Architecture, performance and maintenance
Co-author: Dr. Andreas Bluschke, Chief Scientist, Fiber Fidelity GmbH
Dr. Andreas Bluschke works in optical communications and fiber-based home networking. He co-authored the 2025 book FTTR – Glasfaserbasierte Wohnungsnetze, Netzebene 5 (NE5) with Gerhard Kafka, covering FTTR technologies, standardization and deployment. Fiber Fidelity GmbH focuses on FTTR solutions for in-home connectivity.
G.p2pf provides dedicated optical Ethernet links between the residential gateway and selected room units. Where it replaces an unreliable wireless relay between access points (APs), it stabilizes the backhaul and frees the radio resources the relay used. What a household actually notices still depends on the client connection, the gateway and the rest of the traffic path.
FTTR, or Fiber-To-the-Room, is a broad label for taking fiber inside the home. G.p2pf and G.fin are its recently standardized approaches [1]. A variant described at ETSI more than 10 years ago is, in principle, also a type of FTTR, although it was not referred to as such at the time [15]. This version is based on G.hn technology. This article covers G.p2pf and brings in G.fin only where the comparison clarifies a design choice. Its architecture, performance and maintenance sections apply wherever G.p2pf is deployed; the building and market examples are mainly European. Current commercial FTTR deployments are mainly based on PON architectures. G.fin has so far been primarily a Chinese, or perhaps more broadly Asian, phenomenon, while G.p2pf is emerging as an alternative for specific residential and operator scenarios [13, 14].
European conditions vary, but the network stops at the building: EU27 FTTP access coverage reached 74.1% as of mid-2025 [10], while how fiber reaches the rooms inside is a separate part of the path.
In short, the answer for older European homes depends on the building and on how the operator rolls FTTR out. G.p2pf pays off where the wiring to a room cannot hold a stable connection, where FTTH is already in place and rooms are upgraded one at a time, or where a renovation makes new cabling cheap. Where working Ethernet already reaches the access points and demand is modest, the existing cabling can stay. Where the cost of fiber runs dominates, or an operator is rolling out FTTR at scale, G.fin's shared tree may be the better fit. The section "Which older European homes suit G.p2pf?" sets out that reasoning once the architecture and performance background is in place.
How the point-to-point network is connected
ITU-T G.9930 defines a G.p2pf network of three parts: a residential gateway (RGW), an indoor fiber distribution network (IFDN) and subtended units (SUs). A room unit typically provides Wi-Fi and may also have wired Ethernet ports for end devices. Each SU has its own fiber or fiber pair and its own optical port on the central side [2].
The optical interfaces may be built into the gateway and room units. Alternatively, external media converters can connect equipment through supported Ethernet interfaces. G.9930's informative Appendix I describes this external arrangement, including converters with switching or bridging functions. It offers a way to keep compatible gateways and access points, although compatibility depends on the actual devices and interfaces.
The dedicated links are what separate G.p2pf from G.fin's shared optical tree [3]. The point-to-multipoint design is covered in our G.fin FTTR architecture guide.
| Aspect | G.p2pf | G.fin |
|---|---|---|
| Optical path | A dedicated point-to-point link for each room unit | Several room units share an optical distribution tree |
| Central interface | One optical port for each room link | One tree can serve several room units from a shared optical interface |
| Passive loss | Fiber, connectors and any splices contribute loss; the unbranched path has no splitter loss | The loss calculation also includes optical splitters |
| Capacity | Each room link has its own capacity; traffic may still encounter shared switching or uplink limits | Room units share the tree's transmission capacity |
| Fault scope | A fault confined to one room link may leave the other links operating | A fault in a shared part of the tree may affect several room units |
G.9930 sets no universal maximum number of room units; the figure for an installation depends on its equipment and available interfaces. Dedicated room links also leave some resources shared: the gateway, aggregation equipment, power supply and Internet connection can all remain common to every room.
How backhaul performance affects the user
Replacing a wireless relay with fiber removes radio propagation and contention from that backhaul segment. Where a wireless relay is the limiting part of the connection, its rate and stability vary with distance, obstruction and airtime sharing between neighbours, while an optical link follows its installed cable route and keeps a defined capacity. This helps when the relay was the bottleneck, but it does not change the subscribed Internet service rate: a 10 Gbit/s room link on a 1 Gbit/s Internet service is still held to that service limit for Internet traffic.
