COMBO Architecture Demo Day Lannion 28th of April This presentation - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

This presentation is property of the COMBO Consortium and shall not be distributed or reproduced without the formal approval of the Project Board

COMBO Architecture Demo Day Lannion 28’th of April

This presentation is property of the COMBO Consortium and shall not be distributed or reproduced without the formal approval of the Project Board

Fixed and Mobile Convergence (FMC)

2

Common architecture for fixed and mobile network requires interaction at different points: § Structural convergence

§ Common use of resources e.g. infrastructure, technology, interfaces, transport mechanisms

§ Functional convergence

§ Unification of fixed and mobile network functions

Fixed and mobile networks § are developed independently of each other § have only very limited joint usage of infrastructure § have independent network

• peration, control and

management FMC only at service level (e.g. IP Multimedia Subsystem)

Aggregation Network Fixed Core Mobile Core Fixed access Radio access

Today‘s network architecture

Potential converged architecture

Aggregation Network Fixed Core Mobile Core

Fixed access Radio access

Functional convergence Structural convergence

Functional convergence Functional convergence COMBO – Lannion - April 2016

This presentation is property of the COMBO Consortium and shall not be distributed or reproduced without the formal approval of the Project Board

Structural Convergence

3

λ1 λ2 λ3 λ5 λ4 λN

Core network Converged broadband fixed and mobile Access/Aggregation transport network

OLT BBU - H

λ1 λN λ1 λN

OLT BBU - H

Core CO Home/Building CO Main CO Macro site Small Cell structural convergence

RGW

Technical challenges:

• Common transport architecture for

fixed, mobile and Wi-Fi clients for back/ fronthaul?

• Impact of RAN co-ordination and

centralization?

• Impact of future 5G?

Key ques=on: What is techno-economically feasible?

COMBO – Lannion - April 2016

This presentation is property of the COMBO Consortium and shall not be distributed or reproduced without the formal approval of the Project Board

Functional Convergence Simplified, flexible network architecture

6

λ1 λ2 λ3 λ5 λ4 λN

Core network

OLT BBU - H

λ1 λN λ1 λN

OLT BBU - H

Core CO Home/Building CO Main CO Macro site Small Cell

RGW

functional convergence Converged broadband fixed and mobile Access/Aggregation transport network

• Functional convergence for fixed, mobile and Wi-Fi

networks with respect to

• converged subscriber and session management
• advanced interface selection and route control
• Analysis of centralized vs. de-centralized architecture for

functional distribution

SDN/NFV

COMBO – Lannion - April 2016

This presentation is property of the COMBO Consortium and shall not be distributed or reproduced without the formal approval of the Project Board

COMBO T3.3 – Structural convergence

This presentation is property of the COMBO Consortium and shall not be distributed or reproduced without the formal approval of the Project Board

COMBO – Lannion - April 2016 6

Introduction & Requirements

This presentation is property of the COMBO Consortium and shall not be distributed or reproduced without the formal approval of the Project Board

Structural convergence? Key determining factors

§ Traffic requirements and network dimensioning

• Mobile/fixed traffic, capacity, latency, etc

§ RAN configuration and architecture

• Site/antenna configuration, radio coordination schemes, RAN system split

§ Geo-areas (dense urban, urban, suburban, rural)

• Area sizes, area densities, existing site structures, existing infrastructure..

§ Technology maturity and system performance

• Power budget, system reach, feasible system configurations, optical amplifiers

§ Equipment and component cost

• Optical components, boards, chassis, etc

7 COMBO – Lannion - April 2016

This presentation is property of the COMBO Consortium and shall not be distributed or reproduced without the formal approval of the Project Board

Structural convergence? Key determining factors

§ Traffic requirements and network dimensioning

• Mobile/fixed traffic, capacity, latency, etc

§ RAN configuration and architecture

• Site/antenna configuration, radio coordination schemes, RAN system split

§ Geo-areas (dense urban, urban, suburban, rural)

• Area sizes, area densities, existing site structures, existing infrastructure..

§ Technology maturity and system performance

• Power budget, system reach, feasible system configurations, optical amplifiers

§ Equipment and component cost

• Optical components, boards, chassis, etc

8 COMBO – Lannion - April 2016

This presentation is property of the COMBO Consortium and shall not be distributed or reproduced without the formal approval of the Project Board

Coordina/on Classifica/on Coordina/on Feature Max Throughput Gain Max Capacity Gain Delay Class Very Tight Coordina=on Fast UL CoMP

(UL joint recep=on/selec=on)

High High 0.1-0.5 ms Fast DL CoMP

(coordinated link adapta=on, coordinated scheduling, coordinated beamforming, dynamic point selec=on)

Medium Medium Combined Cell Medium Tight Coordina=on Slow UL CoMP Medium Small 1-20 ms Slow DL CoMP

(e.g., Postponed Dynamic Point Blanking)

Small Moderate Coordina=on FeICIC Medium Small 20-50 ms

Small: ≤20% Medium: 20-50 % High: ≥ 50%

Based on discussion with „mobile experts“ @ DTAG & Ericsson

Radio coordination scheme Requirements & gain

Combo focus

9 COMBO – Lannion - April 2016

This presentation is property of the COMBO Consortium and shall not be distributed or reproduced without the formal approval of the Project Board

