The other day I had a query about a roaming network that was sending Bearer Level QoS parameters in the Create Session Request to 0Kbps, up and down rather than populating the MBR values.
I knew for Guaranteed Bit Rate bearers that this was of course set, but for non GBR bearers (QCI 5 to 9) I figured this would be set the to MBR, but that’s not the case.
So what gives?
Well, according to TS 29.274:
For non-GBR bearers, both the UL/DL MBR and GBR should be set to zero.
So there you have it, if it’s not a QCI 1-4 bearer then these values are always 0.
Concrete, steel and labor are some of the biggest costs in building a cell site, and yet all the focus on cost savings for cell sites seems to focus on the RAN, but the actual RAN equipment isn’t all that much when you put it into context.
I think this is mostly because there aren’t folks at MWC promoting concrete each year.
But while I can’t provide any fancy tricks to make towers stronger or need less concrete for foundations, there’s some potential low-hanging fruit in terms of installation of sites that could save time (and therefor cost) during network refreshes.
I don’t think many folks managing the RAN roll-outs for MNOs have actually spent a week with a tower crew rolling this stuff out. It’s hard work but a lot of it could be done more efficiently if those writing the MOPs and deciding on the processes had more experience in the field.
Disclaimer: I’m primarily a core networks person, this is the job done from a comfy chair. This is just some observations from the bits of work I’ve done in the field building RAN.
Standardize Power Connectors
Currently radio units from the biggest RAN vendors (Ericsson, Nokia, Huawei, ZTE & Samsung) each use different DC power connectors.
This means if you’re swapping from one of these vendors to another as part of a refresh, you need new power connectors.
If you’re lucky you’re able to reuse the existing DC power cables on the tower, but that means you’re up on a tower trying to re-terminate a cable which is a fiddly job to do on the ground, and far worse in the air. Or if you’re unlucky you don’t have enough spare distance on the DC cables to do the job, then you’re hauling new DC cables up a tower (and using more cables too).
While Huawei and ZTE have adopted for push connectors with the raw cables behind a little waterproof door.
If we could just settle on one approach (either is fine) this could save hours of install time on each cell site, extrapolate that across thousands of cell sites for each network, and this is a potentially large saving.
Standardize Fiber Cables
The same goes for waterproofing fibre, Ericsson has a boot kit that gets assembled inline over the connectors, Nokia has this too, as well as a rubber slide over cover boot on pre-term cables.
Again, the cost is fairly minimal, but the time to swap is not. If we could standardize a break out box format on the top of the tower and a LC waterproofing standard, we could save significant time during installs, and as long as you over-provision the breakout (The cost difference between a 6 core fiber vs a 48 core fibre is a few dollars), you can save significant time having to rerun cables.
Yes, we’ve all got horror stories about someone over-bending fiber, and if you reused fibre between hardware refresh cycles, but modern fiber is crazy tough so the chances of damaging the reused fiber is pretty slim, and spare pairs are always a good thing.
Preterm DC Cables
Every cell site install features some poor person squatting on the floor (if they’re savvy they’ve got a camping stool or gardening kneeling mat) with a “gut buster” crimping tool swaging on connectors for the DC lugs.
If we just used the same lugs / connectors for all the DC kit inside the cell sites, we could have premade DC cables in various lengths (like everyone does with Ethernet cables now), rather than making each and every cable off a spool (even if it is a good ab workout).
I dunno, I’m just some Core network person who looks at how long all this takes and wonders if there’s a way it could be done better, am I crazy?
When Dickens wrote of Doctor Manette in the 1859, I doubt his intention was to write about the repeating history of RAN fronthaul standards – but I can’t really say for sure.
Setting the Scene
Our story starts with introducing CPRI (Common Public Radio Interface) interface, having been imprisoned in the Bastille of vendor lock in for the better part of twenty years.
Think of CPRI is less of a hard interoperable standard and more like how the Italian and French languages are both derived from Latin; it doesn’t mean that the two languages are the same, but they’ve got the same root and may share some common words and structures.
In practice this means that taking an Ericsson Radio and plugging it into a Huawei Baseband simply won’t work – With CPRI you must use the same vendor for the Baseband and the Radios.
“Nuts to this” the industry said after being stuck locked between the same radios and baseband for years; we should create a standard so we can mix and match between radio vendors, and even standardize some other stuff that’s been bothering us, so we’ll have a happy world of interoperability.
A world with interoperable fronthaul
With kit created that followed this standard, we’d be able to take components from vendor A, B & C, and fit them together like Lego, saving you some money along the way and giving you’ve got a working solution made of “best of breed” components, where everything is interoperable.
Omnitouch Lego base stations, which also fit together like Lego – Part of the Omnitouch Network Services “swag” from 2024
So the industry created a group to chart a path for a better tomorrow by standardizing these interfaces.
The group had many industry heavyweights like Nokia, NEC, LG, ZTE and Samsung joining.
The key benefits espoused on their website:
An open market will substantially reduce the development effort and costs that have been traditionally associated with creating new base station product ranges. The availability of off-the-shelf base station modules will enable manufacturers to focus their development efforts on creating further added value within the base station, encouraging greater innovation and more cost-effective products. Furthermore, as product development cycles will be reduced, new base station functions will become available on the market more quickly.
Mission statement of the group
In addition to being able to mix and match radios and basebands from different vendors, the group defined standards for centralized baseband, and interoperable standards, to allow a multi-vendor ecosystem to flourish.
And here’s the plot twist – The text above, was not written about OpenRAN, and it was not written about the benefits of eCPRI.
It was written about Open Base Station Architecture Initiative (OBSAI) and it was written 22 years ago.
*record screech sound*
Standards War you’ve never heard of: OBSAI vs CPRI
When OBSAI was defined it was not without competition; there was another competing fronthaul standard; that’s right, the mustache twirling lowlife from earlier in the story – CPRI.
Supported by Huawei, Nortel, NEC & Ericsson (among others), CPRI took a “gentle parenting” approach to the standards world, in contrast to OBSAI. Instead of telling all the vendors to agree on an interoperable front haul standard, CPRI just encouraged everyone to implement what their heart told them and what felt right to them.
As it happened, the industry favored the CPRI approach.
If a vendor wanted to add a new “word” in their CPRI “language” to add a new feature, they just went ahead and added it – It didn’t require anyone else to agree with them or changes to a common standard used by the industry, vendors could talk to the kit they made how they wanted.
CPRI has been the defacto non-standard used by all the big kit vendors for the past ~10 years.
The Death of OBSAI & the Birth of OpenRAN’s eCPRI
Why haven’t you heard of OBSAI? Why didn’t the OBSAI standard just serve as the basis for eCPRI – After all the last OBSAI release was less than 5 years before TIP started working on eCPRI publicly.
Is no more. It has ceased to be.
Did a schism over “uplink performance improvement” options lead to “irreconcilable differences” between parties leading to the breakup of the OBSAI group?
Nope.
Customers (MNOs) didn’t buy OBSAI based equipment in measurably larger quantities than CPRI kit. That’s it.
This meant the vendors invested less in paying teams to further develop the standards, the OBSAI group met less frequently, and in the end, member vendors didn’t bother adding support for OBSAI to new equipment and just used the easier and more flexible CPRI option instead.
At some point someone just stopped paying for the domain renewal and that was it, OBSAI was no more.