Concurrent capacity depends on where traffic flows. If four 10 Gbit/s room links send traffic through one 10 Gbit/s uplink, that uplink caps their combined throughput. Traffic switched between room links may never touch the gateway uplink. With enough switching and destination capacity, several room links can run near line rate at the same time, within the limits of protocol overhead and endpoints.
The optical physical layer (PHY) sets the nominal link rate and transmission parameters. G.9930 Amendment 2, approved on 29 November 2025, expands Table 9-1 to nine PHY options covering 1, 10, 25 and 50 Gbit/s, with dual-fiber and single-fiber bidirectional variants. Individual devices implement a subset of these options [2].
The wireless segment still needs its own assessment. Fiber backhaul frees resources that a wireless backhaul would consume, but client-to-AP coverage and roaming depend on AP placement, radio settings, interference and client behavior. Extra APs on overlapping channels can increase contention. G.9930 places Wi-Fi performance coordination outside its scope.
The Nokia-authored paper Technology Overview of P2P FTTR Solutions examines these issues in a residential model: homes of 60 to 300 m², 2.4 and 5 GHz operation, approximately 10 Mbit/s per client, randomly placed APs and clients, and no inter-AP spectrum or power coordination. It supports treating backhaul and radio performance separately; its numerical results apply only to those assumptions [4].
Copper Ethernet can also replace a wireless relay. An Ethernet cable carries its signal in a shielded or balanced pair, so its performance is set by the cable and the link rather than by radio propagation. Copper performance depends on cable category, length, terminations and interference; a compliant Cat 6A channel supports 10GBASE-T over up to 100 m [5]. Existing Ethernet that meets the required rate can stay alongside optical links, so fiber's practical advantages should be judged against the actual distance, capacity and cable route.
Which older European homes suit G.p2pf?
Why are European operators looking at G.p2pf?
The case made publicly by European operators is about installation and wholesale compatibility rather than any single building characteristic. In its October 2025 presentation to an ITU-T workshop, Vodafone asks for a simple, self-installable point-to-point option as per G.p2pf, which it expects to suffice for many homes. It also calls simple compatibility with wholesale-provided FTTH essential, using the wholesaler's ONT as per the G.p2pf option, and it sees pluggable optics as the lower-cost way to connect the hub. It wants a solution that fits its standards-based CPE architecture rather than a separate FTTR-only platform [13]. The household-side need behind FTTR of any kind is a backhaul that holds its rate and its latency; on its own that need does not point to G.p2pf rather than G.fin.
The same presentation is cautious about scale. It describes FTTR as niche in the near term and reports limited take-up for the point-to-multipoint variant Vodafone has launched. It also says point-to-multipoint can have a role in some multi-dwelling-unit scenarios, to reduce the cost of fibre runs [13]. European interest in G.p2pf is therefore a design preference, not evidence of large-scale deployment. FTTR volumes so far are concentrated in China, where LightCounting counted about 30 million subscribers at the end of 2024 on PON-based networks [14]. In some European scenarios G.p2pf may complement G.fin rather than replace it.
What does G.p2pf improve in an older European home?
Optical backhaul suits an older European home wherever the existing cabling cannot deliver a stable wired link to the rooms that need one. G.p2pf supplies a dedicated optical link to each such room, removing contention from the backhaul segment and giving that room its own defined capacity. The gain is backhaul stability. The subscribed Internet rate stays where it was, as the 10 Gbit/s room link behind a 1 Gbit/s service shows.
Which homes are already served by existing cabling?
Cabling can be added in steps. Where suitable copper Ethernet already reaches the access-point positions and demand is modest, the existing network is adequate and can stay; fiber is added only on the paths copper cannot serve. This suits buildings where opening finished walls is costly, because rooms with working cabling need no new work at all.
When is G.p2pf the better fit?
G.p2pf fits a home where the measured bottleneck is the wireless relay between distant rooms, or where a refurbishment makes new cabling cheap. It also suits a home that already has FTTH and wants to add optical backhaul to the busiest rooms one at a time; Vodafone names simple compatibility with wholesale-provided FTTH as essential for this kind of option [13]. Older European buildings often have no conduit reserved for in-premises fiber, and a renovation is the natural moment to add it. The deciding factor is the building's wiring, not its floor area.
When is G.fin the better fit?