Backhaul

§ An interconnection of X2 interface required, link distances between sites will cause delay § To support CoMP delay requirements < 0.5 ms requires interconnection of CO or Main CO location

Fronthaul

§ X2 interfaces are collocated, X2 delay close to zero § Fulfils inherently X2 delay requirements for CoMP < 0.5 ms § RRU-BBU delay << 1 ms (typically 0.4 ms RTT assumed)

Two main RAN deployment options

§ Backhaul: X2 interconnection on CO/Main CO required to support CoMP with delay requirements < 0.5 ms § Fronthaul: Fulfils inherently X2 delay requirements for CoMP < 0.5 ms

10 COMBO – Lannion - April 2016

This presentation is property of the COMBO Consortium and shall not be distributed or reproduced without the formal approval of the Project Board

Central Office (CO) Main CO Core CO Mobile Core Node

RAA = RAN Access Areas

RAA CO

<40% (400 µs) 100% 99% (400 µs) <20% (400 µs)

typically <5 km

Assumptions § Fibre propagation delay only (no data processing in between) § Round trip time between RRH to BBU (Fronthaul) or X2-interconnection ≤ 400 µs X2 interconnection for backhaul or BBU Hotel placement (fronthaul) has to be done at or below Main CO in order to meet the delay requirements.

Delay constraints and implications on BBU placement and X2 interconnection

11 COMBO – Lannion - April 2016

This presentation is property of the COMBO Consortium and shall not be distributed or reproduced without the formal approval of the Project Board

12

All Fronthaul (FH) Mix of SC FH and MBS BH

Centralised in Main CO Decentralised SC BH to MBS Centralised in Main CO Centralised in Main CO Decentralised SC FH to MBS

RCC BBUH/ RCC BBU Hotel RCC BNG MBS coordina=on via X2 over BNG BNG

BBUH/ RCC BBUH/ RCC BBUH/ RCC

MBS coordina=on via X2 over BNG

CPRI IPoE CPRI CPRI IPoE IPoE CPRI IPoE IPoE IPoE

Main CO

All Backhaul (BH)

S1 traffic to BNG S1 traffic to BNG S1 traffic to BNG

Macro BS Small cell Main CO Main CO Main CO Main CO

BBU BBU BBU BBU BBU BBU BBU BBU BBU

RCC RCC RCC

BBU BBU BBU BBU BBU BBU BBU BBU BBU BBU BBU BBU BBU BBU

BBUH: BBU Hotel RCC: Radio Coordina=on Controller

RAN architectures Backhaul and fronthaul

COMBO – Lannion - April 2016

This presentation is property of the COMBO Consortium and shall not be distributed or reproduced without the formal approval of the Project Board

COMBO – Lannion - April 2016 13

Architecture options and system concepts

This presentation is property of the COMBO Consortium and shall not be distributed or reproduced without the formal approval of the Project Board

* NG-PON2 scenario with coexistence only on feeder fibre not shown here

Main CO

Access solutions

WS-DWDM: Wavelength selec=ve– Dense WDM WR-DWDM: Wavelength routed – Dense WDM TWDM: TDM WDM RRU: Remote Radio Unit

14 COMBO – Lannion - April 2016

This presentation is property of the COMBO Consortium and shall not be distributed or reproduced without the formal approval of the Project Board

Different convergence architectures

RCC: Remote Coordinator Controller

Converged NG-PON2 (backhaul) § ODN co-existence with typically 1:128 split for residential customers due to mass market roll out (16 wavelengths of NGPON2 are delivered to 4 Cabinets) WR-DWDM PON (backhaul) § Dedicated ODN for services that require PtP wavelength services, i.e. mobile backhaul and cabinet backhaul (80 wavelengths)

15 COMBO – Lannion - April 2016

This presentation is property of the COMBO Consortium and shall not be distributed or reproduced without the formal approval of the Project Board

Flexible system options (DWDM-centric)

Flexible optical system variants designed for both NG-PON2 w PtP overlay and WDM-PON and alternative starting scenarios § Facilitating service provisioning, scaling of resources § Flexible sharing of resources between areas, services, operators However, § Higher equipment cost due to use of costly wavelength selective switches (WSSs) § Limited to urban deployment areas due to shorter reach (insertion loss of WSSs, power splitters) Not yet part of techno-economic assessments

RCC: Remote Coordinator Controller 16 COMBO – Lannion - April 2016

This presentation is property of the COMBO Consortium and shall not be distributed or reproduced without the formal approval of the Project Board

COMBO – Lannion - April 2016 17

Economic assessment

This presentation is property of the COMBO Consortium and shall not be distributed or reproduced without the formal approval of the Project Board

CO Core CO Macro Cell Building Cabinet Small Cell Main CO

Start scenario and convergence options

DWDM-PtP: Macro, Small cell, DSLAM

Convergence of TWDM and DWDM-PtP over same fibre infrastructure

TWDM: Fixed access FTTH Fiber infrastructure OLT DSL Copper DSLAM

DWDM and TWDM over separate fibre infrastructure

DWDM: Macro, Small cell, DSLAM OLT TWDM: Fixed access FTTH Fiber infrastructure Fiber infrastructure OLT DSL Copper DSLAM TWDM-PON: Fixed access FTTH CWDM-PtP: DSLAM Fiber infrastructure Fiber infrastructure OLT CT CWDM-PtP: Small cell Fiber infrastructure CT