This is how the standards body ends, not with a bang, but with a whimper.
T.S. Elliot’s writings on the death of obsai
Those who do not learn from history…
The goals of the OBSAI Group and OpenRAN working groups are almost identical, so what lessons did Marconi, Motorola and Alcatel learn as members of OBSAI that other vendors could learn about OpenRAN strategy?
There are no mentions of OBSAI in any of the information published by OpenRAN advocates, and I’m wondering if folks aren’t aware that history tends to repeat and are ignorant to what came before it, or they’re just not learning lessons from the past?
So what can the OpenRAN industry learn from OBSAI?
Being a nerd, I started detailing the technical challenges, but that’s all window dressing; The biggest hurdle facing CPRI vs eCPRI are the same challenges OBSAI vs CPRI faced a decade prior:
To be relevant, OpenRAN kit has to be demonstrably better than what we have today AND provide a tangible cost saving.
OBSAI failed at achieving this, and so failed to meet it’s other more noble goals.
[At the time of writing this at least] I’d contend that neither of those two criteria have been met by OpenRAN.
What does the future hold for OpenRAN?
Looking into the crystal ball, will OpenRAN and eCPRI go the way of OBSAI, or will someone keep the OpenRAN dream alive?
Today, we’re still seeing the MNOs continue to provide tokenistic investment in OpenRAN. But being a cynic, I’d say the MNOs are feigning interest in OpenRAN products because it’s advantageous for them to do so.
The threat of OpenRAN has proven to be a great stick to beat the traditional vendors with to force them to lower their prices.
Think about the $14 billion USD Ericsson deal with AT&T, if chucking a few million at OpenRAN pilots / trials lead to AT&T getting even a 0.1% reduction in what they’re paying Ericsson, then the numbers would have worked out well in AT&Ts favor.
From the MNOs perspective, the cost to throw the odd pilot or trial to a hungry OpenRAN vendor to keep them on the hook is negligible, but the threat of OpenRAN provides leverage and bargaining power every time it’s contract renewal time with the big RAN vendors.
Already we’ve seen all the traditional RAN vendors move to neutralize this threat by introducing “OpenRAN compatible” equipment and talking up their commitment to openness.
This move by the RAN vendors takes this sting out of the OpenRAN threat, and means MNOs won’t have much reason to continue supporting OpenRAN.
This leaves the remaining OpenRAN vendors like Miss Havisham, forever waiting in their proverbial wedding dresses, having being left at the altar.
Okay, I’m mixing my Dickens’ references here, but it was too good not to.
Appendix
I’ve been enjoying writing more analysis than just technical content, let me know if this is something you’re interested in seeing more of.
I’ve been involved in two big OpenRAN integration projects, both of which went poorly and probably tainted my perspective. Enough time has passed to probably write up how it all went with the vendor names removed, but that’s a post for another time!
Technology is constantly evolving, new research papers are published every day.
But recently I was shocked to discover I’d missed a critical development in communications, that upended Shannon’s “A mathematical theory of communication”.
I’m talking of course, about the GENERATION X PLUS SP-11 PRO CELL ANTENNA.
I’ve been doing telecom work for a long time, while I mostly write here about Core & IMS, I am a licenced rigger, I’ve bolted a few things to towers and built my fair share of mobile coverage over the years, which is why I found this development so astounding.
With this, existing antennas can be extended, mobile phone antennas, walkie talkies and cordless phones can all benefit from the improvement of this small adhesive sticker, which is “Like having a four foot antenna on your phone”.
So for the bargain price of $32.95 (Or $2 on AliExpress) I secured myself this amazing technology and couldn’t wait to quantify it’s performance.
Think of the applications – We could put these stickers on 6 ft panel antennas and they’d become 10ft panels. This would have a huge effect on new site builds, minimize wind loading, less need for tower strengthening, more room for collocation on the towers due to smaller equipment footprint.
Luckily I have access to some fancy test equipment to really understand exactly how revolutionary this is.
The packaging says it’s like having a 4 foot antenna on your phone, let’s do some very simple calculations, let’s assume the antenna in the phone is currently 10cm, and that with this it will improve to be 121cm (four feet).
Projected Gain (Post Sticker)Formulas Used
According to some basic projections we should see ~21dB gain by adding the sticker, that’s a 146x increase in performance!
Man am I excited to see this in action.
Fortunately I have access to some fun cellular test equipment, including the Viavi CellAdvisor and an environmentally controlled lab my kitchen bench.
I put up a 1800Mhz (band 3) LTE carrier in my office in the other room as a reference and placed the test equipment into the test jig (between the sink and the kettle).
We then took baseline readings from the omni shown in the pictures, to get a reading on the power levels before adding the sticker.
We are reading exactly -80dBm without the sticker in place, so we expertly put some masking tape on the omni (so we could peel it off) and applied the sticker antenna to the tape on the omni antenna.
At -80dBm before, by adding the 21dB of gain, we should be put just under -60dBm, these Viavi units are solid, but I was fearful of potentially overloading the receive end from the gain, after a long discussion we agreed at these levels it was unlikely to blow the unit, so no in-line attenuation was used.
Okay, </sarcasm> I was genuinely a little surprised by what we found; there was some gain, as shown in the screenshot below.
Marker 1 was our reference without the sticker, while reference 2 was our marker with the sticker, that’s a 1.12dB gain with the sticker in place. In linear terms that’s a ~30% increase in signal strength.
Screenshot
So does this magic sticker work? Well, kinda, in as much that holding onto the Omni changes the characteristics, as would wrapping a few turns of wire around it, putting it in the kettle or wrapping it in aluminum foil. Anything you do to an antenna to change it is going to cause minor changes in characteristic behavior, and generally if you’re getting better at one frequency, you get worse at another, so the small gain on band 3 may also lead to a small loss on band 1, or something similar.
So what to make of all this? Maybe this difference is an artifact from moving the unit to make a cup of tea, the tape we applied or just a jump in the LTE carrier, or maybe the performance of this sticker is amazing after all…
Recently we were on a project and our RAN guy was seeing UEs hand between one layer and another over and over. The hysteresis and handover parameters seemed correct, but we needed a way to see what was going on, what the eNB was actually advertising and what the UE was sending back.
In a past life I had access to expensive complicated dedicated tooling that could view this information transmitted by the eNB, but now, all I need is a cellphone or a modem with a Qualcomm chip.
So let’s roll up our sleeves and get a Lab scenario happening,
To keep things (relatively) simple, I’ve put the eNodeB on the same subnet as the MME and Serving/Packet-Gateway.
So the traffic will flow from the eNodeB to the S/P-GW, via a simple Network Switch (I’m using a Mikrotik).
While life is complicated, I’ll try and keep this lab easy.
Experiment 1: MTU of 1500 everywhere
Network Element
MTU
Advertised MTU in PCO
1500
eNodeB
1500
Switch
1500
Core Network (S/P-GW)
1500
So everything attaches and traffic flows fine. There is no problem right?
Well, not a problem that is immediately visible.
While the PCO advertises the MTU value at 1500 if we look at the maximum payload we can actually get through the network, we find that’s not the case.
This means if our end user on a mobile device tried to send a 1500 byte payload, it’d never get through.
While DNS would work, most TCP traffic would flow fine, certain UDP applications would start to fail if they were sending payloads nearing 1500 bytes.