G.fin is the more natural fit for a large, standardized operator rollout, which is where today's FTTR volumes sit. In an individual older home, fewer fiber runs can matter where a shared feeder and splitters reduce the number of strands returning to the central point, for example through a shared riser; Vodafone makes the same point for some multi-dwelling-unit scenarios [13]. That saving applies to the shared section only, because G.fin still needs a fiber to every room unit, so whether it outweighs per-room isolation depends on the renovation at hand.
What is the strongest case for an ordinary household?
The strongest case is a stable wired backhaul to the room with the heaviest use, added room by room as far as the gateway's optical ports allow. That room gets its own capacity instead of a share of a tree, and the rest of the household's network stays in place. In practice the choice is usually made with an operator or installer, as with the professionally installed Movistar service above [11].
Fiber reaching the building does not mean fiber reaches the rooms. EU27 FTTP coverage has reached 74.1% [10], but the limit on room-to-room performance often sits inside the building. About half of the EU population lives in apartments [12], and new cable there has to fit around what already exists. G.p2pf addresses that in-premises segment one room link at a time.
Building the optical path
Once the equipment interfaces and traffic paths are settled, the passive link and power arrangement can be specified together. The optical link must match at both ends, and the room equipment needs a supported source of electrical power.
European housing stock shapes these choices. Older buildings generally predate any provision for in-premises fiber, so an indoor route often has to be planned around what is already there: existing ducts, surface containment or a low-visibility cable. ETSI TS 103 933, a technical specification for fiber deployment in fiber-based in-premises networks, is the European reference for this work [7].
Fiber and endpoint matching
Single-fiber bidirectional links use different wavelengths in the two directions; dual-fiber links use one fiber per direction. Matching checks cover the PHY type, nominal rate, wavelength pair, fiber arrangement and connector specification. The 10, 25 and 50 Gbit/s bidirectional PHYs were introduced by IEEE Std 802.3cp-2021 and are referenced through the relevant IEEE 802.3 clauses in G.9930 [2, 6].
G.9930 section 9.7.1 recommends G.657.A or G.657.B fiber to limit bending loss on indoor routes. ETSI TS 103 933 clause 6.3.1 goes further for horizontal subscriber cabling and calls for G.657.A2 or G.657.B3 [7]. Fiber test bend radii, such as 7.5 mm for A2 and 5 mm for B3, are not universal installation limits for finished cables; installation bend limits come from the cable specification [7].
Fixed fiber can terminate at a central connection point and at room outlets, with patch cords connecting the equipment, as described in G.9930 section 9.7.3. Compatible equipment can then be disconnected or replaced without re-terminating the fixed fiber. Where no fiber is pre-installed, existing ducts, surface containment and transparent or nearly invisible cable (noted in section 9.7.2) offer installation routes, and later installation does not necessarily require opening finished walls.
Optical loss and power
G.9930 section 9.4 specifies a 2.4 dB optical link budget. Appendix II derives it from a reference path of 1 km of fiber at 0.4 dB/km plus four connectors at 0.5 dB each. It is a specified budget, not a measured result for an individual installation.
Table 9-1 also lists the budgets of the underlying IEEE PHYs. These are the IEEE values, which G.9930 notes satisfy its own length and link-budget requirements; acceptance criteria for an installation are documented separately.
| Parameter | Value | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| G.9930 section 9.4 optical link budget | 2.4 dB | The system budget, with its reference-path derivation in Appendix II |
| 1G dual-fiber PHY in Table 9-1 | 8 dB; 1270 to 1355 nm | IEEE PHY optical link budget and operating wavelength range as listed in G.9930 |
| 1G single-fiber PHY in Table 9-1 | 5.5 dB; downstream 1480 to 1500 nm, upstream 1260 to 1360 nm | The table also notes a wider permitted downstream range for backward compatibility |
| 10G PHYs in Table 9-1 | 6.3 dB | Listed for the specified dual-fiber and single-fiber PHYs |
Electrical power is a separate requirement, because pure fiber does not carry electrical PoE. Room units can use a local supply or another supported electrical feed. For G.p2pf, section 9.7.4 describes an optical/electrical hybrid cable for remote powering, with compatible equipment and terminations under ITU-T L.109.1 [8]. External media converters add separately powered boxes; integrated optical interfaces draw power without necessarily adding an adapter or outlet.
