Optics and Photonics Journal, 2013, 3, 165-170
doi:10.4236/opj.2013.32B040 Published Online June 2013 (http://www.scirp.org/journal/opj)
Request-based Dynamic Bandwidth Allocation of Gigabit
Passive Optical Network
Chih-Ta Chiu, Yung-Chung Wang
Department of Electrical Engineering, National Taipei University of Technology, Taipei, Chinese Taipei
Received 2013
ABSTRACT
We propose request-based dynamic bandwidth allocation (DBA) of gigabit passive optical network (GPON). The opti-
cal line terminal (OLT) in GPON grants bandwidth to optical network units (ONUs). ONUs report request bandwidth
which depends on queue lengths of traffic containers (TCONTs) to the OLT. In the OLT, DBA of GPON supports a
request-based polling order to allocate bandwidth. Our request-based dynamic bandwidth allocation focuses on weight
assignments in the request-based polling order. Weight assignments allocate bandwidth in proportion to guaranteed and
request bandwidth. We use the C program to simulate results. Simulated results indicate improved performance in
queueing delay when total offered loads are or are not shared uniformly to TCONTs.
Keywords: GPON; DBA; Weight; Polling
1. Introduction
GPON [1], a network of data transmission between the
optical line terminal (OLT) and optical network units
(ONUs), provides point to multipoint (P2MP) broadband
access networks. To achieve P2MP, tree topology [2]
gives a high distance extension solution because low
lengths of fiber links make a low cost. In the upstream
direction, time-division multiplexing access (TDMA) [3]
is used. ONUs send packets in their own time slots to the
OLT. In the downstream direction, the OLT broadcasts
packets in the downstream direction to ONUs. Headers
of packets not only make the OLT assign time slots to
ONUs but also make ONUs report their queue lengths to
the OLT. By reporting queue lengths, time slots are as-
signed dynamically.
DBA [4], based on the TDMA protocol, improves
performance compared with performance of the static
bandwidth allocation. DBA is achieved by header fields
of packets [5]. Header fields in the downstream direction
includes allocation identifiers (AllocIDs) to identify
TCONTs, start time pointers to denote the start time of
time slots, and end time pointers to denote the end time
of time slots. Those fields specify that only one of
TCONTs is served at any time. Header fields in the up-
stream direction include AllocIDs to identify TCONTs
and dynamic bandwidth reports (DBRs) to report queue
lengths in TCONTs. DBRs notifies the OLT to allocate
bandwidth dynamically due to queue lengths of ONUs
are different. Bandwidth is allocated dynamically to sat-
isfy queue lengths as soon as possible so that perform-
ance is improved.
The literature of DBA is rich. Instead of constant time
slots, [6] achieves dynamic time slots. Headers in the
upstream and downstream direction are used to grant
bandwidth and report queue lengths, respectively. The
time interval within a time slot only depends on reported
queue lengths. Based on service level agreement (SLA),
[7] reserves a guaranteed and non-guaranteed bandwidth
allocation policy. Bandwidth is cut into multiple grids
which includes guaranteed or non-guaranteed bandwidth.
Then, grids are polled for ONUs so that the policy is
achieved. [8] determines which ONU is allocated guar-
anteed or non-guaranteed bandwidth. A call admission
control (CAC) generates characters of ONUs as
non-guaranteed, guaranteed, or delay guaranteed band-
width. Then, by evenly delay algorithm, ONUs are put in
grids. Then, by BGP, bandwidth is polled from the first
to the last grid for ONUs. [9] provides a multimedia ser-
vice by allocating high to low priority bandwidth called
fixed, assured, and best effort bandwidth. In [10] and
[11], a class-based bandwidth scheme provides the dif-
ferentiated service because minimum function in the
OLT compares critical values with request bandwidth to
choose a smaller one. The OLT allocates bandwidth to
queues of different traffic classes. Then, ONUs report
queue lengths according to traffic classes. [12] sets in-
ter-ONU and intra-ONU weights so that bandwidth can
be allocated in proportion to weights. Types of the
scheduling can be weighted or hierarchical round robin.

