1 / 39

Dynamic Spectrum Management

Dynamic Spectrum Management. July 2002. John M. Cioffi Prof. EE, Stanford U. Cioffi@stanford.edu And all the work by students: Taek Chung, George Ginis, Jeannie Fang, Jungwon Lee, Dimitris Toumpakaris, & Wei Yu. Copper has more bw than fiber?. fiber.

louise
Télécharger la présentation

Dynamic Spectrum Management

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Dynamic Spectrum Management July 2002 John M. Cioffi Prof. EE, Stanford U. Cioffi@stanford.edu And all the work by students: Taek Chung, George Ginis, Jeannie Fang, Jungwon Lee, Dimitris Toumpakaris, & Wei Yu

  2. Copper has more bw than fiber? fiber • DSL will deliver 100 Mbps symmetric to all • 50 line bundle (500 meters of cat 3 tp) • 50 lines (100 Mbps/line) = 5 Gbps • FTTH shares 622 Mbps among 50 or more homes in PON architecture (even “future” systems are 2.5 Gbps) • So, where is DSL today? • Where is DSL going? Cable of copper pair

  3. A/VDSL Closer DSLAM ONU/RT router Enet. 1000BT VoDSL Interface IEEE 802.X Enet Fiber (from CO) wireless (802.11,15) or other distribution possible within CPE, 11, 55, 100-500 Mbps 802.11 DSL 200X- (V/M/ADSL) 10/100 Mbps • Data , Voice , Video …

  4. DSM HDSL / ADSL … 2000 2001 2002 2003 DSM=Dynamic Spectrum Management “EFM” 10MDSL • Standard in progress – USA (ANSI / T1E1.4) • Dynamic – loops, xtalk, rates very • Not limited by worst-case static situations • Extension to existing Spec Management • T1.417-2002 • Improve considerably reliability and performance • Cannot have spectrum compatibility at higher speeds without DSM • Crosstalk effect is too strong for static regulation • THIS IS A CRUCIAL turning point for DSL • Goals: 100 Mbps symmetric everywhere • & Improve the range of every rate < 100 Mbps SM (static) VDSL 100MDSL ADSL+ VDSL-2

  5. Outline • Crosstalk and Management • Autonomous (de-regulated) DSL • Bonded/Vectored DSL

  6. FEXT NEXT DSL’s Challenge: Crosstalk user Phone Co=Base (DSLAM) • Same service provider • Different service provider • Management? • Spectrum – fixed or static • Ok, but performance and reliability severely compromised • Symmetric versus asymmetric user

  7. Some Crosstalk • Xtalk noise increases with frequency FEXT – British Telecom (gain) NEXT - Bellcore (attenuation)

  8. CPE DSL CO DSLs CPE DSL CPE DSL CO DSL CPE DSL LT DSL Loop Topology • Many other configurations • symmetric/asymmetric mixtures • Data rate mixtures • Shorter lines • Bonding of lines

  9. TWISTED-PAIR Atten Bits/chan Bits/chan Frequency Frequency Frequency TWISTED-PAIR with TAP, AM/RF, and XTALK Atten AM Bits/chan Bits/chan xtalk Frequency Frequency ADSL DMT Loading Basics(adapts to each line) Frequency 800 Million phone lines and growing fast! Bellcore tests, 1993 (ANSI Standard) GTE tests, 1996 ; NSTL, 1996

  10. bi n d e r ILEC DSLAM 1 Central Office 1-20 Mbps (asymmetric/ symmetric) Present DSL 2002: autonomous (no coordination) SMC for provisioning, Fault isolation Network ILEC DSLAM 2 SMC1 CLEC DSLAM SMC2 Evolving DSL 2002+: Bonding Vectoring Common DSLAM (LT or RT) Central Office b i n d e r Content 1 Content 2 Fiber Or multi-channel DSL ILEC LT D S L A M 20-100 Mbps (symmetric) Switch router Network SMC twistedpair Evolution of Crosstalk / management time

  11. Outline • Crosstalk and Management • Autonomous (de-regulated) DSL • Bonded/Vectored DSL bi n d e r ILEC DSLAM 1 Central Office 1-20 Mbps (asymmetric/ symmetric) Present DSL 2002: autonomous (no coordination) SMC for provisioning, Fault isolation Network ILEC DSLAM 2 SMC1 CLEC DSLAM SMC2

  12. DSL 1 Shared binder H(f) DSL 1 DSL 2 DSL 2 DSL K DSL K Model: Autonomous Case • Crosstalk between users is “matrix channel” • “Interference channel” in information theory • Can users be compatible without large loss? (SSM – no, DSM - yes) . . .

