This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Ver 0.3 10 August 2006
Revision History 0.1 2006-05-15 0.2 2006-08-03 0.3 2006-08-10
Initial version Expand and update Change MT Return Result OPC/CgPA
....................................................................9 4......................................................................................................................................................3 2......................................................................................18 .........................17 5...................................................................4 3..... Existing Signaling................................................................................. Appendix – MAP Layer Identifier...........Page 2 of 19 Contents 1................... Glossary....... Introduction...... Proposed Solution.................
Page 3 of 19 1. including modifications to accommodate different signaling methods (point code routing and Global Title Translation). Introduction The Voice and SMS Working Group (VSWG) of the CDG IRT is working to address the issues involved with International Short Message Service (SMS) Roaming Billing. the VSWG has focused on the use of the existing internetwork ANSI-41 signaling to carry the necessary information to the home operator’s Message Center (MC. At the June 2006 IRT. point code. Given this general approach. aka SMSC). there are a number of parameters within the relevant signaling messages that could be used to carry the necessary information. Based on expressed operator preference (and the fact that some other options are already available). operators expressed their preference for the use of a transport-layer identifier (e. When point code routing is used. there are two locations for the serving network identifier. and operator feedback on the preferred approach is invited. An appendix describes an alternative approach using ANSI-41 parameters to identify the serving network. .g. There are several broad options possible and/or available for delivery of the necessary information (identification of the serving operator) to the home operator. This document describes this approach in further detail. Calling Party Address) to specify the serving network. The billing record generated by the MC is used for subscriber billing. Of particular interest has been the need to ensure that the home operator is able to charge its subscribers at a rate which accurately reflects the different intercarrier wholesale rates that may be charged by the operator’s individual roaming partners.
1. 2. .Existing RSP Signaling The following subsections show specific scenarios relevant for SMS. All roaming signaling to and from an operator’s roaming partners is via the single RSP point code. The Roaming Service Provider (RSP) is assigned a point code inside each of its customer networks.Page 4 of 19 2. This arrangement greatly simplifies the configuration requirements in the operator’s network. The Signaling Connection Control Part (SCCP) layer of the messages is assumed to have Called and Calling Party Addresses either containing PCs that match the Destination and Originating Point Codes (respectively) together with a Subsystem Number (SSN). Point Code Routing Many operators today use Point Code (PC) routing for signaling to and from the RSP. Existing Signaling Most CDMA operators today connect to their international roaming partners via a Roaming Service Provider (RSP). This arrangement is shown in Figure 1 below. however in the process the identity of the serving network can be masked from the home operator for SMS. In each case there may be one or more Signaling Transfer Points (STPs) present between the RSP and the indicated operator network element – these STPs do not modify the traversing message in any way. Figure 1 . or SSN only. The RSP can represent all remote network elements as a single identity. and uses leased lines to connect back to its own premises. The PCs are meaningful only within a given network/country. The SCCP routing indicator indicates that routing is based on the MTP PC and the SSN.
Figure 2 . Subscriber Registration Figure 2 below shows subscriber registration. Figure 3 . Mobile-Terminated SMS Figure 4 below shows a mobile terminated (MT) SMS.1.3. . and not to the serving operator. The MAP layer contents likewise provide no information about the serving operator.Subscriber Registration 2. Mobile-Originated SMS Figure 3 below shows a mobile-originated (MO) SMS.Page 5 of 19 2. The transport layer identifiers received at the MC only refer to the RSP. The SMS_Address parameter points only to the RSP.1.1. No identification of the serving operator is available at the MC. No indication is available of the actual serving network. The MC sends the SMS to the destination PC received from the HLR in the SMS_Address parameter (the same received by the HLR at registration time).Mobile-Originated SMS 2.2.1.
1.g. Figure 5 . The SMS_Address points to the RSP. All traffic is received from/directed to the single RSP PC. and the resulting MT-SMS will be as above in Figure 4. when a subscriber with a pending message becomes available). Figure 6 . Other Roaming Signaling Figure 6 below shows a general representation of other signaling between the RSP and the operator.Page 6 of 19 Figure 4 .Other Signaling .SMS Notification from RSP 2.1.Mobile-Terminated SMS 2.4. SMS Notification Figure 5 below shows a notification from the RSP to the MC (e.5.
