1. ©2009 Fujitsu Network Communications Migrating the Core The Evolution of the Backhaul Network to Enable Wireless Data Services

2. © Copyright 2009 Fujitsu Network Communications. All Rights Reserved. 4GWE – Evolution of Backhaul Sept 3, 2009 This is Me Responsible for Business and Market Development for wireless technologies in North America. Many years in the CLEC industry deploying metropolitan fiber networks. Jim Orr Market Development Director Fujitsu Network Communications

3. © Copyright 2009 Fujitsu Network Communications. All Rights Reserved. 4GWE – Evolution of Backhaul Sept 3, 2009 Backhaul – The Boring Part Backhaul is a necessary evil Enables revenue, but does not create new revenue (adds to CCPU)

4. © Copyright 2009 Fujitsu Network Communications. All Rights Reserved. 4GWE – Evolution of Backhaul Sept 3, 2009 Backhaul – There is Not One Answer Wireless, optical and copper LECs, CLECs, Cable Cos, Power Companies, etc. If you as me about a technology, the answer is probably “yes” at least somewhere

5. © Copyright 2009 Fujitsu Network Communications. All Rights Reserved. 4GWE – Evolution of Backhaul Sept 3, 2009 Agenda Part 1 – There is a Network Already Today Towers exist and have backhaul in place Physical connectivity exists from tower to MSC Part 2 – The Network Demand is Changing Network usage is skyrocketing Carriers must enable new revenue streams and services 4G Network Architecture is based on packets 4G Core Network Architecture is Distributed Part 3 – Connection Oriented Ethernet Evolves the Network What is Connection-Oriented Ethernet (COE) ? Mobile backhaul technology migration COE Attributes addressing MBH network requirements Fujitsu Packet Optical Networking Solution for MBH Summary

6. © Copyright 2009 Fujitsu Network Communications. All Rights Reserved. 4GWE – Evolution of Backhaul Sept 3, 2009 Huge increases in data traffic -11 of NSN’s HSPA customers saw data traffic increase 10X in 2008 over 2007 Negligible impact on total ARPU -Total wireless service revenue in the U.S up 6% in 2008 -Leaders ARPU up 1- 4% -Voice ARPU still trending downwards Mobile Broadband: The Operator’s Experience to Date Strong growth in wireless messaging and data revenue -AT&T and VZW reported ~$3bn in data revenues in Q408 - Up 45-50% YoY Beginnings of fixed broadband substitution behavior -Not just personal but primary broadband. -Major new business opportunities Heavy Reading research licensed to Fujitsu - may not be used by non-licensees

7. © Copyright 2009 Fujitsu Network Communications. All Rights Reserved. 4GWE – Evolution of Backhaul Sept 3, 2009 Huge increases in data traffic -11 of NSN’s HSPA customers saw data traffic increase 10X in 2008 over 2007 Negligible impact on total ARPU -Total wireless service revenue in the U.S up 6% in 2008 -Leaders ARPU up 1- 4% -Voice ARPU still trending downwards Mobile Broadband: The Operator’s Experience to Date Strong growth in wireless messaging and data revenue -AT&T and VZW reported ~$3bn in data revenues in Q408 - Up 45-50% YoY Beginnings of fixed broadband substitution behavior -Not just personal but primary broadband. -Major new business opportunities Heavy Reading research licensed to Fujitsu - may not be used by non-licensees

8. © Copyright 2009 Fujitsu Network Communications. All Rights Reserved. 4GWE – Evolution of Backhaul Sept 3, 2009 Massive Growth in Data Traffic Volumes Source : NSN, February 2009 Heavy Reading research licensed to Fujitsu - may not be used by non-licensees

9. © Copyright 2009 Fujitsu Network Communications. All Rights Reserved. 4GWE – Evolution of Backhaul Sept 3, 2009 Mobile Broadband: In Search of Profitability Mobile broadband is still in the build-out phase HSPA and EV-DO in 3 rd /4 th year of roll-out Operators are investing for near term subscriber acquisition and long term transformation of their business models Mobile broadband isn’t profitable (yet) In 3G, voice and data are still mostly discrete network elements Large majority of new network capex is driven by mobile broadband If costs are allocated separately to voice and messaging on the one hand, and mobile broadband on the other, mobile broadband isn’t profitable today Early in the investment cycle, but need to start aligning for profitability Heavy Reading research licensed to Fujitsu - may not be used by non-licensees

