Wayne CutlerMSF CTO

10th October 2012

Founded in 1998Open consortium of telecommunications companies (mix of large operators, large p ( g p , gvendors, niche suppliers, test tool suppliers et al)suppliers et al)See www.msforum.org

Focuses on developing meaningful physical implementations of standards Organises large-scale interoperability events to test and validate standards in implementations of interest to major carriersSee http://www msforum org/interoperability/GMI shtmlSee http://www.msforum.org/interoperability/GMI.shtmlfor details of all MSF IOT events

Operators and Equipment Vendors that participate in Open Interoperability Events learn how multivendor next-generation products and networks will interoperate in thegeneration products and networks will interoperate in the real world. Must be “relevant” – i.e. related to technology that is at the right point in its development cycleright point in its development cycle That information translates into several financial benefits:

Reduced time to market for deployment of interoperable solutions and decreased costs and resources to resolve interoperability issuesOperators get a better understanding of the maturity of a technology and gain insight into “best in class” productsImproved protocol documentation through facilitatingImproved protocol documentation through facilitating clarifications in the tested standards via feedback to the appropriate SDOsThoroughly evaluated architectural framework for cooperatively g y p ydesigning end-to-end networking solutions

MSF has previously run two LTE related IOT events LTE/EPC IOT in March 2010VoLTE IOT in September 2011VoLTE IOT in September 2011

RCS VoLTE IOT builds on the previous LTE related IOTs

MSF partnered with ETSI & GSMA to jointly organise this event

Reflects the common focus of MSF & ETSI TC-INTEndorses a number of GSMA PRDs for RCS & VoLTETest plans sourced from each of the partner organisations

Event scope consists of two main scenarios:-Scenario 1 - RCS VoLTE in a Home/Single NetworkScenario 2 - RCS VoLTE for Roaming & Interconnect

Each scenario is broken down into a number of sub-Each scenario is broken down into a number of subscenarios

S i 2 h b f fi ti t fl tScenario 2 has a number of configurations to reflect roaming/interconnect differences

Test Scenarios document is publicly available at http://www.msforum.org/interoperability/RCS%20VoLTE%20Scenarios%202012-07-16 pdfLTE%20Scenarios%202012 07 16.pdf

A single instance of the RCS VoLTE architecture was created using components from different vendors. Four sub scenariosFour sub-scenarios◦ IPCAN session establishment/disestablishment and SIP registration (to

IMS), ◦ SIP voice session establishment & interaction with IMS MMTEL AS◦ SIP voice session establishment & interaction with IMS MMTEL AS◦ RCS Services ◦ SIP multimedia session establishment & interaction with IMS MMTEL AS. Foc sed on testing interoperabilit of the f nctionalit asFocused on testing interoperability of the functionality as profiled by GSMA PRDs IR.92, IR.94, IR.90, IR.67 and the RCS Services and Client Specification.

IMS Core

UtUtMMTel / RCS Application

ServersMRFMr’

HSS P-CSCF I/S-CSCF

Sh

Mw

ISC

Cx

ShCx

Servers

Mr

Rx

S6a

IMS UA

UEDRA

S6a

Sh

Rx

Gx

ENUM

IMS UA

MME

PCRF

UELTE-Uu S11

Gx

S1-MME

LTE-Uu

Sec-GW

GxENUM Server

IMS UA

S-GW P-GWeNodeB S5 SGiS1-U

GW

Tested roaming and interconnect between 2 PLMNs. For roaming the local breakout model with visited P CSCFFor roaming, the local breakout model with visited P-CSCF and home operator applications was tested. There were the same 4 sub-scenarios as for Scenario 1. Also a number of different configurations.gThis scenario focused on testing interoperability of the functionality as profiled by GSMA PRDs IR.65, IR 88, IR.92, IR.94, IR.90, IR,67 and the RCS Services and Client SpecificationSpecification. An IPX provided the interconnect network between the 2 PLMNs.

