in the central offew (CO) wil be connactedlspliced toa fbr leaving the CO. This fiber passes through diffrent closures to reach the input pot of the spliter, normaly placed in a cabinet, The output port of this spiter goes to the dstibutlon network, reaching the homes of potential customers through diferent closures and indoor/outdoor terminal Boxes, Hab bo or cabinet Cantal otice ‘that kde ll pliers (one level, bg ratio) 0 with Dierbuton cables 182 Spier 1:2 spite Distributed Splitting Overview Unike centralized spliting, a distributed spiting approach has no spliters in the central ofce. The OLT partis connecteclspliced directly to an outside plant ber. A fest ove of splting (1 oF 1:8) is installed in a closure, not far fom the cental office. The input ofthis fst level spite is connected with ‘he OLT fiber coming from the central office. A second level of spitlers (1:18 or 7:8) resides in terminal boxes, very close to the customer premises {cach splitter covering 8 1016 homes). The inputs ofthese spiters are the fibers coming fom the outputs ofthe fist level pliters described above Boe or closure with Contal office 1 at evel spiter tort (8. 138), v8 spiner ‘8 spiter Contralized Splitting vs Distributed Splitting From the knowledge of centralized and distibutes spliting described above, we can know that for cenialized splting, all splters are located In one closure, which will maximize OLT utiizaon and provide a single point of access for roubleshaoting. But since optical splters musl be terminated to customer either through indvidual splices or connectors, the cost of eitribution cables will be very high In terms of distributed spliting methods, the alters are located in two or more diferent closure, which will minimize the amount of fber that needs to be deployed to provide service, But t may reateinffiiont use of OLT PON ports and may inerease the tasting and tum-up time of customers, The advantages and dsadvantagos of centralized ‘and distributed spliting are summarized in the table below htps:lcommuntys.comPblglcontalzed-spiting.vs-dstibuted-splitingn-pon-based-tth-networks. html 12susiz016 Centralized Spitting vs Disributed Splting in PON Based FTTH Networks ‘mavamages COLT uilzation (pay as you grow) Future proof & easy to change technology Q Senen, Ursiouvea opr ng Advantages Lower capital expense for customer connection Rerdcos splitor cabinet requirements Flexibility n pli ratios in serving area Conclusion visavanrages More distribution fiber Larger network elements inthe OSP Disadvantages More actives and more spiters Less flexible network Fewer monitoring & maintenance capabilities Before deciding which spliting metnods to use In @ PON based FTTH network, always considering every unique aspect of your network case. Since Contvalized spliting and distributed spliting both has ils pros and cons, the best architecture f the ane that me the quirements and expectations of the provider by reducing capital expense, optimizing longterm operational expense, and making a future-proof network that can cope with new technologies without dramatic changes. FS.COM provides full series THN ot 2xN FT and PLC soliters which can dvde a singleldual optical inputs) Into multiple optcal ouputs uniformly, and ofer superior optical performance, high stably and high relabily to meet various aplication requirements, ‘Tags: centralized sping, distributed splting, optical spiters, PLC spliters Social Media 60e06 htps:lcommuntys.comPblglcontalzed-spiting.vs-dstibuted-splitingn-pon-based-tth-networks. html 22