Tag Archives: Mobile Networks

Uncomfortable Questions to ask about 5G Standalone at MWC – Part 2 – Has this Cash cow got Milk?

5G SA, EPC, Mobile Networks, RFCs & Standards, Software, , , , ,

This is the second post of 3 presenting the argument against introducing 5G-SA.

There’s an old adage that businesses spend money for one of three reasons:

  • To Save Money (Which I covered yesterday)
  • To make more Money (This post, congratulations, you’re reading it!)
  • Because they have to (Regulatory compliance, insurance, taxes, etc) – That’s the next post

So let’s look at SA in this context.

5G-SA can drive new revenue streams

We (as an industry) suck at this.

Last year on the Telecoms.com podcast, Scott Bicheno made the point that if operators took all the money they’d gambled (and lost) on trying to play in the sports rights, involvement in media companies, building their own streaming apps, attempts at bundling other utilities, digital identity, etc, and just left the cash in the bank and just operated the network, they’d be better off.

Uber, Spotify, “OTTs”, etc, utilize MNOs to enable their services, but operators don’t see this extra revenue.
While some operators may talk of “fair share” the truth is, these companies add value to our product (connectivity) which as an industry, we’ve failed to add ourselves.

Last year at MWC we saw vendors were still beating the drum about 5G being critical for the “Metaverse”, just weeks before Meta announced they were moving away from the Metaverse.

Today the only device getting any attention from consumers is Apple’s Vision Pro, a very pricey, currently niche offering, which has no SIM card or cellular connectivity.

If the Metaverse does turn out to be a cash cow, it is unlikely the telecommunications industry will be the ones milking it.

Claim: Customers are willing to pay more for 5G-SA

This myth seems to be fairly persistent, but with minimal data to support this claim.

While BSS vendors talk about “5G Monetization”, the truth is, people use their MNO to provide them connectivity. If the coverage is adequate, and the speed enough to do what they need to do, few would be willing to pay any additional cash each month to see higher numbers on a speedtest result (enabled by 5G-NSA) and even fewer would pay extra cash for, well, whatever those features only enabled by 5G-Standalone are?

With most consumers now also holding onto their mobile devices for longer periods of time, and with interest rates reining in consumer spending across the board, we are seeing the rise of a more cost conscious consumer than ever before. If we want to see higher ARPUs, we need to give the consumer a compelling reason to care and spend their cash, beyond a speed test result.

We talk a little about APIs lower down in the post.

Claim: Users want Ultra-Low Latency / High Reliability Comms that only 5G-SA delivers

Wanting to offer a product to the market, is not the same as the market wanting a product to consume.

Telecom operators want customers to want these services, but customer take up rates tell a different story. For a product like this to be viable, it must have a wide enough addressable market to justify the investment.

Reliability

The URLCC standards focus on preventing packet loss, but the world has moved on from needing zero packet loss.

The telecom industry has a habit of deciding what customers want without actually listening.
When a customer talks about wanting “reliable” comms, they aren’t saying they want zero packet loss, but rather fewer dropouts or service flaps.
For us to give the customer what they are actually asking for involves us expanding RAN footprint and adding transmission diversity, not 5G-SA.

The “protocols of the internet” (TCP/IP) have been around for more than 50 years now.

These protocols have always flowed over transport links with varied reliability and levels of packet loss.

Thanks to these error correction and retransmission techniques built into these protocols, a lost packet will not interrupt the stream. If your nuclear command and control network were carried over TCP/IP over the public internet (please don’t do this), a missing packet won’t lead to worldwide annihilation, but rather the sender will see the receiver never acknowledged the receipt of the packet at the other end, and resend it, end of.

If you walk into a hospital today, you’ll find patient monitoring devices, tracking the vital signs for patients and alerting hospital staff if a patient’s vital signs change. It is hard to think of more important services for reliability than this.

And yet they use WiFi, and have done for a long time, if a packet is lost on WiFi (as happens regularly) it’s just retransmitted and the end user never knows.

Autonomous cars are unlikely to ever rely on a 5G connection to operate, for the simple reason that coverage will never be 100%. If your car stops because you’re in a not-spot, you won’t be a happy customer. While plenty of cars have cellular modems in them, that are used to upload telemetry data back to the manufacturer, but not to drive the car.

One example of wireless controlled vehicles in the wild is autonomous haul trucks in mines. Historically, these have used WiFi for their comms. Mine sites are often a good fit for Private LTE, but there’s nothing inherent in the 5G Standalone standard that means it’s the only tool for the job here.