C.-T. CHIU, Y.-C. WANG
166
In the DBA called prioritized weighted round robin
(PWRR) [5] [13], four kinds of bandwidth from high to
low priority bandwidth are fixed, assured, non-assured,
and best-effort bandwidth. Fixed and assured bandwidth
is guaranteed bandwidth while non-assured bandwidth
and best-effort bandwidth is surplus bandwidth. Critical
values include maximum and minimum bandwidth.
Critical values of non-assured bandwidth is in proportion
to critical values of assured bandwidth. The minimum
function compares request bandwidth with critical values
to choose a smaller one. Polling types are weighted
round robin (WRR). Time slots for bandwidth of four
priorities bandwidth are allocated every 125 us. [14]
gives different offered loads in its simulation to evaluate
performance of DBA.
We propose the request-based DBA called prioritized
adaptive request-based polling (PARP) in GPON. PARP
includes weight assignments and request polling. In
weight assignments, non-assured bandwidth is allocated
in proportion to weights. Two parameters are adaptable
for weights which are in proportion to assured and re-
quest bandwidth. Mention to the request-based polling,
instead of the fixed polling order of WRR, polling order
in PARP is based on the highest request bandwidth
among all request bandwidth within the same type of
TCONTs. Therefore, each type of TCONTs has its own
polling order. PARP is based on request bandwidth to
achieve DBA and polling. We use a C program to simu-
late results. Simulate results improve performance in
queueing delay when total offered loads are or are not
shared uniformly to TCONTs.
2. Proposed Method
2.1. Operations
GPON shown in Figure 1 includes OLT, ONUs and the
optical distribution network (ODN). OLT is responsible
for allocating bandwidth while ONUs are responsible for
reporting their queue lengths. ODN connects between the
OLT and ONUs to achieve broadcast in the downstream
direction and TDM in the upstream direction. Queues in
ONUs are TCONTs with queue lengths. Each TCONT is
identified by an AllocID so that the OLT can use Al-
locIDs to identify TCONTs.
Relationships between TCONTs and bandwidth are
shown in Figure 2. TCONT1 is allocated fixed band-
width which does not consider request bandwidth.
TCONT2 is allocated assured bandwidth. TCONT3 is
allocated assured and non-assured bandwidth. TCONT4
is allocated best-effort bandwidth. TCONT5 is the type
of test queues so that it is allocated fixed, assured, non-
assured, best-effort, and combined bandwidth. Priorities
to allocate bandwidth are shown in Figure 3. Fixed and
assured bandwidth is guaranteed bandwidth while non-
assured bandwidth and best-effort bandwidth is surplus
bandwidth. Order from high to low priority is fixed, as-
sured, non-assured, and best-effort bandwidth.
2.2. Assumptions
In [13], DBA for TCONT 3 is specified:
 For the surplus bandwidth allocation to TCONT 3,
setting all SImin parameters equal and varying the
ABsur parameters, a weighted round robin service is
enforced. If all the ABsur parameters are also set
equal, the service becomes equivalent to a simple
round robin.
 The guaranteed service rate is expressed as: AB-
min/SImax, while the surplus (non-guaranteed) ser-
vice rate is expressed as: ABsur/SImin. The guaran-
teed rate and the surplus rate sum up to the allowed
peak rate for TCONT 3.
 Regarding TCONT 3 AllocIDs, a GIR = 1/3PIR was
used.
Figure 1. GPON.
Figure 2. Relationships between bandwidth and TCONTs.
Figure 3. Priorities of the bandwidth allocation.