Commissioning the complete connection
Commissioning has to establish both the quality of each optical path and the performance of the whole network. A link light or an isolated speed test cannot describe behavior under simultaneous use.
1. Confirm the connection between each central port and room unit. Record the devices, optics, wavelengths, fiber arrangement and connector types so the link can be identified and reproduced during maintenance.
2. Inspect and clean connectors before measuring insertion loss. Use a light source and power meter or an optical loss test set, and record the test wavelength, reference method and result. Compare the result with the project loss limit derived from fiber length, connectors and splices, and check it against the applicable system and device requirements. The project limit governs the test, which follows the applicable single-mode procedure and FOA guidance [9].
3. Verify operation in both directions on every link, and record the negotiated rate and traffic-test results for each connection.
4. Run concurrent traffic through the actual shared resources. Record aggregate and per-room throughput, latency and packet loss. Room-to-room traffic alone cannot show gateway-uplink performance. Confirm that the power arrangement supports all connected equipment operating together.
5. Assess client Wi-Fi coverage and roaming separately. These checks expose radio problems that remain after the optical backhaul has been verified.
The commissioning records form a baseline for later fault finding. Keeping passive-path measurements apart from traffic and radio results shows which part of the connection has changed. In apartment buildings, also note which cable sections run through shared risers or common areas, since access to those sections is arranged with the building rather than within one dwelling.
Maintaining the network
Maintenance gets easier in some places and heavier in others. If one room loses service, its dedicated optical link gives a defined starting point. The fault may lie in the patch cord, fixed fiber, optical interface, room device or local power supply. If several rooms fail together, the shared gateway, aggregation equipment, upstream connection and common power arrangement need checking as well.
In apartments, part of the cabling can run through shared risers and common areas rather than inside one dwelling. Work on that section, and access to it, tends to involve the building rather than one household, so maintenance there is a coordination task as much as a technical one. A fault confined to a room link stays inside the dwelling; a fault in the shared section does not.
Effort also depends on the implementation. A design with external converters has more separately powered equipment to account for than a comparable integrated design. Patch-connected fixed fiber simplifies replacement, but replacement equipment still needs compatible optics and may need configuration. Copper Ethernet also offers individual link testing and replaceable patch cords, so in either system the quality of documentation and device management decides how quickly faults are isolated.
G.9930 section 10 identifies TR-069 and TR-369 as possible IP management protocols, with TR-181 data models. Whether a given device supports them has to be established from its documentation and testing. Port maps, endpoint specifications, configuration records and commissioning measurements should be updated whenever equipment or cabling changes.
Deployment checklist for European homes
Before choosing between G.p2pf and G.fin for a home or building, these questions turn the sections above into a site check.
| Check | Question |
|---|---|
| Existing routes | Can fiber be pulled through existing ducts or surface containment, or laid as low-visibility cable, without opening finished walls (G.9930 section 9.7.2)? |
| Apartment structure | Does the route use a shared riser or a private path, and who arranges access to the shared section? |
| Room priority | Which rooms need optical backhaul first, and how many optical ports does the gateway offer? |
| Fiber count | How many fibers or fiber pairs must the route carry: one per room unit for G.p2pf, or possibly fewer strands through a shared tree for G.fin? |
| Connection points | Where do the central connection point and room outlets sit, and do patch cords connect fixed fiber to the equipment (G.9930 section 9.7.3)? |
| Power | Is each room unit powered locally, or fed over an optical/electrical hybrid cable (G.9930 section 9.7.4)? |
| Maintenance | Will each link be documented and tested individually, and who owns the shared section of the route? |
Recommended FTTR installation accessories
Surface fiber routing, protected wall entries and accessible termination points can help put the deployment checklist into practice. The following passive accessories and installation tool are options to consider when planning the indoor fiber route. Match cable dimensions, connection arrangements and installation conditions to the actual project.
