ACCEPTED FROM OPEN CALL
From Interworking to Hybrid Access Systems
and the Road toward the Next Generation
of Fixed-Mobile Convergence
Konstantinos Samdanis, Filipe Leitão, Simon Oechsner, Jaume Rius I Riu, Roberto David Carnero Ros, and Guiu Fabregas
1 EU, “Implementation of the
EU Regulatory Framework
for Electronic Communica-
tion,” 2015.
Digital Object Identifier:
10.1109/MCOMSTD.2017.1600536ST
36
Abstract
The ever increasing service demands, flexibil-
ity needs, and business opportunities have led
broadband operators to explore strategies for
implementing access agnostic core networks.
The hybrid access system is one such strategy
that helps operators to deliver higher bandwidth
and more reliable services to their subscrib-
ers. This article provides a tutorial overview of
hybrid access systems describing the main busi-
ness drivers and use cases before analyzing the
hybrid access architecture and the main function-
al blocks, including policy control. In addition it
provides an overview of the main hybrid access
approaches considered in IETF, 3GPP, and BBF.
Finally, it considers the next generation of 5G
converged networks, analyzing the main chal-
lenges that have been raised by the work toward
hybrid access systems.
Introduction
Broadband multi-service networks are rapidly
evolving toward higher speeds, coverage, and
capacity in order to provide ubiquitous service
that can support the emerging plethora of data
hungry applications such as real-time interac-
tive services and high definition video stream-
ing. In addition, broadband networks need to
support the deployment of new services in a
flexible manner, providing new business oppor-
tunities for network operators, while at the
same time ensuring services with ultra-reliability.
Network convergence is one of the industry
paradigms for addressing those requirements.
This approach can leverage the existing access
network capabilities to deliver the maximum
benefit to end users.
Hybrid access systems are an emerging par-
adigm that aim to enable converged network
operators to combine mobile and fixed access
network capabilities, aggregated by mechanisms
that allow simultaneous use. Lately, hybrid access
has gained an increasing industry momentum with
the Broadband Forum (BBF) recently publishing a
specification study [1]. Hybrid access systems aim
to deliver additional capacity to the end users that
have access simultaneously to both mobile and
fixed access networks at their locations, offering
enhanced service management and resiliency.
Konstantinos Samdanis is with Huawei European Research Center; Filipe Leitão and Simon Oechsner are with NEC Europe;
Jaume Rius I Riu is with Telenor and Lund University; Roberto David Carnero Ros is with Ericsson; Guiu Fabregas is with Nokia.
2471-2825/17/$25.00 © 2017 IEEE
This is particularly useful for scenarios where fixed
access capacity is limited, challenging to upgrade,
or merely overloaded.
Certain market segments may be in urgent
need of higher data rate broadband coverage due
to regulation, which leads to access bandwidth
upgrades within scheduled times. Hybrid access
systems are a viable option for operators to use
broadband mobile access to cover areas where
the expansion of fixed access would take too long
or would be too expensive. According to the EU
regulation for fixed broadband connectivity, the
target is to provide 100 percent basic broadband
coverage and 30 Mb/s by 2020. 1 Such goals
are especially challenging for rural areas, where
cabling upgrades are difficult.
This article introduces hybrid access systems
elaborating the use cases, architecture, and main
functional components, mechanisms, and poli-
cy provision. In addition, it provides a compre-
hensive overview of the different hybrid access
approaches considering multipath TCP trans-
port, layer 3 overlaid tunneling, and native net-
work-based tunneling, exploring the efforts from
various standardization bodies including the Third
Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), Internet
Engineering Task Force (IETF), and BBF.
The remainder of this article is organized as
follows. Initially, we present an overview of fixed
mobile convergence (FMC) in 3GPP and BBF.
The following section presents the hybrid access
use cases demonstrating the business and tech-
nical benefits, while the subsequent section elab-
orates the hybrid access architecture. Next, we
analyze the different implementation approaches
considering standardization efforts and then intro-
duce the next generation of converged networks
detailing the main challenges. Finally, we provide
the conclusions of the article.
From FMC to Hybrid Access
Over the past decade the telecommunications
market has gone through a consolidation phase
with many operators offering both mobile and
fixed access services under the same brand
umbrella. While this has eased service provision,
operators still face the challenge of handling
redundant subscriptions for fixed and mobile net-
works.