C.-T. CHIU, Y.-C. WANG 167
To compare our proposed method with PWRR, we
assume that PWRR in this paper sets all SImax and SImin
parameters equal and varies ABsur parameters so that a
WRR service is enforced. We follows the GIR = 1/3PIR.
Because the peak information rate (PIR) is three times of
guaranteed information rate (GIR), with setting SImax
and SImin equal, ABmin = 1/2ABsur is used for TCONT3.
In this paper, ABmin and ABsur for TCONT3 is
and , respectively.
3
max
TCONT
B
3
min
TCONT
B
2.3. Prioritized Adaptive Weighted Round Robin
We propose prioritized adaptive weighted round robin
(PAWRR) with weight assignments and without request-
based polling. Equation (1) and (2) are maximum band-
width. Maximum bandwidth is critical values. Maximum
bandwidth of TCONT2 is determined by Offered-
LoadTCONT2 while maximum bandwidth of TCONT3 is
determined by OfferedLoadTCO NT 3 . Equation (3) and (4)
are assured bandwidth. Assured bandwidth of TCONT2
and TCONT3 is allocated by comparing request band-
width with maximum bandwidth to choose a smaller one.
2
max .
TCONT TCONT
B OfferedLoad2
3
2
3
(1)
3
max .
TCONT TCONT
B OfferedLoad (2)
22
max
min( ,).
TCONTTCONT TCONT
assured request
BBB (3)
33
max
min( ,).
TCONTTCONT TCONT
assured request
BBB (4)
Equation (5), (6), and (7) are surplus, minimum band-
width, and weight assignments, respectively. Surplus
bandwidth is allocated for non-assured bandwidth by
weights of TCONT3. Weights of TCONT3 are assigned
in proportion to assured bandwidth and request band-
width. Parameters of α and β are the influence of assured
and request bandwidth, respectively. The sum of α and β
is 1.0. Equation (8) is non-assured bandwidth. Non-as-
sured bandwidth is allocated by choosing the smallest
one among request bandwidth, minimum bandwidth, and
frame bytes bandwidth. Frame bytes bandwidth is unused
bandwidth after allocating bandwidth.
23
23
,,
00
()
TCONT TCONT
NN
TCONT TCONT
surplustotali assuredi assured
ii
BB BB

 

. (5)
3
3
3
min
3
0
.
TCONT
TCONT
TCONT surplus NTCONT
i
i
W
BB
W



(6)
3
33
3
33
,,
0
.
()
TCONT
TCONT TCONT
assured request
TCONT
NTCONT TCONT
i assuredi request
i
BB
W
BB







(7)
333
min
min( ,,).
TCONTTCONT TCONT
non assuredrequestframe bytes
B BBB


Equation (9) and (10) are minimum and best-effort
bandwidth, respectively. Best-effort bandwidth is allo-
cated by comparing request bandwidth with frame bytes
bandwidth to choose a smaller one.
4
min .
TCONT
f
rame bytes
BB

 (9)
44
min
min( ,).
TCONTTCONT TCONT
best effortrequest
BBB
4
(10)
2.4. Prioritized Adaptive Request-based Polling
We proposed prioritized adaptive request-based polling
(PARP) with weight assignments and request-based
polling. Figure 4 is the scheme of request-based polling.
Instead of a count-down timer, we use the 0-1 trigger
called SImax or SIm in to determine which TCONT can
be allocated bandwidth. When a TCONT can and can not
allocate bandwidth, trigger value is 1 and 0, respectively.
In the beginning, we copy requests of N TCONT2, 3,
and 4 as TempTCONT2, TempTCONT3, and TempTCONT4
in number u time slot, respectively. Then, we use
MatchTCONT2, MatchTCONT3, and MatchTCONT4 to
choose the highest request bandwidth from TempT-
CONT2, TempTCONT3, and TempTCONT4, respectively.
If MatchTCONT2 is 0, the polling order follows the order
of weighted round robin due to all request bandwidth of
TCONT2 is zero for no comparison. If MatchTCONT2 is
not 0, the polling order is the highest request bandwidth
TCONT2. After MatchTCONT2, it turns to MatchT-
CONT3. If MatchTCONT3 is 0, the polling order follows
the order of weighted round robin due to all request
bandwidth of TCONT3 is zero for no comparison. If
MatchTCONT3 is not 0, the polling order is the highest

(8)
Figure 4. Request-based polling.