Baseline: Dedicated CWDM-PtP + TWDM

CWDM-PtP: Macro Fiber infrastructure CT DSL Copper DSLAM TDM-PON: Fixed access FTTH PS based fiber infrastructure OLT 30% of fixed access 70% of fixed access CWDM-PtP Fiber infrastructure CT

Start scenario

18 COMBO – Lannion - April 2016

This presentation is property of the COMBO Consortium and shall not be distributed or reproduced without the formal approval of the Project Board

Fronthaul Backhaul Fibre-rich FTTH areas

• NG-PON2 is cheapest for >12 SC per MBS (backhaul)
• resp. >25 SC per MBS (fronthaul) due to the increasing

fibre convergence with the mass-market

• WR WDM PON (filter based) is cheapest solution if SC

<25

• PtP CWDM (today’s approach) is most expensive

solution if SC > 3 Fibre-rich FTTH

low fibre add-on cost (fibre connec=ng only)

Fibre-poor FTTH areas

• Higher fibre costs arise for the other system technologies

due to dedicated fibre usage leading to convergence benefit

• NG-PON2 is cheapest independent of the SC density

Back-/fronthaul transport CAPEX Variation of small cell density (urban, 100% FTTH)

19 COMBO – Lannion - April 2016

This presentation is property of the COMBO Consortium and shall not be distributed or reproduced without the formal approval of the Project Board

Small cell density (SC per MBS) 0% 100% WR-WDM-PON cheapest 50% Fibre-rich FTTH mass-market (add-on cost for fibre connec=ng only) 0% 100% 50% Fibre-poor FTTH mass-market (add-on costs for fibre cabling + connec=ng) 10 30 50 70 90 Small cell density (SC per MBS) 10 30 50 70 90 25% 25% 75% 75% WR-WDM-PON cheapest NG-PON2 vs. WR-WDM-PON CAPEX parity Fronthaul CAPEX parity Backhaul NG-PON2 with PtP WDM cheapest

Break even moves in case

• f Fronthaul

Backhaul break even Backhaul break even

FTTH ra/o in MCO area

Break even moves in case of Fronthaul

FTTH ra/o in MCO area NG-PON2 with PtP WDM cheapest

§ High FTTH ratio and high small cell density favors convergence with mass-market solution (NG-PON2) § Limited fibre availablity favors convergence with mass-market solution (NG-PON2)

Sensitivity analysis (Urban) Variation of SC density, FTTH ratio, fibre availability

20 COMBO – Lannion - April 2016

This presentation is property of the COMBO Consortium and shall not be distributed or reproduced without the formal approval of the Project Board

COMBO T3.2 – Functional convergence

This presentation is property of the COMBO Consortium and shall not be distributed or reproduced without the formal approval of the Project Board

COMBO – Lannion - April 2016 22

Derivation of two major Focus Areas of Convergence

This presentation is property of the COMBO Consortium and shall not be distributed or reproduced without the formal approval of the Project Board 23

Today’s situation without FMC

IP Backbone Fixed IP Edge Aggrega=on Network Fixed Access Network Mobile IP Edge Mobile Access Network

eNB

RGW

WiFi Access Point Fixed Access Node

Services

Single user Mul=ple Subscriber’s iden==es Mul=ple Data paths To/from service

• Mul=ple subscriber’s iden==es for a single user
• “Wi-Fi offload” controlled by the user and its mobile terminal
• Separate fixed/mobile content distribu=on architectures
• Limited load balancing possibili=es between mul=ple accesses of different types

COMBO – Lannion - April 2016 23

This presentation is property of the COMBO Consortium and shall not be distributed or reproduced without the formal approval of the Project Board 24

Targets of COMBO convergence

COMBO – Lannion - April 2016 24

Authen/ca/on Mul=ple iden==es Single iden=ty (universal authen=ca=on) IP Edge Mul=ple Common Traffic offload Controlled by the user and UE Network controlled Load Balancing Limited at applica=on level Among mul=ple paths Handover Hard (user aware) Smooth (Horizontal/ver=cal) Content distribu/on Independent Access aware with OTT

Today’s situa=on COMBO targets

Single Iden=ty

IP Backbone Fixed IP Edge Aggrega=on Network Fixed Access Network Mobile IP Edge Mobile Access Network

eNB

RGW

WiFi Access Point Fixed Access Node

Services

Common IP edge

This presentation is property of the COMBO Consortium and shall not be distributed or reproduced without the formal approval of the Project Board 25

Mapping of missing functions for convergence

Key func=onal groups within Fixed–Mobile convergence

Forwarding Automa/c Configura/on Management Policy and Charging Subscriber Data and Session Management Mobility Converged Subscriber and Session Management (uAUT) Associates UE to global user’s iden=ty and associated profiles Iden=fies policies and binds them to subscribers Global Authen=ca=on; Unified session control over several networks Controls horizontal and ver=cal handover; facilitates load balancing Advanced Interface Selec=on and Route Control (uDPM) Interface selec=on, rou=ng, load balancing Takes account of policies (network and subscriber specific) Applies session management rules to mul=ple paths Handover between technologies,

• p=mises

server’s choice

COMBO – Lannion - April 2016 25

Focus areas of convergence

This presentation is property of the COMBO Consortium and shall not be distributed or reproduced without the formal approval of the Project Board