Slicing

Slicing is available in LTE (4G), with an architecture designed to allow access to others. It failed to gain traction, but is in networks today.

See: Pre-5G Network Slicing.

What is different this time?

Low Latency

The RAN a piece of the latency puzzle here, but it is just one piece of the puzzle.

If we look at the flow a packet takes from the user’s device to the server they want to talk to we’ve got:

  1. Time it takes the UE to craft the packet
  2. Time it takes for the packet to be transmitted over the air to the base station
  3. Time it takes for the packet to get through the RAN transmission network to the core
  4. Time it takes the packet to traverse the packet core
  5. Time it takes for the packet to get out to transit/peering
  6. Time it takes to get the packet from the edge of the operators network to the edge of the network hosting the server
  7. Time it takes the packet through the network the server is on
  8. Time it takes the server to process the request

The “low latency” bit of the 5G puzzle only involves the two elements in bold.

If you’ve got to get from point A to point B along a series of roads, and the speed limit on two of the roads you traverse (short sections already) is increased. The overall travel time is not drastically reduced.

I’m lucky, I have access to a well kitted out lab which allows me to put all of these latency figures to the test and provide side by side metrics. If this is of interest to anyone, let me know. Otherwise in the meantime you’ll just have to accept some conjecture and opinion.

You could rebut this talking about Edge Compute, and having the datacenter at the base of the tower, but for a number of fairly well documented reasons, I think this is unlikely to attract widespread deployment in established carrier networks, and Intel’s recent yearly earning specifically called this out.


Claim: Customers want APIs and these needs 5G SA

Companies like Twilio have made it easy to interact with the carrier network via their APIs, but yet again, it’s these companies producing the additional value on a service operated by the MNOs.

My coffee machine does not have an API, and I’m OK with this because I don’t have a want or need to interact with it programatically.

By far, the most common APIs used by businesses involving telco markets are APIs to enable sending an SMS to a user.

These have been around for a long time, and the A2P market is pretty well established, and the good news is, operators already get a chunk of this pie, by charging for the SMS.

Imagine a company that makes medical booking software. They’re a tech company, so they want their stack to work anywhere in the world, and they want to be able to send reminder SMS to end users.

They could get an account manager with each of the telcos in each of the markets they work in, onboard and integrate the arcane complexities of each operators wholesale SMS system, or they could use Twilio or a similar service, which gives them global reach.

Often the cost of services like Twilio are cheaper than working directly with the carriers in each market, and even if it is marginally more expensive, the cost savings by not having to deal with dozens of carriers or integrate into dozens of systems, far outweighs this.

GSMA’s OpenGateway Initiative has sought to rectify this, but it lacks support for the use case we just discussed.

While it’s a great idea, in the context of 5G Standalone and APIs, it’s worth noting that none of the use cases in OpenGateway require 5G Standalone (Except possibly Edge discovery, but it is debatable).

Even Slicing existed before in LTE.

Critically, from a developer experience perspective:

I can sign up to services like Twilio without a credit card, and start using the service right away, with examples in my programming language of choice, the developer user experience is fantastic.

Jump on the OpenGateway website today and see if you can even find a way to sign up to use the service?

Claim: Fixed Wireless works best with 5G-SA

Of all the touted use cases and applications for 5G, Fixed Wireless (FWA) has been the most successful.

The great thing about FWA on Cellular networks is you can use the same infrastructure you use for your mobile customers, and then sell excess capacity in the network to deliver Fixed Wireless Access services, better utilizing an asset (great!).

But again, this does not require Standalone 5G. If you deploy your FWA network using 5G SA, then you won’t be able to sweat that same asset for both mobile subscribers and FWA subscribers.

Today at least, very few handsets short of this generation of flagship phones, supports 5G SA. Even the phones sold as supporting 5G over the past few years, are almost all only supporting 5G-NSA, so if you rolled out your FWA network as Standalone, you can’t better utilize the asset by sharing with your existing LTE/5G-NSA customers.

Claim: The Killer App is coming for 5G and it needs 5G SA

This space is reserved for the killer app that requires 5G Standalone.

Whenever that comes?

Anyone?

I’m not paying to build a marina berth for my mega yacht, mostly because I don’t have one. Ditto this.

Could you explain to everyone on an investor call that you’re investing in something where the vessel of the payoff isn’t even known to exist? Telecom is “blue chip”, hardly speculative.

The Future for Revenue Growth?