C.-T. CHIU, Y.-C. WANG
168
request bandwidth TCONT3. After MatchTCONT3, it
turns to MatchTCONT4 . If Ma tch T CO NT4 is 0, the poll-
ing order follows the order of weighted round robin due
to all request bandwidth of TCONT4 is zero for no com-
parison. If MatchTCONT4 is not 0, the polling order is
the highest request bandwidth TCONT4. Simax and
Simin follow the position of MatchTCONT2, MatchT-
CONT3, and MatchTCONT4 to set its value as 1 for the
bandwidth allocation. Then, DBA works for the band-
width allocations of TCONTs whose SImax or SImin is 1.
After DBA, its value is set 0.
2.5. Examples
The example includes one ODN between three ONUs
and one OLT. Each ONU includes three TCONTs which
are one TCONT2, one TCONT3, and one TCONT4. The
OLT includes a table about request bandwidth shown in
Figure 5. In this example, we use parameters in unit of
bytes.
f
rame bytes
B comes from 125 × 103 / 8 / 1 = 15625
bytes. OfferedLoadTCONT2 is 6000 bytes and Offered-
LoadTCONT3 is 3000 bytes so that is 6000 bytes
and is 3000 bytes. Request bytes of three
TCONTs of ONU1, ONU2, and ONU3 are 9000, 6000,
and 3000 bytes, respectively. The PARP table is ob-
served within three frame bytes. In this example, guard
bytes are ignored, pre-assured bandwidth of TCONT2
and 3 is 3000 bytes, and β is 1.0.
2
max
TCONT
B
3
max
TCONT
B
In the first frame bytes, firstly, max(9000, 6000, 3000 )
= 9000 bytes so that TCONT2 of ONU1 is chosen. In the
first frame bytes, request bytes of TCONT2 of ONU1
decrease from 9000 bytes to 3000 bytes due to min(9000,
6000) = 6000 bytes for the assured bandwidth allocation.
Remainders of frame bytes decrease from 15625 bytes to
9625 bytes.
Figure 5. DBA with PARP.
Secondly, max(9000, 6000 , 3000) = 9000 bytes so that
TCONT3 of ONU1 is chosen. Request bytes of TCONT3
of ONU1 decrease from 9000 bytes to 6000 bytes due to
min(9000, 3000) = 3000 bytes for the assured bandwidth
allocation. Remainders of frame bytes decrease from
9625 bytes to 6625 bytes. Request bytes of TCONT3 of
ONU1 decrease from 6000 bytes to 0 byte from (15625
× 3 - 6000 - 3000 × 5) × 6000 / (6000 + 6000 + 3000) =
10350 bytes and min(6000, 10350, 6625) = 6000 bytes
for the non-assured bandwidth allocation. Remainders of
frame bytes decrease from 6625 bytes to 625 bytes.
Thirdly, max(9000, 6000, 3000) = 9000 bytes so that
TCONT4 of ONU1 is chosen. Request bytes of TCONT4
of ONU1 decrease from 9000 bytes to 8375 bytes due to
min(9000, 625) = 625 bytes for the best-effort bandwidth
allocation.
In the second frame bytes, firstly, TCONT2 of ONU2
is chosen due to max(3000, 6000, 3000) = 6000 bytes
which turns to TCONT2 of ONU2. Firstly, in PARP ta-
ble of the second frame bytes, request bytes of TCONT2
of ONU2 decrease to 0 bytes for the assured bandwidth
allocation due to min(6000, 6000) = 6000 bytes. Re-
mainders of frame bytes decrease from 15625 bytes to
9625 bytes.
Secondly, max(0, 6000, 3000) = 6000 bytes so that
TCONT3 of ONU2 is chosen. Request bytes of TCONT3
of ONU2 decrease from 6000 bytes to 3000 bytes due to
min(6000, 3000) = 3000 bytes for the assured bandwidth
allocation. Then, request bytes of TCONT3 of ONU1
decrease from 3000 bytes to 0 bytes from (15625 × 3 -
6000 - 3000 × 5) × 6000 / (0 + 6000 + 3000) = 17250
bytes and min(3000, 17250, 6625) = 3000 bytes for the
non-assured bandwidth allocation. Remainders of frame
bytes decrease from 6625 bytes to 3625 bytes.
Thirdly, TCONT4 of ONU1 is chosen due to
max(8375, 6000, 3000) = 8375 bytes. Request bytes of
TCONT4 of ONU1 decreases from 8375 bytes to 4750
bytes due to min(8375, 3625) = 3625 bytes for the best
effort bandwidth allocation. Remainders of frame bytes
decrease from 3625 bytes to 0 byte.
In the third frame bytes, firstly, due to max(3000, 0,
3000) = 3000 bytes, it turns to TCONT2 of ONU1. In
PARP table of the third frame bytes, request bytes of
TCONT2 of ONU1 decrease from 3000 bytes to 0 byte
due to min(3000, 6000) = 3000 bytes for assured band-
width allocation. Remainders of frame bytes decrease
from 15625 bytes to 12625 bytes.
Secondly, due to max(0, 0, 3000) = 3000 bytes,
TCONT3 of ONU3 is chosen. Request bytes of TCONT3
of ONU3 decrease from 3000 bytes to 0 byte. Remain-
ders of frame bytes decrease from 12625 bytes to 9625
bytes due to min(3000, 3000) = 3000 bytes for the as-
sured bandwidth allocation.
Thirdly, due to max(4750, 6000, 3000) = 6000 bytes,

