White Paper

Analysis of Traffic Offload : WiFi to Rescue

Overview
Using WiFi as an alternative access network technology is not a new phenomena. Since mid 1990s, mobile industry has been looking at using WiFi as a complementary access technology. Early interworking models relied on Authorization Authentication Accounting (AAA) integration and WiFi access network and Packet Core connectivity. Later on with the advent of dual-mode handsets, WiFi has become an access network alternative primarily to enhance coverage in doors. More recently with the introduction of smartphones, WiFi has become an essential wireless networking technology for mobile devices. Considering mobile communications industry is heading towards tiered pricing plans, it is natural to expect mobile devices to use WiFi more often to reduce consumption over the macro network technologies such as Evolution Data Optimized (EV-DO), High Speed Packet Access (HSPA), Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access (Wimax) and even Long Term Evolution (LTE). Current estimates show already 40% of content delivered to smartphones is provided over WiFi access networks [1]. For laptops, netbooks, PDAs, this number is expected to be higher. WirelessE2E LLC www.wirelesse2e.com September 2010 Page 1 of 23

White Paper In this paper, we will examine the history and progress of WiFi integration with mobile service provider networks, review a number of recent interworking proposals to achieve traffic offload and provide an analysis on the likely technology outcomes in this area.

Before Dual Mode Handsets

Until 802.11b ratification radio link speed was limited to 1 and 2 Mb/s Since mid 1990s, mobile industry has been looking at using WiFi as a complementary access technology. This has gained momentum with the ratification of 802.11a and 802.11b in September 1999. Especially 802.11b with its 2.4 GHz spectrum, allowing three non-overlapped channels and ability to use 11 Mb/s as its peak radio link rate, it looked very attractive to mobile service providers. While public WiFi service providers were advertising peak rates of 1.5 or 2.0 Mb/s, mainly limited by the backhaul link (T1 or E1) in early 2000s, macro networks were still using Circuit Switched Data (CSD) at 9.6 kbps or Cellular Digital Packet Data (CDPD). Intel added 802.11g support to Centrino in 2004 During the early parts of the decade, 2001-2002, mobile communications industry focused on bringing up 2.5G networks, with the exception of NTT DoCoMo and Softbank in Japan that turned up their 3G networks before the end of 2002. During this period, industry realized the potential benefits of using WiFi as an access technology. Especially with the launch of Intel's Centrino in February 2003 and the ratification of 802.11g in June 2003, WiFi has gained even bigger momentum. Since handheld terminals were lacking WiFi capability, primary focus of the industry was allowing WiFi to be used as an alternative access technology for laptops and possibly more esoteric devices like Compaq/HP iPaqs. Users were expected to switch from one network to WirelessE2E LLC www.wirelesse2e.com September 2010 Page 2 of 23

White Paper another, typically manually for Packet Switched (PS) services only. Therefore, the level of integration was primarily limited to the use of common AAA platforms and interconnectivity of a WiFi access network to a 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Packet Core network. 3GPP Technical Standard (TS) 23.234 which was originally published as part of release 6 standards in 2004 covered these two aspects [2]. TS 23.234 covered multiple scenarios describing the connectivity between the WiFi access network and 3GPP packet core network(s) including roaming, sharing of an access network among multiple Internet Service Providers (ISPs). WiFi-Packet Core interworking was a limited success due to a number of reasons: First Nokia 802.11b card with integrated SIM was available as early as 2000. Subscriber terminals (laptops, PCMCIA cards) lacked the capability of Subscriber Identity Module (SIM) integration. Few attempts were made by companies such as Nokia that had an 802.11b card with an integrated SIM in the market for a short time early in the decade. However, user adoption of such devices didn't materialize since WiFi networks needed significant investment to support SIM-based authentication. Billing and provisioning systems of many service providers were designed around subscriber identity based on International Mobile Subscriber Identity (IMSI). This tied such systems to rely on the provisioning of SIMs and use of Mobile Subscriber Integrated Services Digital Network Number (MSISDN). Interconnecting WiFi access networks back to mobile service provider Packet Core networks wasn't attractive primarily due to limited benefits and high cost. Original 2.5G networks were

