Fostering worldwide interoperabilityGeneva, 13-16 July 2009
Mobile network technology trends
CCSA-Huawei technologies Co., LTD
Global Standards Collaboration (GSC) 14
DOCUMENT #: GSC14-GRSC-012
FOR: Presentation
SOURCE: Huawei Technologies Co., LTD
AGENDA ITEM: GRSC-7 4.1
CONTACT(S): [email protected]
Fostering worldwide interoperability 2Geneva, 13-16 July 2009
Mobile AccessBTS
GGSN
MSC SGSN
MGW
Network Resource Management (PCRF)
MSC serverCSCFMGCF
Services & Applications HLR AAAHSS
Unified Database
NodeB
eNodeB
CDMAWimax
APWifi
Terminal
GMSC
S-GW
PDN-GW
MMEMobile Core
Session control
Data/Services
Q
O
S
OSS
CRM
BSS
BOSS
CSN
PDSNCS domain PS domain
eNodeB ＋
CDMA/EPS interworking in different scenarios is considered by some operators in 3GPP/2.
H(e)NB Rel8 which can satisfy business deployment has been completed. Rel9 is also attracting much attention with some new features.
How to provide voice continuity over LTE is still very hot and being discussed with the major difference being which is to control, IMS or CS?
HSPA+ enhancement technologies (MC-HSPA,etc) improve the performance greatly, which may delay LTE.
LTE-Advanced standards work started. Asymmetric Carrier Aggregation may bring revolution to spectrum and TDD/FDD model.
USI/PCC in Wimax Forum may bring new business model; IEEE 802.16m activities shrank down.
M2M is a hotspot of the industry and its standards started in a number of SDOs
Mobile － overall trend
Fostering worldwide interoperability 3Geneva, 13-16 July 2009
Tier1 telcos and vendors are making more efforts on HSPA+ even than LTE in 3GPP Rel-9. (Following table gives a simple comparison between HSPA+ and LTE from a standards perspective)
Almost all operators in favor of LTE have HSPA networks, hence the latest standards progress on HSPA+ will cause big impacts on the commercial deployment of LTE.
The major operators in Europe like Vodafone, FT, TIM etc., declared LTE launch may be delayed by 2 or 3 years until at least 2011.
LTE HSPA+
Tier1 telcos focusing on LTE ：NTT DCM, KDDI, Verizon and TMO
One foot, two boats
telcos ： VDF, Orange, TIM and AT&T
vendors ： Huawei, E///, NSN, ALU and QC
Small corrections or enhancements New features ， e.g. DC-HSUPA, DC-HSDPA +MIMO
Hardware upgrade needed Software upgrade based on HSPA
Using IMS to support CS, still immature Gives better support to CS based on HSPA
LTE vs HSPA+
Fostering worldwide interoperability 4Geneva, 13-16 July 2009
MC-HSPA enhancement (DC-HSPA+, including Dual carrier for HSUPA, DC+MIMO and DC for non-contiguous carriers) is pushed by Vodafone, Telefonica, which will improve HSPA+ downlink/uplink peak rate (84Mbps/ 4 carrier). It will be close to LTE level in order to satisfy service application for great requirement in uplink.
This feature may bring negative impacts on LTE commercial deployment if it is accepted by most operators. HSPA operators will go on evolving their HSPA networks and wait for LTE-A to be mature.
Operators will select network
evolution based on current
network, spectrum, financing,
policy, competitions… They
have pushed some new
features to improve HSPA+
performances although
keeping attention for LTE.
HS
PA
HS
PA
+
LTE
LTE
-A
2G/U
MT
ST-Mobile
Vodafone?
Network evolution
Fostering worldwide interoperability 5Geneva, 13-16 July 2009
0 2 4 6 8 10 122
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
SNR(dB)
Thro
ughput(
Mbit/s
)
QPSK, 2x2 SCM-C channel,3km/h
1/3 QRD-ML,OFDMA,
1/2 QRD-ML,OFDMA
2/3 QRD-ML,OFDMA
1/3 Turbo-SIC,SC-FDMA
1/2 Turbo-SIC,SC-FDMA
2/3 Turbo-SIC,SC-FDMA
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
120002X2 QPSK addition
1/3 QRM 1/3 Turbo SIC 1/2 QRM 1/2 Turbo SIC 2/3 QRM 2/3 Turbo SIC
Decoder complexity
Detection complexity
Comparison of the number of additions with QPSK and 2x2 antenna configuration
SC-FDMA have the similar performance to OFDMA, with similar computational complexity.
