V. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
Through the BER and throughput testing using fiber as well as copper ports, it was observed that as the bandwidth increases, the BER decreases as tabulated in Table.1 and 2. It was also established that the results of BER performance with fiber port is much better than copper port testing. For higher data rates, the optical interface provides better transmit and receive utilization than the electrical interface. The acquired graphs of % utilization of throughput, latency, jitter and frame loss of both the fiber and copper ports testing under RFC 2544 validation with 100 Mbps traffic bandwidth are depicted in fig.14 to 17.From the above graphs, it was observed that the % utilization of throughput is relatively better in the case of fiber port testing when compared to copper port testing. Similarly the latency in the case of fiber port testing for variation in frame size from 128 bytes to 1518 bytes resulted from 12.98 μs to 24.1 μs. But the latency in the counter part copper port testing resulted from 84.9 μs to 640.98 μs for the same span of frame size. Correspondingly, from the graphs of fig.21 & 22, it was observed that the jitter variation and frame loss values are negligible in the case of fiber port testing. In the copper port testing, the jitter value resulted as 0.32 μs for the frame size varied from 128 bytes to 1518 bytes and the frame loss resulted as approximately 52 μs. Hence, the end to end performance testing of fiber optic network with ethernet analyzers using fiber port testing yielded much better performance than copper port testing.
