201301080617318380667NGN Migration Session4 Interconnection NGN Rev

8/9/2019 201301080617318380667NGN Migration Session4 Interconnection NGN Rev

1/61

Migration to Next Generation Networks

Session IV: Interconnection in NGN

Martin Lundborg, Stephan Wirsing

Workshop on Migration to NGN, 29 / 30 November 2012


2/61

Disclaimer

Disclaimer

The opinions expressed in this presentation

are those of SBR and do not necessarily

reflect the views of TRAI.

2


3/61

Content

Session 1: Introduction to NGN

Session 2: Status of NGN in India

Day 1Session 3: The migration strategies towards NGN

Session 4: Interconnection in NGN

Session 5: Quality of Service in NGN environment

Session 6: Licensing related issues in NGN Day 2

3


4/61

Background and current situation

Past/current situation

Bilateral interconnection

Future developments

NGN implies possibilities of

between all operators

TDM interconnection

multilateral interconnection,

fewer PoI, new VAS

services etc.

Distributed points of

interconnection

Reduction in costs per

minute for voice traffic

Interconnection regulated for

operators based on CPP

industry and relevant OPEX of

fixed operator as basis for tariff

4

determination


5/61

Relevant issues

Peering and transit vs.Interconnection for internet traffic is usually either

eerin or transit.-

Peering: only the destinations in the interconnectednetwork are advertised while transit means that an ISP

buys interconnection to all destinations in the internet.

eer ng s usua y res r c e o ne wor s w ere e

amount of traffic in both directions is roughly equal.

Peering is usually being for free, but also “Paid”

Service aware or

service unaware

.

The charges for TDM interconnection depend on the

interconnection

applications above layer 3.

The access network operator controls the services in

case on TDM networks and interconnection, while in

5

case of internet interconnection, it is the end-user.


6/61

Relevant issues

Public inter-

connection vs.peer-to-peer

nterconnect on etween networ s s genera y

implemented peer-to-peer between two networks.In the internet, public Interconnection Exchanges

= .

An internet exchange is a separate entity, that provides

the necessary infrastructure for exchange of traffic

between ISPs.

Charging regimesIn TDM interconnection a detailed charging per service

for interconnec-tion

.In the internet charging is based on volume or capacity.

6


7/61

Relevant issues

Number of

interconnectionThe number of interconnection points in the TDM

points

IP networks.Due to the reduction of digital exchanges or the

im lementation of NGN networks, the networks are

becoming more centralised and the number of

interconnection points will decrease.

The degree of

regulation

TDM interconnection has, especially with regard to

termination services, been regulated while internet

interconnection is not.

7


8/61

Development towards NGN interconnection

Fewer network nodes implying

fewer POI

Networks transforming to

NGN to reduce costs

(CAPEX / OPEX)

NGN; Next generation

networks / Package

based transmission

No standardised quality Bilateral and multilateral

defined for interconnectionas in TDM

interconnection possible

ayere ne wor separa ng

transport, control andapplications


9/61

Content


Session 4a: Interconnection Architectures

Session 4b: Regulatory Regime

Session 4c: Number of POI

Session 4d: Routing, Roaming and QoS

Session 4e: Interconnection Charges

9


10/61

Architectures, Interfaces and Signalling

Multilateral coordination regarding standards

Technological changes

New architectures

Policy implications

,

required.

Regulated interconnection offers may need

, so sw c ,

SBC)

New interfacesrev s on to sa eguar any-to-any

communications

Btw. IP networks and btw. IP and PSTN

(Ethernet)

New signalling

networks

Regarding different services (emergency

, .

btw. Media gateway

and MGW-

, ,

Facilitation of new business models (e.g.

service providers providing the service

, ,

H.323, Telephony

over IP: SIP-

10

p at orm on y. ,

H.323/SIP)


11/61

Interconnection architectures

The NGN

architecture has

been defined byITU-T (in Rec.

.

The possible

connectivit to an

NGN: UNI, NNI,

ANI, SNI

11

Source: ITU Rec. Y.2012


12/61


User Network

Interface (UNI)

The UNI connects terminal equipment, user networks

and cor orate networks to the NGN.

The NNI is used to provide connectivity to other NGN,e wor e wor

Interface (NNI)other IP-based networks and PSTN/ISDN.

The NNI supports both a control level type of

interaction and a media level type of interaction.