So why is this?
Well GTP adds overhead.
8 bytes for the GTP header
8 bytes for the transport UDP header
20 bytes for the transport IPv4 header
14 bytes if our transport is using Ethernet
For a total of 50 bytes of overhead, assuming we’re not using MPLS, QinQ or anything else funky on our transport network and just using Ethernet.
So we have two options here – We can either lower the MTU advertised in our Protocol Configuration Options, or we can increase the MTU across our transport network. Let’s look at each.
Experiment 2: Lower Advertised MTU in PCO to 1300
Well this works, and looks the same as our previous example, except now we know we can’t handle payloads larger than 1300 without fragmentation.
Experiment 3: Increase MTU across transmission Network
While we need to account for the 50 bytes of overhead added by GTP, I’ve gone the safer option and upped the MTU across the transport to 1600 bytes.
With this, we can transport a full 1500 byte MTU on the UE layer, and we’ve got the extra space by enabling jumbo frames.
Obviously this requires a change on all of the transmission layer – And if you have any hops without support for this, you’ll loose packets.
Conclusions?
Well, fragmentation is bad, and we want to avoid it.
For this we up the MTU across the transmission network to support jumbo frames (greater than 1500 bytes) so we can handle the 1500 byte payloads that users want.
In our last post we covered the basics of NB-IoT Non-IP Data Deliver (NIDD), and if that acronym soup wasn’t enough for you, we’re going to take a deep dive into the flows for attaching, sending, receiving and closing a NIDD session.
The attach for NIDD is very similar to the standard attach for wideband LTE, except the MME establishes a connection on the T6a Diameter interface toward the SCEF, to indicate the sub is online and available.
The NIDD Attach
The SCEF is now able to send/receive NIDD traffic from the subscriber on the T6a interface, but in reality developers don’t / won’t interact with Diameter, so the SCEF exposes the T8 API that developers can interact with to access an abstraction layer to interact with the SCEF, and then through onto the UE.
If you’re wondering what the status of Open Source SCEF implementations are, then you may have already guessed we’re working on one! PyHSS should have support for NB-IoT SCEF features in the future.
NB-IoT provides support for Non-IP Data Delivery (NIDD) over 3GPP Networks, but to handle this, some new network elements are introduced, in a home network scenario that’s the SCEF and the SCF/AS.
On the 3GPP side the SCEF it communicates to the MME via the T6a Interface, which is based upon Diameter.
On the side towards our IoT Service Consumers (in the standards referred to as “SCS/AS” or “Service Capabilities Server Application Servers” (catchy names as always), via the RESTful HTTP based T8 interface.
The start of the S1 Attach procedure is very similar to a regular S1 attach.
The initial S1 PDU Connectivity Request indicates in the ESM Message Container that the PDN Type is Non IP.
S1 PDU Connectivity Request from attach procedure
Other than that, the initial attach procedure looks very similar to the regular S1 attach procedure.
On the S6a interface the Update Location Request from the MME to the HSS indicates that this is an EUTRAN-NB-IoT Radio Access Type.
And the Update Location Answer APN Configuration contains some additional AVPs on the APN to indicate that the APN supports Non-IP-PDN-Type and that the SCEF is used for Data Delivery.
The SCEF-ID (Diameter Host) and SCEF-Realm (Diameter realm) to serve this user is also specified in the APN Configuration in the Update Location Answer.
This is how our MME determines where to send the T6a traffic.
With this, the MME sends a Connection Management Request (CMR) towards the SCEF specified in the SCEF-ID returned by the HSS.
The Connection Management Request / Response
The MME now sends a Diameter T6a Connection Management Request to the SCEF in the Update Location Answer,
In it we have a Session-Id, which continues for the life of our NIDD session, the service-selection which contains our APN (In our case “non-ip”) and the User-Identifier AVP which contains the MSISDN and/or IMSI of the subscriber.
To accept this, the SCEF sends back a Connection-Management-Answer to confirm we’re all good to go:
At this point our SCEF now knows about the subscriber who’s just attached to our network, and correlates it with the APN and the session-ID.
On the S1 side the connection is confirmed and we’re ready to roll.
Mobile Originated Data Request / Response
When the UE wants to send NIDD it’s carried in NAS messaging, so we see an Uplink NAS transport from the UE and inside the NAS payload itself is our HEX data.
Our MME grabs this out and sends it in the form of of a Mobile-Originated-Data-Request (MODR) to the SCEF, along with the same Session-ID that was setup earlier:
At this stage our Non-IP Data is exposed over the T8 RESTful API, which we won’t cover in this post.
No one spends marketing dollars talking about the problems with a tech and vendors aren’t out there promoting sweating existing assets. But understanding your options as an operator is more important now than ever before.
Sidebar; This post got really long, so I’m splitting it into 3…
We’re often asked to help define a a 5G strategy for operators; while every case is different, there’s a lot of vendors pushing MNOs to move towards 5G standalone or 5G-SA.
I’m always a fan of playing “devil’s advocate“, and with so many articles and press releases singing the praises of standalone 5G/5G-SA, so as a counter in this post, I’ll be making the case against the narratives presented to operators by vendors that the “right” way to do 5G is to introduce 5G Standalone, that they should all be “upgrading” to Standalone 5G.
With Mobile World Congress around the corner, now seems like a good time to put forward the argument against introducing 5G Standalone, rebutting some common claims about 5G Standalone operators will be told. We’ll counterpoint these arguments and I’ll put forward the case for not jumping onto the 5G-SA bandwagon – just yet.
On a personal note, I do like 5G SA, it has some real advantages and some cool features, which are well documented, including on this blog. I’m not looking to beat up on any vendors, marketing hype or events, but just to provide the “other side” of the equation that operators should consider when making decisions and may not be aware of otherwise. It’s also all opinion of course (cited where possible), but if you’re going to build your network based on a blog post (even one as good as this) you should probably reconsider your life choices.
Some Arcane Detail: 5G Non-Standalone (NSA) vs Standalone (SA)
5G NSA (Non Standalone) uses LTE (4G) with an additional layer “bolted on” that uses 5G on the radio interface to provide “5G” speeds to users, while reusing the existing LTE (Evolved Packet Core) core and VoLTE for voice / SMS.
From an operator perspective there is almost no change required in the network to support NSA 5G, other than in the RAN, and almost all the 5G networks in commercial use today use 5G NSA.
5G NSA is great, it gives the user 5G speeds for users with phones that support it, with no change to the rest of the network needed.
Standalone 5G on the other hand requires an a completely new core network with all the trimmings.
While it is possible to handover / interwork with LTE/4G (Inter-RAT Handovers), this is like 3G/4G interworking, where each has a different core network. Introducing 5G standalone touches every element of the network, you need new nodes supporting the new standards for charging, policy, user plane, IMS, etc.
Scope
There’s an old adage that businesses spend money for one of three reasons:
To Save Money (Which we’ll cover in this post)
To make more Money (Covered next – Will link when published)
Because they have to (Regulatory compliance, insurance, taxes, etc)
Let’s look at 5G Standalone in each of these contexts:
5G Cost Savings – Counterpoint: The cost-benefit doesn’t stack up
As an operator with an existing deployed 4G LTE network, deploying a new 5G standalone network will not save you money.
From an capital perspective this is pretty obvious, you’re going to need to invest in a new RAN and a new core to support this, but what about from an opex perspective?