WirelessE2E LLC www.wirelesse2e.com

September 2010

Page 3 of 23

White Paper universally deployed around the principle of interconnecting the roamed access network back to home packet core where the General Packet Radio Services (GPRS) Gateway Serving Node (GGSN) or Packet Data Gateway (PDG) exist. This model was adopted by operators early on since they had a large content business that required customer to be connected to home operator's wall-garden. Since all customer traffic was traversing through the home network, operators were able to identify flows belonging to particular customers to simplify (hide) authentication and authorization details from the mobile users. Considering 2.5G usage was miniscule (compared to today's 3G and 4G device usage) and data roaming prices were quite steep, this approach worked well for the mobile operators. On the other hand, WiFi access network users were interested in a quick ramp to Internet. They were not willing to pay a high cost and did not have much interest in home operator services in its walled-garden. During early 2000s, primary competition for mobile VPN technology were Secure Socket Layer (SSL) and IP Security (IPSec). During the early parts of the decade, many mobile operators that went into the WiFi access network business ended up building a separate network and along with a different business unit. They used WiFi as a marketing tool that increased their brand coverage as well as a way to prevent any competitive threats to their business for Internet connectivity. Some operators experimented and continued to offer technology solutions (e.g., BirdStep Technology, NetMotionWireless, ColumbiTech, SmithMicro mobile Virtual Private Network (VPN) clients) that overlay over their macro 2.5G/3G networks and their WiFi access networks. But these mobile VPN solutions ended up mainly restricted to enterprise users. Many operators solved AAA integration by mash-ups involving their WiFi login pages with their Short Messaging Service (SMS). WirelessE2E LLC www.wirelesse2e.com September 2010 Page 4 of 23

White Paper

Before Smartphones
First example device in WiFiAlliance approval list was Motorola MPx that received its approval in August 2004 and FCC-type approval for its GSM radio in December of the same year. It was never marketed. First dual-mode terminal (with Global System for Mobile communications (GSM) or Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) and WiFi capability) didn't come to market until 2005. In 2006, multiple manufacturers including Samsung, Nokia, Blackberry introduced their dual-mode devices. Earlier in the decade, start-up firm Kineto proposed an alternative way of integrating WiFi and GSM. Their primary idea was to use WiFi as a transport link between a dual-mode handset and the operator network carrying GSM/GPRS signaling as well as voice and data bearers. Their proposal has led to the standardization of Unlicensed Mobile Access (UMA) in September 2004 which was later incorporated into 3GPP TS 43.318 release 6 [3]. Following figure from UMA Forum web page (http://www.smart-wi-fi.com) describes the interaction between a UMA User Equipment (UE) and the network.

UMA's biggest benefit was to solve coverage problems experienced by

WirelessE2E LLC www.wirelesse2e.com

September 2010

Page 5 of 23

White Paper many users, especially at home. Operators such as T-Mobile USA, Orange, BT have become early adopters of the technology. Since mobility complexity (user interaction) was hidden from the user, UMA has become a mass-market product as opposed to earlier mobile VPN integration technologies. As of September 2010, UMA Forum website points to only 6 (activelysold) UMA feature phones. It includes 7 Blackberry models, Nokia E73 and a reference to all Android smartphones. UMA's progress was hampered by two major factors: cost/complexity it added to the dual-mode handset and a difficult marketing environment. Handset cost/complexity was the natural result of building a consumergrade technology. Since mobility between macro network and WiFi was the foundational tenet of the technology, handset development cost was increased due to additional testing and integration effort. Marketing of UMA by mobile carriers using this technology was a mixed-bag. Majority of them emphasized the coverage benefit of UMA but they didn't put significant marketing budgets behind the promise. Instead additional calling packages were offered. Furthermore many operators who already have strong in-door, at-home coverage continued negative marketing, calling UMA an interim technology. Such operators positioned femtocell as the long-term solution to in-door coverage expectations of their customers.

