Tag Archives: GTPv2

Best Practices for SGW & PGW Deployment Architectures for Roaming

IMS / VoLTE, Mobile Networks, SDM, , , , , , , , ,

The S8 Home Routing approach for LTE Roaming works really well, as more and more operators are switching off their legacy circuit switched 2G/3G networks and shifting to LTE & VoLTE for roaming, we’re seeing more an more S8-HR deployments.

When LTE was being standardised in 2008, Local Breakout (LBO) and S8 Home Routing were both considered options for how roaming may look. Fast forward to today, and S8 Home routing is the only way roaming is done for modern deployments.

In light of this, there are some “best practices” in an “all S8 Home Routed” world, we’ve developed, that I thought I’d share.

The Basics

When roaming, the SGW in the Visited Network, sends user traffic back to the PGW in the Home Network.

This means Online/Offline charging, IMS, PCRF, etc, is all done in the Home PLMN. As long as data packets can get from the SGW in the Visited PLMN to the PGW in the Home PLMN, and authentication flows from the Visited MME to the HSS in the Home PLMN, you’re golden.

The Constraints

Of course real networks don’t look as simple as this, in reality a roaming scenario for a visited network has a lot more nodes, which need to be

Building Distributed Packet Core & IMS

Virtualization (VNF / CNF) has led operators away from “big iron” hardware for Packet Core & IMS nodes, towards software based solutions, which in turn offer a lot more flexibility.

Best practice for design of User Plane is to keep the the latency down, by bringing the user plane closer to the user (the idea of “Edge” UPFs in 5GC is a great example of this), and the move away from “big iron” in central locations for SGW and PGW nodes has been the trend for the past decade.

So to achieve these goals in the networks we build, we geographically distribute the core network.

This means we’ve got quite a few S-GW, P-GW, MME & HSS instances across the network.
There’s some real advantages to this approach:

From a redundancy perspective this allows us to “spread the load” and build far more resilient networks. A network with 20 smaller HSS instances spread around the country, is far more resilient than 2 massive ones, regardless of how many power feeds or redundant disks it may have.

This allows us to be more resource efficient. MNOs have always provisioned excess capacity to cater for the loss of a node. If we have 2 MMEs serving a country, then each node has to have at least 50% capacity free, so if one MME were to fail, the other MME could handle the additional load it from it’s dead friend. This is costly for resources. Having 20 MMEs means each MME has to have 5% capacity free, to handle the loss of one MME in the pool.

It also forces our infrastructure teams to manage infrastructure “as cattle” rather than pets. These boxes don’t get names or lovingly crafted, they’re automatically spun up and destroyed without thinking about it.

For security, we only use internal IP addresses for the nodes in our packet core, this provides another layer of protection for the “crown jewels” of our network, so no one messing with BGP filtering can accidentally open the flood gates to our core, as one US operator learned leaving a GGSN open to the world leading to the private information for 100 million customers being leaked.

What this all adds to, is of course, the end user experience.
For the end subscriber / customer, they get a better experience thanks to the reduced latency the connection provides, better uptime and faster call setup / SMS delivery, and less cost to deliver services.

I love this approach and could prothletise about it all day, but in a roaming context this presents some challenges.

The distributed networks we build are in a constant state of flux, new capacity is being provisioned in some areas, nodes things decommissioned in others, and our our core nodes are only reachable on internal IPs, so wouldn’t be reachable by roaming networks.

Our Distributed-Core Roaming Solution

To resolve this we’ve taken a novel approach, we’ve deployed a pair of S-GWs we call the “Roaming SGWs”, and a pair of P-GWs we call the “Roaming PGWs”, these do have public IPs, and are dedicated for use only by roaming traffic.

We really like this approach for a few reasons:

It allows us to be really flexible do what we want inside the network, without impacting roaming customers or operators who use our network for roaming. All the benefits I described from the distributed architectures can still be realised.