With this motivation, in 2008 vendors and
IEEE Communications Standards Magazine • March 2017
 3GPP mobile core network
Data
Offloaded data MME
Control
S1 S11
UE eNodeB S-GW
UE
ANDSF
S14 S9a
UE
BPCF
Device
Customer
Device Premises RG Access
Network Node
Device
Figure 1. Fixed mobile convergence architecture.
operators triggered a standardization activity in
the BBF focusing on interworking between fixed
and 3GPP access networks. Such activity, docu-
mented in [2], describes business requirements
and high-level architectures for allowing seamless
session connectivity for a 3GPP user equipment
(UE), which may move between the 3GPP mobile
access and a fixed broadband access home or
enterprise, including Wi-Fi access or small cell
over home fixed access.
As a consequence of TR-203, BBF and 3GPP
initiated a cooperative work that resulted in 3GPP
TS 23.139 [3] and BBF TR-291, released in 2014
[4]. These two specifications describe a set of
nodal requirements, procedures, and interwork-
ing reference points between the 3GPP and BBF
nodes addressing the business requirements and
architectures described in TR-203.
A summary of the enhancements with respect
to 3GPP and BBF nodes and core networks archi-
tecture is provided in [5], highlighting the main
standardization efforts.
3GPP and BBF continued the collaboration
toward a converged operational domain, resulting
in the release of BBF TR-300 in late 2014. TR-300
documents how the 3GPP Policy and Charging
Control (PCC) domain could also manage BBF
policy enforcement nodes, like the multi-service
broadband network gateway (MS-BNG), reducing
the number of policy decision makers and infor-
mation needed for the same subscriber [6].
The major reference points specified by 3GPP
and BBF for interworking and convergence of net-
work control functions for policy, charging, and
traffic offloading are illustrated in Fig. 1.
This standardization work for FMC was the first
step toward a unified control plane for converged
operators, as elaborated in [7], where the afore-
mentioned enhancements are described with
respect to the business use cases that could be
achieved leveraging an FMC environment.
IEEE Communications Standards Magazine • March 2017
S6a
HLR/HSS SWx
3GPP
AAA
P-GW
Gx Gz
Gy
PCRF ePDG OCS OFCS
Services
(e.g.,
Gx Gy Gza IMS, Internet,
S2a cloud, PDN)
Gz Gya STa/
S2b SWa
BBF AAA
R
B
TWAG
Multi-Service BNG BBF fixed core network
Hybrid Access Use Cases
Hybrid access system services are offered by
convergent operators, providing both fixed and
mobile access, with the objective to enhance the
customer experience in a timely manner, con-
sidering both residential and enterprise market
segments. This section summarizes the main use
cases that reflect the fundamental business sce-
narios illustrated in Fig. 2.
Enabling Rapid Service Deployment: Hybrid
access systems can potentially enable faster ser-
vice deployment for those customers located in
areas where the installation of fixed access is not
yet complete. These users no longer need to wait
for fixed broadband installation, but can imme-
diately use the purchased service provided that
wireless access is already in place. Once the fixed
network is instantiated, typically within a short
time period, the operator can switch the end user
from the wireless access delivery to the fixed one.
Hybrid access systems enable such switching via
automated policy and path configuration updates,
in this way minimizing interactions with the cus-
tomer equipment and avoiding manual recon-
figuration. Such a process can save effort and
costs for operators, while simplifying the customer
experience.
Enhancing Capacity and Coverage: In regions
where network upgrades or new deployments for
fixed access are difficult and may take time and/
or not be cost effective, the use of hybrid access
services can enhance the offered capacity and
ensure broadband service coverage. Enhancing
capacity can also take place in case of access path
congestion or for particular bandwidth demand-
ing services that need resources in both access
networks. The effect of allocating higher capacity
and coverage is subject to the resource availabili-
ty of the combined mobile and fixed access.
Enhancing WAN Reliability: Since hybrid
37

DSL
DSL
Download / upload
LTE
Fast service turn-up Increased access capacity
Improved bandwidth coverage Improved WAN reliability
Figure 2. Hybrid access use cases.
access systems support multiple accesses (i.e.,
via different available networks), they can ensure
increased resiliency of the customer’s service con-
nection due to the fact that a backup path would
be available. Typically, this is implemented using a
default access network during normal operation —
usually the most cost-efficient one or the one with
the highest available bandwidth — and switching
to a backup access network in case this primary
access becomes unavailable. Hybrid access sys-
tems can execute such a switch between primary/
backup paths automatically without the need for
manual reconfiguration.