Claim: 5G RAN is more efficient than 4G (LTE) RAN
Spectrum is both finite and expensive, so MNOs must find the most efficient way to use that spectrum, to squeeze the most possible value out of it.
In rough numbers, we can say we get 5x the spectral efficiency by moving from 3G to 4G. This means we can carry 5.2x more with the same spectrum on 4G than we can on 3G – A very compelling reason to upgrade.
The like-for-like spectral efficiency of 5G is not significantly greater than that of LTE.
In numbers the same 5Mhz of spectrum we refarmed from UMTS (3G) to 4G (LTE) provided a 5x gain in efficiency to deliver 75Mbps on LTE. The same configuration refarmed to 5G-NR would provide 80Mbps.
Refarming spectrum from 4G (LTE) to 5G (NR) only provides a 6% increase in spectral efficiency.
While 6% is not nothing, if refarmed to a 5G standalone network, the spectrum can no longer be used by LTE only devices (Unless Dynamic Spectrum Sharing is used which in itself leads to efficiency losses), which in itself reduces the efficiency and would add additional load to other layers.
The crazy speeds demonstrated by 5G are not due to meaningful increases in efficiency, but rather the ability to use more spectrum, spectrum that operators need to purchase at auction, purchase equipment to utilize and pay to run.
Claim: 5G Standalone Core is Cheaper to operate as it is “Cloud Native”
It has been widely claimed that the shift for the 5G Core Architecture to being “Cloud Native” can provide cost savings.
Operators should regard this in a skeptical manner; after all, we’ve been here before.
Did moving from big-iron to VNFs provide the promised cost savings to operators?
For many operators the shift from hardware to software added additional complexity to the network and increased the headcount to support this.
What were once big-iron appliances dedicated to one job, that sat in the corner and chugged away, are now virtual machines (VNFs). Many operators have naturally found themselves needing a larger team to manage the virtual environment, compared to the size of the team they needed to just to plug power and data into a big box in an exchange before everything was virtualized.
Introducing a “Cloud Native” Kubernetes layer on top of the VNF / virtualization layer, on top of the compute layer, leaves us with a whole lot of layers. All of which require resources to be maintain, troubleshoot and kept running; each layer having associated costs for staffing, licensing and support.
Many mid size enterprises rushed into “the cloud” for the promised cost savings only to sheepishly admit it cost more than the expected.
Almost none of the operators are talking about running these workloads in the public cloud, but rather “Private Clouds” built on-premises, using “Cloud Native” best practices.
One of the central arguments about cloud revolves around “elastic scaling” where the network can automatically scale to match demand; think extra instances spun up a times of peak demand and shut down when the demand drops.
I explain elastic scaling to clients as having to move people from one place to another. Most of the time, I’m just moving myself, a push bike is fine, or I’ve got a 4 seater car, but occasionally I’ll need to move 25 people and for that I’d need a bus.
If I provide the transportation myself, I need to own a bike, a car and a bus.
But if use the cloud I can start with the push bike, and as I need to move more people, the “cloud” will provide me the vehicle I need to move the people I need to move at that moment, and I’ll just pay for the time I need the bus, and when I’m done needing the bus, I drop back to the (cheaper) push bike when I’m not moving lots of people.
While telecom operators are going to provide the servers to run this in “On-prem-cloud”, they need to dimension for the maximum possible load. This means they need to own a bike/car/bus, even if they’re not using it most of the time, and there’s really no cost savings to having a bus but not using it when you’re not paying by the hour to hire it.
Infrastructure aside, introducing a Standalone 5G Core adds another core network to maintain. Alongside the Circuit Switched Core (MSC/GGSN/SGSN) serving 2G/3G subscribers, Evolved Packet Core serving 4G (LTE) and 5G-NSA subscribers, adding a 5G Standalone Core to for the 5G-SA subscribers served by the 5G SA cells, is going to be more work (and therefore cost).
While the majority of operators have yet to turn off their 2G/3G core networks, introducing another core network to run in parallel is unlikely to lead to any cost savings.
Claim: Upgrading now can save money in the Future / Future Proofing
Life cycles of telecommunications are two fold, one is the equipment/platform life cycle (like the RAN components or Core network software being used to deliver the service) the other is the technology life cycle (the generation of technology being used).
The technology lifecycles in telecommunications are vastly longer than that for regular tech.
GSM (2G) was introduced into the UK in 1991, and will be phased out starting in 2033, a 42 year long technology life cycle.
No vendor today could reasonably expect the 5G hardware you deploy in 2024 to still be in production in 2066 – The platform/equipment life cycle is a lot shorter than the technology life cycle.
Operators will to continue relying on LTE (4G) well into the late 2030s.
I’d wager that there is not a single piece of equipment in the Vodafone UK GSM network today, that was there in 1991. I’d go even further to say that any piece of equipment in the network today, didn’t even replace the 1991 equipment, but was probably 3 or 4 generations removed from the network built in 1991.
For most operators, RAN replacements happen between 4 to 7 years, often with targeted augmentation / expansion as needed in the form of adding extra layers / sectors between these times.
The question operators should be asking is therefore not what will I need to get me through to 2066, but rather what will I need to get to 2030?
The majority of operators outside the US today still operate a 2G or 3G network, generally with minimal bandwidth to support legacy handsets and devices, while the 4G (LTE) network does most of the heavy lifting for carrying user traffic. This is often with the aid of an additional 5G-NSA (Non-Standalone) layer to provide additional capacity.
Is there a cost saving angle to adding support for 5G-Standalone in addition to 2G/3G/4G (LTE) and 5G (Non-Standalone) into your RAN?
A logical stance would be that removing layers / technologies (such as 2G/3G sunsetting) would lead to cost savings, and adding a 5G Standalone layer would increase cost.
All of the RAN solutions on the market today from the major vendors include support for both Standalone 5G and Non Standalone, but the feature licensing for a non-standalone 5G is generally cheaper than that for Standalone 5G.
The question operators should be asking is on what timescale do I need Standalone 5G?
If you’ve rolled out 5G-NSA today, then when are you looking to sunset your LTE network? If the answer is “I hope to have long since retired by that time”, then you’ve just answered that question and you don’t need to licence / deploy 5G-SA in this hardware refresh cycle.
Other Cost Factors
Roaming: The majority of roaming traffic today relies on 2G/3G for voice. VoLTE roaming is (finally) starting to establish a foothold, but we are a long way from ubiquitous global roaming for LTE and VoLTE, and even further away for 5G-SA roaming. Focusing on 5G roaming will enable your network for roaming use by a miniscule number of operators, compared to LTE/VoLTE roaming which covers the majority of the operators in the developed world who can utilize your service.
I decided to split this into 3 posts, next I’ll post the “5G can make us more money” post and finally a “5G because we have to” post. I’ll post that on LinkedIn / Twitter / Mailing list, so stick around, and feel free to trash me in the comments.
I recently ended up with a few Commscope RF combiners from a cell site, they’re not on frequencies that are of any use to us, so, let’s see what’s inside.
The units on the bench are Commscope Diplexer units, these ones allow you to put a signal between 694-862Mhz, and another signal between 880-960Mhz, on the same RF feeder up the tower.