From a security standpoint, only these SGW/PGW pairs have public IPs, all the others are on internal IPs. This good for security – Our core network is the ‘crown jewels’ of the network and we only expose an edge to other providers. Even though IPX networks are supposed to be secure, one of the largest IPX providers had their systems breached for 5 years before it was detected, so being almost as distrustful of IPX traffic as Internet traffic is a good thing.
This allows us to put these PGWs / SGWs at the “edge” of our network, and keep all our MMEs, as well as our on-net PGW and SGWs, on internal IPs, safe and secure inside our network.

For charging on the SGWs, we only need to worry about collecting CDRs from one set of SGWs (to go into the TAP files we use to bill the other operators), rather than running around hoovering up SGW CDRs from large numbers of Serving Gateways, which may get blown away and replaced without warning.

Of course, there is a latency angle to this, for international roaming, the traffic has to cross the sea / international borders to get to us. By putting it at the edge we’re seeing increased MOS on our calls, as the traffic is as close to the edge of the network as can be.

Caveat: Increased S11 Latency on Core Network sites over Satellite

This is probably not relevant to most operators, but some of our core network sites are fed only by satellite, and the move to this architecture shifted something: Rather than having latency on the S8 interface from the SGW to the PGW due to the satellite hop, we’ve got latency between the MME and the SGW due to the satellite hop.

It just shifts where in the chain the latency lies, but it did lead to us having to boost some timers in the MME and out of sequence deliver detection, on what had always been an internal interface previously.

Evolution to 5G Standalone Roaming

This approach aligns to the Home Routed options for 5G-SA roaming; UPF chaining means that the roaming traffic can still be routed, as seems to be the way the industry is going.

SA roaming is in its infancy, without widely deployed SA networks, we’re not going to see common roaming using SA for a good long while, but I’ll be curious to see if this approach becomes the de facto standard going forward.

Where to from here?

We’re pretty happy with this approach in the networks we’ve been building.

So far it’s made IREG testing easier as we’ve got two fixed points the IPX needs to hit (The DRAs and the SGWs) rather than a wide range of networks.

Operators with a vast number of APNs they need to drop into different VRFs may have to do some traffic engineering here – Our operations are generally pretty flat, but I can see where this may present some challenges for established operators shifting their traffic.

I’d be keen to hear if other operators are taking this approach and if they’ve run into any issues, or any issues others can see in this, feel free to drop a comment below.

LTE EPC: Serving Gateway (S-GW) Basic Function

EPC, LTE, Mobile Networks, , , , ,

As our subscribers are mobile, moving between base stations / cells, the destination of the incoming GTP-U packets needs to be updated every time the subscriber moves from one cell to another.

If you’re not familiar with GTP take a read of this primer.

As we covered in the last post, the Packet Gateway (P-GW) handles decapsulating and encapsulating this traffic into GTP from external networks, and vise-versa. The Packet Gateway sends the traffic onto a Serving Gateway, that forwards the GTP-U traffic onto the eNodeB serving the user.

So why not just route the traffic from the Packet Gateway directly to the eNodeB?

As our users are inherently mobile, the signalling load to keep updating the destination of the incoming GTP-U traffic to the correct eNB, would put an immense load on the P-GW. So an intermediary gateway – the Serving Gateway (S-GW), is introduced.

The S-GW handles the mobility between cells, and takes the load of the P-GW. The P-GW just hands the traffic to a S-GW and let’s the S-GW handle the mobility.

It’s worth keeping in mind that most LTE connections are not “always on”. Subscribers (UEs) go into “Idle Mode”, in which the data connection and the radio connection is essentially paused, and able to be bought back at a moments notice (this allows us to get better battery life on the UE and better frequency utilisation).

When a user enters Idle Mode, an incoming packet needs to be buffered until the Subscriber/UE can get paged and come back online. Again this function is handled by the S-GW; buffering packets until the UE comes available then forwarding them on.