Hybrid Access Architecture
The hybrid access architecture consists of two
fundamental termination points, described below,
which reside between the two different access
paths:
• Hybrid Customer Premises Equipment
(HCPE) is a physical entity that resides inside
the customer domain and makes use of an
additional radio access interface on top of
the conventional broadband one of the leg-
acy CPE, enabling simultaneous use of both
accesses.
• Hybrid Access Gateway (HAG) is a logi-
cal function placed in the operator’s core
network administrative domain, providing
mechanisms for simultaneous use of fixed
and mobile access. The HAG provides con-
nectivity toward external networks making
hybrid access usage transparent outside the
operator’s premises.
An overview of the hybrid access architecture
is illustrated in Fig. 3 and described in [1]. HCPE
and the HAG are responsible for distributing data
traffic from and toward the customer domain over
the available access network paths and aggregat-
ing it before providing connectivity toward exter-
nal or Internet endpoints. This operation ensures
that the use of a hybrid access system is transpar-
ent to the end user connection endpoints, which
can simply use legacy single-path protocols.
At both ends (i.e., HCPE and HAG), the traffic
received first undergoes a classification function,
which decides, based on the provided policy,
the hybrid access class of the corresponding end
user traffic. The hybrid access class defines the
38
treatment of a set of data packets, which will be
subject to the same traffic distribution and priori-
tization over the bonded connection. The classifi-
cation function also ensures that connections with
no performance benefits over multipath usage,
in terms of increased bandwidth, or connections
that might even be harmed due to increased jitter,
avoid hybrid access services.
Traffic distribution is responsible for forwarding
customer related data over the fixed and mobile
network access paths. Specifically, this function
can encompass scheduling, load balancing, pri-
oritization, and congestion control. The decisions
made on distributing traffic are influenced by
feedback information about the performance of
individual paths, which is maintained by the path
performance measurement function, for example,
considering congestion, delay, or packet loss rate,
either conducting active measurements or eval-
uating traversing traffic. For instance, paths with
low congestion and less packet loss are general-
ly preferred over high-loss low-throughput ones,
especially for sensitive/interactive applications
(e.g., online gaming).
Each path has its own terminating endpoints,
which does not necessarily mean that end-to-end
connections are interrupted there. Access termi-
nation can come in the form of tunnels or pro-
tocol header changes, depending on the hybrid
access approach in use, as elaborated later.
Operators can flexibly adapt equipment set-
tings according to different network conditions
or changes in the subscription profile by means
of policy control. A dynamic adjustment of net-
work settings based on subscription-based pol-
icies has been feasible since 3GPP Release 7
for mobile access [8]. An equivalent process is
available for fixed access with the release of the
BBF TR-134 policy framework [9], which defines
policy enforcement points (PEPs) as the logical
nodes that enforce policy rules sent by the policy
decision point (PDP) that forms policy decisions.
On top of that, BBF TR-300 allows convergent
operators to additionally use the 3GPP PCRF for
policy control in fixed networks.
The hybrid access architecture introduces two
new enforcement points in the network architec-
ture, besides the conventional ones considered in
3GPP and BBF: the HCPE and the HAG.
The HCPE can execute policy related to access
preference and upstream traffic distribution con-
sidering both fixed and mobile paths, while the
HAG performs an equivalent process for the
downstream traffic toward the HCPE. The com-
plexity of a policy rule depends on different fac-
tors including the subscription profile, application
type, network performance or congestion indica-
tors, cheapest link, and so on. To convey these
policies to the enforcement points, operators
may rely on, or extend, existing reference points
between the PDP and network equipment. The
PCC architecture considering nodes, reference
points, and subscription profiles can serve as a
starting point for hybrid access scenarios.