10. © Copyright 2009 Fujitsu Network Communications. All Rights Reserved. 4GWE – Evolution of Backhaul Sept 3, 2009 Heavy Reading’s Outlook: 2009 is the year of packet backhaul Backhaul a key lever in realigning for profitability Heavy Reading’s packet backhaul forecasts 108,000 cell sites in live service world-wide by the end of 2009 12,300 in live service in the U.S by the end of 2009 Forecasts are for packet backhaul in live service at 2G/3G cell sites; WiMAX sites and ML-PPP implementations excluded Still expecting a slow rate at which packet backhaul is turned up to commercial service Still expect 75% of the world’s cell sites will be served exclusively by TDM backhaul in 2012 Heavy Reading research licensed to Fujitsu - may not be used by non-licensees

11. © Copyright 2009 Fujitsu Network Communications. All Rights Reserved. 4GWE – Evolution of Backhaul Sept 3, 2009 L1 Backhaul Forecasts: Europe & North America Heavy Reading research licensed to Fujitsu - may not be used by non-licensees

12. © Copyright 2009 Fujitsu Network Communications. All Rights Reserved. 4GWE – Evolution of Backhaul Sept 3, 2009 Ethernet Backhaul will be in service at 37% of U.S cell sites by the end of 2012 US Cellular Backhaul Forecast Source: Heavy Reading Heavy Reading research licensed to Fujitsu - may not be used by non-licensees

13. © Copyright 2009 Fujitsu Network Communications. All Rights Reserved. 4GWE – Evolution of Backhaul Sept 3, 2009 Key Backhaul Requirements Big enough pipe Correct interfaces Low latency Simple Survivable Cost effective

14. © Copyright 2009 Fujitsu Network Communications. All Rights Reserved. 4GWE – Evolution of Backhaul Sept 3, 2009 Wireless Impacts on Backhaul BIG problem from tower to wire center Moving from 3Mb to 100+Mb Maybe 12 sites/wire center for a total of about 1Gb SMALL amount of the traffic after that first wire center Even small wire centers generate several 10Gb circuits Wireless will add 10% at most to the existing network

15. © Copyright 2009 Fujitsu Network Communications. All Rights Reserved. 4GWE – Evolution of Backhaul Sept 3, 2009 A Backhaul Network Exists All of these towers are connected to the other components of the network Physical network deployed Considerable capital value remains on the books 4G deployments are not going to generate a total replacement of all of the existing network Leased facilities exist for the 2G T1s Average of 7 actual orders to create a T1 circuit from a cell tower to the MSC 7 to disconnect 12 to move a circuit Large opportunity cost to groom existing T1s

16. © Copyright 2009 Fujitsu Network Communications. All Rights Reserved. 4GWE – Evolution of Backhaul Sept 3, 2009 Network Segments AccessAggregationCore

17. © Copyright 2009 Fujitsu Network Communications. All Rights Reserved. 4GWE – Evolution of Backhaul Sept 3, 2009 1-2 DS3s1-6 DS1s The Towers Have Service Today We are nearing 300,000 towers – and all of them have some kind of backhaul capacity Service capacity is a “Two Hump” distribution function Have FiberDon’t Have Fiber

18. © Copyright 2009 Fujitsu Network Communications. All Rights Reserved. 4GWE – Evolution of Backhaul Sept 3, 2009 Backhaul Capacity Requirements at the Cell Site Heavy Reading research licensed to Fujitsu - may not be used by non-licensees

19. © Copyright 2009 Fujitsu Network Communications. All Rights Reserved. 4GWE – Evolution of Backhaul Sept 3, 2009 4G Takes Over Delivers Unmatched Spectral Efficiency Record spend on spectrum makes it the most valuable resource Recent LTE drive tests in Hokkaido produced 10 bits/Hz peak and as much as 5 sustained Current 3G is about 1 bit/Hz Delivers Core Network Efficiency Low latency architecture drives far higher schedule efficiencies RAN contribution 5 ms or less, compared to more than 100 ms today New Bands Get New Technology Planners strive to minimize operational handling of network elements Placing EVDO or HSPA on 700 MHz or AWS creates an upgrade requirement best to be avoided