Getting TEID up with GTP Tunnels

EPC, GSM, LTE, Mobile Networks, Uncategorized, , , , , ,

If you’re using an GSM / GPRS, UMTS, LTE or NR network, there’s a good chance all your data to and from the terminal is encapsulated in GTP.

GTP encapsulates user’s data into a GTP PDU / packet that can be redirected easily. This means as users of the network roam around from one part of the network to another, the destination IP of the GTP tunnel just needs to be updated, but the user’s IP address doesn’t change for the duration of their session as the user’s data is in the GTP payload.

One thing that’s a bit confusing is the TEID – Tunnel Endpoint Identifier.

Each tunnel has a sender TEID and transmitter TEID pair, as setup in the Create Session Request / Create Session Response, but in our GTP packet we only see one TEID.

There’s not much to a GTP-U header; at 8 bytes in all it’s pretty lightweight. Flags, message type and length are all pretty self explanatory. There’s an optional sequence number, the TEID value and the payload itself.

So the TEID identifies the tunnel, but it’s worth keeping in mind that the TEID only identifies a data flow from one Network Element to another, for example eNB to S-GW would have one TEID, while S-GW to P-GW would have another TEID.

Each tunnel has two TEIDs, a sending TEID and a receiving TEID. For some reason (Minimize overhead on backhaul maybe?) only the sender TEID is included in the GTP header;

This means a packet that’s coming from a mobile / UE will have one TEID, while a packet that’s going to the same mobile / UE will have a different TEID.

Mapping out TIEDs is typically done by looking at the Create Session Request / Responses, the Create Session Request will have one TIED, while the Create Session Response will have a different TIED, thus giving you your TIED pair.

GTPv2 – F-TEID Interface Types

EPC, LTE, Mobile Networks, Python, RFCs & Standards, , ,

I’ve been working on a ePDG for VoWiFi access to my IMS core.

This has led to a bit of a deep dive into GTP (easy enough) and GTPv2 (Bit harder).

The Fully Qualified Tunnel Endpoint Identifier includes an information element for the Interface Type, identified by a two digit number.

Here we see S2b is 32

In the end I found the answer in 3GPP TS 29.274, but thought I’d share it here.

0S1-U eNodeB GTP-U interface
1S1-U SGW GTP-U interface
2S12 RNC GTP-U interface
3S12 SGW GTP-U interface
4S5/S8 SGW GTP-U interface
5S5/S8 PGW GTP-U interface
6S5/S8 SGW GTP-C interface
7S5/S8 PGW GTP-C interface
8S5/S8 SGW PMIPv6 interface (the 32 bit GRE key is encoded in 32 bit TEID field and since alternate CoA is
not used the control plane and user plane addresses are the same for PMIPv6)
9S5/S8 PGW PMIPv6 interface (the 32 bit GRE key is encoded in 32 bit TEID field and the control plane and
user plane addresses are the same for PMIPv6)
10S11 MME GTP-C interface
11S11/S4 SGW GTP-C interface
12S10 MME GTP-C interface
13S3 MME GTP-C interface
14S3 SGSN GTP-C interface
15S4 SGSN GTP-U interface
16S4 SGW GTP-U interface
17S4 SGSN GTP-C interface
18S16 SGSN GTP-C interface
19eNodeB GTP-U interface for DL data forwarding
20eNodeB GTP-U interface for UL data forwarding
21RNC GTP-U interface for data forwarding
22SGSN GTP-U interface for data forwarding
23SGW GTP-U interface for DL data forwarding
24Sm MBMS GW GTP-C interface
25Sn MBMS GW GTP-C interface
26Sm MME GTP-C interface
27Sn SGSN GTP-C interface
28SGW GTP-U interface for UL data forwarding
29Sn SGSN GTP-U interface
30S2b ePDG GTP-C interface
31S2b-U ePDG GTP-U interface
32S2b PGW GTP-C interface
33S2b-U PGW GTP-U interface

I also found how this data is encoded on the wire is a bit strange,

In the example above the Interface Type is 7,

This is encoded in binary which give us 111.