Maybe there isn’t one.

I know it’s an unthinkable thought for a lot of operators, but let’s look at it rationally; in the developed world, everyone who wants a mobile service already has one.

This leaves operators with two options; gaining market share from their competitors and selling more/higher priced services to existing customers.

You don’t steal away customers from other operators by offering a higher priced product, and with reduced consumer spending people aren’t queuing up to spend more each month.

But there is a silver lining, if you can’t grow revenues, you can still shrink expenditure, which in the end still gets the same result at the end of the quarter – More cash.

Simplify your operations, focus on what you do really well (mobile services), the whole 80/20 rule, get better at self service, all that guff.

There’s no shortage of pain points for consumers telecom operators could address, to make the customer experience better, but few that include the word Slicing.

LTE UE Attach Procedures in Evolved Packet Core (EPC)

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

There’s a lot of layers of signalling in the LTE / EUTRAN attach procedure, but let’s take a look at the UE attach procedure from the Network Perspective.

We won’t touch on the air interface / Uu side of things, just the EPC side of the signaling.

To make life a bit easier I’ve put different signalling messages in different coloured headings:

Blue is S1AP

Orange is Diameter

Green is GTP-C (GTP-v2)

S1AP: initiating Message, Attach Request, PDN Connectivity Request

eNB to MME

After a UE establishes a connection with a cell, the first step involved in the attach process is for the UE / subscriber to identify themselves and the network to authenticate them.

The TAI, EUTRAN-CGI and GUMME-ID sections all contain information about the serving network, such the tracking area code, cell global identifier and global MME ID to make up the GUTI.

The NAS part of this request contains key information about our UE and it’s capabilities, most importantly it includes the IMSI or TMSI of the subscriber, but also includes important information such as SRVCC support, different bands and RAN technologies it supports, codecs, but most importantly, the identity of the subscriber.

If this is a new subscriber to the network, the IMSI is sent as the subscriber identity, however wherever possible sending the IMSI is avoided, so if the subscriber has connected to the network recently, the M-TMSI is used instead of the IMSI, and the MME has a record of which M-TMSI to IMSI mapping it’s allocated.

Diameter: Authentication Information Request

MME to HSS

The MME does not have a subscriber database or information on the Crypto side of things, instead this functionality is offloaded to the HSS.

I’ve gone on and on about LTE UE/Subscriber authentication, so I won’t go into the details as to how this mechanism works, but the MME will send a Authentication-Information Request via Diameter to the HSS with the Username set to the Subscriber’s IMSI.

Diameter: Authentication Information Response

HSS to MME

Assuming the subscriber exists in the HSS, a Authentication-Information Answer will be sent back from the HSS via Diameter to the MME, containing the authentication vectors to send to the UE / subscriber.

S1AP: DownlinkNASTransport, Authentication request

MME to eNB

Now the MME has the Authentication vectors for that UE / Subscriber it sends back a DownlinkNASTransport, Authentication response, with the NAS section populated with the RAND and AUTN values generated by the HSS in the Authentication-Information Answer.

The Subscriber / UE’s USIM looks at the AUTN value and RAND to authenticate the network, and then calculates it’s response (RES) from the RAND value to provide a RES to send back to the network.

S1AP: UplinkNASTransport, Authentication response

eNB to MME

The subscriber authenticates the network based on the sent values, and if the USIM is happy that the network identity has been verified, it generates a RES (response) value which is sent in the UplinkNASTransport, Authentication response.

The MME compares the RES sent Subscriber / UE’s USIM against the one sent by the MME in the Authentication-Information Answer (the XRES – Expected RES).

If the two match then the subscriber is authenticated.

I have written more about this procedure here.

S1AP: DownlinkNASTransport, Security mode command

MME to eNB

The DownlinkNASTransport, Security mode command is then sent by the MME to the UE to activate the ciphering and integrity protection required by the network, as set in the NAS Security Algorithms section;

The MME and the UE/Subscriber are able to derive the Ciphering Key (CK) and Integrity Key (IK) from the sent crypto variables earlier, and now both know them.

S1AP: UplinkNASTransport, Security mode complete

eNB to MME

After the UE / Subscriber has derived the Ciphering Key (CK) and Integrity Key (IK) from the sent crypto variables earlier, it can put them into place as required by the NAS Security algorithms sent in the Security mode command request.

It indicates this is completed by sending the UplinkNASTransport, Security mode complete.

At this stage the authentication of the subscriber is done, and a default bearer must be established.