  13. Spectralpair 1 Spectral pair 2 DSM Multi-user Rate REGIONS Rlong • Plot of all possible rates of users • ADSL & some VDSL use DSM – any point is possible • More than 2 users (vector of possible rate-tuples) • Region’s size (volume) can vary with: • each binder • transmission methods (i.e., DMT has much larger regions) Rshort

  14. ANSI DSM ADSL “Blueprint” Example(T1E1.4/2001- 273, 278) ADSL CO 10 + X kft ADSL rcvr • CLASSIC field problem with ADSL present-day deployments • Long-line often does not work and field personal have to be dispatched • Improve the performance of line 1 AUTONOMOUSLY (no coordination) using DSM-mode in ADSL modems • Eliminate problem automatically • Greatly extend ADSL range Line 1 10 kft ADSL RT 5 kft ADSL rcvr Line 2 fiber CO Same binder FEXT

  15. DSM ADSL basic spectrum result Downstream Spectra (2 lines) • Short line yields to long • No “DSL hogging” • Enormous improvement on long line • At expense of reduced rate on short line • Do so autonomously Initial Short-line spectra, Long-line turns on Long Line spectra Intermediate Short-line spectra, Intermediate Short-line spectra, Short-line spectra f

  16. Verizon Experimental Loop Configuration(T1E1.4/2002-069 – “Bell Atlantic” Test Lab, Maryland) Simulation of CO-ADSL fed through RT binder with RT-ADSL 14 kft 6 kft Cable Vault Cable Vault Mainframe Mainframe Pair 16 of 6 kft, 26 gauge 25-pair binder (Simulates RT portion of loop) Pair 1 of 14 kft, 24 gauge 25-pair binder Pair 17 of 6 kft, 26 gauge 25-pair binder (Simulates RT-ADSL loop) Remote Side Remote Side CO side Remote Side CO side ATU-R ATU-R ATU-C ATU-C CO ADSL RT ADSL Verizon Broadband Integration Lab

  17. Crosstalk into pair 17 Pair  Noise (dB)        Pair  Noise (dB) 1     -82.5                   13    -84.4 2     -78.1                   14    -80.7 3     -74.9                   15    -77.7 4     -82.3                 16    -63.2 5     -83.0                   18    -67.7 6     -84.2                   19    -67.5 7     -78.0                   20    -76.9 8     -81.0                   21    -80.8 9     -75.3                   22    -78.7 10    -73.3                   23    -78.0 11    -79.6                   24    -73.4 12    -82.7                   25    -80.7 • Used worst-case FEXT coupling pairs for experiment

  18. DSM-ADSL Rate Region (Verizon loops) • Rate-Adaptive produces (9,.1) • Mode used by Verizon nominally in lab • Instead, DSM-mode provides (Short, Long) = • (2, 1.8), (4, 1.4), (6, .9) , and (8, .6)

  19. ADSL CO 15 kft ADSL rcvr Line 1 10 kft (fiber) ADSL RT 5 kft ADSL rcvr Line 2 15 kft 10 kft (fiber) ADSL RT ADSL rcvr Line 3 CO Same binder FEXT Telcordia (Bellcore) Results “Blueprint” Test(T1E1.4/2002-063) ADSL CO ADSL rcvr • Improve the performance of lines 1 and 3 (which is bad under RA operation) • Line 1 only operates at 300 kbps in “normal” mode ADSL rcvr ADSL RT ADSL RT ADSL rcvr

  20. lines 1 & 2 (3 removed) – 063R1 Telcordia DSM-ADSL Rate Regionst1e1.4/2002-063 • No coordination (line 2 held at 6 dB margin, 1.6 Mbps • 4x improvement on Line 1 (was at 300 kbps if line 2 does RA or margin-max training) – like “Verizon” expt. • 4x because 15kft, not 20 kft like Verizon lines 1 & 3 (2 held at 1.6 Mbps)

  21. DSM Algorithm (Iterative-Water-filling) • Water-filling is known optimum on single-user channel • Use DMT, and MINIMIZE POWER for given rate/margin • Best autonomous solution to “interference problem” in binder • The more lines that do DSM, the better they all work • NEVER any worse than existing fixed/static Spectrum Management • AUTONOMOUS – no coorination necessary, procedure assures overall best mutual spectra (least harmful xtalk) of all DSLS in distributed fashion NSR(f) S(f)

  22. Dynamic Spectrum Management BDSL to D: 100 Mbps U: 100 Mbps 1-4 lines/LT 0-2 km AMDSL to D: 25 Mbps U: 10 Mbps 1-2 lines CO/LT 0-4 km … 2002 2003 2004 3-steps to Broadband DSL • DSM • ADSL -Software option in current ADSL modems • ADSL+ & 10M-DSL (DMT only) – iterative wf • 100M-DSL (DMT only) ADSL to D: 7 Mbps U: .3 Mbps 1 line 0-6 km