20. © Copyright 2009 Fujitsu Network Communications. All Rights Reserved. 4GWE – Evolution of Backhaul Sept 3, 2009 4G in Stages Build For Those Who Use Everything And Those Who Have Nothing Major metro areas Rural deployment (direct and through partnerships) Coverage First 700 MHz for wide coverage Existing sites 3G/2G Fallback creates total coverage pattern Capacity Second 10% of users generate 80% of wireless data We know where these people are (today) – first focus for LTE Distribution will shift – and we will follow the users Full Portfolio of Base Station Models Required Macro – Wide AreaMicro – Enterprise Campus Pico – NeighborhoodFemto – In Home/In Business Metro Core Sub Urban Rural

21. © Copyright 2009 Fujitsu Network Communications. All Rights Reserved. 4GWE – Evolution of Backhaul Sept 3, 2009 Base Stations Get Small LTE is expected to augment the deployment of picocells. Boost indoor coverage Offload macro network traffic Provide enhanced coverage for enterprise customers. Build the coverage network with Macrocells, supplement with Micro and Pico cells Deploy for coverage and offload the heavy users when traffic patterns require

22. © Copyright 2009 Fujitsu Network Communications. All Rights Reserved. 4GWE – Evolution of Backhaul Sept 3, 2009 Core Network Migrates Over Time The Enhanced Packet Core (EPC) is build to be distributed Reality is that these devices will be concentrated into the Mobile Switching Center for some time Backhaul network needs to be designed to transport the messaging and data to the MSC, with the ability to migrate those devices to the edge

23. © Copyright 2009 Fujitsu Network Communications. All Rights Reserved. 4GWE – Evolution of Backhaul Sept 3, 2009 Migrate with Circuit Oriented Ethernet

24. © Copyright 2009 Fujitsu Network Communications. All Rights Reserved. 4GWE – Evolution of Backhaul Sept 3, 2009 A Tale of Two Entities “Mobile Backhaul” typically involves two business entities Mobile provider & Backhaul provider Even if there is one “integrated provider” as the parent company Money/services exchanged between the two entities Two network deployments Two sets of networking requirements and operational issues Networks have a client/server relationship – not a peer to peer relationship

25. © Copyright 2009 Fujitsu Network Communications. All Rights Reserved. 4GWE – Evolution of Backhaul Sept 3, 2009 Networking requirements / issues Mobile services provider Must reduce backhaul costs in the face of expanding CCPU Requires reliability, performance, rapid service commissioning from backhaul provider Management of equipment at many remote tower locations Backhaul provider Serves multiple providers & multiple technologies at a single tower Universal, transparent solution Meet Mobile Operators’ stringent SLA requirements Guaranteed Ethernet performance and reliability Minimize retraining of engineering staff A SDH transport engineer cannot become an IP router engineer overnight Achieve ROI with < 3 year contract Bandwidth efficient & simple to own and operate Backhaul provider: deterministic, simple, reliable, general client layer

26. © Copyright 2009 Fujitsu Network Communications. All Rights Reserved. 4GWE – Evolution of Backhaul Sept 3, 2009 Confidential - Fujitsu Internal use Only 26 What is Connection-Oriented Ethernet? Explicit definition of Ethernet connections & tunnels Forward on tags vs. Ethernet MAC address learning and flooding Resource reservation and admission control For each CoS per each connection and tunnel Per-flow traffic management and traffic engineering Connection-oriented Ethernet: High-performance “Carrier Ethernet”

27. © Copyright 2009 Fujitsu Network Communications. All Rights Reserved. 4GWE – Evolution of Backhaul Sept 3, 2009 Connection-Oriented Ethernet Good Aggregation / Statistical Multiplexing Deterministic and precision QoS Bandwidth reserved per EVC Consistent QoE: 99.999% Availability Confidential - Fujitsu Internal use Only 27 The Best of Both Worlds Connectionless 802.1 Ethernet Bridging No Aggregation /Stat Muxing Deterministic QoS Bandwidth reserved for each channel Consistent QoE: 99.999% Availability Good Aggregation / Stat Muxing Non-deterministic QoS No Bandwidth Reservation Inconsistent QoE: 99.9% Availability MSPP Eth MSPP Eth Ethernet over SDH Eth PDH quality, security, availability – Ethernet Flexibility and Low Cost Packet ONP