NGN networks are interconnected.

Control interconnection: This interface interconnects

the service control functions of both networks.

12


13/61


Application

Network Interface

The ANI is an interface which provides a channel for

interactions and exchan es between an NGN and(ANI) applications.

Service Network

Interface (SNI)

e erv ce e wor n er ace s an n er ace

which provides a channel for interactions and

exchanges between an NGN and other service

roviders such as a content rovider .

The SNI supports both a control plane level type of

interaction and a media level (or data plane) type of

interaction.

13


14/61

Circuit switched interconnection regime

14


15/61

Internal migration towards all-IP

PSTNTE

I n t e r c o n n e c t i o n T D M

TrunkGateway

Softswitch/IMS

PSTNTE

TrunkGateway

Interconnection TDM

Core P L S

TE ... transit exchange AG ... access gateway

AG AG Access Gateway

Access


16/61

IP interconnection between two NGNs

Softswitch/

TGIP basedInterconnection

Softswitch/IMS

TGIMS

SBC

I P/ M P L S

SBCI P / M P LS

AG AG AG AG

SBC ... session border controllerTG ... trunk gateway AG ... access atewa

16


17/61

Instances of Interconnection

Analysing the business models we find many instances where

interconnection is possible:

1. application layer – application layer

. serv ce ayer – serv ce ayer

3. transport layer – transport layer

4. service layer – application layer

5. transport layer – service layer

17


18/61

Issues I

Do you agree on the described architectures, physical interfaces and signalling?

interesting?

18


19/61


20/61

IP Exchange for Interconnection

The following list summarizes the pros and cons of the introduction of an

interconnection exchange for NGN traffic:

An interconnection exchange is an efficient way to exchange traffic,

since the costs are shared by all operators.

Depending on the number of interconnection exchanges the

connection of operators to the interconnection exchanges is a majorssue.

It could be envisaged to place interconnection exchanges in

ever license service area and connect these exchan es via a

common backbone.

In that case the connection of the access providers would be

20

s m ar as n o ay s env ronmen .


21/61

Issues II

Do you see any role of NIXI in IP interconnection for NGN?

21


22/61

Content


Session 4a: Interconnection architectures

Session 4b: Regulatory regime




22


23/61

Regulatory regime

In India, the service providers are obliged to interconnect with each other as

set out in the license conditions/ TRAIs regulation.

As set out by TRAI all service providers including UASL licensees, NLD

licensees and ILD licensees have to provide interconnection upon a request

from another service provider.

The directive and the rules do not include internet service providers.

23


24/61


25/61

Regulated voice interconnection

Considerations

Monopoly for termination service will remain (related to phone number or

termination network).

Interconnection is currently mandated for licensees and is required for

any-to-any communication to some extent, i.e. large operators remain

guarantee for any-to-any communication.

Currently QoS is set by standards, but for NGN, standards are either to

be regulated or negotiated.

an a e n erconnec on requ res some sor o ar regu a on o e

effective.

25


26/61

Regulated voice interconnection

Considerations

Monopoly for termination service will remain (related to phone number or

termination network)

Interconnection is currently mandated for licensees and is required for

any-to-any communication to some extent, i.e. large operators remain

guarantee for any-to-any communication

relevant to some extent, especially to guarantee

any-to-any communications and QoS across

networksCurrently QoS is set by standards, but for NGN, standards are either to

be regulated or negotiated.

an a e n erconnec on requ res some sor o ar regu a on o e

effective.

26


27/61

Regulated interconnection

27


28/61

Mandating IP Interconnection?

Alternative 1: Mandate IP Interconnection is to oblige the access provider

to provide IP-based interconnection when the seeker of interconnection

requires this to be done on an IP basis.

Ensure that the migration to IP would not be done before one orseveral service providers are ready for IP interconnection and

therefore decided that they want to require it.

Alternative 2: Mandate IP interconnection only from a certain date in the

.

Pro: Parallel regimes (TDM and IP) could be avoided and it would

give all stakeholders time to prepare.

Con: The IP-based interconnection would be forced between

operators who would both prefer the interconnection to be TDM

28

.


29/61

Mandating IP Interconnection?

If IP interconnection becomes mandatory, the question arises if the

enforcement of interconnection agreements should rely on:

Bilateral agreements and dispute resolution (ex-post)

-

29


30/61

Issues III

Do you think that TRAI’s licensing regime is sufficient for NGN

interconnection?