It’s a nifty trick from the days where radio units lived at the bottom of the tower, but now with Remote Radio Units, and Active Antenna Units, it’s becoming increasingly uncommon to have radio units in the site hut, and more common to just run DC & fibre up the tower and power a radio unit right next to the antenna – This is especially important for higher frequencies where of course the feeder loss is greater.
Diplexer unit before it is maimed…
Anywho, that’s about all I know of them, after the liberal application of chemicals to remove the stickers and several burns from a heat gun, we started to get the unit open, to show the zillion adjustment bolts, and finely machined parts.
A lot of screwsBonus TMA
Thanks to Oliver for offering up the bench space when I rocked to up to their house with some stuff to pull apart.
Last year I purchased a cheap second hand Huawei macro base station – there’s lots of these on the market at the moment due to the fact they’re being replaced in many countries.
I’m using it in my lab environment, and as such the config I’ve got is very “bare bones” and basic. Keep in mind if you’re looking to deploy a Macro eNodeB in production, you may need more than just a blog post to get everything tuned and functioning properly…
In this post we’ll cover setting up a Huawei BTS3900 eNodeB from scratch, using the MML interface, without relying on the U2020 management tool.
Obviously the details I setup (IP Addressing, PLMN and RF parameters) are going to be different to what you’re configuring, so keep that in mind, where I’ve got my MME Addresses, site IDs, TACs, IP Addresses, RFUs, etc, you’ll need to substitute your own values.
A word on Cabinets
Typically these eNodeBs are shipped in cabinets, that contain the power supplies, alarm / environmental monitoring, power distribution, etc.
Early on in the setup process we’ll be setting the cabinet types we’ve got, and then later on we’ll tell the system what we have installed in which slots.
This is fine if you have a cabinet and know the type, but in my case at least I don’t have a cabinet manufactured by Huawei, just a rack with some kit mounted in it.
This is OK, but it leads to a few gotchas I need to add a cabinet (even though it doesn’t physically exist) and when I setup my RRUs I need to define what cabinet, slot and subrack it’s in, even though it isn’t in any. Keep this in mind as we go along and define the position of the equipment, that if you’re not using a real-world cabinet, the values mean nothing, but need to be kept consistent.
To begin we’ll need to setup the basics, by disabling DHCP and setting an local IP Address for the unit.
SET DHCPSW: SWITCH=DISABLE;
SET LOCALIP: IP="192.168.5.234", MASK="255.255.248.0";
Obviously your IP address details will be different. Next we’ll add an eNodeB function, the LMPT / UMPT can have multiple functions and multiple eNodeBs hosted on the same hardware, but in our case we’re just going to configure one:
Again, your eNodeB ID, location, site name, etc, are all going to be different, as will your location.
Next we’ll set the system to maintenance mode (MNTMODE), so we can make changes on the fly (this takes the eNB off the air, but we’re already off the air), you’ll need to adjust the start and end times to reflect the current time for the start time, and end time to be after you’re done setting all this up.
SET MNTMODE: MNTMode=INSTALL, ST=2013&09&20&15&00&00, ET=2013&09&25&15&00&00, MMSetRemark="NewSite Install";
Next we’ll set the operator details, this is the PLMN of the eNodeB, and create a new tracking area.
Next we’ll be setting and populating the cabinets I mentioned earlier. I’ll be telling the unit it’s inside a APM30 (Cabinet 0), and in Cabinet Number 0, Subrack 0, is a BBU3900.
//To modify the cabinet type, run the following command: ADD CABINET:CN=0,TYPE=APM30; //Add a BBU3900 subrack, run the following command: ADD SUBRACK:CN=0,SRN=0,TYPE=BBU3900; //To configure boards and RF datas, run the following commands:
And inside the BBU3900 there’s some cards of course, and each card has as slot, as per the drawing below.
In my environment I’ve got a LMPT in slot 7, and a LBBP in Slot 3. There’s a fan and a UPEU too, so: We’ll add a board in Slot No. 7, of type LMPT, We’ll add a board in Slot No. 3, of type LBBP working on FDD, We’ll add a fan board in Slot No. 16, and a UPEU in Slot No. 18.
Huawei publish design guides for which cards should be in which slots, the general rule is that your LMPT / UMPT card goes in Slot 7, with your BBP cards (UBBP or LBBP) in slots 3, then 2, then 1, then 0. Fans and UPEUs can only go in the slots designed to fit them, so that makes it a bit easier.
Next we’ll need to setup our RRUs, for this we’ll need to setup an RRU chain, which is the Huawei term for the CPRI links and add an RRU into it:
//Modify the reference signal power.
MOD PDSCHCFG: LocalCellId=1, ReferenceSignalPwr=-81;
//Add an operator for the cell.
ADD CELLOP: LocalCellId=0, TrackingAreaId=0;
//Activate the cell.
ACT CELL: LocalCellId=1;
For the past few months I’ve had a Band 78 NR active antenna unit sitting next to my desk.
It’s a very cool bit of kit that doesn’t get enough love, but I thought I’d pop open the radome and take a peek inside.
Individual antenna elements
What I found very interesting is that it’s not all antennas in there!
… 29, 30, 31, 32. Yup. Checks out.
There are the expected number of antennas (I mean if I opened it up and found 31 antennas I’d have been surprised) but they don’t take up the whole volume of the unit, only about half,
AAU with Radome reinstalled
Well, after that strip show, back to sitting in my office until I need to test something 5G SA again…
Something that’s kind of great is that the current generation of Ericsson RRUs and Nokia RRUs, use the same power connector – The Amphenol “Amphe-OBTS” series connector.
Construction and wiring of these connectors is the same for both, and with one little trick, we can use the connector for both Ericsson and Nokia RRUs (Airscale and later).
This pin that stops the connector from being “universal” but is easily removed.
The connectors are not quite universal, in order to use it in both you need to knock off a small pin on the connector, I’d suggest doing this before you assemble it, put the connector on it’s back, facing upwards, and hit this with a screwdriver / chisel and it’ll pop off with very little effort.
Assembling the connectors starts by working out the diameter of the grommet you need to fit your cable, the connector comes with the grommet for 9-14mm, but in the bag you’ll usually get grommets for 6-9mm cable and 14-18mm cable.
Grab the correct one for your cable diameter, and pop into the black fingered cage (‘gland adapter’) shown in the bottom right of the below photo.
Grommets and gland adapter
Next we line all the parts up along the cable and screw it all together:
The end-cap is actually very useful for stopping the female end of the connector from spinning when you’re assembling the cable, so don’t throw it away!
NB-IoT introduces support for NIDD – Non-IP Data Delivery (NIDD) which is one of the cool features of NB-IoT that’s gaining more widespread adoption.
Let’s take a deep dive into NIDD.
The case against IP for IoT
In the over 40 years since IP was standardized, we’ve shoehorned many things onto IP, but IP was never designed or optimized for low power, low throughput applications.
For the battery life of an IoT device to be measured in years, it has to be very selective about what power hungry operations it does. Transmitting data over the air is one of the most power-intensive operations an IoT device can perform, so we need to do everything we can to limit how much data is sent, and how frequently.
Use Case – NB-IoT Tap
Let’s imagine we’re launching an IoT tap that transmits information about water used, as part of our revolutionary new “Water as a Service” model (WaaS) which removes the capex for residents building their own water treatment plant in their homes, and instead allows dynamic scaling of waterloads as they move to our new opex model.