Agenda

• Derivation of two major Focus Areas of

Convergence

• Universal Authentication (uAUT)
• Universal Data Path Management (uDPM)
• Architectural options for a universal

Access Gateway (UAG)

COMBO – Lannion - April 2016 26

This presentation is property of the COMBO Consortium and shall not be distributed or reproduced without the formal approval of the Project Board

COMBO – Lannion - April 2016 27

Universal Authentication (uAUT)

This presentation is property of the COMBO Consortium and shall not be distributed or reproduced without the formal approval of the Project Board 28

Specified by the 3GPP TS 23.335 technical specifica=on

SoA: The User Data Convergence (UDC) concept

The UDC concept separates user data from applica=on logic User data is stored in the UDR (User Data Repository) – the UDC database The UDR is replicated for redundancy Client requests are handled by the UDR FE (Front Ends)

COMBO – Lannion - April 2016 28

COMBO: Can this scheme be extended beyond mobile/Wi-Fi to provide a global FMC authen=ca=on?

This presentation is property of the COMBO Consortium and shall not be distributed or reproduced without the formal approval of the Project Board 29

COMBO’s proposal. uAUT: Universal Subscriber and User Authentication

uAUT is a single func=onal block that complements and improves the UDC concept.

• considera=on of data model
• new Front End applica=ons
• database access op=miza=on
• extended to OTT services

Authen=cate once and have access to mul=ple networks and/or services. Part of the control plane, interfaces with the management plane Allows authen=ca=on mechanisms based on Web technologies

uAUT server

COMBO – Lannion - April 2016 29

This presentation is property of the COMBO Consortium and shall not be distributed or reproduced without the formal approval of the Project Board 30

Facilitating user’s access to OTT services

In the framework of an agreement between the OTT provider and the network operator

COMBO – Lannion - April 2016 30

This presentation is property of the COMBO Consortium and shall not be distributed or reproduced without the formal approval of the Project Board

COMBO – Lannion - April 2016 31

Universal Data Path Management (uDPM)

This presentation is property of the COMBO Consortium and shall not be distributed or reproduced without the formal approval of the Project Board 32

Legacy approach: Interface selection is only up to the UE!

COMBO – Lannion - April 2016

Core POP Aggrega=on

Paths are completely disjoint (UE uses different interfaces, with different IP addresses) The UE selects its interface, and the network cannot override the choice The network cannot op=mize its resources: no load balancing, no splivng of a single flow on mul=ple paths

Different IP addresses

32

Content Server

This presentation is property of the COMBO Consortium and shall not be distributed or reproduced without the formal approval of the Project Board 33

Universal Data Path Management

Single user Single Iden=ty

COMBO – Lannion - April 2016 33

Once uAUT is done, the network associates sessions to a single user Collabora=on between network and UE to control the data paths between user and server(s) Improve the use of the (mul=ple) paths between IP edge and (mul=ple) servers Improve the use of the mul=ple paths between IP edge and user Improve the use of the mul=ple radio paths linking user to aggrega=on network

IP Backbone Aggrega=on Network Fixed Access Network Mobile Access Network

eNB

RGW

WiFi Access Point Fixed Access Node

Services

Improvement

• pportuni=es

Common IP edge

Improvement

• pportuni=es

UAG

This presentation is property of the COMBO Consortium and shall not be distributed or reproduced without the formal approval of the Project Board 34

Formalizing Unified Data Path Management

34 COMBO – Lannion - April 2016

(includes Universal Authen=ca=on)

Monitoring Decision engine Data path crea=on and destruc=on Session mapping execu=on Path coordina=on and control Session event Subscribers’ profiles network’s policies

uDPM Data Plane Control Plane

This presentation is property of the COMBO Consortium and shall not be distributed or reproduced without the formal approval of the Project Board 35

High level view of COMBO innovations for uDPM

(includes Universal Authen=ca=on)

COMBO – Lannion - April 2016 35

Monitoring Decision engine Data path crea=on and destruc=on Session mapping execu=on Path coordina=on and control Session event Subscribers’ profiles network’s policies

uDPM

This presentation is property of the COMBO Consortium and shall not be distributed or reproduced without the formal approval of the Project Board

The role of a decision engine

• The DE controls how resources are used and how

customers are served

• The DE is network controlled
• The DE is triggered by an “event” : session initiation or

handover, QoS or performance degradation…

• The DE applies rules specific to the network (e.g. roaming

agreements) and policies specific to the user

• The DE is key to Network Sharing mechanisms
• The DE engine may interact with service delivery

COMBO – Lannion - April 2016 36

This presentation is property of the COMBO Consortium and shall not be distributed or reproduced without the formal approval of the Project Board

Typical Scenario for access network sharing

COMBO – Lannion - April 2016

LTE

Provider A

Wi-Fi

Provider B

Wi-Fi

Provider C

UE with Wi-Fi and LTE Decision Engine Monitoring

eNB

37

This presentation is property of the COMBO Consortium and shall not be distributed or reproduced without the formal approval of the Project Board

COMBO’s toolbox for uDPM

• Very Tight Coupling (L2 approach):
• Improves the use of the multiple paths linking user to

aggregation network

• Extending the 802.3ad approach
• SIPTO extensions (L3/L4 approach):
• Improves the use of the multiple paths between IP edge and

user; provides smooth handover in case of mobility, relying on MPTCP and on a new function “proxy SGW”

• Improves the use of the (multiple) paths between IP edge and

(multiple) servers; allows to correlate content distribution and FMC caching with data path management.