This is then padded to 6 bits to give us 000111.

This is prefixed by two additional bits the first denotes if IPv4 address is present, the second bit is for if IPv6 address is present.

Bit 1Bit 2Bit 3-6
IPv4 Address Present IPv4 Address PresentInterface Type
11 000111

This is then encoded to hex to give us 87

Here’s my Python example;

interface_type = int(7)
interface_type = "{0:b}".format(interface_type).zfill(6)   #Produce binary bits
ipv4ipv6 = "10" #IPv4 only
interface_type = ipv4ipv6 + interface_type #concatenate the two
interface_type  = format(int(str(interface_type), 2),"x") #convert to hex

Why GTP for Mobile Networks?

EPC, LTE, Mobile Networks, RFCs & Standards, , , , ,

Let’s take a look at GTP, the workhorse of mobile user plane packet data.

This post covers all generations of mobile data (2.5 -> 5G), so I’m using generic terms.

GSM, UMTS, LTE & NR all have one protocol in common – GTP – The GPRS Tunneling Protocol.

So why do every generation of mobile data networks from GSM/GPRS in 2000, to 5G NR Standalone in 2020, rely on this one protocol for transporting user data?

So Why GTP?

GTP – the GPRS Tunnelling Protocol, is what encapsulates and tunnels IP packets from the internet / packet data network, to and from the User.

So why encapsulate the packets? What if the Base Station had access to the internet and routed the traffic to the users?

Let’s say we did that, we’d have to have large pools of IP addresses available at each Base Station and when a user connected they’d be assigned an IP Address and traffic for these users would be routed to the Base Station which would forward it onto the user.

This would work well until a user moves from one Base Station to another, when they’d have to get a new IP Address allocated.

TCP/IP was never designed to be mobile, an IP address only exists in a single location.

Breaking out traffic directly from a base station would have other issues, such as no easy way to enforce QoS or traffic policies, meter usage, etc.

How to fix IP’s lack of mobility? GTP.

GTP addressed the mobility issue by having a single fixed point the IP Address is assigned to (In GSM/GRPS/UMTS this is the Gateway GPRS Support Node, in LTE this is the P-GW and in 5G-SA this is the UPF), which encapsulates IP traffic to/from a mobile user into GTP Packet.

You can think of GTP like GRE or any of the other common encapsulation protocols, wrapping up the IP packets into a GTP packet which we can rerouted to different Base Stations as the users move from being served by one Base Station to another.

This easy redirecting / rerouting of user traffic is why GTP is used for NR (5G), LTE (4G), UMTS (3G) & GPRS (2.5G) architectures.

GTP Packets

When looking at a GTP packet of user data you’d be forgiven for thinking nothing much goes on,

Example GTP packet containing a DNS query

Like in most tunneling / encapsulation protocols we’ve got the original network / protocol stack of IPv4 and UDP, and a payload of a GTP packet.

The packet itself is pretty bare bones, there’s flags, denoting a few basics like version number, the message type (T-PDU), the length of the GTP packet and it’s payload (used for delineating the end of the payload), a sequence number an a Tunnel Endpoint Identifier (TEID).

In the payload, we can see the network / protocol stack and application layer of the contents of the GTP packet.

From a mobility standpoint, the beauty of GTP is that it takes IP packets and puts them into a media stream of sorts, with out of band signalling, this means we can change the parameters of our GTP stream easily without touching the encapsulated IP Packet.

When a UE moves from one base station to another, all that has to happen is the destination the GTP packets are sent to is changed from the old base station to the new base station. This is signalled using GTP-C in GPRS/UMTS, GTPv2-C in LTE and HTTP in 5G-SA.

Traffic to and from the UE would look the same as the screenshot above, the only difference would be the first IPv4 address would be different, but the IPv4 address in the GTP tunnel would be the same.