IMS Core

ShISC

Cx

UtMMTel / RCS

Application Servers

MRFMr’

Mr

HSS P-CSCF

Rx

S6a

I/S-CSCFMw

DRAS6a

ShCx

Rx

Gx

IBCF/TrGWMx

PLMN-A

Ici/IziENUM

PLMN-A

IMS UA

MME

S-GW P-GW

PCRF

UE

eNodeB

LTE-Uu S11

S5

Gx

SGi

S1-MME

S1-U

Sec-GW

ENUM Server

ENUM

ENUMIPX

PLMN-BIMS Core

ShISC

Cx

UtMMTel / RCS

Application Servers

PLMN-BIci/Izi

MRFMr’

Mr

HSS P-CSCF

Rx

S6a

I/S-CSCFMw

C

DRAS6a

ShCx

Rx

Gx

IBCF/TrGWMx

IMS UA

MME

S-GW P-GW

PCRF

UE

eNodeB

LTE-Uu S11

S5

Gx

SGi

S1-MME

S1-U

Sec-GW

G

IR.65 : IMS Roaming & Interworking GuidelinesIR.88 : LTE Roaming GuidelinesIR 92 : IMS Profile for Voice and SMSIR.92 : IMS Profile for Voice and SMSIR.90 : RCS Interworking GuidelinesIR.67: DNS/ENUM Guidelines for Service Providers &

GRX/IPXGRX/IPX IR.58: IMS Profile for Voice over HSPAIR.94: IMS profile for Conversation Video ServiceRCS-e – Advanced Communications: Services and ClientRCS e Advanced Communications: Services and Client Specification: Version 1.2.1Rich Communication Suite 5.0 Advanced Communications: Services and Client Specification p

Scenario 1a – ETSI TS 103 029Scenario 1b – MSF2012.069Scenario 1c – MSF2012 070 - based on GSMA RCS-e testScenario 1c – MSF2012.070 - based on GSMA RCS-e test cases, http://www.gsma.com/rcs/product-specifications/rcs-e-specifications/Scenario 1d – MSF2012 071Scenario 1d MSF2012.071Scenario 2a - MSF2012.072/027 & ETSI TS 186 011-02Scenario 2b – MSF2012.074 & ETSI TS 186 011-02Scenario 2c – ETSI TS 102 901 v1.1.1/2.1.1Scenario 2c ETSI TS 102 901 v1.1.1/2.1.1Scenario 2d – MSF2012.076/077

The event sought to reflect real world deployment strategy in terms of testing between “blocks”Typical blocks could beTypical blocks could be

UE/ClienteNBEPCEPCDRAPCRFIMS CoreIMS CoreMMTEL/RCS ASIBCF/SBG etc

This also enabled stabler configurations due to less gswapping of elements

Within certain constraints, equipment could be sited in a host lab or connect in via VPN connection to that lab

Facilitates vendor participation and reduces the cost or participation

Ues & eNBs must be in a host lab

All observable interfaces must be traceable by theAll observable interfaces must be traceable by the monitoring equipment in a host lab

Additional background activity to perform DIAMETER conformance testingSTF450 validating ETSI Conformance Test Suites (TS 101STF450 validating ETSI Conformance Test Suites (TS 101 580-3[Rx] & TS 101 601-3 [Gx] )Tools developed by STF 450 enable automatic confpormancechecking of traces taken during the IOTchecking of traces taken during the IOTIn addition, tools previously developed by other STFs enable conformance checking of SIP messagesTwo STF experts were in attendance at the event to checkTwo STF experts were in attendance at the event to check conformance on :-

SIP (Mw, Ici, ISC) for test cases in TS 186 011DIAMETER (Rx) for test cases in TS 103 029( )

V LTE RCS IOT E 2012VoLTE RCS IOT Event 2012

Hosted By:

Participants:

Observers:

Sintesio CMCCLTE UE 3rd party D2Tech CMCCVoLTE Client Radisys D2Tech CMCCRCS Client D2Tech

eNodeB Telekom Slovenia

Telekom Slovenia CMCC

EPC (MME+SGW+PGW)Cisco Cisco CMCC

HSS Iskratel CMCCPCRF Tekelec TekelecP-CSCF/IMS-ALG Cisco Iskratel Metaswitch Acme PacketI/S-CSCF Cisco Iskratel Acme PacketMMTel AS Genband Iskratel CMCC GenbandMMTel AS Genband Iskratel CMCC GenbandMRF Radisys IskratelRCS Video Share AS Genband Genband GenbandRCS IM/Chat Server Genband Genband GenbandIBCF-TrGW Iskratel Metaswitch Acme PacketDRA Ulticom Ulticom Tekelec Acme PacketIPX Aicent AicentENUM Neustar Neustar

Monitoring EquipmentJDSU JDSU

Kit (Location)