C.-T. CHIU, Y.-C. WANG 169
TCONT4 of ONU2 is allocated best-effort bandwidth.
Request bytes of TCONT4 of ONU2 decrease from 6000
bytes to 0 byte due to min(6000, 9625) = 6000 bytes.
Remainders of frame bytes decrease from 9625 bytes to
3625 bytes. PARP allocates high request bytes.
3. Performance Evaluation
3.1. Parameters
GPON is simulated in a C program to evaluate perform-
ance of PARP with 1 OLT and 8 ONUs. Mention to
simulated parameters, bandwidth of GPON is set as
1.24416 Gbps and network capacity is set as 1 G. The
frame duration is set as 125 us. Propagation delay be-
tween OLT and ONUs is set as 200 us. Guard bytes are
set as 20 bytes. The size of TCONTs is set as 10 Mbytes.
TCONT types are one TCONT2, one TCONT3, and one
TCONT4 in each ONU. The network traffic is generated
by exponential inter-arrival time and packet sizes are 64
bytes, 500 bytes, and 1500 bytes with the probability 0.6,
0.2, and 0.2, respectively. Parameters of O fferedLoadTCONT2
and OfferedLoad TCONT3 are 9500 bytes and 3000 bytes,
respectively. In the scenario1 of queueing delay with
sharing uniformly total offered loads, total offered loads
are shared 1/24 to each of 24 TCONTs in 8 ONUs. In the
scenario2 of queueing delay without sharing uniformly
total offered loads, total offered loads are shared 1/16 to
each of 12 TCONTs in 4 ONUs and 1/48 to each of 12
TCONTs in 4 ONUs.
3.2. Scenario1
Figure 6 is the comparison of queueing delay when total
offered loads are shared uniformly to TCONTs. In the
1.7 Gbps total offered load, four kinds of queueing delay
of TCONT3 of PAWRR with setting

1.0, PAWRR
with setting

1.0, PARP, and PWRR are 3.97 ms,
3.70 ms, 3.62 ms, and 3.80 ms, respectively.
Compared with 3.97 ms and 3.80 ms queueing delay,
of TCONT3 of PAWRR with setting
3
min
TCONT
B

1.0 is
low since heavy loads make
s
urplus
B
3TCONT
W
3NT
low and
fixed. Fixed makes fixed. of
TCONT3 of PWRR is set only in proportion to
which is a critical value of assured bandwidth. Therefore,
of TCONT3 of PAWRR is lower than
of TCONT3 of PWRR. non assured is allocated more to
TCONT3 of PWRR than TCONT3 of PAWRR setting
3TCONT
assured
3
NT
3
max
TCONT
3
min
TCONT
B
min
TCO
BB
B
3TCONT
assured
B
3
min
TCONT
BTCO
B