Should IP interconnection be mandatory?

,

stakeholders or only when the seeker of interconnection requires this?

If IP-based interconnection is made mandator should TRAI issue a

reference offer or leave the agreements to be negotiated between the

operators?

30


31/61

Content







31


32/61


33/61

Issues IV

What does a reduction of PoIs mean for India, in particular as regards the

division of India in 22 service areas?

What is the optimal number of PoIs in India and how should these bestructured?

From the respondents perspective is there any regulatory intervention

required regarding the number of PoIs in an NGN architecture?

33


34/61

Content







34


35/61

Routing and roaming

Routing: process of collecting and distributing topology-related

information, calculating the routes, establishing and maintaining the

routing table in the network (Y.2612).

Routing in IP-based networks is determined by information in the

individual routers. Between networks routing information is advertised with

the border gateway protocol (BGP).

n ra ona ne wor s rou ng s per orme w n a ne wor .

If it is determined, that a specific address is not within the network the

.

Routing might also involve overflow or traffic management

35

.


36/61

Routing and roaming

According to GSM specifications calls towards a roaming subscriber are

routed via the home network, which determines the charge for the roaming

leg.

Calls by a subscriber are routed directly to the destination without using

the home network.

The visited operator records the CDR and sends them to the home

ne wor v a e so ca e rans erre accoun proce ure , w c s

specified by the GSMA.

network in all cases and the home network controls the access to the

internet.

36


37/61


38/61

Issues V

Do you regard the IMS specifications to be appropriate for the routing in NGN?

38


39/61

Content







39


40/61

Changing economic conditions

NGNs affect the way costs are calculated because of new cost drivers and

cost/volume relationships (CVR).

With increased data traffic in all-IP networks and with multiple services

sharing one network, the fixed costs are distributed to a lesser extent to

.

The costs for transmission are reduced while the costs for the control layer

.

If different QoS classes should be enabled for interconnection traffic, then

the tariffs and the char in re ime must be able to differentiate accordin

to QoS and service classes.

40


41/61

Retail charge control

The charging regimes were developed for voice markets and products and

now increasingly are being applied for data products and broadband.

In India today, these issues are regulated under forbearance and theservice providers.

With regard to NGN no or little impact on the retail tariff regulation is

identified.

41


42/61

Circuit switched interconnection regime

Charging regime

O erators SMP/incumbents : re ulated char in re ime t icall

based on CPP/EBC

Time based charging

Cost oriented pricing set by regulator

Symmetric

42


43/61

Alternative Charging Methods for NGN-IC

• Charging regime for interconnection of networks in

the WWW

• Free exchan e of traffic between e ual networks

IP Peering

• Transit usually paid for

43

Alt ti h i th d f NGN IC


44/61

Alternative charging methods for NGN-IC

• CPP

• Cost based per minute ratesCPP/EBC

mobile networks (India as an exception)

• Removal of interconnection rates for all exchange ofBill & Keep

(COBAK)

• Sometimes with limits for asymmetric traffic

capacity or booked amount of capacity

• Charging unit: bits or links

•

Capacity based charging

. . ,

interconnection joining links and managed capacity

• Charging based on volumesVolume based charging

44

• ompara e o e curren reg me u w y es as

charging unit

CPP B&K d P LRIC


45/61

CPP vs. B&K and Pure LRIC

CPP/EBC• Well established

•

Pros Cons

• Competition problems

• -

• QoS

• Off-net-/on-net pricing

• Suboptimal network utilisation

based on per minute charging

• Higher end user charges

• Less re ulation re uired • Network utilisation hot• Investment incentives

• No on-net/off-net pricing

• Close to marginal costs

potatoe routing)

• Waterbed effects

• QoS

• Fixed-mobile-convergence?

• No cross-subsidisation

• Legal uncertainty

• How to deal with asymmetric

traffic

45


46/61


47/61

Outcomes from different charging regimes

Cases

,

the third entrant to gain more market shares.

In US MPP Mobile Part Pa s has been used Lower

penetration rates but higher usage per customer and higher

ARPUs.

Capacity based charging for interconnection used e.g. in Spainand for bitstream access.

08.01.2013 47

Which charging regime is optimal?


48/61

Which charging regime is optimal?

