Mobile network technology trends Global Standards Collaboration (GSC) 14 DOCUMENT #: GSC14-GRSC-012 FOR: Presentation SOURCE: Huawei Technologies Co., LTD AGENDA ITEM: GRSC-7 4.1 CONTACT(S): Wang.xuemin@huawei.com Mobile network technology trends CCSA-Huawei technologies Co., LTD Geneva, 13-16 July 2009

Mobile －overall trend Q O S BOSS Data/Services O S Session control B 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 HLR AAA HSS Unified Database Services & Applications O S C R M B BOSS Data/Services Q O S MGCF CSCF MSC server Session control Network Resource Management (PCRF) Mobile Core MSC GMSC CSN SGSN PDN-GW MME CS domain MGW PDSN GGSN S-GW PS domain BTS Mobile Access eNodeB Wimax eNodeB＋ Wifi CDMA AP NodeB Terminal Geneva, 13-16 July 2009

LTE vs HSPA+ 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 Geneva, 13-16 July 2009

Network evolution 2G/UMTS HSPA+ HSPA LTE-A LTE 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. HSPA HSPA+ LTE LTE-A 2G/UMTS T-Mobile Vodafone? 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. Geneva, 13-16 July 2009

LTE-Advanced - UL scheme Early Proposal Complete Technology Final submission 2x2 QPSK Addition Mar 08 Jun 08 Sep 08 Dec 08 Mar 09 Jun 09 Sep 09 UL Multiple access ：SC-FDMA--- backward compatible with LTE. TR v1.0.0 for information TR v9.0.0 for approval TR v9.1.0 to update and capture evaluation results RAN1 discussions UL scheme Carrier Aggregation ： Asymmetric &Non-contiguous CA utilize asymmetric & discrete spectrum for IMT-A Bandwidth CoMP Rel/Rep 1/3 QRM 1/3 Turbo SIC 1/2 QRM 1/2 Turbo SIC 2/3 QRM 2/3 Turbo SIC MIMO Other Comparison of the number of additions with QPSK and 2x2 antenna configuration Self eval. 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. Performances comparison with QPSK and 2x2 antennae configuration Geneva, 13-16 July 2009

LTE-Advanced - Asymmetric Carrier Aggregation 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. Geneva, 13-16 July 2009

Home NB & Home eNB 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 HSS ListSrv S6a S1-MME S1-U S11 C1 (OMA DM) Non- Geneva, 13-16 July 2009

Home NB & Home eNB Feature selection 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 Feature selection 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. Geneva, 13-16 July 2009

Voice continuity on LTE 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 Property Long term solution Temporary solution Temporary solution (depend on operator’s strategy) Time Standard 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. Focus VoIP controlled by IMS No VoIP control VoIP controlled by CS cost Cost 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. Geneva, 13-16 July 2009

EPS/CDMA interworking 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. phase1 phase2 phase3 Non-real-time data services - LTE/eHRPD bi-direction non-optimized handover 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 eHRPD cdma 1x EPS 3GPP Release standard Rel8 Geneva, 13-16 July 2009

Supplementary Slides Geneva, 13-16 July 2009

MSC Server enhanced for ICS IMS based HNB 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 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 AS HSS HUA IMS CSCF Gi 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. Vodafone solution AT&T solution Geneva, 13-16 July 2009

Voice continuity on LTE IMS CS UE EPS HO SC CS EPS UE FB CS domain UE MSC EPS HO 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. Geneva, 13-16 July 2009

Machine to Machine communication 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. MTC includes M2M, M2H and H2M. Prudential Indifferent Positive T-Mobile questioning the business mode; no need for network improvement Vodafone closely monitoring in SDOs to avoid any big change in their network 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 Geneva, 13-16 July 2009