After iPhone and Android

Introduction of iPhone in 2007 and Android in 2008 changed the smartphone usage dramatically. Both platforms have adopted WiFi as an essential wireless access technology. Apple made iTouch platform with WiFi radio only in addition to iPhone. Furthermore, Apple took a strong stance on deciding which applications should be used on macro GSM/3G networks and which applications should be limited to WiFi only. Apple WirelessE2E LLC www.wirelesse2e.com September 2010 Page 6 of 23

White Paper with partnership with major carriers such as AT&T has developed traffic offloading mechanisms. This has motivated AT&T to expand their WiFi footprint substantially after the iPhone launch. Similarly, Android platform integrated WiFi radio well into the software development kit from the beginning. Many applications in the Android marketplace were written to exploit the throughput, latency and zero-cost (for local content) advantages of WiFi. WISPr is developed and standardized by Wireless Broadband Alliance. Most fundamental changes brought by iPhone, Android and Blackberry include the consistency of having WiFi in all devices, rich operating system support for applications that would use WiFi and ability to automatically authenticate into public WiFi networks using Wireless Internet Service Provider roaming (WISPr) capabilities. In addition rapidly increasing wired broadband availability at home and office along with the introduction of 802.11n in iPhone and Android devices in 2010 made WiFi a more viable radio access network choice. As of second half of 2010, neither Android nor IOS (iPhone) supports simultaneous use of WiFi and macro wireless network technologies for IP traffic. Only exception to this is the WiFi tethering capability that was recently introduced to both operating systems. Same restriction also exists in 3GPP standards that are based on the use of one radio access technology at a time for data traffic. 3GPP release 10 standards are being developed to remove this restriction to allow dynamic traffic offloading capability. We will review different offloading techniques later on in this paper.

WirelessE2E LLC www.wirelesse2e.com

September 2010

Page 7 of 23

White Paper

Data Cards, 3G/WiFi Routers and Connection Managers

MiFi is a brand name associated with personal hotspot. In the US, it is a trademark owned by Novatel whereas 3UK owns the same name in the UK and markets a device from Huawei under the same name. Another major device group with dual mode radio is the collection of data cards and 3or4G/WiFi routers. Equipment manufacturers have started delivering dual mode wireless cards (GPRS or IS-95 single carrier radio transmission technology (1xRTT) with WiFi) in the early part of the decade. Later on with the proliferation of 3G networks, as well as introduction of Wimax more multi-mode devices came to market. Introduction of HSPA, EV-DO and Wimax also enabled a new device category (sometimes referred as personal hotspot) that combines one or more macro mobility backhaul link technologies along with WiFi Access Point (AP) capability. Different manufacturers including Cradlepoint, Sierra Wireless, Novatel, Huawei are some of the many manufacturers that developed products to serve this market. Common component of dual-mode data cards and personal hotspot devices is a connection manager that runs on the computing platform where the data card is attached or the embedded device providing the personal hotspot. Connection manager is a software that hides network selection, attachment, authentication, authorization, disconnection details from the user. Furthermore connection managers have advice of billing, optimization capabilities. Connection manager technology has evolved from mobile VPN software we have discussed earlier.