Although the use of GTT can allow the transfer of messages between networks without knowledge of each other’s MTP PC allocations.1. changing the MTP addresses accordingly. The RSP may be physically located in a different country to the operator. the routing indicator indicates routing is based on the global title address. In some cases the Global Title will be the relevant mobile’s IMSI. Global Title Routing Some operators use Global Title Translation (GTT) to route calls through their network.212 format. and the called and calling party addresses contain Global Titles for the message endpoints. As per IS-807. General Roaming Signaling Figure 7 below shows a generic ANSI-41 message pair (which could be SMS or other roaming signaling).2.Page 7 of 19 2. Figure 7. STPs/SCCP Relay points in the operator’s network route the message. in other cases an identifier assigned directly to a network element. as used today for CDMA international roaming the RSP is still present as a PC that appears “inside” the operator’s network: GTT is used as a tool to simplify routing tables in nodes of large networks. and to and from the RSP.GTT signaling . the Global Titles are in E. however as with the point code routing arrangement it is assigned a local point code.2. The following subsections highlight differences between Point Code and Global Title routing. The MTP layer addresses are modified en route by intervening STPs which also perform Global Title Translation. At the SCCP layer. For this reason the Global Title for the RSP uses the same Mobile Country Code as the operator. 2.
The MAP layer SMS_Address parameter contains the RSP GT address instead of a point code.Page 8 of 19 2. so that mobile-terminated SMS can be addressed using GTT.2. Subscriber Registration and SMS Notification Subscriber registration and SMS Notification use the same signaling techniques as described in §above.2. .
This was the primary reason for the operator preference for this approach (see the meeting minutes for more detail).Page 9 of 19 3. Point Code Routing For operators using point code routing. 3. rather than just to the single RSP location as today. This arrangement is illustrated in Figure 8 below. The message will appear to the home operator to be coming from (or going to) a different location for each serving operator. while SMS traffic for Operator 3’s subscribers roaming in Operator 2’s network appears to Operator 3 to use point code B).1. leading to some options regarding .Serve-specific Point Codes for SMS The following subsections show the changes to specific scenarios. the approach preferred by operators is for the RSP to modify an address parameter in a transport layer (MTP and/or SCCP) to identify the serving network. the proposed approach is to replace the single RSP point code with a PC that is specific to the serving operator. The differences between the existing point code and GT routing schemes necessitate different approaches to incorporate serving network information for operators who use these schemes. Many MCs today include the far end transport layer information in their billing record. If this information is set to a value that is specific to the serving operator. Figure 8 . SMS traffic for Operator 1’s subscribers roaming in Operator 2’s network may appear to Operator 1 to use point code A (a point code assigned to the RSP for this purpose by Operator 1). a home operator can potentially implement a per-serve charging scheme with no modifications to their MCs. Proposed Solution As stated above. The set of roaming partner PCs would be unique to each home operator (for example. Note that Point Codes can be carried in both the MTP and SCCP layers.
or the PC in the SCCP Calling Party Address (CgPA). .Registration with serve-specific SMS_Address 3.1. Figure 9 . Except where noted. Mobile-Originated SMS For MO-SMS. The home operator must configure its network elements to route the set of serve-specific point codes to the RSP. but inside the ANSI-41 message the SMS_Address parameter (which will be used for subsequent MT-SMS attempts) is set to the new point code used by the RSP for SMS roaming between this serving operator and this home operator. the SCCP point codes are assumed to either be absent. In this case another RSP feature may be required to provide a per-serve MSCID in the message. rather than against the subscriber. For the home operator.2.1. the RSP may choose to either modify the MTP Originating Point Code (OPC). The RSP accepts the incoming smdpp addressed to the new PC.Page 10 of 19 where to place the serve-specific value. SCCP modification may represent a simpler task for the RSPs. there should be little difference between the two. this modification is not necessary.1. Subscriber Registration Figure 9 below shows the subscriber registering. If differentiated billing for MT-SMS is not required. and the same serve-specific PC. Note that some HLRs may store SMS_Address against the MSCID. Modifications to STP Gateway Screening rules may also be necessary to allow incoming traffic from the new OPCs. leaving the OPC as the (generic) RSP PC. the RSP sets the MTP Originating Point Code (OPC) to the per-serve value. The SCCP Calling Party Address is assumed to contain the MC SSN. When sending the SMDPP to the home operator’s MC (indirect SMS routing is assumed here). The MC responds to the same point code. The regular RSP PC is used at the MTP layer. or the same as their MTP counterparts. No modifications in the operator’s signaling network are required to support this solution. 3. Figure 10 below shows a mobile-originated SMS with the modifications applied at the MTP layer.