If I turn on the tap and use 12L of water, when I turn off the tap, our IoT tap encodes the usage onto a single byte and sends the usage information to our rain-cloud service provider.
So we’re not constantly changing the batteries in our taps, we need to send this one byte of data as efficiently as possible, so as to maximize the battery life.
If we were to transport our data on TCP, well we’d need a 3 way handshake and several messages just to transmit the data we want to send.
Let’s see how our one byte of data would look if we transported it on TCP.
That sliver of blue in the diagram is our usage component, the rest is overhead used to get it there. Seems wasteful huh?
Sure, TCP isn’t great for this you say, you should use UDP! But even if we moved away from TCP to UDP, we’ve still got the IPv4 header and the UDP header wasting 28 bytes.
For efficiency’s sake (To keep our batteries lasting as long as possible) we want to send as few messages as possible, and where we do have to send messages, keep them very short, so IP is not a great fit here.
Enter NIDD – Non-IP Data Delivery.
Through NIDD we can just send the single hex byte, only be charged for the single hex byte, and only stay transmitting long enough to send this single byte of hex (Plus the NBIoT overheads / headers).
Compared to UDP transport, NIDD provides us a reduction of 28 bytes of overhead for each message, or a 96% reduction in message size, which translates to real power savings for our IoT device.
In summary – the more sending your device has to do, the more battery it consumes. So in a scenario where you’re trying to maximize power efficiency to keep your batter powered device running as long as possible, needing to transmit 28 bytes of wasted data to transport 1 byte of usable data, is a real waste.
Delivering the Payload
NIDD traffic is transported as raw hex data end to end, this means for our 1 byte of water usage data, the device would just send the hex value to be transferred and it’d pop out the other end.
To support this we introduce a new network element called the SCEF –Service Capability Exposure Function.
From a developer’s perspective, the SCEF is the gateway to our IoT devices. Through the RESTful API on the SCEF (T8 API), we can send and receive raw hex data to any of our IoT devices.
When one of our Water-as-a-Service Taps sends usage data as a hex byte, it’s the software talking on the T8 API to the SCEF that receives this data.
Data of course needs to be addressed, so we know where it’s coming from / going to, and T8 handles this, as well as message reliability, etc, etc.
This is a telco blog, so we should probably cover the MME connection, the MME talks via Diameter to the SCEF. In our next post we’ll go into these signaling flows in more detail.
If you’re wondering what the status of Open Source SCEF implementations are, then you may have already guessed I’m working on one!
Hopefully by now you’ve got a bit of an idea of how NIDD works in NB-IoT, and in our next posts we’ll dig deeper into the flows and look at some PCAPs together.
To support Dedicated Bearers we first have to have a way of profiling the traffic, to classify the traffic as being the type we want to provide the Dedicated Bearer for.
The first step involves a request from an Application Function (AF) to the PCRF via the Rx interface.
The most common type of AF would be a P-CSCF. When a VoLTE call gets setup the P-CSCF requests that a dedicated bearer be setup for the IP Address and Ports involved in the VoLTE call, to ensure users get the best possible call quality.
But Application Functions aren’t limited to just VoLTE – You could also embed an Application Function into the server for an online game to enable a dedicated bearer for users playing that game, or a sports streaming app that detects when a user starts streaming sports and creates a dedicated bearer for that user to send the traffic down.
The request to setup a dedicated bearer comes in the form of a Diameter request message from the AF, using the Rx reference point, typically from the P-CSCF to the PCRF in the network in an “AA-Request”.
Of main interest in the AA-Request is the Media Component AVP, that contains all the details needed to identify the traffic flow.
Now our PCRF is in charge of policy, and know which P-GW is serving the required subscriber. So the PCRF takes this information and sends a Gx Re-Auth Request to the PCEF in the P-GW serving the subscriber, with a Charging Rule the PCEF in the P-GW needs to install, to profile and apply QoS to the bearer.
Charging Rule Definition’s Flow-Information AVPs showing the information needed to profile the traffic
The QoS Description AVP defines which QoS parameters (QCI / ARP / Guaranteed & Maximum Bandwidth) should be applied to the traffic that matches the rules we just defined.
QoS Information AVP showing requested QoS Parameters
The P-GW sends back a Gx Re-Auth Answer, and gets to work actually setting up these bearers.
With the rule installed on the PCEF, it’s time to get this new bearer set up on the UE / eNodeB.
The P-GW sends a GTPv2 “Create Bearer Request” to the S-GW which forwards it onto the MME, to setup / define the Dedicated Bearer to be setup on the eNodeB.
GTPv2 “Create Bearer Request” sent by the P-Gw to the S-GW forwarded from the S-GW to the MME
The MME translates this into an S1 “E-RAB Setup Request” which it sends to the eNodeB to setup,
S1 E-RAB Setup request showing the E-RAB to be setup
Assuming the eNodeB has the resources to setup this bearer, it provides the details to the UE and sets up the bearer, sending confirmation back to the MME in the S1 “E-RAB Setup Response” message, which the MME translates back into GTPv2 for a “Create Bearer Response”
All this effort to keep your VoLTE calls sounding great!
So it’s the not to distant future and the pundits vision of private LTE and 5G Networks was proved correct, and private networks are plentiful.
But what PLMN do they use?
The PLMN (Public Land Mobile Network) ID is made up of a Mobile Country Code + Mobile Network Code. MCCs are 3 digits and MNCs are 2-3 digits. It’s how your phone knows to connect to a tower belonging to your carrier, and not one of their competitors.
For example in Australia (Mobile Country Code 505) the three operators each have their own MCC. Telstra as the first licenced Mobile Network were assigned 505/01, Optus got 505/02 and VHA / TPG got 505/03.
Each carrier was assigned a PLMN when they started operating their network. But the problem is, there’s not much space in this range.
The PLMN can be thought of as the SSID in WiFi terms, but with a restriction as to the size of the pool available for PLMNs, we’re facing an IPv4 exhaustion problem from the start if we’re facing an explosion of growth in the space.
Let’s look at some ways this could be approached.
Everyone gets a PLMN
If every private network were to be assigned a PLMN, we’d very quickly run out of space in the range. Best case you’ve got 3 digits, so only space for 1,000 networks.
In certain countries this might work, but in other areas these PLMNs may get gobbled up fast, and when they do, there’s no more. New operators will be locked out of the market.
If you’re buying a private network from an existing carrier, they may permit you to use their PLMN,
Or if you’re buying kit from an existing vendor you may be able to use their PLMN too.
But what happens then if you want to move to a different kit vendor or another service provider? Do you have to rebuild your towers, reconfigure your SIMs?
Are you contractually allowed to continue using the PLMN of a third party like a hardware vendor, even if you’re no longer purchasing hardware from them? What happens if they change their mind and no longer want others to use their PLMN?
Everyone uses 999 / 99
The ITU have tried to preempt this problem by reallocating 999/99 for use in Private Networks.
The problem here is if you’ve got multiple private networks in close proximity, especially if you’re using CBRS or in close proximity to other networks, you may find your devices attempting to attach to another network with the same PLMN but that isn’t part of your network,
Mobile Country or Geographical Area Codes Note from TSB Following the agreement on the Appendix to Recommendation ITU-T E.212 on “shared E.212 MCC 999 for internal use within a private network” at the closing plenary of ITU-T SG2 meeting of 4 to 13 July 2018, upon the advice of ITU-T Study Group 2, the Director of TSB has assigned the Mobile Country Code (MCC) “999” for internal use within a private network.