 |
Clear fiber pathway - 1.0 mm cableA transparent PE pathway and cover for routing fiber along indoor walls. Consider it where a visible surface route is preferable to opening finished walls. Profile (H × W): 3.6 × 3.5 mm. Cable diameter: 1.0 ± 0.1 mm. Clear finish; indoor wall mounting. Choose this profile only after checking the actual cable diameter and the required fiber count for each room link. Discuss project requirements |
 |
Clear fiber pathway - 1.8 mm cableThe larger transparent pathway provides surface containment for the brochure's 1.8 mm cable option, with a separate cover over the cable channel. Profile (H × W): 6.5 × 5 mm. Cable diameter: 1.8 ± 0.1 mm. PE construction; indoor wall mounting. Select the cable construction and route capacity for the chosen topology; pathway size alone does not establish fiber count. Discuss project requirements |
 |
Fiber point-of-entry box - fusion typeAn indoor enclosure for organizing and protecting fusion splices where the incoming fiber transitions to the indoor route. Maximum splice capacity: 24 fibers; tray capacity: 24 fibers. Two cable entries and two exits. Dimensions (H × W × D): 116 × 62 × 20 mm. White PC/ABS enclosure; IP43; wall mounting. The brochure lists no adapter or optical device. Catalog name: POE Box-Fusion Type. Discuss project requirements |
 |
Fiber point-of-entry box - SC typeAn indoor SC-adapter enclosure for arranging a connectorized transition at a fiber entry or termination point. Adapter type: SC. One cable entry and one exit. Dimensions (H × W × D): 150 × 50 × 20 mm. White PC/ABS; IP43; wall mounting. The brochure lists no splice capacity or optical device and does not specify SC port count or APC/UPC finish. Catalog name: POE Box-SC Type. Discuss project requirements |
 |
Micro fiber point-of-entry wall coverA compact cover for the wall penetration and cable transition, with a cable pathway and strapping point shown in the brochure. Dimensions (H × W × D): 40 × 40 × 40 mm. One cable entry and one exit. White PC/ABS; IP43; indoor wall mounting. The brochure lists no splice capacity, adapter or optical device. Catalog name: Micro POE Wall Cover. Discuss project requirements |
 |
Fiber pathway installation toolA dedicated tool for placing fiber into the surface pathway during indoor installation. It supports the routing work discussed in the deployment checklist. Listed cable sizes: 0.9 mm and 1.8 mm. Overall dimensions: 100 × 85 × 35 mm. White PC/ABS construction. Confirm the tool, pathway and cable combination together before installation. Catalog name: Fiber Pathway Installation Tool. Discuss project requirements |
Technical references
[1] Andreas Bluschke and Gerhard Kafka, FTTR, 2025, pp. 62 to 67. G.p2pf architecture and implementation; the G.hn variant begins on p. 67.
[2] ITU-T G.9930, base text and amendments, including Amendment 2 approved on 29 November 2025. Architecture, PHY options, cabling, management and informative implementation appendices.
[3] ITU-T G.9940. G.fin system architecture.
[4] Ronald Heron, Jan Bouwen, Alfonso Fernandez Duran and Frank van der Putten, Technology Overview of P2P FTTR Solutions, IEEE ICC Workshops 2024, pp. 293 to 299.
[5] Fluke Networks 10GBASE-T Field Testing Requirements. Cat 6A channels and 100 m 10GBASE-T support.
[6] IEEE 802.3cp task force record. Approval of IEEE Std 802.3cp-2021.
[7] ETSI TS 103 933 V1.1.1. Fiber deployment for in-premises networking.
[8] ITU-T L.109.1. Type II optical/electrical hybrid cables for access points and other terminal equipment.
[9] FOA Fiber Optic Testing. Insertion-loss measurement and comparison with calculated cable-plant loss budgets.
[10] European Commission, Connectivity Coverage in Europe 2025. EU27 FTTP access coverage.
[11] Movistar FTTR service (Spain). A commercially available, professionally installed FTTR service.
[12] Eurostat, Distribution of population by dwelling type (EU-SILC, dataset ilc_lvho01). In 2024, 48% of the EU population lived in a flat.
[13] Gavin Young and Bruno Cornaglia (Vodafone), Vodafone Vision for FTTR. ITU-T workshop, 22 October 2025. Operator requirements for FTTR, including a self-installable point-to-point option as per G.p2pf and compatibility with wholesale FTTH.
[14] LightCounting, Fiber-To-the-Room (FTTR) fixes Wi-Fi issues and improves customer satisfaction with broadband services. LightTrends newsletter, December 2024. About 30 million FTTR subscribers in China at December 2024.
[15] ETSI TS 103 247 V1.1.1, Access, Terminals, Transmission and Multiplexing (ATTM); Singlemode Optical Fibre System Specifications for Home Cabling. September 2015. Includes a G.hn-based residential optical home-network example (Annex B).