Both SCCP and MTP will use this PC for their respective destination address parameters. The resulting messaging is shown in Figure 11 below: Figure 11 .SCCP modification The Return Result addressing is identical to the MTP modification case.MO-SMS from serve-specific point code . If. both MTP and SCCP carry a (different) PC. the RSP could modify the SCCP CgPA PC. as here. this is unlikely to be the case for real-world MCs. only that from SCCP will be preserved. Although it would be convenient if the Return Result were to use the RSP (generic) PC at the MTP layer (thereby avoiding the need for STP routing tables to include the serve-specific PCs). it will be directed to the PC seen by the application. The reason is that the internal primitive used to pass the received message from the SCCP layer up to the application can only carry a single point code.MO-SMS from serve-specific point code – MTP modifications As an alternative. This may represent a simpler development effort for the RSP than the MTP modification discussed above. When the application sends the return message. while leaving the OPC untouched.Page 11 of 19 Figure 10 . This arrangement is shown in Figure 12 below: .
and used as the Destination Point Code (DPC) by the MC. .1. Although the use of different MTP and SCCP PCs may be somewhat unusual. the SCCP modification approach may mean that no STP gateway screening changes are required (unless gateway screening / access mediation is used that checks the SCCP CgPA). The alternative SCCP modification is shown in Figure 14.3. if desired. as the SCCP layer is not examined by STPs. The generation of a billing record is presumably a function of the application. Mobile-Terminated SMS Figure 13 below shows a MT-SMS. rather than the signaling transport layers. The point code included in the billing record should therefore be the one carried in SCCP. Serve-specific billing for roaming MT-SMS.Page 12 of 19 Figure 12 . is achieved by an assumed inclusion of the DPC in the MC’s billing record. in case the MC uses this value to populate its billing record. 3. The RSP responds with the serve-specific PC in the OPC/CgPA of the Return Result. there should be no problem transporting these messages through the operator’s network.Internal Primitives for MO-SMS For the home operator. which will give the desired effect of identifying the serving network. The serve-specific point code is received from the HLR in the SMSRequest Return Result message.
MT-SMS to serve-specific point code.1. The normal RSP PC is used at the MTP layer of the SMSNOT message itself.4.MT-SMS to serve-specific point code. which will be used as the DPC in the resulting MT-SMS.SMS Notification with serve-specific SMS_Address 3. The key parameter is the (MAP-layer) SMS_Address.5. no change to existing arrangement).e.Page 13 of 19 Figure 13 . Figure 15 .1. SMS Notification Figure 15 below shows an SMS Notification from the RSP. MTP modification Figure 14 . . Other Roaming Signaling Other roaming traffic to/from the operator (including SMS traffic where the operator is the serving operator) uses the standard RSP PC assigned for that operator (i. SCCP modification 3.
3. Any gateway screening or access mediation that checks the CgPA Global Title against a whitelist must be updated to allow the new values.6.212) GT using the serving operator’s true Mobile Country Code (MCC) and Mobile Network Code (MNC).212 address in the Calling Party Address. While it may be possible to build this (E. Instead.1. Global Title Translation For operators using Global Title (GT) routing to signal to/from the RSP. the recommended approach is to assign a set of addresses from the home operator’s own MCC-MNC range.1. a serve-specific Global Title is used instead of a Point Code. For the return result. which will be used to route the message to the RSP’s local presence in the operator’s network.2. this may impact translation tables if current or future deployments use GT without the RSP. The MC must include the SCCP Called/Calling Party Address Global Title in its billing record to enable MT/MO servespecific billing.Page 14 of 19 3. . Signaling Management The RSP should manage the compete set of serve-specific PCs. If the MC includes the received CgPA in its billing record.2. At the ANSI-41 layer. and issue TFP/TFA messages concerning these point codes as appropriate to the operator’s network elements. Mobile-Originated SMS Figure 16 below shows a roamer-originated SMS sent from the RSP to the home operator’s MC. Subscriber Registration and SMS Notification Both subscriber registration and SMS Notification require no changes to the transport layer arrangements shown in Figure 7 above. the SMS_Address parameter is changed to contain a serve-specific Global Title. the MC uses the received CgPA to build the outgoing CdPA. Depending on the way the range of serve-specific addresses have been chosen. this may entail little or no changes to the STP translation tables. 3. The following subsections discuss changes for individual scenarios. 3. At the MTP layer there is no change from the existing arrangements. GT translations must be in place for the new serve-specific values to route to the RSP. then the desired outcome of serve-specific billing can be achieved.2. and the internal data configuration in the STPs. respectively.2. while at the SCCP layer the RSP has used a serve-specific E.