28. © Copyright 2009 Fujitsu Network Communications. All Rights Reserved. 4GWE – Evolution of Backhaul Sept 3, 2009 Aggregation Site Connection-oriented Ethernet Survivability Tools for MBH Cell Site BTS NodeB eNodeB Mobile Office Mobile Provider Mobile Provider Backhaul Provider BSC RNC S-GW Backhaul Provider Ethernet LAG Multi-chassis LAG G.8031 Ethernet network protection COE provides 50ms dedicated network protection for 5-9’s availability Variety of scenarios and requirements Client protection Single and multi-chassis LAG Network protection G.8031 Server layer protection Backhaul provider / client network is unprotected ITU-T G.8031 Ethernet Linear Protection Dedicated 1:1 EVC or tunnel protection Guaranteed, identical resources Similar to SONET UPSR path protection Independent of Network Topology Segment and end-to-end protection Protects against node and link failures work ptct work ptct

29. © Copyright 2009 Fujitsu Network Communications. All Rights Reserved. 4GWE – Evolution of Backhaul Sept 3, 2009 Implementing Connection-oriented Ethernet Functional Deterministic connections Survivability Fault sectionalization and performance management Operations Management-plane centric Vs. dynamic control plane Fewest layers Single set of OAM tools 29 Ethernet tag switching provides all capabilities with simplest operations MPLS-centric COE Eth Ethernet-centric COE Ethernet tunnel Eth MPLS LSP PW Tag switching Static PWT-MPLSMPLS-TPIP/MPLS Ethernet OAM MPLS pseudowire OAM MPLS Label Switched Path – OAM / protection Ethernet OAM, Protection Requirements

30. © Copyright 2009 Fujitsu Network Communications. All Rights Reserved. 4GWE – Evolution of Backhaul Sept 3, 2009 30 Packet Optical Networking Platforms: Integrating COE Aggregation and Layer 1 Transport “Open-platform” approach Pluggable environment for networking vs. enhanced ROADM/MSPP Integration of COE with all native Layer 1 networking/encapsulations SDH/PDH for access transport ROADM for core transport Consideration of access vs. core Fabric-based COE, TDM, wave grooming at the core I/O card level optimizations at the edge Transport Operations Model Management plane driven, Connection-Oriented networking Simple, in-service software upgrades Reduces network costs Eliminates elements Eliminates complexity Provides new services COE – SDH quality, Ethernet cost COE and TDM Aggregation Wave Transport SDH networks Ethernet networks “Open-platform” Implementation Example

31. © Copyright 2009 Fujitsu Network Communications. All Rights Reserved. 4GWE – Evolution of Backhaul Sept 3, 2009 Packet Optical Networking For Full-service backhaul MSPP Packet ONP Packet ONP Packet ONP Mobile Office Mobile Office Mobile Office N x 10G Waves NID Packet ONP Ethernet SDH Ethernet MSPP SDH Packet ONP Packet ONP Ethernet Packet ONP SDH and COE aggregation/grooming SDH and Ethernet access termination ROADM integration for bandwidth scaling

32. © Copyright 2009 Fujitsu Network Communications. All Rights Reserved. 4GWE – Evolution of Backhaul Sept 3, 2009 Summary Irresistible drivers for turnover of backhaul networks from PDH to Ethernet over optical Backhaul provider delivers hubbed ‘client’ transport and aggregation services to mobile provider Point to point, non-routed services Connection-oriented Ethernet provides Transparent, Deterministic quality, Survivable Ethernet transport and aggregation SDH quality, Ethernet cost Mgmt-plane-centric Ethernet-only implementations have lowest cost of ownership Packet Optical Networking Integrates COE + DWDM for scalable core rings Integrates COE + SDH to terminate new Ethernet and legacy SDH access