3GPP TS 23.203 [8] defines a policy frame-
work encompassing the policy and charging
rules function as the PDP and the Diameter Gx
reference point. Such a framework enforces pol-
icy rules over the packet data network gateway
(PGW), the MS-BNG, and other PEPs residing in
IEEE Communications Standards Magazine • March 2017

UL traffic
distribution
policies
Hybrid
CPE
Simultaneous LTE + DSL
uplink traffic distribution
downlink traffic aggregation
Figure 3. An overview of the hybrid access architecture.
both mobile and fixed core networks. The HAG
is a logical function that could be either stand-
alone or co-located within each of the core net-
work gateways (i.e. PGW or MS-BNG). Hence,
a natural step is to expect the PCRF to support
the hybrid access subscription-based policy deci-
sion capabilities over the Diameter Gx reference
point. Such a reference point requires extensions
to support dynamic traffic distribution policies,
or alternatively activate pre-defined rules. More
about the different types of policy rules can be
found in [8, 9].
To convey upstream traffic distribution poli-
cies toward the HCPE, an analogy to the exist-
ing mechanisms can be made. Since the HCPE
is an extension of the CPE, existing mechanisms
defined by BBF TR-069 for remote configuration
can be reused [10].
Hybrid Access Approaches and
Ongoing Standardization
The functions related to hybrid access architec-
ture and the requirements derived from the use
cases can be implemented in different ways. This
section describes the main approaches currently
considered in different standardization bodies. An
overview of the protocol stack and connectivity
mechanisms related to the different hybrid access
approaches is shown in Fig. 4.
Multipath TCP Mechanisms
The IETF Multipath Transport Control Protocol
(MPTCP) Working Group has specified a layer
4 multipath protocol introducing a set of exten-
sions to traditional TCP. Using new TCP options,
MPTCP allows two endpoints of a TCP connec-
tion to create and manage several sub-flows, each
working similarly to a conventional TCP flow. Sub-
flows may take different routes through the net-
work, offering in this way alternative options for
forwarding traffic. Since packets follow the form
of standard TCP, with some additional options,
middle-boxes are not expected to cause any
issues.
The architectural considerations and the basic
building blocks of an MPTCP implementation are
defined in RFC 6182. These include interactions
IEEE Communications Standards Magazine • March 2017
The architectural con-
Traffic siderations and the basic
distribution
control building blocks of an
MPTCP implementation are
Fixed DL traffic defined in RFC 6182. These
network core distribution
policies include interactions with
middle-boxes, enabling
fall back to conventional
Hybrid access TCP, as well as necessary
gateway
functional components
Mobile such as path management,
network core Uplink traffic aggregation
downlink traffic distribution
scheduling, etc. The use
of MPTCP is negotiated
between the two end-
points during a typical TCP
with middle-boxes, enabling fallback to conven- handshake.
tional TCP, as well as necessary functional compo-
nents such as path management and scheduling.
The use of MPTCP is negotiated between the two
endpoints during a typical TCP handshake. RFC
6824 [11] describes such protocol extensions
focusing on signaling notifications of the MPTCP
capability and on address availability for sub-flow
establishment.
While not originally designed to support
hybrid access services, the objectives related to
the design of MPTCP can fulfill the requirements
of the corresponding hybrid access use cases.
The implementation of MPTCP has different fla-
vors, with the proxy-based one best suiting the
described hybrid access architecture. In particular,
the deployment scenario that can effectively sup-
port hybrid access is the one where the MPTCP
proxy functionality is introduced on both the
HCPE and HAG, enabling the use of conventional
TCP on connection endpoints. Sub-flows can then
be managed by the HCPE and HAG considering
path performance measurements that influence
the traffic distribution, that is, can dynamically
steer sub-flow among available paths considering
congestion, as described in RFC 6824 [11].