Data Offloading
In order to understand the need for data off-loading, best place to start with is the LTE technology since currently it is the most advanced and widely embraced macro wireless access network technology. Based on WirelessE2E LLC www.wirelesse2e.com September 2010 Page 8 of 23

White Paper the current predictions, the next decade will be the period when LTE is deployed across the world to become the unifying radio access technology. Considering the current diversity in the market, this is a testament to the perceived advantages of LTE. Many of those promises are well publicized: common standard across the globe high spectral efficiency (16.32 bits/Hz per mobile) potential to provide up to 326 Mbit/s per user all IP to overcome circuit switched legacies ability to use re-farmed spectrum

All of these advantages point to a much lower operating cost for providing data services. Compared to the current cost levels (estimated to be around $0.01/MByte) for HSPA+, LTE is expected to reach another order of magnitude in cost reduction ($0.001/MByte) [4]. Cisco has popularized the higher orders of unit of information through their VNI studies. Originally Zettabyte (1021 bytes) was the order of magnitude for the new era of computing. More recently Yottabyte (1024 bytes) came to circulation. WirelessE2E LLC www.wirelesse2e.com Even with this significant cost reduction, expected surge in data usage looks overwhelming. The following figure is from Ciscos public research published under Visual Network Index (VNI) summarizing the trends in Internet traffic as well as predictions.

September 2010

Page 9 of 23

White Paper

This graph and a companion (showing the distribution of total traffic among geographical regions) show that by 2014, total monthly traffic in the US will reach 750 PB (750,000 TB). Based on the most recent CTIA figures, there were about 250,000 base stations in the US as of the end of 2009. Let us assume a brand new LTE base station is placed next to an existing other technology base station and LTE carries only 50% of the total traffic (due to lagging deployment of devices) by 2014. Based on these assumptions, following table shows the severity of the capacity situation.

WirelessE2E LLC www.wirelesse2e.com

September 2010

Page 10 of 23

White Paper

Like any large scale network, wireless service provider networks have fairly long tails in their traffic distribution graphs. Based on the typical Pareto distribution (commonly known as the 80/20 rule), approximately 20% of base stations will be carrying 80% of all traffic. If the same analysis is applied repetitively (assuming self-similarity of traffic distribution patterns), it is possible to demonstrate that top 2.5% of all base stations will carry close to 1/3 of all traffic. Similar to the long-tail geographical distribution of traffic, a significant temporal lumpiness also exists. In other words, traffic is not uniform, instead it increases/decreases with peoples sleeping, working, driving, shopping, etc. habits. Thats why instead of looking at the average throughput, the Busiest Hour in a given month must be considered as the engineering design target. Based on a conservative figure of 0.05% of monthly traffic within the Busiest Hour, a throughput figure of 20 Mbps can be computed for the unlikely scenario of all base stations being equally loaded. If the analysis is limited to the load of top 20% of base stations (50,000 base stations), then per base station throughput requirement of 80 Mbps is derived. Certainly the top 6% or 2.5% of base stations need to serve even higher levels of traffic. By 2014, LTE with a theoretical sector capacity of 48 Mbps (in 44 MIMO downlink with 20+20 MHz deployment scenario) needs multiple base stations and more importantly more spectrum in a significant number of

WirelessE2E LLC www.wirelesse2e.com

September 2010

Page 11 of 23

White Paper base station locations. Same problem was recognized by the recent National Broadband Plan prepared by Federal Communications Commission [5]. Another method to overcome this capacity crunch is to offload a large portion of this traffic to complementary wireless access networks. So far industry has come up with two possible solutions: Industry shipped 200,000 femtocells in 2009. Yearly volume is expected to reach 12M by 2014 (http: berginsight.com) Using LTE femtocells Using WiFi

Femtocell is a viable approach as long as service providers subsidize it and they are ready to handle the operational challenges of deploying and supporting them. Unlicensed nature of spectrum, being a wellestablished home networking technology with significant penetration, commodity hardware and more importantly the presence of a WiFi radio in all new smartphones, tablets and other consumer electronic devices planned for LTE make WiFi traffic offloading as an equally viable alternative to resolve the capacity crunch LTE networks will experience in 2014 and beyond. In 3GPP there are three parallel efforts to address traffic offloading: Local IP Access (LIPA): LIPA provides access to a residential/corporate local network interconnected to a femtocell (Home (e)NodeB Subsystem). Primary motivation is to provide access to a subnet within home or an office for shared resources like printers, file servers, media servers, displays, etc. while a mobile device is attached to the 3GPP operator network. LIPA capability will be introduced with 3GPP Release 10 specif ications.