1.0.
Compared with 3.80 ms and 3.70 ms queueing delay,
of TCONT3 of PAWRR with setting
3
min
TCONT
B

1.0 is
high to high request bandwidth TCONT3 and low to low
request bandwidth TCONT3 since the weights are set in
proportion to . Even of TCONT3 of
PWRR is high, low is chosen by the minimum
function and high needs more bandwidth than
. Therefore, assured is allocated more to
TCONT3 of PAWRR with setting
3TCONT
request
BTC
B
3
min
TCONT
B
3ONT
request
3TCONT
request
BTCON
non
B
3
min
TCONT
B3T

1.0 than TCONT3
of PWRR.
Compared with 3.70 ms and 3.62 ms queueing delay,
WRR of PAWRR follows a fixed polling order. When
request bandwidth is low, the request bandwidth is still
polled. This results in low bandwidth allocation from a
minimum function. PARP chooses highest request band-
width to be polled. Therefore, more bandwidth is allo-
cated due to request bandwidth is high.
3.3. Scenario 2
Figure 7 is the comparison of queueing delay when total
offered loads are not shared uniformly to TCONTs. In
the 1 Gbps total offered load, four kinds of queueing
delay of TCONT3 of PAWRR with setting

1.0,
PAWRR with setting

1.0, PARP, and PWRR are
5.18 ms, 5.12 ms, 1.82 ms, and 8.17 ms, respectively.
Compared with 5.18 ms and 8.17 ms queueing delay,
s
urplus is high since 1 Gbps is light loads for TCONT3.
Therefore, min of TCONT3 of PAWRR is higher
than minof TCONT3 of PWRR. is al-
located more to TCONT3 of PAWRR with setting
B
TC
B
3TCONT
B
3NTO3TCONT
non assured
B

1.0 than TCONT3 of PWRR. Compared with 5.18 ms
and 5.12 ms queueing delay, of TCONT3 of
PAWRR with setting
3
min
TCONT
B

1.0 is high to high request
bandwidth TCONT3 and low to low request bandwidth
TCONT3 since the weights are set in proportion to
s
urplus . Therefore, assured is allocated more to
TCONT3 of PAWRR with setting
B3TCONT
non
B

1.0 than TCONT3
of PAWRR with setting

1.0.
Figure 6. Performance of queueing delay in scenario1.
Figure 7. Performance of queueing delay in scenario2.

C.-T. CHIU, Y.-C. WANG
170
Compared with 5.12 ms and 1.82 ms queueing delay,
WRR in PAWRR follows a fixed polling order. Times to
serve each TCONT is equal. However, TCONTs with
high and less loads need more and less polling times,
respectively. PARP gives more and less polling times to
TCONTs with high and less loads, respectively. There-
fore, queueing delay of PARP is lower than queueing
delay of PAWRR with setting

1.0.
By different polling times, besides TCONT3, PARP
improves queueing delay of TCONT2 and 4. In the 1.3
Gbps total offered load, four kinds of queueing delay of
TCONT2 of PAWRR with setting

1.0, PAWRR
with setting

1.0, PARP, and PWRR are 8.76 ms,
8.76 ms, 2.10 ms, and 8.76 ms, respectively. In the 0.6
Gbps total offered load, four kinds of queueing delay of
TCONT4 of PAWRR with setting