COMBO – Lannion - April 2016 38

This presentation is property of the COMBO Consortium and shall not be distributed or reproduced without the formal approval of the Project Board

Standard case (no coupling mechanism) :

Alice can manually choose a WiFi AP,

connect to it and obtain an IP address;

She has to enter her creden=als and if

authorized, can use the service. With Very Tight Coupling :

the decision to add a WiFi connec=on is

taken by the network → it avoids bad QoS;

No WiFi authen=ca=on necessary The same IP address is used for both

interfaces

LTE-WiFi dual connec=vity is possible

39

Alice is using her smartphone for video conference or video streaming while walking ; Connected in LTE to a very loaded cell ; While walking, nearby WiFi networks are detected (RGWs, hotspots,…) ;

Typical scenario used for “Very Tight Coupling”

COMBO – Lannion - April 2016

This presentation is property of the COMBO Consortium and shall not be distributed or reproduced without the formal approval of the Project Board

40

Very Tight Coupling: data plane protocol stack

l RGWs are connected to eNBs → Only 1 IP address for the two interfaces l Reuse of LTE security procedures (PDCP layer) on WiFi → dual connec=vity l Interface selec=on done by the sender: UE in the uplink and main CO in the downlink. l Very simple Adapta=on layer: includes only essen=al informa=on (RNTI, LCID,...)

LTE RRH LTE BBU (in main CO) RGW/CeAP

BBU: BaseBand Unit

CeAP: Cellular Offload Access Point

CPRI: Common Public Radio Interface LCID: Logical Channel ID PDCP: Packet Data Convergence Protocol RLC: Radio Link Control RNTI: Radio Network Temporary Iden=fier RRH: Remote Radio Head

COMBO – Lannion - April 2016

This presentation is property of the COMBO Consortium and shall not be distributed or reproduced without the formal approval of the Project Board

Standard case (no caching/prefetching) :

The server is usually far away, which introduces

latency ;

If the link to the Internet becomes congested, or

if the server becomes overloaded, the QoS degrades; With caching/prefetching :

Context-aware engine detects that caching is

locally available

The requested video is cached/prefetched on

the local cache;

Alice will switch to the local cache in order to

receive the video with good QoS

eNB

Internet PGW SGW

EPC

Overloaded server Congested link

eNB

Internet PGW SGW

EPC

Overloaded server Congested link

41

Typical scenario used for “FMC Caching/Prefetching”

Alice is using her smartphone for video streaming Alice is connected by LTE on a server located on the Internet Alice can be connected on the same eNodeB by SIPTO to a cache on the FMC network

COMBO – Lannion - April 2016

This presentation is property of the COMBO Consortium and shall not be distributed or reproduced without the formal approval of the Project Board

Summary

42

§ Structural Convergence

§ The reference PtP CWDM solution is the most costly in all cases and does not scale appropriately § In an FTTC deployment scenario, WR-WDM-PON always has lowest cost independent of fibre cost. § In an FTTH area one could re-use the mass market NG-PON2 fibre infrastructure for PtP overlay

§ Fibre-poor: Convergence with NG-PON2 has lowest cost § Fibre-rich: Convergence with NG-PON2 has lowest cost for higher RAN densities

§ For low number of deployed small cells NG-PON2 suffers from the bad utilization of PtP WDM hardware such as AWGs § As both the FTTH/FTTC ratio and the RAN density increase, the NG-PON2 converged architecture has lowest cost

§ Functional Convergence

§ Universal Authentication (global solution) § Universal Data Path Management (a versatile toolbox) § Multiple architectural options for operating fixed-mobile converged networks

COMBO – Lannion - April 2016

This presentation is property of the COMBO Consortium and shall not be distributed or reproduced without the formal approval of the Project Board

COMBO – Lannion - April 2016 43

Architectural options for a universal Access Gateway (UAG)

This presentation is property of the COMBO Consortium and shall not be distributed or reproduced without the formal approval of the Project Board

Sec GW

Aggrega=on Network Access Network

What the UAG should be ?

Common Core Interface (Single ?) Control Interface

Homes Businesses Individuals

A functionaly-convergent subscriber IP edge node

i.e., a functional entity supporting subscriber IP edge common functions for :

• any type of access (wired and/or wireless)
• any type of customer (fixed and/or mobile)

Core Network DSLAM OLT

eNB

eNB RRH Wi-Fi AP

eNB

BBU

Common Aggrega/on Interfaces ?