WirelessE2E LLC www.wirelesse2e.com

September 2010

Page 12 of 23

White Paper Selected IP Traffic Offload (SIPTO): SIPTO refers to the ability to selectively forward different types of traffic via alternative routes to/from the terminal device. Home network flavor of SIPTO is dependent on using a Home (e)NodeB. In this mode, specif ic traffic determined by operator policy and/or subscription transferred to/from (e)NodeB directly to Internet/Intranet bypassing the mobile operator access/core network. Macro network flavor of SIPTO covers the ability to offload traffic next to an Radio Network Controller (RNC) for 3G or Serving Gateway (S-GW) for LTE as opposed to traversing the operator's core network. IP Flow Mobility (IFOM): IFOM specifies the terminal device to connect to two access networks (WiFi and 3G/4G) simultaneously and forward/receive packets belonging to different flows through different access networks. Unlike the other methods IFOM doesn't assume the presence of Home (e)NodeB.

Local IP Access (LIPA)

Fundamental premise of LIPA is the need for the terminal device to have access to resources connected to a local network that can be residential or an office environment. Improved display and computational capabilities of user terminals make them more suitable to actively participate in home or office networking. Today, it is possible to listen to music, view videos, edit documents on user terminals that are typically connected to a mobile operator macro network. With current dual-mode devices users typically turn off their macro access network radio link, turn on their WiFi radio and connect to their local IP network. LIPA is currently proposed as a potential method for making this local IP network access WirelessE2E LLC www.wirelesse2e.com September 2010 Page 13 of 23

White Paper seamless for the user. Even though we are discussing WiFi offload options in this paper, LIPA itself is not dependent on the use of WiFi in the user terminal. Instead, it is based on the presence of a home (e)NodeB and a co-located LocalGateway (L-GW) function. It is being defined in 3GPP standard 23.829 and is expected to be ratified as part of Release 10 [6]. Following figure taken from 3GPP 23.829 describes the network elements involved to implement the LIPA functionality.

Residential / Enterprise network

LIPA L-GW

Backhaul H(e)NB

H(e)NB -GW

Mobile Operator Core Network

UE

User Equipment (UE) interconnects to (e)NodeB via the standard macro network radio interface such as UMTS or LTE. L-GW includes a fullfledged LTE Packet Data Network (PDN)-Gateway (P-GW) or a GPRS GGSN functionality. Therefore it must implement packet filtering, shaping, policing, address assignment for UE and direct tunneling capability with the RAN which happens to be included in the (e)NodeB. Home (e)NodeB Gateway (H(e)NB-GW) is the standard Security Gateway (SeGW) for LTE. In case of UMTS a separate Home NodeB Gateway (HNB-GW) is also needed as in the case of typical femtocell deployments.

WirelessE2E LLC www.wirelesse2e.com

September 2010

Page 14 of 23

White Paper A discovery mechanism for LIPA capability must be built into the architecture. Most likely option for implementation is to include the availability of LIPA capability in the RAN broadcast by (e)NodeB at home or enterprise. Using this information, UE will request network connectivity from MME or SGSN indicating the use of LIPA by a dedicated Access Point Name (APN) or possibly a flag. LIPA introduces a number of changes to existing network elements such as MME, SGSN, Home Subscriber Server (HSS), RAN. Most fundamental change is the placement of a core operator network node (P-GW or GGSN) in the home or enterprise. That brings in additional implementation complexity to (e)nodeB. Furthermore, it requires signaling changes in existing protocols to enable the association between core network nodes like MME or SGSN and UE and (e)NodeB in the customer premises. MME/SGSN must be involved in L-GW selection and scaling this for large number of customer premises devices as opposed to a few S-GW/P-GW/GGSN can be a significant burden.