Mobile Network Codes (MNCs) under this MCC are not subject to assignment and therefore may not be globally unique. No interaction with ITU is required for using a MNC value under this MCC for internal use within a private network. Any MNC value under this MCC used in a network has significance only within that network.
The MNCs under this MCC are not routable between networks. The MNCs under this MCC shall not be used for roaming. For purposes of testing and examples using this MCC, it is encouraged to use MNC value 99 or 999. MNCs under this MCC cannot be used outside of the network for which they apply. MNCs under this MCC may be 2- or 3-digit.
My bet is we’ll see the ITU allocate an MCC – or a range of MCCs – for private networks, allowing for a pool of PLMNs to use.
When deploying networks, Private network operators can try and pick something that’s not in use at the area from a pool of a few thousand options.
The major problem here is that there still won’t be an easy way to identify the operator of a particular network; the SPN is local only to the SIM and the Network Name is only present in the NAS messaging on an attach, and only after authentication.
If you’ve got a problem network, there’s no easy way to identify who’s operating it.
But as eSIMs become more prevalent and BIP / RFM on SIMs will hopefully allow operators to shift PLMNs without too much headache.
Network Slicing, is a new 5G Technology. Or is it?
Pre 3GPP Release 16 the capability to “Slice” a network already existed, in fact the functionality was introduced way back at the advent of GPRS, so what is so new about 5G’s Network Slicing?
Network Slice: A logical network that provides specific network capabilities and network characteristics
3GPP TS 123 501 / 3 Definitions and Abbreviations
Let’s look at the old and the new ways, of slicing up networks, pre release 16, on LTE, UMTS and GSM.
Old Ways: APN Separation
The APN or “Access Point Name” is used so the SGSN / MME knows which gateway to that subscriber’s traffic should be terminated on when setting up the session.
APN separation is used heavily by MVNOs where the MVNO operates their own P-GW / GGSN. This allows the MNVO can handle their own rating / billing / subscriber management when it comes to data. A network operator just needs to setup their SGSN / MME to point all requests to setup a bearer on the MVNO’s APN to the MNVO’s gateways, and presoto, it’s no longer their problem.
Later as customers wanted MPLS solutions extended over mobile (Typically LTE), MNOs were able to offer “private APNs”. An enterprise could be allocated an APN by the MNO that would ensure traffic on that APN would be routed into the enterprise’s MPLS VRF. The MNO handles the P-GW / GGSN side of things, adding the APN configuration onto it and ensuring the traffic on that APN is routed into the enterprise’s VRF.
Different QCI values can be assigned to each APN, to allow some to have higher priority than others, but by slicing at an APN level you lock all traffic to those QoS characteristics (Typically mobile devices only support one primary APN used for routing all traffic), and don’t have the flexibility to steer which networks which traffic from a subscriber goes to.
It’s not really practical for everyone to have their own APNs, due in part to the namespace limitations, the architecture of how this is usually done limits this, and the simple fact of everyone having to populate an APN unique to them would be a real headache.
5G replaces APNs with “DNNs” – Data Network Names, but the functionality is otherwise the same.
In Summary: APN separation slices all traffic from a subscriber using a special APN and provide a bearer with QoS/QCI values set for that APN, but does not allow granular slicing of individual traffic flows, it’s an all-or-nothing approach and all traffic in the APN is treated equally.
The old Ways: Dedicated Bearers
Dedicated bearers allow traffic matching a set rule to be provided a lower QCI value than the default bearer. This allows certain traffic to/from a UE to use GBR or Non-GBR bearers for traffic matching the rule.
The rule itself is known as a “TFT” (Traffic Flow Template) and is made up of a 5 value Tuple consisting of IP Source, IP Destination, Source Port, Destination Port & Protocol Number. Both the UE and core network need to be aware of these TFTs, so the traffic matching the TFT can get the QCI allocated to it.
This can be done a variety of different ways, in LTE this ranges from rules defined in a PCRF or an external interface like those of an IMS network using the Rx interface to request a dedicated bearers matching the specified TFTs via the PCRF.
Unlike with 5G network slicing, dedicated bearers still traverse the same network elements, the same MME, S-GW & P-GW is used for this traffic. This means you can’t “locally break out” certain traffic.
In Summary: Dedicated bearers allow you to treat certain traffic to/from subscribers with different precedence & priority, but the traffic still takes the same path to it’s ultimate destination.
This means one eNodeB can broadcast more than one PLMN and server more than one mobile network.
This slicing is very coarse – it allows two operators to share the same eNodeBs, but going beyond a handful of PLMNs on one eNB isn’t practical, and the PLMN space is quite limited (1000 PLMNs per country code max).
In Summary: MOCN allows slicing of the RAN on a very coarse level, to slice traffic from different operators/PLMNs sharing the same RAN.
Its use is focused on sharing RAN rather than slicing traffic for users.
Ok, admittedly I haven’t actually seen “When a Stranger Calls”, or the less popular sequel “When a stranger Redials” (Ok may have made the last one up).
But the premise (as I read Wikipedia) is that the babysitter gets the call on the landline, and the police trace the call as originating from the landline.
But you can’t phone yourself, that’s not how local loops work – When the murderer goes off hook it loops the circuit, which busys it. You could apply ring current to the line I guess externally but unless our murder has a Ring generator or has setup a PBX inside the house, the call probably isn’t coming from inside the house.
On Topic – The GMLC
The GMLC (Gateway Mobile Location Centre) is a central server that’s used to locate subscribers within the network on different RATs (GSM/UMTS/LTE/NR).
The GMLC typically has interfaces to each of the radio access technologies, there is a link between the GMLC and the CS network elements (used for GSM/UMTS) such as the HLR, MSC & SGSN via Lh & Lg interfaces, and a link to the PS network elements (LTE/NR) via Diameter based SLh and SLg interfaces with the MME and HSS.
The GMLC’s tentacles run out to each of these network elements so it can query them as to a subscriber’s location,
LTE Call Flow
To find a subscriber’s location in LTE Diameter based signaling is used, to query the MME which in turn queries, the eNodeB to find the location.
But which MME to query?
The SLh Diameter interface is used to query the HSS to find out which MME is serving a particular Subscriber (identified by IMSI or MSISDN).
The LCS-Routing-Info-Request is sent by the GMLC to the HSS with the subscriber identifier, and the LCS-Routing-Info-Response is returned by the HSS to the GMLC with the details of the MME serving the subscriber.
Now we’ve got the serving MME, we can use the SLgDiameter interface to query the MME to the location of that particular subscriber.
The MME can report locations to the GMLC periodically, or the GMLC can request the MME provide a location at that point. For the GMLC to request a subscriber’s current location a Provide-Location-Request is set by the GMLC to the MME with the subscriber’s IMSI, and the MME responds after querying the eNodeB and optionally the UE, with the location info in the Provide-Location-Response.
(I’m in the process of adding support for these interfaces to PyHSS and all going well will release some software shortly to act at a GMLC so people can use this.)