Considering backward compatibility with LTE, most tier1 carriers and vendors prefer SC-FDMA for UL.
Jun 08 Dec 08 Jun 09Mar 08 Sep 08 Mar 09
Early Proposal
RAN1 discussions
TR v1.0.0for information
Sep 09
UL scheme
CoMP
Rel/Rep
Bandwidth
Other
Complete Technology
Final submission
TR v9.0.0for approval
Self eval.
TR v9.1.0to update and capture evaluation results
MIMO
UL Multiple access ： SC-FDMA---backward compatible with LTE.
Carrier Aggregation ： Asymmetric &Non-contiguous CA utilize asymmetric & discrete spectrum for IMT-A
2x2 QPSK Addition
1/3 QRM 1/3 Turbo
SIC1/2
QRM2/3
QRM
2/3 Turbo
SIC
1/2 Turbo
SIC
Performances comparison with QPSK and 2x2 antennae configuration
LTE-Advanced - UL scheme
Fostering worldwide interoperability 6Geneva, 13-16 July 2009
FDD system used to be deployed in unpaired bands while TDD system in paired bands. However, there is not enough paired spectrum for the LTE-A broadband requirements. So the FDD Industry try to utilize unpaired spectrum for FDD deployment.
Harmonization of TDD and FDD may be realized based on asymmetric carrier aggregation technology.
Asymmetric Carrier Aggregation will occupy TDD bands for FDD deployment to challenge exclusive advantages for TDD in unpaired bands.
LTE-Advanced - Asymmetric Carrier Aggregation
Fostering worldwide interoperability 7Geneva, 13-16 July 2009
H(e)NB Rel8 was completed with architecture and features confirmed in 3GPP,
especially OAM interfaces data model.
T-mobile/Vodafone/ATT & Huawei/ALU/NEC are main drivers in standards activities.
But small companies (Airvana, Kineto, IP access) also actively involved, indicating
H(e)NB market competition not limited to big vendors.
Rel9 work started, including performance enhancements: CSG management and
roaming 、 Inbound mobility 、 Local IP access to the Internet 、 IMS based
HNB 、 Managed Remote Access to Home Network 。
CSG UE
H(e)NB(AP)
H(e)NB GW
MME
S-GW
HSSCSG ListSrv
S6a
S1-MME
S1-U
S11
C1 (OMA DM) Non-CSG UE
Home NB & Home eNB
Fostering worldwide interoperability 8Geneva, 13-16 July 2009
AP behave more and more like small-NB with features added, such
as Inbound mobility and local IP access will increase cost inevitably.
Each vendor will have to choose between performances and costs.
Increasing application scenarios may bring the breakthroughs in
business model.
Operators Focus
T-Mobile All except IMS HNB
ATT/Softbank
IMS based HNB
Vodafone local IP access & LBO （ including idle and active）； CSG management (hybrid access)
Telefonica Basic feature
TIM local IP access & LBO
• There are controversies for feature selection based on each benefit. (Short Rel9 will NOT include all features)
• CSG related features will be in Rel9, which indicated operators focus on special users to get more ARPU.
Feature selection
Home NB & Home eNB
Fostering worldwide interoperability 9Geneva, 13-16 July 2009
The continuity of CS voice service will
become one of the key issues after EPS
deployment. It will have heavy impact on the
implementation of future network.
3 solutions: SRVCC, CSFB and CSoPS.
Based on IMS, SRVCC is considered as
the natural selection for the voice
continuity solution to the future network.
CS EPS
IMS
SRVCC CSFB CSoPS
PropertyLong term solution Temporary solution Temporary solution (depend on
operator’s strategy)
TimeStandard completed in rel8; network will be mature in 2011.
Standard is completed in rel8; network will be mature in 2010.
Standard in VOLGA will be completed in 2009. network will be mature in 2012.
Operator support
Nearly all operators and vendors support
NTT Docomo/KDDI push it Only TMO support and push it as operator.
FocusVoIP controlled by IMS
No VoIP control VoIP controlled by CS
costCost is high but it is a final solution.
Initialization cost is low but the investment will not be protected when update to IMS.
Network cost is acceptable but handset cost will be a problem due to the particular chips.
Voice continuity on LTE
Fostering worldwide interoperability 10Geneva, 13-16 July 2009
Verizon pushed LTE/eHRPD non-optimized handover in 3GPP/2 actively. For optimized handover, they only focus on the direction from LTE to HRPD.
CDMA operators will select different network deployments based on their service strategy, current EPS Rel8 specifications can support most contents in phase2.
LTE and CDMA dual-mode chips may be a key factor for feature application, especially single radio.
