RCS VoLTE IOT Event Overview & Results Giulio Maggiore E2NA#4 26-30 November Sophia Antipolis

Outline Background & Scope Event Details Results Overview Next Steps

Background & Scope

IOT Background RCS VoLTE IOT builds on previous IOT Events MSF LTE/EPC IOT in March 2010 & VoLTE IOT in September 2011 ETSI IMS Plugtests MSF partnered with ETSI & GSMA to jointly organise this event Reflects the common focus of all 3 partners in VoLTE & RCS Endorses a number of GSMA PRDs Joint Task Force, comprising members from the partner organizations, formed to oversee all aspects of the event Event web site at: http://www.msforum.org/interoperability/RCSVoLTE.shtml

IOT Scope Two main scenarios: Scenario 1 – RCS VoLTE in Home/Single N/W GSMA PRDs IR.92, IR.94, IR.90, IR.67 and the RCS Services and Client Specification Scenario 2 – RCS VoLTE for Roaming & Interconnect GSMA PRDs IR.65, IR 88, IR.92, IR.94, IR.90, IR,67 and the RCS Services and Client Specification See Testing Scenarios document at http://www.msforum.org/interoperability/RCS%20V oLTE%20Scenarios%202012-07-16.pdf

Sub-Scenarios & Test Plans (1/2) Scenario1 – Home/Single Network a - Attachment & Registration b - VoLTE & MMTEL services c - RCS services d – Multimedia & MMTEL services TS 103 029

Sub-Scenarios & Test Plans (2/2) Scenario 2 - Roaming and Interconnect Conf I Roaming I (Same PLMN) Conf II Roaming II (Diff. PLMN) Conf III Interconnect (Tested w/ Scenario 1) a - Attachment & Registration TS 186 011 b - VoLTE & MMTEL Services TS 186 011 TS 186 011 c - RCS Services TS 102 901 TS 102 901 TS 102 901 d – Multimedia & MMTEL services

Event Details

Host Sites Sponsors

Participants & Observers

Results Overview

Scenario 1 – Home/Single Network

Scenario 1 – Highlights (1/2) Multi-vendor interoperability of UE, eNodeB, EPC, IMS/MMTEL, RCS AS, DRA and PCC technology. Attachment and registration following ETSI TS 103 029 VoLTE 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.

Scenario 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 MRF DRAs greatly simplified Diameter routing and provided interworking between different transport layer protocols and Diameter application implementations.

Scenario 1 – Observations (1/3) PCC Issues On 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 Issues Fragmentation issues were seen when the MTU size exceeded that specified by 3GPP (e.g. 1500 octets in the transport network). PCC Issues DRAs greatly simplified Diameter routing and provided interworking between different transport layer protocols and Diameter application implementations. IMS Issues Fragmentation 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.

Scenario 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.

Scenario 1 – Observations (3/3) Transport Issues SCTP was not supported all DRA clients, TCP was the transport protocol supported by some of them. ENUM was not used. Transport Issues The DRA provided transport layer interworking.

Scenario 2 – Roaming (configuration I)

Scenario 2 – Roaming (configuration II)

Scenario 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. HSS DRA/DEA IPX DRA DEA/DRA MME H-PLMN IPX V-PLMN

Scenario 2 – Roaming Observations SIM Card Issues Roaming could only be tested one way Attachment Failure Despite 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 Hiding Topology hiding was also tested. SIM Card Issues Roaming was tested one way (Slovenian UE roaming in Beijing) due to there being no Chinese SIMs in the Slovenian lab Attachment Failure This 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 Hiding The 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.

Scenario 2 – Interconnect

Scenario 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.

Scenario 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.

Conformance Testing Additional 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 IOT The 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 headers unexpected superfluous space characters detected at the end of some SIP messages

Operator Workshop “Next Generation Services: RCS, VoLTE & Beyond” Organized by ETSI and hosted by Iskratel, in parallel with the IOT Included a visit to the IOT lab and some demos Workshop details & presentations available at http://www.etsi.org/plugtests/RCS-VOLTE/Workshop.htm

Next Steps

White Paper & Liaisons White Paper launch: 14th November Available at http://www.msforum.org/interoperability/RCSVoLTE.sht ml Liaison Statements sent to partner fora Add white paper web address

Potential Future Testing Tests that were not run this time: RCS Presence / Cap Ex / In Call Services / Multi-Tasking Services Non-LTE Access via S4-SGSN Non-LTE Access via legacy SGSN 2G/3G handover via S4-SGSN 2G/3G handover via legacy SGSN Priority Call Handover (LTE/IMS <-> Other RAN/CS) Other testing: Further RCS testing (ref. GSMA accreditation tests) Enterprise RCS LTE-Wi-Fi Interworking Emergency call SRVCC

Thank you Questions / Comments

Back Up Slides

Equipment (Sintesio site)   Sintesio LTE UE  3rd party D2Tech VoLTE Client Radisys RCS Client eNodeB Telekom Slovenia  Telekom Slovenia EPC (MME+SGW+PGW) Cisco (Milan) HSS Iskratel (Kranj) PCRF Tekelec (USA) P-CSCF/IMS-ALG Metaswitch I/S-CSCF MMTel AS Genband (Turkey) Iskratel MRF RCS Video Share AS  Genband (Turkey) RCS IM/Chat Server IBCF-TrGW DRA Ulticom  Ulticom IPX Aicent (USA) ENUM Neustar (USA) Monitoring Equipment JDSU Local Remote (location)

Equipment (Beijing site)   CMCC LTE UE WIFI UE VoLTE Client RCS Client eNodeB EPC (MME+SGW+PGW) HSS PCRF  Tekelec (USA) P-CSCF/IMS-ALG Acme Packet I/S-CSCF MMTel AS Genband (Turkey) MRF RCS Video Share AS RCS IM/Chat Server IBCF-TrGW DRA Tekelec (USA) IPX Aicent (USA) ENUM Neustar (USA) Monitoring Equipment JDSU Local Remote (location)