Diameter: Update Location Request

MME to HSS

Once the Security mode has been completed the MME signals to the HSS the Subscriber’s presence on the network and requests their Subscription-Data from the HSS.

Diameter: Update Location Answer

HSS to MME

The ULA response contains the Subscription Data used to define the data service provided to the subscriber, including the AMBR (Aggregate Maximum Bit Rate), list of valid APNs and TAU Timer.

GTP-C: Create Session Request

MME to S-GW

The MME transfers the responsibility of setting up the data bearers to the S-GW in the form of the Create Session Request.

This includes the Tunnel Endpoint Identifier (TEID) to be assigned for this UE’s PDN.

The S-GW looks at the request and forwards it onto a P-GW for IP address assignment and access to the outside world.

GTP-C: Create Session Request

S-GW to P-GW

The S-GW sends a Create Session Request to the P-GW to setup a path to the outside world.

Diameter: Credit Control Request

P-GW to PCRF

To ensure the subscriber is in a state to establish a new PDN connection (not out of credit etc), a Credit Control Request is sent to the HSS.

Diameter: Credit Control Answer

PCRF to P-GW

Assuming the Subscriber has adequate credit for this, a Credit Control Answer is sent and the P-GW and continue the PDN setup for the subscriber.

GTP-C: Create Session Response

P-GW to S-GW

The P-GW sends back a Create Session Response, containing the IP address allocated to this PDN (Framed-IP-Address).

GTP-C: Create Session Response

S-GW to MME

The S-GW slightly changes and then relays the Create Session Response back to the MME,

S1AP: InitialContextSetupRequest, Attach accept, Activate default EPS bearer context

MME to eNB

This message is sent to inform the eNB of the details of the PDN connection to be setup, ie AMBR, tracking area list, APN and Protocol Configuration Options,

This contains the Tunnel Endpoint Identifier (TEID) for this PDN to identify the GTP packets.

S1AP: UEcapabilityInfoIndication, UEcapabilityIndication

eNB to MME

This message contains the RATs supported by the UE, such as the technology (GERAN/UTRAN) and bands supported on each.

GTP: Echo Request

eNB to MME

To confirm a GTP session is possible the eNB sends a GTP Echo Request to confirm the MME is listening for GTP traffic.

GTP: Echo Response

MME to eNB

The MME sends back a GTP Echo response to confirm it’s listening.

S1AP: InitialContextSetupResponse

eNB to MME

This contains the Tunnel Endpoint Identifier (TEID) and confirmation the context can be setup, but has not yet been activated.

S1AP: UplinkNAStransport, Attach complete, Activate default EPS bearer accept

eNB to MME

This tells the MME the EPS Bearer / PDN session has been activated.

S1AP: DownlinkNAStransport, EMM Information

MME to eNB

This confirms the MME is aware the EPS bearer / PDN session has been activated and provides network name and time settings to be displayed.

GTP-C: Modify Bearer Request

MME to S-GW

As the MME initially requested the S-GW setup the GTP session / PDN context, the S-GW set it up sending traffic to the MME,

Now the UE is online the GTP session must be modified to move the GTP traffic from the MME’s IP address to the IP Address of the eNB.

GTP-C: Modify Bearer Response

S-GW to the MME

The S-GW redirects GTP traffic from the MME IP to the IP Address of the eNB.

SMS over SGi interface on Open5GS MME and OsmoMSC

Sending SMS in Open5GS LTE Networks using the SGs Interface and OsmoMSC with SMSoS

EPC, EUTRAN, GSM, IMS / VoLTE, LTE, Mobile Networks, , , , , , , , ,

We recently covered Circuit Switched fallback between LTE EUTRAN and GSM GERAN, and the SGs interface between the MME and the MSC.

One nifty feature of this interface is that you can send SMS using the MSC to switch the SMS traffic and the LTE/EUTRAN to transfer the messaging.

This means you don’t need Circuit Switched Fallback to send or receive SMS on LTE.

I assume this functionality was added to avoid the signalling load of constantly changing RAN technologies each time a subscriber sent or received an SMS, but I couldn’t find much about it’s history.

In order to get this to work you’ll essentially need the exact same setup I outlined in my CSFB example (Osmo-MSC, Osmo-STP, Osmo-HLR populated with the IMSI and MSISDN values you want to use for SMS), although you won’t actually need a GERAN / GSM radio network.