SUBSCRIBER MANAGEMENT

(AAA/PDP/PCRF/OCS/OFCS)

UAG Data Plane UAG Control Plane

Real Time Control

(for per-packet decision)

User Traffic Processing

forwarding, des/encapsula=on, marking/queuing, rate-limi=ng/ shaping, duplica=on, accoun=ng, an=- spoofing, cyphering…

User Session Control

Authen=ca=on/A{achment/ Addressing, Mobility/Rou=ng, NAT, QoS, Filtering, Charging…

And the UAG can take advantage of SDN as an enabler to separate the data plane and control plane func/ons

COMBO – Lannion - April 2016 44

This presentation is property of the COMBO Consortium and shall not be distributed or reproduced without the formal approval of the Project Board 45

Location options for the UAG

Cabinet Distribution Trunk CO Main CO Core CO Customer Premises Network Core Network Feeder Access Network Aggregation Network

UAG Several op=ons for loca=ng: data plane UAG, control plane UAG Enablers are SDN and NFV

COMBO – Lannion - April 2016 45

Possible loca=ons of the UAG data plane

COMBO proposes 2 network scenarios depending on the loca=on of the common IP edge in a NG-POP

• “distributed NG-POP” : mul=ple NG-POPs located in Main

COs; the IP edge is closer to the user than in legacy networks

• “centralised NG-POP” : a smaller number (typically 10) of

NG-POPs located in Core COs; the IP edge is as in legacy networks

This presentation is property of the COMBO Consortium and shall not be distributed or reproduced without the formal approval of the Project Board

Relationships between UAG, uAUT and uDPM

Core Interface

SUBSCRIBER MANAGEMENT

3GPP User Data Convergence (repository )

UAG Data Plane UAG Control Plane

User Traffic Processing

Forwarding, des/encapsula=on Security (ACL, An=-spoofing, encrypt) Tunneling L2/L4 classifica=on Caching QoS, Policing Shaping Lawful inytercep=on Accoun=ng Mul=caster Traffic Monitoring/Sta=s=cs

Access and Session Control

Authen=ca=on/A{achment/Addressing Session Mgt Mobility Mgt, Access control UE Mgt

Service Control

Resouce and Policy Control Enriched services controls Event Repor=ng Access and Selec=on Analy=cs Network states Charging Contral

Enriched Services Processing

Parent control TCP op=misa=on Content adpaptding (tod evices) HTTP enrichment Service QoS policing Shaping Accoun=ng ,

uDPM uAUT uDPM Aggrega/on Interface Users Access Nodes

DSLAM OLT eNB eNB BBU Wi-Fi AP

uAUT uDPM uAUT

UE UE

COMBO – Lannion - April 2016 46

uAUT

This presentation is property of the COMBO Consortium and shall not be distributed or reproduced without the formal approval of the Project Board

Deployment Scenarii

Core CO Main CO Aggre gation Access & Aggregation

IP network

AN AN AN AN AN Distributed splitted UAG Application Services Edge Router UAG DP UAG CP

Appli. Services

Core CO Main CO Aggre gation Access & Aggregation

IP network

AN AN AN AN AN Distributed UAG DP with centralized UAG CP Application Services Edge Router UAG DP

Appli. Services

Core CO Main CO Aggre gation Access & Aggregation

IP network

AN AN AN AN AN Centralzed splitted UAG Application Services UAG DP UAG CP

Appli. Services

Aggreg Node Core CO Main CO Aggre gation Access & Aggregation

IP network

AN AN AN AN AN Centralzed UAG DP with highly centralized CP Application Services UAG DP

Appli. Services

Aggreg Node Access & Aggregation AN AN AN AN AN UAG DP

Appli. Services

UAG CP Aggre gation Access & Aggregation AN AN AN AN AN UAG DP

Appli. Services

Aggreg Node UAG CP Core CO Main CO Aggre gation Access & Aggregation

IP network

AN AN AN AN AN Distributed standalone UAG Application Services Edge Router UAG CP&DP

Appli. Services

Core CO Main CO Aggre gation Access & Aggregation

IP network

AN AN AN AN AN Centralzed standalone UAG Application Services UAG CP&DP

Appli. Services

Aggreg Node

Appli. Services Appli. Services Appli. Services

AAA Services AAA Services AAA Services AAA Services AAA Services AAA Services

UAG deployment scenarios

COMBO – Lannion - April 2016 47

This presentation is property of the COMBO Consortium and shall not be distributed or reproduced without the formal approval of the Project Board

COMBO – Lannion - April 2016 48

Backup Slides

This presentation is property of the COMBO Consortium and shall not be distributed or reproduced without the formal approval of the Project Board

Must scale in wavelength domain (WDM)

Technology selection

§ From Year-1 analysis it became clear that ‒ High dedicated per-wavelength bit rates are at least partially required ‒ Transparency / low latency is at least partially required (no TDM etc.) § We consider the period beyond 2020, which is only 5 years away. Solutions must have sufficiently low risk. This excludes certain potential solutions which are significantly further out (and have been rejected in standardization) ‒ UDWDM-PON doesn’t support high per-wavelength bit rates efficiently, has severe techno- economic risk, and requires bonding of sub-carriers for high-speed services (causing latency) ‒ OFDMA-PON has poor performance (direct detection) or is complexity and risk overkill (coherent detection). Therefore, as per-wavelength multiple-access scheme, we clearly favored TDMA (i.e., NG-PON2). § Even the variants of NG-PON2 and WDM-PON that were analyzed do not exist commercially today. Hence, these solutions were forward-looking, instead of being “current” solutions. ‒ All NG-PON2 prototypes today [Q4/15] exhibit substantial problems with crosstalk, FEC gain / budget performance, and also wavelength drift during burst on/off periods.) § Therefore, the choice of solutions that was made is in line with former EU projects (OASE), and also with standardization (G.989, G.metro, NG-EPON)