1.0, PAWRR
with setting

1.0, PARP, and PWRR are 2.87 ms,
2.80 ms, 1.27 ms, and 2.81 ms, respectively.
4. Conclusions
We propose request-based DBA called PARP in GPON.
PARP allocates min-max bandwidth with weights for
critical values. When weights are assigned in proportion
to request bandwidth, non-assured bandwidth is allocated
more and less to high and less request bandwidth
TCONT3, respectively. Non-assured bandwidth is adapted
so that it adapts varying request bandwidth. Beside the
bandwidth allocation, request-based polling is used to
poll the highest request bandwidth TCONTs in the same
type. PARP allocates more bandwidth to TCONTs of
high request bandwidth. By a C program, simulations are
evaluated when total offered loads are or are not uni-
formly shared to TCONTs. Simulative results indicate
queueing delay in proportion to request bandwidth is
better than one in proportion to guaranteed bandwidth
and critical values. Simulative results also indicate
queueing delay is improved when the polling order is
chosen high request bandwidth TCONTs.
REFERENCES
[1] ITU Rec. G.984.1, “Gigabit-Capable Passive Optical
Networks (G-PON): General Characteristics,” Geneva,
Switzerland, 2003.
[2] M. Mcgarry, M. Maier and M. Reisslein, “Ethernet Pas-
sive Optical Network (EPON): Building A
Next-Generation Optical Access Network,” IEEE Com-
munications Magazine, Vol. 40, No. 2, 2002, pp. 66-73.
doi:10.1109/35.983910
[3] D. Angelopoulos, S. Venieris and I. Stassinopoulos, “A
TDMA Based Access Control Scheme for APON's,”
Journal of Lightwave Technology, Vol. 11, No. 5, 1993,
pp. 1095-1103. doi:10.1109/50.233273
[4] ITU Rec. G.983.4, “A Broadband Optical Access System
with Increased Service Capability Using Dynamic Band-
Width Assignment,” Geneva, Switzerland, 2001.
[5] J. Angelopoulos, H. Leligou, T. Argyriou and S. Zontos,
“Efficient Transport of Packets with QoS in An
FSAN-Aligned GPON,” IEEE Communications Maga-
zine, Vol. 42, No. 2, 2004, pp. 92-98.
doi:10.1109/MCOM.2003.1267106
[6] G. Kramer, B. Mukherjee and G. Pesavento, “IPACT: A
Dynamic Protocol for An Ethernet PON,” IEEE Commu-
nications Magazine, Vol. 40, No. 2, 2002, pp. 74-80.
doi:10.1109/35.983911
[7] M. Ma, Y. Zhu and T. Cheng, “A Bandwidth Guaranteed
Polling MAC Protocol for Ethernet Passive Optical Net-
works,” IEEE INFOCOM, Vol. 1, No. 30, 2003, pp.
22-31.
[8] Y. Zhu, M. Ma and T. Cheng, “A Novel Multiple Access
Scheme for Ethernet Passive Optical Networks,” IEEE
GLOBECOM, Vol. 22, No. 1, 2003, pp. 2649-2653.
[9] S. Choi and J. Huh, “Dynamic Bandwidth Allocation
Algorithm for Multimedia Services Over Ethernet
PONs,” IEEE INFOCOM, Vol. 1, No. 30, 2003, pp.
22-31.
[10] C. Assi, Y. Ye and S. Dixit, “Support of QoS in
IP-based”
[11] Ethernet PON, IEEE GLOBECOM, Vol. 7, No. 1, 2003,
pp. 3737-3741. doi:10.1080/028418501127346846
[12] J. Xie, S. Jiang and Y. Jiang, “A Dynamic Bandwidth
Allocation Scheme for Differentiated Services in
EPONs,” IEEE Communications Magazine, Vol. 42, No.
8, 2004, pp. 32-39. doi:10.1109/MCOM.2004.1321385
[13] B. Chen, J. Chen and S. He, “Efficient and Fine Schedul-
ing Algorithm for Bandwidth Allocation in Ethernet Pas-
sive Optical Networks,” IEEE Journal of Selected Topics
in Quanium Electronicsxxcta Radiologica, Vol. 12, No. 4,
2006, pp. 653-660. doi:10.1109/JSTQE.2006.876607
[14] H. Leligou, C. Linardakis, K. Kanonakis, J. Angelopoulos,
and T. Orphanoudadkis, “Efficient Medium Arbitration of
FSAN-Compliant GPONs,” Journal of Communication
Systems, Vol. 19, No. 5, 2006, pp. 603-607.
doi:10.1002/dac.761
[15] C. Su-il and P. Jaehyung, “SLA-Aware Dynamic Band-
Width Allocation for QoS in EPONs,” IEEE/OSA Journal
of Optical Communications and Networking, Vol. 2, No.
9, 2010, pp. 773-781.doi:10.1364/JOCN.2.00077