Finding the actual Location
There are a few different ways the actual location of the UE is determined,
At the most basic level, Cell Global Identity (CGI) gives the identity of the eNodeB serving a user. If you’ve got a 3 sector site each sector typically has its own Cell Global Identity, so you can determine to a certain extent, with the known radiation pattern, bearing and location of the sector, in which direction a subscriber is. This happens on the network side and doesn’t require any input from the UE. But if we query the UE’s signal strength, this can then be combined with existing RF models and the signal strength reported by the UE to further pinpoint the user with a bit more accuracy. (Uplink and downlink cell coverage based positioning methods) Barometric pressure and humidity can also be reported by the base station as these factors will impact resulting signal strengths.
Timing Advance (TA) and Time of Arrival (TOA) both rely on timing signals to/from a UE to determine it’s distance from the eNodeB. If the UE is only served by a single cell this gives you a distance from the cell and potentially an angle inside which the subscriber is. This becomes far more useful with 3 or more eNodeBs in working range of the UE, where you can “triangulate” the UE’s location. This part happens on the network side with no interaction with the UE. If the UE supports it, EUTRAN can uses Enhanced Observed Time Difference (E-OTD) positioning method, which does TOD calcuation does this in conjunction with the UE.
GPS Assisted (A-GPS) positioning gives good accuracy but requires the devices to get it’s current location using the GPS, which isn’t part of the baseband typically, so isn’t commonly implimented.
Uplink Time Difference of Arrival (UTDOA) can also be used, which is done by the network.
So why do we need to get Subscriber Locations?
The first (and most noble) use case that springs to mind is finding the location of a subscriber making a call to emergency services. Often upon calling an emergency services number the GMLC is triggered to get the subscriber’s location in case the call is cut off, battery dies, etc.
But GMLCs can also be used for lots of other purposes, marketing purposes (track a user’s location and send targeted ads), surveillance (track movements of people) and network analytics (look at subscriber movement / behavior in a specific area for capacity planning).
Different countries have different laws regulating access to the subscriber location functions.
Hack to disable Location Reporting on Mobile Networks
If you’re wondering how you can disable this functionality, you can try the below hack to ensure that your phone does not report your location.
Press the power button on your phone
Turn it off
In reality, no magic super stealth SIM cards, special phones or fancy firmware will prevent the GMLC from finding your location. So far none of the “privacy” products I’ve looked at have actually done anything special at the Baseband level. Most are just snakeoil.
For as long as your device is connected to the network, the passive ways of determining location, such as Uplink Time Difference of Arrival (UTDOA) and the CGI are going to report your location.
Our BTS is going to need an accurate clock source in order to run, so without access to crazy accurate Timing over Packet systems or TDM links to use as reference sources, I’ve opted to use the GPS/GLONASS receiver built into the LMPT card.
Add new GPS with ID 0 on LMPT in slot 7 of cabinet 1:
Check GPS has sync (May take some time) using the Display GPS command;
DSP GPS: GN=0;
Assuming you’ve got an antenna connected and can see the sky, after ~10 minutes running the DSP GPS:; command again should show you an output like this:
+++ 4-PAL0089624 2020-11-28 01:06:55
O&M #806355684
%%DSP GPS: GN=0;%%
RETCODE = 0 Operation succeeded.
Display GPS State
-----------------
GPS Clock No. = 0
GPS Card State = Normal
GPS Card Type = M12M
GPS Work Mode = GPS
Hold Status = UNHOLDED
GPS Satellites Traced = 4
GLONASS Satellites Traced = 0
BDS Satellites Traced = 0
Antenna Longitude(1e-6 degree) = 144599999
Antenna Latitude(1e-6 degree) = -37000000
Antenna Altitude(m) = 613
Antenna Angle(degree) = 5
Link Active State = Activated
Feeder Delay(ns) = 15
GPS Version = NULL
(Number of results = 1)
--- END
Showing the GPS has got sync and a location fix,
Next we set BTS to use GPS as time source,
SET TIMESRC: TIMESRC=GPS;
Finally we’ll verify the Time is in sync on the BTS using the list time command:
DSP TIME:;
+++ 4-PAL0089624 2020-11-28 01:09:22
O&M #806355690
%%DSP TIME:;%%
RETCODE = 0 Operation succeeded.
Time Information
----------------
Time = 2020-11-28 01:09:22 GMT+00:00
--- END
Optionally you may wish to add a timezone, using the SET TZ:; command, but I’ve opted to keep it in UTC for simplicity.
Recently I’ve been wrapping my head around Cell Broadcast in LTE, and thought I’d share my notes on 3GPP TS 38.413.
The interface between the MME and the Cell Broadcast Center (CBC) is the SBc interface, which as two types of “Elementary Procedures”:
Class 1 Procedures are of the request – response nature (Request followed by a Success or Failure response)
Class 2 Procedures do not get a response, and are informational one-way. (Acked by SCTP but not an additional SBc message).
SCTP is used as the transport layer, with the CBC establishing a point to point connection to the MME over SCTP (Unicast only) on port 29168 with SCTP Payload Protocol Identifier 24.
The SCTP associations between the MME and the CBC should normally remain up – meaning the SCTP association / transport connection is up all the time, and not just brought up when needed.
Elementary Procedures
Write-Replace Warning (Class 1 Procedure)
The purpose of Write-Replace Warning procedure is to start, overwrite the broadcasting of warning message, as defined in 3GPP TS 23.041 [14].
Write-Replace Warning procedure, initiated by WRITE-REPLACE WARNING REQUEST sent by the CBC to the MMEs contains the emergency message to be broadcast and the parameters such as TAC to broadcast to, severity level, etc.
A WRITE-REPLACE WARNING RESPONSE is sent back by the MME to the MME, if successful, along with information as to where it was sent out. CBC messages are unacknowledged by UEs, meaning it’s not possible to confirm if a UE has actually received the message.
The request includes the message identifier and serial number, list of TAIs, repetition period, number of broadcasts requested, warning type, and of course, the warning message contents.
Stop Warning Procedure (Class 1 Procedure)
Stop Warning Procedure, initiated by STOP WARNING REQUEST and answered with a STOP WARNING RESPONSE, requests the MME inform the eNodeBs to stop broadcasting the CBC in their SIBs.
Includes TAIs of cells this should apply to and the message identifier,
Error Indication (Class 2)
The ERROR INDICATION is used to indicate an error (duh). Contains a Cause and Criticality IEs and can be sent by the MME or CBC.
Write Replace Warning (Class 2)
The WRITE REPLACE WARNING INDICATION is used to indicate warning scenarios for some instead of a WRITE-REPLACE WARNING RESPONSE,
PWS Restart (Class 2)
The PWS RESTART INDICATION is used to list the eNodeBs / cells, that have become available or have restarted, since the CBC message and have no warning message data – for example eNodeBs that have just come back online during the period when all the other cells are sending Cell Broadcast messages.
Returns a the Restarted-Cell-List IE, containing the Global eNB ID IE and List of TAI, of the restarted / reconnected cells.
PWS Failure Indication (Class 2)
The PWS FAILURE INDICATION is essentially the reverse of PWS RESTART INDICATION, indicating which eNodeBs are no longer available. These cells may continue to send Cell Broadcast messages as the MME has essentially not been able to tell it to stop.
Contains a list of Failed cells (eNodeBs) with the Global-eNodeB-ID of each.
Want more telecom goodness?
I have a good old fashioned RSS feed you can subscribe to.