Once that’s in place you can just send SMS between subscribers,

Plus from the VTY terminal of OsmoMSC you can send SMS too:

OsmoMSC# subscriber msisdn 61487654321 sms sender msisdn 61412341234 send Hello World
Using the SGs interface for Circuit Switched Fallback (CSFB) Calls from LTE falling back to GSM

OsmoMSC and Open5GS MME – SGs Interface for InterRAT Handover & SMS

EPC, EUTRAN, GSM, LTE, Mobile Networks, , , , , , , , ,

I’ve talked about how LTE’s EUTRAN / EPC has no knowledge about voice calls or SMS and instead relies on IMS/VoLTE for these services.

Circuit Switched Fallback allows UEs to use a 2G or 3G network (Circuit Switched network) if their device isn’t connected to the IMS network to make calls as the 2G/3G network can handle the voice call or SMS routing via the Mobile Switching Center in the 2G/3G network.

However for incoming calls destined to the UE (Mobile Terminated) the MSC needs a way to keep track of which MME is serving the UE so it can get a message to the MME and the MME can relay it to the UE, to tell it to drop to a 2G or 3G network (Circuit Switched network).

The signalling between the MME (In the LTE EPC) and the MSC (In the GSM/UTRAN core) is done over the SGs interface.

While the SGs interface is primarily for managing user location state across multiple RAN types, it’s got a useful function for sending SMS over SGi, allowing users on an LTE RAN to send SMS via the MSC of the 2G/3G network (GSM/UTRAN core).

How it Works:

When a UE connects to the LTE RAN (EUTRAN) the MME signals the GSM/UMTS MSC with an SGsAP-LOCATION-UPDATE-REQUEST,

This request includes the IMSI of the subscriber that just attached and the FQDN of the MME serving that UE.

The MSC now knows that IMSI 001010000000003 is currently on LTE RAN served by MME mmec01.mmegi0002.mme.epc.mnc001.mcc001.3gppnetwork.org,

If a call or SMS comes into the MSC destined for the MSISDN of that IMSI, the MSC can page the UE on the LTE RAN to tell it to do an inter-RAN handover to GSM/UMTS.

Setting it Up

In order to get this working you’ll need OsmoMSC in place, your subscribers to exist on OsmoHLR and the LTE HSS – For example Open5GS-HSS.

If you’re not familiar with OsmoMSC or the Osmocom stack I did a series of posts covering them you can find here. If you want to get this setup I’d suggest following the posts on installing the Osmocom Software, setting up the MSC, the STP and the HLR.

Once you’ve done that the additional config on OsmoMSC is fairly simple, we just define a new SGs interface to listen on:

OsmoMSC Config:

sgs
  local-port 29118
  local-ip 0.0.0.0
  vlr-name vlr.msc001.mnc001.mcc001.3gppnetwork.org
end

On the Open5GS side we’ve got to include the SGs info the MME config. Keep in mind the Tracking Area Code (TAC) in LTE must exist as the Location Area code (LAC) in GSM, here’s an extract of the MME section of YAML config in the Open5GS MME config:

mme:
    freeDiameter: /etc/freeDiameter/mme.conf
    s1ap:
    gtpc:

    sgsap:
      addr: 10.0.1.9
      map:
        tai:
          plmn_id:
            mcc: 001
            mnc: 01
          tac: 7
        lai:
          plmn_id:
            mcc: 001
            mnc: 01
          lac: 7



    gummei: 
      plmn_id:
        mcc: 001
        mnc: 01
      mme_gid: 2
      mme_code: 1
    tai:
      plmn_id:
        mcc: 001
        mnc: 01
      tac: 7
    security:
        integrity_order : [ EIA1, EIA2, EIA0 ]
        ciphering_order : [ EEA0, EEA1, EEA2 ]
    network_name:
        full: Open5GS
sgw:
    gtpc:
      addr: 127.0.0.2
      addr: 10.0.1.252

pgw:
    gtpc:
      addr:
        - 127.0.0.3
        - ::1

Neighbours Configured

The EUTRAN will need to advertise the presence of it’s GERAN neighbours and vise-versa so the UE/terminals know what ARFCN to move to so they don’t need to scan for the presence of other RATs when performing the handover.

Setting this up will depend on your eNB / BSC and goes beyond the scope of this post.

I’ll cover setting up neighbours in a later post as it’s a big topic.

If you don’t have neighbours configured, the handover will still work but will be much slower as the UE will have to scan to find the serving cell it’s reselecting to.

Example Packet Capture

SGs_CSFB_MO_and_MT_Calls.pcapDownload