Despite the suitability of MPTCP for hybrid
access services, its actual adoption has brought up
some challenges with respect to lack of MPTCP
support at the server side and treating UDP-based
traffic (e.g., VoIP traffic). To facilitate the adoption
of MPTCP, an ongoing technical draft in IETF [12]
proposes a new MPTCP option for network-as-
sisted deployments enabling connections to carry
any kind of traffic (although UDP traffic is the
major concern) without requiring any particular
encapsulation scheme. This proposal assumes
that all the access network links provided to the
HCPE are managed by the same administrative
entity. This new MPTCP option enables the HCPE
to maintain a routing mapping scheme between
the upstream destination address (the end serv-
er address, outside the operator premises) and
the HAG address. The same logic is used for the
downstream destination address; that is, the HAG
maintains a mapping scheme between the source
address (the device within the customer premises)
and the HCPE address. This also allows multiple
39
 Client Layer 4: Multipath TCP Hybrid access Content
Hybrid CPE gateway server

Data Data
MPTCP MPTCP
(traffic distribution) (traffic distribution)
TCP Sub-flow Sub-flow Sub-flow Sub-flow TCP
(TCP) (TCP) (TCP) (TCP)
IP IP IP IP IP IP
L1/L2 L1/L2 L1/L2 L1/L2 L1/L2 L1/L2

Layer 3: Overlay tunneling

Data Data
Traffic distribution Traffic distribution
TCP IP IP IP IP TCP
Tunnel Tunnel Tunnel Tunnel
L1/L2 L1/L2 L1/L2 L1/L2 L1/L2 L1/L2

Layer 3: Native tunneling

Data BNG eNodeB Data
Traffic distribution Traffic distribution
TCP IP IP IPoE or IP IP TCP
Tunnel RLC/PDCP Tunnel
PPPoE Tunnel Tunnel
L1/L2 L1/L2 L1/L2 L1/L2 L1/L2 L1/L2 L1/L2 L1/L2 L1/L2 L1/L2

Figure 4. An overview of protocol stack and connectivity of the different hybrid access approaches.

traffic distribution schemes and support for differ-
ent addressing options of HCPE and HAG. More
details, working assumptions, and open issues of
this ongoing work can be found in [12], while
more information regarding link bonding with
transparent MPTCP can be found in [13].
Layer 3 Overlay Tunneling
In IETF two different layer 3 (i.e., network or IP
layer) approaches have been introduced. One
is based on a set of control plane extensions to
the Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE) [14]
protocol, which is still a work in progress with cer-
tain operational aspects yet to be defined, and
another relying on the use of Proxy Mobile IPv6
(PMIPv6) [15] specified by the IETF Distributed
Mobility Management Working Group.
Extended GRE-Tunneling for Hybrid Access:
Enhancing the GRE tunneling with a set of con-
trol plane extensions focusing on tunnel setup
and connection management enables the use
of hybrid access between the HCPE and HAG.
In particular, such an approach allocates a sepa-
rate address per mobile and fixed access, while
the HAG assigns a public address to the HCPE,
advertised on the Internet. The mobile and fixed
access tunnels can be established via GRE con-
trol signaling, which ensure simultaneous usage
by exchanging the same session-id between the
HCPE and HAG.
The HCPE and HAG are equipped with traffic
distribution rules (i.e., policy control) that reflect
service requirements, traffic load conditions of
different access networks, and so on. In partic-
ular, traffic distribution is based on the notion
of traffic overflow, which selects the cheapest
path first, and once such a path is congested, it
then forwards exceeding traffic toward the sec-
ond path. The extended GRE tunneling approach
enables traffic distribution on a per packet basis
and relies on path performance monitoring
information, which is exchanged via the GRE
tunneling management signaling between the
HCPE and HAG. The extended GRE signaling
also adopts keep-alive messages for access path
failure detection and re-routing, as well as a tear-
down option for terminating the hybrid access
service connection.
For traffic bypass support, two routes are
assigned to the HCPE: one that uses the bonded
connection and another that utilizes the conven-
tional fixed access path. Network operators can
configure bypass traffic types to the HAG, which
in turn can provision the HCPE during the tunnel
establishment process. To distribute traffic effi-
ciently among the two accesses, the HCPE can
maintain bypassing traffic statics on fixed access
and adjust the hybrid access resources, also noti-
fying the HAG regarding resource availability.
PMIPv6 Multipath Support: PMIPv6 is a net-
work-based mobility management protocol, which
requires no user participation in issuing mobil-
ity related signaling. PMIPv6 defines two func-
tional entities: the local mobility anchor (LMA),
which takes care of the user’s reachability within
the associated network domain, and the mobile
access gateway (MAG) co-located on the access
router to manage the access link and user move-
ments, while coordinating with the LMA.