33. © Copyright 2009 Fujitsu Network Communications. All Rights Reserved. 4GWE – Evolution of Backhaul Sept 3, 2009 COE-related Standards Summary FunctionalityStandardNotes Linear Path Protection/Restoration ITU-T G.8031 Defines 50ms protection for Working/protect path similar to SONET’s UPSR Path Protection Link Fault Management IEEE 802.3ah Defines Layer 2 link-based loopbacks & pings Link AggregationIEEE 802.3ad Defines link protection and BW scaling Service Fault Management ITU-T Y.1731 and IEEE 802.1ag Defines end-to-end EVC loopbacks, link traces and continuity checks. Y.1731 provides the framework, 802.1ag provides the protocols Service DefinitionsMEF 6.1 Defines EPL, EVPL, EP-Tree, EVP- Tree services Service AttributesMEF 10.2 Defines all service attributes for MEF 6.1 service definitions

34. © Copyright 2009 Fujitsu Network Communications. All Rights Reserved. 4GWE – Evolution of Backhaul Sept 3, 2009 COE-related Standards Summary FunctionalityStandardNotes Precision Time Protocol IEEE 1588v2 Provides Time of Day and Clock Synchronization back to primary reference clock (PRC) Synchronous Ethernet ITU-T G.8261 Enables the Ethernet physical layer to extract clocking from the line to give traceability back to a PRC similar to how T1s can obtain line timing Mobile Backhaul IAMEF 22 Implementation Agreement describing requirements for Ethernet-based and TDM/Ethernet-based MBH approaches Service Performance ITU-T Y.1731, IEEE 802.1ag, MEF 10.2 Y.1731 defines framework, 802.1ag defines protocols and MEF 10.2 defines service performance metrics (FD, FDV, FLR) Frame Formats IEEE 802.1ad, IEEE 802.1Qay 802.1ad frame format used for VLAN switching 802.1Qay defines extended frame format

35. © Copyright 2009 Fujitsu Network Communications. All Rights Reserved. 4GWE – Evolution of Backhaul Sept 3, 2009 Q & A

36. © Copyright 2009 Fujitsu Network Communications. All Rights Reserved. 4GWE – Evolution of Backhaul Sept 3, 2009

37. © Copyright 2009 Fujitsu Network Communications. All Rights Reserved. 4GWE – Evolution of Backhaul Sept 3, 2009 What Drives Cell Site Connectivity Meet Requirements with COE (Connection Oriented Ethernet) Operationally simple Ethernet connectivity network not where it needs to be, yet Purely from a connectivity model perspective, all that is required within the backhaul/transport network are simple Layer-2 P2P connections between the various elements (eNBs, MMEs and S-GWs..) Carriers Planning for 100Mbps to each cell site Not just the Macro sites Micro and Pico sites are driven by capacity Smaller eNodeB will drive DAS (Distributed Antenna System) to concentrate data traffic

38. © Copyright 2009 Fujitsu Network Communications. All Rights Reserved. 4GWE – Evolution of Backhaul Sept 3, 2009 Mobile Backhaul Business Drivers Challenges facing Mobile Operators Data rate grows with 3G and beyond but revenue doesn’t follow Flat rate data plans Network Operations How do you ensure backhaul network provides uninterrupted service to millions of subscribers served by 50,000+ cell towers ? What if LTE ubiquity makes it the “mobile Wi-Fi” ? Integrated into wide range of devices. Applications run “in the cloud”. Backhaul networks must be ultra available with predictable QoS Number of years to upgrade all cell towers with new backhaul technology Tremendous pressure to make the right choice while achieving ROI/margin objectives Many business issues affect technology selection

39. © Copyright 2009 Fujitsu Network Communications. All Rights Reserved. 4GWE – Evolution of Backhaul Sept 3, 2009 Challenges facing Mobile Backhaul Providers Retraining of network operations personnel A SONET transport engineer cannot become an IP router engineer overnight Which technology do I pick given the eventual migration to Ethernet for MBH ? Should I use Ethernet with Circuit Emulation? Should I use an integrated SONET/Ethernet/ROADM packet optical networking approach ? < 3 year service contracts with mobile operators How can I make an acceptable ROI to meet margins objectives ? How can I meet Mobile Operators’ stringent SLA requirements ? < 5ms Delay, < 1ms Jitter, 3x10 -7 Loss, 5x9s Availability Introducing Connection-oriented Ethernet for Mobile Backhaul....