3GPP Release standard Rel8
phase1 phase2 phase3
Real-time data services (non-VoIP)- LTE/eHRPD bi-direction non-optimized handover- LTE/eHRPD bi-direction optimized handover- CSFB
All services including VoIP- LTE/eHRPD bi-direction non-optimized handover- LTE/eHRPD bi-direction optimized handover- SRVCC
Non-real-time data services
- LTE/eHRPD bi-direction non-optimized handover
cdma 1xeHRPD
EPS
EPS/CDMA interworking
Fostering worldwide interoperability 11Geneva, 13-16 July 2009
Supplementary Slides
Fostering worldwide interoperability 12Geneva, 13-16 July 2009
This feature is mainly pushed by ATT, because ATT want IMS to be unique service control plane and to not upgrade current CS network. They prefer HUA solution supported by NEC.
Vodafone expects to upgrade current MSC server to adopt ICS architecture supported by NSN.
Technical progress IMS controls HNB access, two main
solutions ： Solution1: Upgrade MSC Server,
adopt current ICS procedure, pushed by Vodafone.
Solution2: Add HUA （ Home User Agent ， modeling UE access CS procedure ） in HNB, pushed by AT&T ；
The main difference is: solution1 reduces AP complexity and causes less modification, but needs upgrade MSC; solution2 needs fewer CN changes, but upgrade AP.
UE
Iu-cs
CS Core
BSS/RNS
Iuh
ISC
MSC Server enhanced for ICS & SRVCC
I2
3G PS Core
3G HNB
3G HNB GW
Iu-ps
SCC ASHSS
HUA
IMS CSCF
GiV
odafo
ne solution
AT
&T
solution
IMS based HNB
Fostering worldwide interoperability 13Geneva, 13-16 July 2009
CS domain
CS domain
UE
MSC MSC
EPS
UEHO
CSCS EPSEPS
UEUEFB
IMSIMS CSCS
UE
EPS
UEHO
SC
SRVCC CSFB CSoPS
Solution introduce
SRVCC is based on IMS. Voice continue include two procedures, PS handover and service continue in IMS domain. IMS is considered as the future central network so SRVCC will combine CS and future voice service smoothly.
CSFB ： UE register on EPS network in IDLE mode. When it initiates a voice service it will re-register to CS domain. This solution will not modify the current CS network so it is easy to be implement.
CSoPS,UE connect to CS through PS domain. So the handover procedure is similar with CS handover only add some PS signaling.
Deployment and evolution
Route one: for the operators which think LTE must support voice service it can implement IMS before LTE and use SRVCC to voice continue in the border of LTE network.
Route two: LTE will be used for data service only first, so LTE can be implement before IMS. Operator can wait for the proper time to implement IMS and then support voice and use SRVCC for voice continue.
Operators choose CSFB when they implement LTE in a small size area. But if they want to enlarge the LTE deployment the signaling for CSFB is too much to the network it need to implement IMS for voice service.
Some operators think that they must implement voice service in the LTE netowrk. But they don’t think IMS is mature enough to be commercial deployed. To make LTE deploy independent on IMS, CSoPS is bring out and it gives operator a chance to deploy LTE with voice service before IMS implementation.
Voice continuity on LTE
Fostering worldwide interoperability 14Geneva, 13-16 July 2009
M2M is defined as a solution of data communication which involves one or more entities that do
not necessarily need human interaction. Some applications on M2M are also considered as a way
of promoting power saving.
M2M is promising to bring benefits for both mobile operators and vendors:
Possibly become mobile operators’ “blue ocean” because M2M is not overlapped with the
current H2H network;
Vendors are expecting to make profit from selling the M2M-capable device or from potential
requirements on network expansion brought by increased throughput.
Analysis: Unclear business mode may prevent M2M from large-scale deployment in short term
Industry ： The causality dilemma between the voluminous market and the cost down of the
chipset on the end device makes it the “chicken or egg first” question.
Standards ： M2M communication has influence on almost every layer of the network. A
couple of SDOs are trying to develop global specifications for the time being.
Machine to Machine communication
PrudentialPositive
NTT DoCoMo, KPN, CMCC,
Telenor:
Already have some applications;
Eager to see solution from vendors
Orange ： chair of ETSI M2M TC, not enthusiast
TIM ： mainly in 3GPP and Zigbee Alliance;
questioning the role of operators in the value chain;
not expecting considerable revenue in short-term
Indifferent
T-Mobile questioning the business mode; no
need for network improvement
Vodafone closely monitoring in SDOs to avoid
any big change in their network