Selected IP Traffic Offload (SIPTO)

SIPTO extends what LIPA aims to achieve by providing an alternate path for selected traffic. Primary objective is to add capacity to the primary RAN-core network path and reduce unit cost of transport. SIPTO is covered in 3GPP 23.829 along with LIPA and will be standardized as part of Release 10. SIPTO has been developed with two different flavors: WirelessE2E LLC www.wirelesse2e.com SIPTO for Home (e)NodeB SIPTO for the macro network September 2010 Page 15 of 23

White Paper SIPTO for home (e)NodeB is similar to LIPA in terms of necessary changes to network capabilities and additional functionality in the form of a L-GW collocated with Home (e)NodeB. Considering substantial complexity and limited benefit of SIPTO for home (e)NodeB as opposed to LIPA, 3GPP decided to mark that as a future study item beyond release 10. SIPTO for the macro network is a reflection of the current marketplace where a number of packet core equipment vendors including Cisco, Juniper, Tellabs already provide similar capability. Currently these vendors perform the traffic break-out by intercepting the Gn interface traffic between SGSN and GGSN and redirecting RNCs to use a direct tunnel towards a new traffic break-out node typically located closer to RAN. 3GPP will formalize this capability with Release 10 standards. Following figure from TS 23.829 describes how the SIPTO is achieved in a UMTS/GPRS macro network.
SIPTO Traffic

L-GGSN RAN RNC MS

Gn

CN
Gn

Iu

Gn/Gp SGSN

GGSN CN Traffic

In this deployment model, operators may choose to implement a brand new APN that is mapped to a closer L-GGSN (equivalent to L-GW of LIPA). In such a deployment model, no other changes are needed to implement the SIPTO functionality. A more generic solution that would allow the use of a single/common APN needs adding a SIPTO-enabled flag per APN in user subscription, transferring this flag from HSS / Home WirelessE2E LLC www.wirelesse2e.com September 2010 Page 16 of 23

White Paper Location Register (HLR) to MME/SGSN and possibly Dynamic Name Server (DNS) based mechanism for gateway (GGSN or P-GW) selection. SIPTO for the macro network doesn't solve the fundamental capacity crunch we highlighted earlier. Since it is a solution that allows traffic break-out above RAN, it doesn't reduce any potential congestion on the radio interface or the cell site backhaul.

IP Flow Mobility (IFOM)

Unlike LIPA or SIPTO that are dependent on upstream network nodes to provide the optimization of routing different types of traffic, IFOM relies on the handset to achieve this functionality. It explicitly calls for the use of simultaneous connections to both macro network, e.g., LTE, UMTS and WiFi. Therefore, IFOM, unlike LIPA and SIPTO, is truly a release 10onward only technology and it is not applicable for user terminals preRelease 10. IFOM is being specified via 3GPP TS 23.261 [7]. Following diagram shows the interconnectivity model for IFOM capable UE.

IFOM uses an Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Request For Comments (RFC), Dual Stack Mobile IPv6 (DSMIPv6) (RFC-5555) [8]. WirelessE2E LLC www.wirelesse2e.com September 2010 Page 17 of 23