40. © Copyright 2009 Fujitsu Network Communications. All Rights Reserved. 4GWE – Evolution of Backhaul Sept 3, 2009 What is Connection-Oriented Ethernet (COE)? Provides Deterministic QoS via explicit paths (EVCs) across network Reserves bandwidth for each EVC per CoS Highly efficient BW aggregation via statistical multiplexing & oversubscription Predictable QoE: 99.999% Availability Ethernet over SONET (EoS) No Aggregation / No Statistical Multiplexing Deterministic and precision QoS Bandwidth reserved for each SONET channel Consistent QoE: 99.999% Availability Connectionless Ethernet Bridges Good Aggregation / Statistical multiplexing Non-deterministic QoS No Bandwidth Reservation Inconsistent QoE: 99.9% Availability MSPP Connection-Oriented Ethernet Good Aggregation / Statistical Multiplexing Deterministic and precision QoS Bandwidth reserved per EVC Consistent QoE: 99.999% Availability Packet ONP COE combines the best attributes of Ethernet Bridges and EoS Keeps Ethernet Simple – Like SONET

41. © Copyright 2009 Fujitsu Network Communications. All Rights Reserved. 4GWE – Evolution of Backhaul Sept 3, 2009 Reliability G.8031 50ms Linear Path Protection 802.3ad Link Aggregation (LAG) Service Management 802.3ah Link Fault Mgmt. 802.1ag/Y.1731 EVC Fault Mgmt. Security Bridging disabled - no L2CP vulnerabilities L2CP threats mitigated No MAC table overflows Standardized Services EPL, EVPL, EP-Tree, EVP-Tree MEF 6, MEF 10 Scalability Millions of EVCs Aggregation and stat-muxing Oversubscription Deterministic QoS 802.1ag / Y.1731 / MEF 10 PMs Delay, Delay Variation, Loss Resource Reservation through CAC Attributes of Connection-oriented Ethernet COEAttributes COE is a high performance implementation of MEF Carrier Ethernet

42. © Copyright 2009 Fujitsu Network Communications. All Rights Reserved. 4GWE – Evolution of Backhaul Sept 3, 2009 Technology Options for COE Significant differences among number of layers to manage IP/MPLS (3) Data Plane Layers 1)Ethernet 2)Pseudowire (PW) 3)LSP VLAN Tag Switching Routed Non-Routed Static PW/MPLS T-MPLS (1) Data Plane Layer Ethernet MPLS-TPPBB-TE PW MPLS-TP LSP PW Eth BFD, Protection Protocol BFD, VCCV 802.1ag, 802.3ah, Y.1731 MPLS-TP-based COE IP/MPLS-Based COE PW MPLS LSP Eth BFD, RSVP-TE/LDP, FRR 802.1ag, 802.3ah, Y.1731 IS-IS, OSPF, BGP, IP addressing, BFD PW T-LDP/BFD, VCCV S-VLAN or PBB-TE Tunnel Eth G.8031, 802.1ag, 802.3ah, Y.1731 Ethernet-based COE Ethernet (3) Data Plane Layers 1)Ethernet 2)Pseudowire (PW) 3)LSP (1) Control Plane Layer IP COE simplifies OAM&P with only 1 layer to manage: Ethernet Ethernet + PW + LSP

43. © Copyright 2009 Fujitsu Network Communications. All Rights Reserved. 4GWE – Evolution of Backhaul Sept 3, 2009 Why Ethernet-based COE for MBH ? Meets the MBH functional requirements set forth by SONET Deterministic and precision performance Link (Line) and EVC (Path) fault management tools Guaranteed bandwidth through resource reservation Optimized for P2P and P2MP topologies used in MBH networks Sub 50ms protection / restoration Simpler Network OAM – just one layer to manage: Ethernet Consistent with existing SONET-based network operations No IP knowledge required. Easy to learn by SONET transport staff Provisioning model similar to SONET Non-routed operational simplicity MBH networks do not require routing between the cell site and hub sites/MSCs Higher network element reliability (significantly fewer protocols / simpler SW) Fujitsu’s COE implementation facilitates the migration from existing SONET MBH infrastructures to Ethernet over Fiber and EoWDM