As in §3.2.2.MT-SMS with serve-specific Global Title 3.4.2. the operator’s GTT tables must contain data to route the new address to the RSP. The RSP responds to the SMDPP using the serve-specific GT. . Other Roaming Signaling There are no changes required to other roaming scenarios.MO-SMS with serve-specific Global Title 3.Page 15 of 19 Figure 16 . in case the MC uses this to populate its billing record. Mobile-Terminated SMS Figure 17 below shows roamer-terminated SMS signaling between the home operator’s MC and the RSP. Figure 17 .3.2. The MC uses the serve-specific Global Title previously received (in SMS_Address of smsreq or SMSNOT).
but not for the Return Result. Serve-specific information can be made available at the MC of an operator using oneway GT routing via a combination of the methods discussed above.Page 16 of 19 3.2.2. Operators using PC routing and those using GT routing require different solutions. .3.2. Discussion The solution described above should meet operators’ needs for serve-specific billing for SMS roaming. 3. This can relive some routing configuration/point code discovery burden on the invoking network element.5. Registration/Notification and MTSMS will use the GT routing described in §§3.1 and 3.2. MO-SMS routing will use the SCCP modification described in §3. and allows simple return routing when both source and destination nodes are within the same point code universe. The SCCP modification approach is preferred on the assumption that this is easier for the RSPs to implement (and may also require fewer Gateway Screening changes on the part of the home operator).1. One-way Global Title Some operators may use Global Title routing only for the Invoke message. both of which must be supported by the RSP.3 respectively. The requirements on the MC billing record should be the same for either option. Two options are shown for PC routing.
Glossary CDG CdPA CgPA DPC GT GTT HLR IMSI IRT MAP MC MCC MNC MO MSC MSCID MT MTP OPC PC RSP SCCP SMDPP SMS SMS_OA SMSC SMSNOT SMSREQ SSN TFA TFP VSWG CDMA Development Group Called Party Address Calling Party Address Destination Point Code Global Title Global Title Translation Home Location Register International Mobile Station Identity International Roaming Team Mobile Application Part Message Center (aka SMSC) Mobile Country Code Mobile Network Code Mobile-Originated Mobile Switching Center Mobile Switching Center Identification Mobile-Terminated Message Transfer Part Originating Point Code Point Code Roaming Service Provider Signaling Connection Control Part SMS Delivery Point to Point Short Message Service SMS_OriginatingAddress Short Message Service Center (aka MC) SMS Notification SMS Request Sub-System Number Transfer Allowed Transfer Prohibited Voice & SMS Working Group .Page 17 of 19 4.
VSWG participants decided on the transport layer modification approach discussed in the main body of this document. In this approach. the MC could be modified to include this value in the billing record (no further MC action on this parameter is required). There are a number of parameters that may conceivably be used to store the serving system identifier. Appendix – MAP Layer Identifier At the June 2006 IRT meeting. Whether it is included on MC billing records is unknown. While “cleaner” from a system impact point of view. and is left for future specification if required. Information available at the time of writing indicates that while some operators may populate this parameter. An MSCID-like value or MCC-MNC would seem to be logical candidates. custom values of the SMS_OriginatingAddress (SMS_OA) are used to identify the serving network. for some operators a MAP-layer modification may be better suited. The serve-specific values chosen are assumed to be common for all home operators using this solution. Ideally. ANSI-41 Rev E (following IS-725) allows the presence of the MSCID parameter in the message. A single MSCID per serving operator would be defined and advised by the RSP. See the meeting minutes for discussion of the relative merits of a MAP. However. An operator desiring a MAP-based solution as described below would need to approach their RSP on an individual basis. For the Invoke. The exact format of the identifier is largely unimportant. For the Return Result. no-one is examining it when received at the MC. This is in contrast to the transport-layer solution in the main body of the document. Although intended for OTASP usage. depending on which ANSI-41 parameters are normally included in the MC billing record. this approach may require more modification to the MC. the RSP adds a parameter to the SMSDeliveryPointToPoint Invoke (for MO-SMS) or Return Result (for MT-SMS) to indicate the serving system. .and a transport-layer solution.Page 18 of 19 5. the chosen parameter would have the following characteristics: • • • • • Defined in ANSI-41 for inclusion in the SMSDeliveryPointToPoint operation (invoke and/or return Result as appropriate for MO/MT SMS billing) Not populated/examined by existing implementations Allow for sufficient values to cover all CDMA networks Included in MC billing records Intuitively relate somehow to the serving system The parameters described below meet many but not all of these criteria. in which a full set of per-serving roaming partner values is maintained by the RSP for each participating home operator.
MT-SMS with serve-specific MAP-layer identifier .and MT-SMS.MO-SMS with serve-specific MAP-layer identifier Figure 19 . Figure 18 . but the MAP layer changes apply equally to GT routing. All other operations are unchanged from the existing arrangement. PC routing is assumed in the diagram.Page 19 of 19 Figure 18 and Figure 19 below show the changes to the SMDPP/smdpp operation for MO.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.