White Paper Since IFOM is based on DSMIPv6, it is independent of the macro network flavor. It can be used for a green-field LTE deployment as well as a legacy GPRS packet core. Earlier on we looked at the mobile network industry attempts of integration between packet core and WLAN networks. Common characteristic of those efforts was the limitation of the UE, its ability to use one radio interface at a time. Therefore, in earlier interworking scenarios UE was forced to use/select one radio network and make a selection to move to an alternative radio for all its traffic. Today many smartphones, data cards with connection managers already have this capability, i.e., when the UE detects the presence of an alternative access network such as a home WiFi AP, it terminates the radio bearers on the macro network and initiates a WiFi connection. Since WiFi access network and packet core integration is not commonly implemented, user typically loses her active data session and re-establishes another one. Similarly access to some operator provided services may not be achieved over WiFi. Considering this limitation both iPhone IOS and Android enabled smartphones to have simultaneous radio access but limited this functionality to sending MMS over the macro network while being connected to WiFi only. IFOM provides simultaneous attachment to two alternate access networks. This allows fine granularity of IP Flow mobility between access networks. Using IFOM, it will be possible to select particular flows per UE and bind them to one of two different tunnels between the UE and the DSMIPv6 Home Agent (HA) that can be implemented within a P-GW or GGSN. DSMIPv6 requires a dual-stack (IPv4 or IPv6) capable UE. It is independent of the access network that can be IPv4 or IPv6. WirelessE2E LLC www.wirelesse2e.com September 2010 Page 18 of 23

White Paper

Analysis
Three alternative architectures that are being standardized by 3GPP have various advantages and shortcomings. They are quite distinct in terms of their dependencies and feasibility. Following table is a summary of comparison among these three approaches for traffic offloading. Characteristics LIPA SIPTO macroIFOM network UE backward It requires minor It allows the use of It requires a releasecompatibility changes in the UE legacy UE. Does not 10 UE along with signaling per depend on WiFi simultaneous WiFi release-10 capability in the and macro network specifications. Does handset. capabilities as well not depend on WiFi as DSMIPv6. capability in the UE. Ability to solve It depends on Since offloading It solves the the fundamental femtocell and takes place above capacity problem problem of provides same RAN, it does not effectively by capacity crunch benefits for have any impact on allowing selected offloading traffic congestion in the flows over the from macro RAN. alternative WiFi network. Extending access network. LIPA for Internet/Intranet access will only benefit core network capacity. Mobility support Mobility among No impact on Full mobility femtocells would mobility support. support at the flow require sub-optimal level between WiFi routing of traffic and macro network. back to operator core. Direct access to It allows direct No direct access is No direct access is home/enterprise access bypassing possible. UE can possible. UE can dependency on communicate with communicate with operator core local network via local network via network. Internet-Operator Internet-Operator core network path. core network path. WirelessE2E LLC www.wirelesse2e.com September 2010 Page 19 of 23

White Paper

Characteristics LIPA

SIPTO macronetwork Standardization It requires changes It requires changes effort in HSS/HLR, in HSS/HLR, SGSN, MME, SGSN, MME. (e)NodeB. Regulatory impact

IFOM It requires changes in policy control, updates in P-GW, GGSN to implement HA capability. If all traffic goes over HA (integrated with P-GW or GGSN), no impact.

Lawful Intercept for No impact to local access is Lawful Intercept difficult but LI-GW capability. under operator control, it is solvable. Dependency on It is dependent on No dependency or No dependency or radio access having home changes needed in changes needed in network (e)NodeB, and the radio access the radio access modifications to network. network. support LIPA. Overall Its fate for success It is straight-forward Implementing Feasibility is dependent on the and highly feasible DMIPv6 on UE and success for to implement even HA is straightfemtocell. It is though it doesn't forward. Primary primarily an solve the difficulty is to enhancement to fundamental overcome concerns femtocell capacity crunch in of mobile operators. architecture. the radio access network. is difficult to pick an outright winner. SIPTO macro-network option is the most straight-forward and most likely to be implemented rather quickly. However, it doesn't solve the fundamental capacity crunch in the radio access network. Therefore its value is limited to being an optimization of

Looking at the relative strengths of the existing traffic offload proposals, it

the packet core/transport network. Some other tangible benefits would be reduction in latency to increase effective throughput for customers as well as easier capacity planning since transport facilities don't need to be dimensioned for large number of radio access network elements anymore. WirelessE2E LLC www.wirelesse2e.com September 2010 Page 20 of 23