44. © Copyright 2009 Fujitsu Network Communications. All Rights Reserved. 4GWE – Evolution of Backhaul Sept 3, 2009 Mobile Backhaul Technology Migration … on the road to Ethernet Compelling case to keep 2G traffic on TDM 2G traffic growth very small so T1 MRC is essentially flat What do you do with high growth 3G traffic? Some Base Stations can be upgraded to Ethernet COE over SONET, Fiber or Microwave choices Wireline LEC or MSO with a SONET infrastructure COE over SONET: Simplest to implement with maximal bandwidth efficiency for data Legacy, low growth 2G services remain on TDM For Ethernet over Fiber infrastructures must consider MEF 22 GIWF: Generic Interworking Function: Non-Ethernet  Ethernet (via Circuit Emulation) Time Bandwidth Voice + 2G Data 3G/4G Data 3G BS 4G BS Ethernet ATM over T1s MLPPP over T1s T1s GIWFEthernet 2G BS T1s (TDM) SONET  COE over SONET  COE over Fiber Hub site or Mobile Switching Center 3G backhaul most challenging because it is transitional

45. © Copyright 2009 Fujitsu Network Communications. All Rights Reserved. 4GWE – Evolution of Backhaul Sept 3, 2009 Clock Synchronization for GIWF Frequency Synchronization (Syntonization) Process to align clocks in frequency Synchronizes clocks to a Primary Reference Source (PRS) Required for Circuit Emulation Can use IEEE 1588v2 Precision Time Protocol Can use Synchronous Ethernet for a physical layer implementation Similar to a BITS clock used to obtain T1 line timing Phase Synchronization (relative time synchronization) Process to aligns clocks in phase Can use Global Positioning System (GPS) radio Time of Day Synchronization Process to set clocks to a universal time-base such as UTC Use 1588v2 for a software-based implementation COE’s precision QoS optimally facilitates a 1588v2 implementation GIWF Ethernet T1s Generic Interworking Function

46. © Copyright 2009 Fujitsu Network Communications. All Rights Reserved. 4GWE – Evolution of Backhaul Sept 3, 2009 MBH Network Classes of Service How many should you support? No. of CoSs determined by supported services Do you offer a streaming service, e.g., TV on Demand ? Understand the application to properly engineer the traffic management Streaming and Conversational classes use UDP for media and TCP for control Synchronization requires lowest FD, FDV and FLR Streaming class is delay tolerant due to application buffering Conversational class (VoIP) is loss tolerant due to device playback buffering Generic CoS Name Possible Approaches to Mapping UMTS Traffic Classes and Applications to CoS 4 CoS 3 CoS CoS ASynchronization- CoS B Conversational, Signaling and Control Synchronization, Conversational, Signaling & Control CoS CStreaming CoS D Interactive and Background COE provides SONET-like deterministic performance so CoS differentiation becomes less difficult to engineer

47. © Copyright 2009 Fujitsu Network Communications. All Rights Reserved. 4GWE – Evolution of Backhaul Sept 3, 2009 COE Scalability Scalability addressed in two dimensions 1.EVC Address Space Scalability VLAN tag switching can use C-VLAN IDs, S-VLAN IDs or B-VLAN IDs VLAN IDs have local significance so 4095 IDs reused at each interface 4095 VLAN ID restriction no longer applies 2.EVC Aggregation via COE Tunnels Many EVCs mapped to COE Tunnel COE Connection Admission Control manages COE tunnel bandwidth Similar to managing SONET VCGs but with much higher BW efficiency COE meets EVC scalability requirements for MBH networks COE Tunnels simplify MBH bandwidth management

48. © Copyright 2009 Fujitsu Network Communications. All Rights Reserved. 4GWE – Evolution of Backhaul Sept 3, 2009 COE Tunnels Improved network efficiency and scalability Tunnel aggregates EVCs to achieve stat muxing gains Like SONET STS with VT1.5s but more granularly and efficiently Tunnel can support guaranteed and oversubscribed bandwidth Manage tunnel BW rather than individual EVCs within the tunnel Each Tunnel can support multiple CoSs Provides CIR plus enables Subscriber traffic to burst to EIR Results in better traffic Goodput – resulting in better QoE EVCs Tunnel-aware NEs FLASHWAVE CDS FLASHWAVE 4100ES FLASHWAVE CDS FLASHWAVE CDS FLASHWAVE CDS FLASHWAVE CDS COE Tunnels supported over SONET, Ethernet, WDM and OTN Networks MSC-2 SONET, Ethernet, WDM or OTN Network EVC-aware NEs EVC-aware NE MSC-1 COE Tunnel EVCs FLASHWAVE 9500 FLASHWAVE 9500 FLASHWAVE 9500 EoS OC12 1GbE

