4IOT Background RCS VoLTE IOT builds on previous IOT Events MSF LTE/EPC IOT in March 2010 & VoLTE IOT in September 2011ETSI IMS PlugtestsMSF partnered with ETSI & GSMA to jointly organise this eventReflects the common focus of all 3 partners in VoLTE & RCSEndorses a number of GSMA PRDsJoint Task Force, comprising members from the partner organizations, formed to oversee all aspects of the eventEvent web site at:
5IOT Scope Two main scenarios: Scenario 1 – RCS VoLTE in Home/Single N/WGSMA PRDs IR.92, IR.94, IR.90, IR.67 and the RCS Services and Client SpecificationScenario 2 – RCS VoLTE for Roaming & InterconnectGSMA PRDs IR.65, IR 88, IR.92, IR.94, IR.90, IR,67 and the RCS Services and Client SpecificationSee Testing Scenarios document at oLTE%20Scenarios% pdf
13Scenario 1 – Highlights (1/2) Multi-vendor interoperability of UE, eNodeB, EPC, IMS/MMTEL, RCS AS, DRA and PCC technology.Attachment and registration following ETSI TSVoLTE calls, based on GSMA IR.92, were demonstrated, including MMTEL services.Multimedia (voice/video) calls, based on GSMA IR.94, were demonstrated, including MMTEL services.Ut configuration of MMTEL services was demonstrated.Dedicated bearers with appropriate QCI were established for both voice & video connections.
14Scenario 1 – Highlights (2/2) RCS FT and RCS Chat were demonstrated.The IMS Soft Clients interworked successfully with 3rd party LTE data dongles for attachment IMS services.No issues with GTP.Transcoding, transrating and DTMF collection was demonstrated via an AS and MRFDRAs greatly simplified Diameter routing and provided interworking between different transport layer protocols and Diameter application implementations.
15Scenario 1 – Observations (1/3) PCC IssuesOn Rx interfaces, one P-CSCF was not compliant.Some AVPs were incorrectly present or incorrectly tagged as mandatory. These issues were fixed by the DRA.IMS IssuesFragmentation issues were seen when the MTU size exceeded that specified by 3GPP (e.g octets in the transport network).PCC IssuesDRAs greatly simplified Diameter routing and provided interworking between different transport layer protocols and Diameter application implementations.IMS IssuesFragmentation issues were solved by reducing the size of the invite by reducing the number of codex and also using TCP in place of the UDP.
16Scenario 1 – Observations (2/3) IMS Issues (continued)The Sh interface was not supported on all implementations of Application Servers.The Ut interface was not supported on all MMTel AS's.RCS Capability Exchange failed due to an IMS core not transiting the SIP OPTIONs message.Some SIP syntax errors observed – and also a difference in tolerance of such errors between implementations.This was fixed but not re-tested due to running out of time.
17Scenario 1 – Observations (3/3) Transport IssuesSCTP was not supported all DRA clients, TCP was the transport protocol supported by some of them.ENUM was not used.Transport IssuesThe DRA provided transport layer interworking.
20Scenario 2 – Roaming Highlights 2 PLMNs connected via an IPX.DIAMETER message routing via V-PLMN MME and H-PLMN HSS was proven to work via DEA/DRA in each lab and IPX DRA.HSSDRA/DEAIPX DRADEA/DRAMMEH-PLMNIPXV-PLMN
21Scenario 2 – Roaming Observations SIM Card IssuesRoaming could only be tested one wayAttachment FailureDespite DIAMETER routing working between the chain of DRAs and MME/HSS, the attachment did fail which then blocked further tests being able to be run...…however, there was a successful registration using a soft client attached to the IPX.DRA/DEA Topology HidingTopology hiding was also tested.SIM Card IssuesRoaming was tested one way (Slovenian UE roaming in Beijing) due to there being no Chinese SIMs in the Slovenian labAttachment FailureThis was somewhat kludgey but at least did demonstrate that a SIP REGISTER could traverse the IPX and IBCF to get to the H-PLMN Registrar/HSS and indicating that SIP message routing worked.DRA/DEA Topology HidingThe Destination-Host of the HSS was not set by the visited network, and Diameter routing was performed on a hop-by-hop basis between DEA’s on the edge of the Visited and Home Networks. If full topology hiding was implemented (Origin-Host masked across the interconnect by the visited DEA), the visited DEA would be required to perform a mapping of the received User-Name to the relevant MME in order to be able to route the incoming Diameter request from the HSS. This mapping is seen as an intensive functionality that is not recommended.
23Scenario 2 – Interconnect Highlights The two host sites were successfully connected via an IPX with SIP/RTP traversing the IBCF/TrGW in each site and the intermediate IPX Gateway.Multi-vendor interoperability of IBCF/TrGW's and IPX was achieved.VoLTE calls, based on GSMA IR.92 and IR.65, are a viable solution for providing voice services for LTE access between Mobile Network Operators.
24Scenario 2 – Interconnect Observations RCS tests were not run due to there being no RCS client in the Beijing lab.MMTel services were not tested due to a lack of time.Multi-media calls were not tested due to a lack of time.The external ENUM Server was not used by any of the IBCFs nor IPX.
25Conformance TestingAdditional background activity to perform SIP / DIAMETER conformance criteria checking during IOT tests and validating ETSI Diameter /SIP Conformance Test Suites using ETSI tools to enable automatic conformance checking of Diameter / SIP messages captured during the IOTThe Diameter signalling messages turned out to be syntactically correct.The SIP conformance criteria checking showed several syntax errors in SIP headers exchanged between different equipment, such as:missing characters (“<”, “>”, ...) in some headersunexpected superfluous space characters detected at the end of some SIP messages
26Operator Workshop “Next Generation Services: RCS, VoLTE & Beyond” Organized by ETSI and hosted by Iskratel, in parallel with the IOTIncluded a visit to the IOT lab and some demosWorkshop details & presentations available at
28White Paper & Liaisons White Paper launch: 14th November Available at mlLiaison Statements sent to partner foraAdd white paper web address
29Potential Future Testing Tests that were not run this time:RCS Presence / Cap Ex / In Call Services / Multi-Tasking ServicesNon-LTE Access via S4-SGSNNon-LTE Access via legacy SGSN2G/3G handover via S4-SGSN2G/3G handover via legacy SGSNPriority Call Handover (LTE/IMS <-> Other RAN/CS)Other testing:Further RCS testing (ref. GSMA accreditation tests)Enterprise RCSLTE-Wi-Fi InterworkingEmergency callSRVCC