PMIPv6 can establish dynamic tunnels
between MAG and LMA via a control plane driv-
en protocol, and supports IP-GRE, IP-in-IP, and
IP-UDP encapsulation to carry user plane traffic,
with all sessions traversing the LMA. In particular
situations, several paths may exist between the
MAG and LMA. The PMIPv6 multipath support
[14] enables the MAG to bind or register any of
the available paths or multiple paths at the same
time with an LMA. This allows the potential estab-
lishment of multiple tunnels between the MAG

40 IEEE Communications Standards Magazine • March 2017

 L3 Net-based
No extra overhead, native encapsu-
Packet overhead
lation used in fixed/3GPP accesses
Location of HAG Located at P-GW or BNG or above
Packet re-ordering
No memory requirements
at HAG and HCPE
Path selection Policy-based
Policy provision at Relies on other protocols, e.g., TR-
HCPE/HAG 069, Gx/Sd interface (for HAG)
Traffic distribution Flow/packet-based (UDP and TCP)
Path performance
Out-of-band, e.g., via TR-069
monitoring
An address pool at HAG can offer
IP address allo-
the same IP address over both
cation
accesses
Retransmission
Host
responsibility
Table 1. Summary of the qualitative analysis on the operation of the different hybrid access approaches
and LMA, with PMIPv6 also supporting IPv4 and
dual-stack client addressing.
In the context of hybrid access, MAG and LMA
are co-located at the HCPE and HAG, respective-
ly, with the multipath segment in between. Like
extended GRE-tunneling, PMIPv6 supports both
per-packet and per-flow traffic distribution toward
users or networks, configured at the HCPE.
Hence, traffic toward a particular HCPE, including
the attached customers or networks, constitutes a
single subscriber session considering PMIPv6. A
static policy can be configured on the HCPE and
HAG to control the traffic distribution. Otherwise,
the HCPE can obtain a dynamic policy via the
authentication process or through a negotiation
with the HAG using PMIPv6 signaling. Path per-
formance measures are also taken into account
using out-of-band mechanisms.
Native Network-Based Tunneling
Native network-based tunneling relies on the cur-
rently employed mechanisms in the mobile and
fixed access networks to help provide connectiv-
ity between the HCPE and HAG. This approach
minimizes the maximum transmission unit (MTU)
in the access network by avoiding additional
encapsulation overhead where the network is
most sensitive.
The HCPE establishes the mobile access path
to the HAG using existing 3GPP mechanisms, as
the HAG implements the same reference point
as a PGW/GGSN to the mobile network (i.e. the
S5 reference point as specified in TS 23.401).
For the fixed broadband access path, the HCPE
uses DHCP or PPPoE to the MS-BNG, which in
turn stitches the access session to the HCPE to a
tunnel to the HAG, using the same mechanisms
IEEE Communications Standards Magazine • March 2017
L3 enhanced GRE-based L3 Mobile IP L4 MPTCP
Extra overhead related to GRE Extra overhead related to Extra overhead related to MPTCP
tunnel Mobile IP tunnel header
Located at P-GW or BNG or
Located at P-GW Located at P-GW or BNG or above
above
Memory required to store pack- Memory required to store packets and
No memory requirements
ets and resolve re-ordering resolve re-ordering
Policy-based, by default applies
Cheapest path first (prioritize
Policy-based packet-based distribution over available
DSL)
paths
Default behavior is packet-based distri-
Relies on other protocols, e.g.,
Based-on GRE enhancements bution over available paths. Relies on
Diameter
other protocols for advanced policy.
Flow/packet-based (UDP and
Flow-based (UDP and TCP) Flow/packet-based (TCP only)
TCP)
Out-of band via GRE enhance-
Out-of-band (not specified) In-band via sub-path feedback
ments
Allocate a different address per Allocates a different care-of-
Allocates a different IP address per
path and a public proxy address address per path and a proxy
access
from HAG home address
HAG/HCPE Host HAG/HCPE
defined for trusted WiFi access [4], implemented
using the S2 reference point. The HAG provides
a single subscriber session comprising the S5 and
S2 access paths for a given HCPE.
Optionally, the HAG function may be co-lo-
cated with the current access network gateways,
the PGW/GGSN, and/or the MS-BNG, allow-
ing equipment reuse for hybrid access related
functions and in a forward-looking approach to
access-agnostic network gateways. This solution
supports allocating a single IP address to the
HCPE for both the fixed and mobile access paths,
which allows traffic flows to seamlessly move
from one access path to another.
In addition, using a single IP address and not
using tunneling from the HCPE, which in turn
requires additional IP addressing, minimizes the
IP address consumption required to deliver hybrid
access services. The traffic distribution between
different paths is based on the applied policy in
combination with the performance feedback pro-
vided via out-of-bound means.