49 COMBO – Lannion - April 2016

This presentation is property of the COMBO Consortium and shall not be distributed or reproduced without the formal approval of the Project Board

COMBO – Lannion - April 2016 50

Technical assessment

This presentation is property of the COMBO Consortium and shall not be distributed or reproduced without the formal approval of the Project Board

Technical assessment

Performance-related aspects: § WDM channel count and impact of intra and inter-channel cross talk § Reach (which in turn can translate to the CapEx and OpEx aspects of running active reach extenders (RE) in the ODN) § Required transceiver complexity and resulting CapEx Qualitative assessment of operations-related aspects: § Support of legacy ODN § Wavelength-agnostic bandwidth provisioning § Flexibility of ODN (fan-out) configurations, in terms of number and port count of cascaded remote nodes (RN) § Energy consumption § Operations and maintenance cost § Fibre-count requirements

WP3 - Review P2, Brussels, Dec. 09-10, 2015 51 COMBO – Lannion - April 2016

This presentation is property of the COMBO Consortium and shall not be distributed or reproduced without the formal approval of the Project Board

Component IL [dB] 1:40 AWG in CO / in ODN 5.0 / 6.0 1:80 AWG in CO / in ODN 6.0 / 7.0 1:8 / 1:12 AWG in CO 2.5 C/L Band Filter ONU 1.0 C/L Band Filter OLT (premium) 0.5 Tunable Filter (RX or TX) 1.0 Power Splitter 1:8 / 1:32 / 1:64 9.9 / 16.5 / 19.8 TXmin, LP [dBm]

• 2.0

TXmin, HP [dBm] +1.0 RXmin, 10G APD [dBm] at BER=10-12

• 26.0

Fiber Loss C/L [dB/km] 0.35

• Min. Distri.Fiber Loss [dB]

1.0

• Max. Distr. Fiber Loss [dB]

6.0 Limits and Penalties [dB] OPP EML 10G 40 km [dB] 2.0 EOL Penalty [dB] 3.0 Crosstalk Penalty [dB] 1.0 SBS-limited max. Ch. launch [dBm] 8.0 Laser Safety Class 1M 21.0

• Max. Cost-eff. Gain [dB]

21.0

R [km] = (TXmin [dBm] - RXmin [dBm] - IL [dB] - Penal=es [dB]) / αF [dB/km]

For RE, these limita=ons are considered

• Max. total launch 21 dBm for Laser Safety Class 1M (C plus L band)
• Max. per-channel launch 8 dBm to avoid (an=) SBS (means)
• Max. gain of 21 dB of suitably low-cost amplifiers

TRX budget had to be reduced according to recent findings for fullband tunable TRX Even in Urban areas, WS-WDM-PON requires OLT-based Reach Extenders (RE), or must be reduced to 1:32 power split

Reach Model WR/WS-WDM-PON

WP3 - Review P2, Brussels, Dec. 09-10, 2015 52 COMBO – Lannion - April 2016

This presentation is property of the COMBO Consortium and shall not be distributed or reproduced without the formal approval of the Project Board

Key system differences

§ NG-PON2 requires significantly fewer fibers compared to CWDM and WDM-PON without coexistence (CEMx). However, this is due to the assumption regarding already installed mass-market solutions (which in this case is NG-PON2) § WR-WDM and CWDM allows for greatest reduction in passive optics

WP3 - Review P2, Brussels, Dec. 09-10, 2015

Per service area (urban) Reference NG-PON2 WR-WDM-PON WS-WDM-PON Reduction in fibre count and length

• Reduction in number of interfaces
• Reduction in passive optics
• Reduction in amplifiers (reach)
• Potential of structural convergence
• Number of wavelengths per fibre
• Bitrate per wavelength
• Low latency (system level)
• Simple to operate (colourless)
• Reduction in active shelves in MCO
• Ethernet aggregation in Main CO
• Legacy compatibility with fixed net.
• Re-use network infrastructure
• 53
• Best

Worst

COMBO – Lannion - April 2016

This presentation is property of the COMBO Consortium and shall not be distributed or reproduced without the formal approval of the Project Board

Fronthaul Backhaul

Fibre-rich FTTH areas

• NG-PON2 is cheapest for >12 SC

per MBS (backhaul) resp. >25 SC per MBS (fronthaul) due to the increasing fibre convergence with the mass-market

• WR WDM PON (filter based) is

cheapest solution if SC <25

• PtP CWDM (today’s approach) is

most expensive solution if SC > 3

Fibre-rich FTTH

low fibre add-on cost (fibre connec=ng only)

Fibre-poor FTTH

high fibre add-on cost (fibre cabling + connec=ng) Fibre-poor FTTH areas

• Higher fibre costs arise for the
• ther system technologies due to

dedicated fibre usage leading to convergence benefit

• NG-PON2 is cheapest

independent of the SC density

Back-/fronthaul transport CAPEX Variation of small cell density (urban, 100% FTTH)

WP3 - Review P2, Brussels, Dec. 09-10, 2015 54 COMBO – Lannion - April 2016

This presentation is property of the COMBO Consortium and shall not be distributed or reproduced without the formal approval of the Project Board