Higher tariff levels lead to:

- -

Higher retail prices but lower usage; some research suggests higherfixed subscription fees

Cash flows from countries with lower tariffs to those with higher tariffs

Cash flows from operators with more outcoming than incoming traffic

larger operators

Important for operators are especially the tariff levels

High for large and dominant operators

Low for small operators and new entrants

48

How to deal with migration costs?


49/61

How to deal with migration costs?

NGN requires investments in the initial years Additional costs of

migration

Alternative regulatory solutions:

Alternative 2: Considerung higher costs for legacy interconnection?

Alternative 3: Consider costs of NGN plus mark-up during transition

period?

mp emen a on o cos s m g ncrease ncen ves o nves a e

cost of other operators and consumers, but effect is limited due to low

propotion of costs related to interconnection.

49

Likely outcomes


50/61

Likely outcomes

The choice is mainly between charging regimes with tariffs (most typically

CPP/EBC) and those without (typically B&K and Peering).

In countries with a CPP/EBC regime, the regulated CPP tariffs set the capfor tariffs for non regulated interconnection.

The difference between charging regimes have less impact than they

used to have due to sinking costs.

amount of traffic as a cost driver, negotiated interconnection will more

and more be B&K or Peering.

A change in charging units for NGN to volume based charges is rational,but the low net payments might rather lead to a voluntary implementation

.

50

Issues VI


51/61

Issues VI

Do you regard the current regulatory regime for retail tariffs to be

appropriate?

Which wholesale charging regime, e.g. CPNP or bill and keep, do youregard to be optimal to facilitate the migration to NGN?

51


52/61

Cost driver in NGN networks are bits inpeak and not minutes

. .

2. Due to generally low net payments (low rates combined with reasonably

symmetric traffic) and the effort needed to change charging unit (regulatory

procedure, negotiations), removing the compensation for traffic (B&K) is a

viable alternative.

08.01.2013 52SBR Master Layout Präsentation

.

Charging of different QoS


53/61

Charging of different QoS

An implementation of different prices for different quality would reflect the

cost drivers with regard to the underlying network capacity required.

The quality differentiated prices theoretically lead to more efficient usageof the networks.

Is quality a significant cost driver?

The increased com lexit of ualit based char es im lies hi her costs of

regulation and more extensive negotiations between operators.

53

Issues VII


54/61

Issues VII

Do you agree that if the CPNP regime remains in place, it will have to be

adopted with regard to the charging units, i.e. by implementing capacity

based charging?

How should the CPNP regime be adapted with regard to different quality

of service for different interconnection traffic?

If different service classes or QoS is charged differently, which service

c asses or o parame ers are re evan or suc a reg me

54

Content charges


55/61

g

As NGN interconnection evolves, it will be possible to interconnect for the

exchange of content.

As content services will be packet based, the capacity based charges willprobably be the most suitable charging regime.

Before the charges for interconnection with regard to content services will

be regulated, a market failure and/or competition problems need to be

en e .

If and when IP interconnection for content services are implemented and

,

classes.

55

Issues VIII


56/61

How should the charging regime be adapted with regard to different

quality of service for different interconnection traffic?

If different service classes or QoS are charged differently, which service

classes or QoS parameters are relevant for such a regime?

Do you recall for more regulatory interventions when it comes to

interconnection of data and other NGN related non-voice services? If yes,

w u y u w y

56

Alternatives to assess costs to approve tariffs


57/61

pp

Tariff approval can be made in different ways:

(LRIC)

Retail minus

In India tariffs have been approved based on only relevant actual cost

data derived from the operators.

n erna ona ren owar s cos mo e s o e.g. nc u ng

Sweden, the Netherlands, Germany, Austria etc.)

57


58/61

Issues IX


59/61

Which cost methodology is preferable and which level of the tariffs would

optimally promote the migration to NGN?

59


60/61

Contact


61/61

SBR JUCONOMY Consultin AG

Vienna Office: Düsseldorf Office:Parkring 10/1/10 Nordstraße 116

enna üsse or

Austria Germany

Tel: + 43-1-513 514 0-0 Tel: + 49-211-68 78 88-0

Fax: + 43-1-513 514 0-95 Fax: + 49-211-68 78 88-33

[email protected]

[email protected]

e r er s r-ne .com

[email protected]@sbr-net.com

Documents

201301080617318380667NGN Migration Session4 Interconnection NGN Rev