  23. 10MDSL (EFM) Range/Rate Goals [1]

  24. 25 10MDSLs in same binder (same length) • No coordination • 10 Mbps single-line range is 2.5x SSM result (SHDSL) • 10 Mbps >1.5 km on 2 lines Verified By Voyan Verified By Telcordia

  25. Example PSD for 4000’ • Overlap (EC) to 800 kHz • Each has 3 basic bands

  26. MDSL with ADSL present • Range of ADSL and of MDSL unaffected if DSM is used • Not true for Static SM (or SHDSL)

  27. ADSL at CO, MDSL at RT • Cabinet is 10 kft from CO – last 2 to 6 kft in same binder • ADSL at CO “swamped” by 64 PAM • ADSL at CO largely unaffected by IW Copper, 4 kft Fiber, 10 kft M M A A Copper, L kft 12, 14, 16

  28. VDSL vs MDSL rate regions • Fixed is 998 on V and 1 MHz on M • Still exceeds all targets of M and V

  29. Table 2 – Augmentation of Table 1 with IW results Aggregate bit rate (sym payload) # of twisted pairs Average bit rate per pair Objective loop length Desired loop length DSM Result 10 Mb/s 1 10 Mb/s 2.5 kft >3.5 kft 5 kft 10 Mb/s 2 5 Mb/s 4 kft >5 kft 8 kft 10 Mb/s 3 3.33 Mb/s 5.5 kft >6.5 kft 9 kft 10 Mb/s 4 2.5 Mb/s 7 kft >8 kft 10 kft 10 Mb/s 5 2 Mb/s 8 kft >9 kft achieved 4 Mb/s 4 1 Mb/s 12 kft >12 kft achieved 2 Mb/s 4 512 kb/s 15 kft >15 kft achieved Table Revisted (extra column) • Allows mixture of ADSL with MDSL, and VDSL with MDSL • Rate regions do reduce in size for VDSL • But all VDSL and MDSL goals still exceeded

  30. 998 Plan with Iter-water (VDSL) • Rates exceed VDSL objectives • Note spectra converges to 998 when 998 is present (4000’ MDSL)

  31. Basic Principles - Summary • No DSL modem should use more transmit power than it needs • No DSL modem should use more bandwidth than it needs • Can be solved adaptively and autonomously • Stop proliferating DSL standards and incompatible spectrum management

  32. Basic Solution • Use/Extend ADSL DMT Frequency Grid • Already on 24 million lines (> 95% of market) • ADSL+ = 512 tones down / 128 up • 10MDSL= 1024 tones down/1024 up • VDSL = 2048 up/down • 100MDSL 4096 up/down

  33. Outline • Crosstalk and Management • Autonomous (de-regulated) DSL • Bonded/Vectored DSL Evolving DSL 2002+: Bonding Vectoring Common DSLAM (LT or RT) Central Office b i n d e r Content 1 Content 2 Fiber Or multi-channel DSL ILEC LT D S L A M 20-100 Mbps (symmetric) Switch router Network SMC time twistedpair

  34. Coordinated 2-sided Signals (vector bonding) • Full Vectoring Problem • Highest data rates Shared channel Bonded lines Bonded lines Controller Controller

  35. User 1 LT DSLAM User 2 . . . Controller User K DSM Level 2: Coordinated 1-sided Signals Shared channel • “broadcast” and “multiple-access” probs in IT • One-sided vectoring, FDM of up/down • Bonding (vector broadcast and vector MA problems in IT)

  36. 998 with/without Vectoring • Enormous gain, especially upstream at shorter lengths where FEXT is large

  37. Full Vectoring (sum up/down) 100 Mbps range – 500 meters , single line • 1 km on 2 lines • >1.5 km on 4 lines • Even when partially vectored, 100 Mbps on 2 lines at 500 m, 1 km on 4 lines

  38. Broadband DSL • Enables video, data, voice services and packaging

  39. 3 steps Dynamic Spectrum Management • ANSI 2001-200R5, 2002-018, 057, 059, 127, 129 • http://isl.stanford.edu/~cioffi/dsm/index.html • Looking to collaborate with service/content providers, equipment/semi companies BDSL to D: 100 Mbps U: 100 Mbps 1-4 lines/LT 0-2 km ADSL to D: 7 Mbps U: .3 Mbps 1 line 0-6 km AMDSL to D: 25 Mbps U: 10 Mbps 1-2 lines CO/LT 0-4 km … 2002 2003 2004

More Related