LTE UE 3rd party (local)

D2Tech (local)

VoLTE Client Radisys (local) D2Tech (local)RCS Client D2Tech (local)RCS Client D2Tech (local)

eNodeB Telekom Slovenia (local)

EPC (MME+SGW+PGW)

Cisco (Italy)

HSS Iskratel HSS s ate(Slovenia)

PCRF Tekelec (USA)

P-CSCF/IMS-ALG Cisco (Italy)Iskratel (Slovenia)

Metaswitch (local)

I/S-CSCF Cisco (Italy)Iskratel (Slovenia)( y) ( )

MMTel AS Genband (local)

Iskratel (Slovenia)

MRF Radisys (local)Iskratel (Slovenia)

RCS Video Share AS

Genband (local)

CS Ch G b dRCS IM/Chat Server

Genband (local)

IBCF-TrGW Iskratel (local) Metaswitch (local)

DRA Ulticom (local)ENUM Neustar (USA)IPX Aicent (USA)Monitoring Equipment

JDSU (local)

The two host sites were connected via IPX (L2TP from Sintesio, IPSEC fromCMCC),Remote vendor equipment was (mostly) q p yconnected via L2 VPNs using L2TP,In one case, an IPSEC connection was used for ,vendor equipment

VoLTE calls successfully demonstrated with Supplementary Services◦ Intra PLMN (Slovenia and Beijing)◦ Inter PLMLN (between Slovenia and Beijing) _ using

IPXRCS Ch f ll d dRCS Chat successfully demonstratedRCS File Transfer successfully demonstrated

Multi-vendor interoperability of UE, eNodeB, EPC, IMS Core, AS, DRA and PCC.EPC, IMS Core, AS, DRA and PCC. Voice calls established using dedicated bearer (QCI=1),(QCI 1),Voice / Video calls established using dedicated bearers (QCI=1 & QCI=2)dedicated bearers (QCI 1 & QCI 2),No issues with GTP,DIAMETER was observed to be much moreDIAMETER was observed to be much more stable than in VoLTE 2011 event,

Use of a DRA reduced connections and simplified Diameter message routing. DRAssimplified Diameter message routing. DRAs were also shown to provide interworking between different transport layer protocolsbetween different transport layer protocols and act as a DIAMETER “firewall”.Some DIAMETER AVPs incorrectly tagged asSome DIAMETER AVPs incorrectly tagged as mandatory, Issue with Rx conformance on 1 P-CSCF atIssue with Rx conformance on 1 P CSCF at registration.

Sh interface not supported by all ASs.Ut interface was supported and tested byUt interface was supported and tested by UE/AS. Issues with 3rd party registration relating toIssues with 3 party registration relating to IFCs – but these were resolved. SCTP transport was not used by all DIAMETERSCTP transport was not used by all DIAMETER elements – DRA did TCP/SCTP i/w. SIP fragmentation was seen when the MTUSIP fragmentation was seen when the MTU size exceeded 1500 bytes, which was solved by use of TCP rather than UDPby use of TCP rather than UDP.

Most implementations were 3GPP R8 based.SIP syntax issues encountered on someSIP syntax issues encountered on some implementations. Configuration issues were reduced due to theConfiguration issues were reduced due to the strategy of testing “blocks”. In some cases, reconfiguration was necessary to enablereconfiguration was necessary to enable testing when fixes were needed. Issues encountered with VoLTE client onIssues encountered with VoLTE client on some lap tops believed to be related to OS.

Latency in the test network due to remote location of equipment. Impacted on set-uplocation of equipment. Impacted on set up times and media quality. Transcoding transrating and DTMF collectionTranscoding, transrating and DTMF collection demonstrated via MRF. MMTEL services demonstrated via AS (OIPMMTEL services demonstrated via AS (OIP, OIR, TIP, CFU, ICB, OCB, CFNR, CW, CH)RCS Chat & FT demonstratedRCS Chat & FT demonstrated. Issue with SIP OPTIONS transiting an IMS core.

Complete the eventAnalyze the results for input into a White PaperAnalyze the results for input into a White PaperPublish the event White Paper – target date of mid November following a drafting session in the MSF Q4/12 meeting in Singapore Oct 30th to November 1st

Send liaisons to partner organizationsPresent results /findings at industry events in AsiaPresent results /findings at industry events in Asia, Europe and North America, Consider next steps / future testing.

Questions / Comments