Comparing Hybrid Access Approaches
To provide an overview of the benefits and lim-
itations of each hybrid access approach, a qual-
itative analysis is performed as summarized in
Table 1. The different approaches are compared
in terms of packet overhead, hardware require-
ments, deployment flexibility, and operations. The
hardware requirements concentrate on the mem-
ory needed at the HAG and HCPE for buffering
packets until acknowledged and is tightly con-
nected to packet re-ordering and resiliency. The
location options for HAG and the process of allo-
cating path and HCPE addresses allows a differ-
ent bonding option or flexibility flavor for hybrid
41
The separation of control
and data planes can poten-
tially enhance flexibility by
assisting traffic steering.
This can strengthen
5G systems, providing
network openness and
elasticity. Network virtu-
alization can also enable
dynamic instantiation
and allocation of new
virtualized functions that
combine mobile and fixed
network operations,
which allows a flexible
deployment of the HAG,
taking into account service
specific parameters.
42
access deployment. Each hybrid access approach
inherently has a different set of operations such as
traffic distribution and path monitoring, and a dis-
tinct way of control influenced by policy provision
that governs the path selection.
Toward the Next Generation
of Converged Networks
As mentioned previously, standards bodies have
already defined a convergent control plane to
tackle policy and charging management in both
fixed and mobile domains. So far, user plane
interworking between mobile and fixed domains
was defined to facilitate communication between
two networking “worlds.” Nevertheless, operators
still lack a truly managed converged system with
common functions across the different domains.
Recognizing the value brought by a converged
control and core network over both mobile and
fixed accesses in reducing infrastructure and oper-
ating costs, operators are exploring its extension
into the emerging fifth generation (5G) systems
[16].
Hybrid access provides an important build-
ing block, by bringing convergence to the user
plane, toward the access independent environ-
ment. This brings light on the pillar architecture,
mechanisms, building blocks, functions, and pol-
icy control. However, the road toward such 5G
systems also brings new challenges in terms of
the evolution of a unified control plane across
both mobile and fixed access, the introduction
of new services and innovation inside the net-
work with common fixed and mobile network
functions realized by the evolution of network
functions using network functions virtualization/
software defined networking (NFV/SDN), devel-
oping an agile network. In particular, a unified
access independent control plane based on the
pillar converged control policy [6] could simpli-
fy authentication, billing, and policy control by
collapsing mobile and fixed operations into a sin-
gle system, while at the same time it can enable
more efficient resource management.
At the same time the use of hybrid access rais-
es some significant challenges in terms of service
optimization. For instance, distributed deployment
of content delivery optimization systems is limited
by the location IP edge platforms. As a conse-
quence of this, a highly distributed deployment
of, for example, a video content delivery network
(CDN) would imply either an equivalent distri-
bution of the HAG function or bypassing hybrid
access mechanisms for specific types of traffic.
Hybrid access systems with further control
plane and network virtualization enhancements
can enable innovative access independent ser-
vices by allowing vertical segment players, such
as the Internet of Things (IoT), to gain access to
network resources via new interfaces. The sepa-
ration of control and data planes can potentially
enhance flexibility by assisting traffic steering. This
can strengthen 5G systems, providing network
openness and elasticity. Network virtualization
can also enable dynamic instantiation and allo-
cation of new virtualized functions that combine
mobile and fixed network operations, which
allows flexible deployment of the HAG, taking
into account service specific parameters.
Conclusion
This article introduces hybrid access systems con-
sidering the network evolution toward 5G. Since
hybrid access is a step toward convergence, we
first briefly present the control plane interwork-
ing and convergence efforts and the business
use cases behind hybrid access. We then analyze
the hybrid access architecture, elaborating the
main functional blocks and policy control before
describing the different ongoing standardization
efforts including:
• Multipath TCP mechanisms
• Layer 3 overlay tunneling, describing both
enhanced GRE-based tunneling and PMIPv6
multipath support
• Native network-based tunneling
Finally, this article outlines the next generation of
converged networks toward 5G, highlighting the
main challenges.
Acknowledgment
This work has partially been supported by the EU
H2020 project SSICLOPS 644866. The views and
opinions expressed are the authors’ own.
References
[1] BBF TR-348, “Hybrid Access for Broadband Networks,” July
2016.
[2] BBF TR-203, “Interworking between Next Generation Fixed
and 3GPP Wireless Access,” Aug. 2012.