49. © Copyright 2009 Fujitsu Network Communications. All Rights Reserved. 4GWE – Evolution of Backhaul Sept 3, 2009 COE Tools for Network Survivability Meeting MBH networks high availability requirements IEEE 802.3ad Link Aggregation Groups (LAG) For local (link level) diversity and protection If any fiber or port in LAG fails, other LAG members share the load 1+1 equipment protection Create LAGs across different cards in a chassis ITU-T G.8031 Linear Path Protection for EVC path diversity and sub-50ms path protection Similar to SONET UPSR path protection Simple Provisioning: Setup Working path and Protect path Independent of Network Topology Works over Rings, Meshes, Multiple Rings and Linear Topologies Fujitsu’s COE implementation enables ultra high available service Achieved through multiple levels of protection

50. © Copyright 2009 Fujitsu Network Communications. All Rights Reserved. 4GWE – Evolution of Backhaul Sept 3, 2009 Service OAM for MBH Networks ITU-T Y.1731 and IEEE 802.1ag Different MBH Scenarios result in different number of SOAM MDs MBH Provider backhauls multiple generations of services (2G/3G/4G) MBH Provider backhauls traffic from one mobile operator at a tower MBH Provider backhauls traffic from several mobile operators at a tower MBH provided by Mobile Operator Mobile Operator’s Network Mobile Backhaul Provider MEG Intermediate Point (MIP)MEG Endpoint (MEP) MEG = Maintenance Entity Group Fujitsu’s COE solution provides Service OAM that addresses the different MBH network deployment scenarios NID MSC Wholesale Ethernet Access Provider NID Mobile Operator MD Mobile Backhaul (MBH) Provider Maintenance Domain (MD) FLASHWAVE CDS FLASHWAVE 4100ES FLASHWAVE CDS FLASHWAVE 4100ES FLASHWAVE 9500 NID FLASHWAVE CDS FLASHWAVE CDS NID Wholesale Access Provider MD

51. © Copyright 2009 Fujitsu Network Communications. All Rights Reserved. 4GWE – Evolution of Backhaul Sept 3, 2009 COE at the Cell Site Facilitates the Evolution from SONET to a Packet-based Ethernet MBH Network FLASHWAVE 4100ES and CDS Compact, integrated platform at Cell Site serving multiple base stations from multiple service providers FLASHWAVE 9500 Multiservice aggregation and transport over SONET, Ethernet and WDM FMO Step 1: Add COE to increase bandwidth utilization PMO: SONET SONET FMO Step 2: Begin Migration to EoF packet network Existing services unaffected DS1s Ethernet Fujitsu’s Packet Optical Networking Platforms with COE simplify the SONET to Ethernet MBH migration while minimizing risk EoS MSPP TDM SONET DS1s Ethernet COE TDM SONET DS1s Ethernet COE TDM EoF FLASHWAVE 9500 FLASHWAVE CDS FLASHWAVE 4100ES FLASHWAVE CDS FLASHWAVE CDS

52. © Copyright 2009 Fujitsu Network Communications. All Rights Reserved. 4GWE – Evolution of Backhaul Sept 3, 2009 Fujitsu’s Packet Optical Networking Family End-to-end solution for evolving Mobile Backhaul Networks FLASHWAVE CDS FLASHWAVE 4100ES FLASHWAVE 9500 NETSMART 1500 Management System GE/10GE OC-48/GE 10GE OC-192 44/88 Channel ROADM Multiservice Access Multiservice Aggregation Metro Core MSC

53. © Copyright 2009 Fujitsu Network Communications. All Rights Reserved. 4GWE – Evolution of Backhaul Sept 3, 2009 Summary Different Business Drivers and Challenges for Mobile Operators & Mobile Backhaul Providers impact their migration to Ethernet Connection-Oriented Ethernet (COE) combines the best attributes of Connectionless Ethernet and Ethernet over SONET COE is a high performance implementation of MEF-defined Carrier Ethernet with a full complement of existing standards Fujitsu’s Packet Optical Networking Platforms with COE simplify the SONET to Ethernet MBH migration while minimizing risk