Small cell density (SC per MBS) 0% 100% WR-WDM-PON cheapest 50% Fibre-rich FTTH mass-market (add-on cost for fibre connec=ng only) 0% 100% 50% Fibre-poor FTTH mass-market (add-on costs for fibre cabling + connec=ng) 10 30 50 70 90 Small cell density (SC per MBS) 10 30 50 70 90 25% 25% 75% 75% WR-WDM-PON cheapest NG-PON2 vs. WR-WDM-PON CAPEX parity Fronthaul CAPEX parity Backhaul NG-PON2 with PtP WDM cheapest NG-PON2 with PtP WDM cheapest

Break even moves in case

• f Fronthaul

Backhaul break even Backhaul break even

FTTH ra/o in MCO area

Break even moves in case of Fronthaul

FTTH ra/o in MCO area

Sensitivity analysis (Ultra DU) Variation of SC density, FTTH ratio, fibre availability

§ For denser areas, convergence with mass-market solution is more favorable even for lower FTTH ratios

WP3 - Review P2, Brussels, Dec. 09-10, 2015 55 COMBO – Lannion - April 2016

This presentation is property of the COMBO Consortium and shall not be distributed or reproduced without the formal approval of the Project Board 56

Providing a generic security transport layer over EAP

• A Generic and Extensible

Authen=ca=on Protocol (EAP) mechanism based

• n IEEE 802.1X
• The security level and

type (strong/weak authen=ca=on, ciphering

• r not…) will be chosen

according to the requirements of the access network.

COMBO – Lannion - April 2016 56

This presentation is property of the COMBO Consortium and shall not be distributed or reproduced without the formal approval of the Project Board

Legacy tools for Data Path Creation and Destruction

• ANDSF and Hotspot 2.0 provide the UE with policies

and network selection information for influencing how users and their devices prioritize between several non-3GPP access networks

• Handover procedures are available in mobile networks

to modify the data paths in case of mobility

• SIPTO identifies regular data path (through SGW and

PGW) and other paths through LGW or standalone distributed SGW/PGW

• Content distribution relies on selecting one server

among multiple servers containing the requested content

COMBO – Lannion - April 2016 57

This presentation is property of the COMBO Consortium and shall not be distributed or reproduced without the formal approval of the Project Board

Approaches for Path Coordination and Control

COMBO – Lannion - April 2016 58

OSI layer Criteria solution Modification

• f the host

protocol stack Modification

• f the

network architecture Transparency to current applications Transparency to network elements Control entity (host

• r network)

Mobility area Layer 2 802.3ad Yes No Yes Yes Host / Layer 3 MIP Yes Yes Yes No Host Full PMIP No Yes Yes No Host Local ILNP Yes No No No Host / GLI-Split Yes Yes Yes No Host Full (using MIP) NIIA Yes Yes No No Host Full LISP No Yes Yes No Host / HAIR Yes Yes Yes No Host Full Six/One router No Yes Yes No Host / Layer 3/4 SHIM6 Yes No Yes No Host Full HIP Yes Yes No No Host Full MILSA Yes Yes No No Host Full Layer 4 MPTCP Yes No Yes No Host Full SCTP Yes No No No Host / mSCTP Yes No No No Host Full Layer 7 SIP No No / Yes Host Full mHTTP No No / Yes Host /

Classifica=on of mobility and mul=-homing/bonding solu=ons Only IPv6 IPv4 and IPv6

No modifica=on to network nor to applica=ons

IPv4 and IPv6

This presentation is property of the COMBO Consortium and shall not be distributed or reproduced without the formal approval of the Project Board

Standard case (no SIPTO/MP-TCP extension) :

smooth handover for the sessions on the

regular path;

SIPTO sessions are broken, as the IP

address is changed when UE a{aches to new eNB With SIPTO/MP-TCP extension :

a new MP-TCP sub-flow is added when

the new IP address is learned;

3GPP handover procedures are applied

thanks to the “proxy SGW” func=on

the streaming session is not broken

COMBO – Lannion - April 2016 59

Typical scenario for enhanced SIPTO handover

(H)eNB UE

EPC

PGW SGW

Internet IP core

LGW

(H)eNB UE

EPC

PGW SGW

Internet IP core

Proxy SGW / LGW

A user streams a content on a SIPTO data path using LGWs co-located with eNodeB (e.g. small cells) as the QoE is be{er (server closer to user)

New SIPTO Connec/on a[er reconnec/ng the UE Ini/al Regular Data Path Regular Data Path a[er the HO Ini/al SIPTO Connec/on with LGW co-located with (H) eNB

This presentation is property of the COMBO Consortium and shall not be distributed or reproduced without the formal approval of the Project Board

Components of the SIPTO/MP-TCP extensions

(H)eNB UE

EPC

PGW SGW

Internet IP core

Proxy SGW / LGW

The proxy SGW

• is seen as a SGW by the eNB and the LGW
• is seen as a eNB by the SGW (regular)

During handover procedures, MPTCP signalling is on the “regular” data path the MP-TCP capable UE receives traffic on 2 different addresses

COMBO – Lannion - April 2016 60

MPTCP capable host

Mul=ple interfaces and addresses Subflow A Subflow N

MPTCP capable host

Single applica=on over TCP

This presentation is property of the COMBO Consortium and shall not be distributed or reproduced without the formal approval of the Project Board

61

Coupling Content Distribution with uDPM

COMBO – Lannion - April 2016