White Paper LIPA provides a limited benefit of allowing access to local premises networks without having to traverse through the mobile operator core. Considering it is dependent on the implementation of femtocell, this benefit looks rather small and has no impact on the macro radio network capacity. If LIPA is extended to access to Internet and Intranet, then the additional offload benefit would be on the mobile operator core network similar to the SIPTO macro-network proposal. Femtocell solves the macro radio network capacity crunch. However, the pace of femtocell deployments so far doesn't show a significant momentum. LIPA's market success will be limited until cost of femtocell ownership issues are resolved and mobile operators decide why (coverage or capacity) to deploy femtocells. IFOM is based upon a newer generation of Mobile IP that has been around as a mobile VPN technology for more than 10 years. Unfortunately success record of mobile IP so far has been limited to enterprise applications. It hasn't become a true consumer-grade technology. Introduction of LTE may change this since many operators spearheading LTE deployments are planning to use IPv6 in handsets and adopt a dual-stack approach of having both IPv4 and IPv6 capability. Since many WiFi access networks will stay as IPv4, DSMIPv6 will be the best tunneling mechanism to hide IPv6 from the access network. Having dual-stack capability will allow native access to both legacy IPv4 content and native IPv6 content from major companies such as Google, Facebook, Yahoo, etc. without the hindrance of Network Address Translation (NAT). Considering the popularity of smartphones such as iPhone, Blackberry and various Android phones, they will be the proving ground for the feasibility of DSMIPv6.

WirelessE2E LLC www.wirelesse2e.com

September 2010

Page 21 of 23

White Paper

Conclusions
Enhancing macro radio access network capacity by offloading mobile video traffic will be essential for mobile communications industry to reduce its units costs to match its customer expectations. Two primary paths to achieve this are the use of femtocells and WiFi offloading. Deployment of large scale femtocells for coverage enhancement has been a limited success so far. Using them for capacity enhancements is a new proposition for mobile operators. They need to assess the necessity of using them as well as decide how to deploy them selectively for their heavy users. Use of DMSIPv6 as described in 3GPP work item IFOM has a lot of promise. It solves multiple problems including flow level mobility between WiFi and macro radio access network. Its implementation has no dependency on the radio access network. In other words, it is truly an end-to-end solution that can be applied for multiple radio access technologies. Next in line is to make user equipment capable of using multiple radio links simultaneously. Both iPhone and Android already have this capability but currently they are restricted in the type of access (e.g., MMS over macro network while connected to WiFi) they can be used for. Obviously this requires further enhancements to user equipment for management of battery life, self-interference as well as network/flow mapping criteria based on cost, quality, security, user preference, etc. Putting all of this in a consumer-grade product is a significant challenge. We believe this will continue to be a hard problem to solve for years to come. When it is finally resolved it will have a profound impact on the success of mobile communications industry by reducing the unit cost of traffic delivery substantially. WirelessE2E LLC www.wirelesse2e.com September 2010 Page 22 of 23

White Paper

References
[1] Admob Mobile Metrics Report, http://www.admob.com/marketing/pdf/mobile_metrics_nov_08.pdf [2] 3GPP TS 23.234, 3GPP system to Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN) Interworking, release 6.0. [3] 3GPP TS 43.318, Generic Access Network (GAN) Stage 2, release 6.0. [4] WirelessE2E estimate based on the industry usage, revenue figures. [5] Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan, chapter 5, FCC, March 2010. [6] 3GPP TS 23.829, Local IP Access and Selected IP Traffic Offload, v1.2.0, August 2010. [7] 3GPP TS 23.261, IP Flow Mobility and seamless WLAN offload, v2.0.0, June 2010. [8] RFC-5555, Mobile IPv6 support for dual stack Hosts and Routers (DSMIPv6), June 2009.

WirelessE2E LLC www.wirelesse2e.com

September 2010

Page 23 of 23