[3] 3GPP TS 23.139, “Fixed Broadband Access Network Inter-
working,” Rel. 13, Dec. 2015.
[4] BBF TR-291, “Nodal Requirements for Interworking between
Next Generation Fixed and 3GPP Wireless Access,” Mar.
2014.
[5] H. Kim, L. Kim, and A. Kunz, “Enhanced 3GPP System for
Interworking with Fixed Broadband Access Network,” IEEE
Commun. Mag., vol. 51, no. 3, Mar. 2013.
[6] BBF TR-300, “Nodal Requirements for Converged Policy
Management,” Sept. 2014.
[7] F. Leitão et al., “Unified Control Plane: Converged Policy
and Charging Control,” IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 53, no. 3,
Mar. 2015.
[8] 3GPP TS 23.203, “Policy and Charging Control Architec-
ture,” Rel. 13, Mar. 2016.
[9] BBF TR-134, “Broadband Policy Control Framework (BPCF),”
Jan. 2013.
[10] BBF TR-069 Amendment 4, “CPE WAN Management Pro-
tocol,” Jan. 2011.
[11] A. Ford et al., “TCP Extensions for Multipath Operation with
Multiple Addresses,” IETF RFC 6824, Jan. 2013.
[12] M. Boucadair et al., “An MPTCP Option for Network-Assist-
ed MPTCP,” IETF Daft, Oct. 2016.
[13] B. Peirens et al., “Link Bonding with Transparent Multipath
TCP,” IETF Draft, July 2016.
[14] N. Leymann et al., “GRE Notifications for Hybrid Access,”
IETF Draft, Jan. 2015.
[15] P. Seite, A. Yegin, and S. Gundavelli, MAG Multipath Bind-
ing Option, IETF Draft, July 2016.
[16] NGMN Alliance, “5G White Paper,” Feb. 2015.
Biographies
Konstantinos Samdanis (konstantinos.samdanis@huawei.com)
is a senior researcher with Huawei for 5G carrier networks. He
is involved in research for 5G networks architectures, SDN/NFV,
slicing, and network OS, participating in numerous European
projects. He is active in BFF in the area of network virtualization
and wired-wireless converged networks. Previously, he was a
senior researcher and a broadband standardization specialist
with NEC Europe. He received his Ph.D. and M.Sc. degrees
from Kings College London.
Filipe Leitão (filipe.leitao@neclab.eu) received his M.Sc. in infor-
matics engineering specialized in computer networks and ser-
vices engineering from the University of Minho, Portugal. He
has been working in the telecommunications industry since
2008, first in Portugal Telecom as a software and systems engi-
neer, then in the Ericsson R&D Center in Madrid as a system
manager for EPC Policy Control systems and delegate to the
IEEE Communications Standards Magazine • March 2017
BBF and WBA. Currently he is a researcher and standardization
engineer for NEC Europe in Germany and is involved in 5G
control plane standardization activities within the 3GPP SA2
Working Group.
S imon O echsner (simon.oechsner@neclab.eu) received his
M.Sc. in computer science from the University of Würzburg in
2004 and his Ph.D. in the field of distributed systems from the
same university in 2010. He has been a researcher with NEC
Laboratories Europe since 2014 and is working in the area of
software defined networking and network functions virtualiza-
tion. In particular, he is investigating multipath technologies and
reliability mechanisms.
Jaume Rius i Riu (jaume.riusiriu@telenor.se) recived his Master’s
degree in teaching and pedagogyfrom the University of Lleida
in 1997, his researcher qualifying degrees from the University
of Barcelona in 1998 and the Royal the Institute of Technology
in 2001, and his Ph.D. in experimental physics from the Royal
Institute of Technology in 2002. Between 2004 and October
2016 he was with Ericsson and with the Department of Electri-
cal and Information Technology at Lund University as a princi-
pal researcher in connectivity architectures in fixed broadband
networks and convergence working on mobile transport, IPv6
IEEE Communications Standards Magazine • March 2017
migration, and Wi-Fi integration. Since November 2016 he has
been with Telenor as a technical architect in network perfor-
mance management.
Roberto David Carnero Ros (roberto.david.carnero@ericsson.
com) received an M.Sc. in telecommunications engineering
from Polytechnic University of Madrid in 2000 and a Master’s in
pedagogy from Complutense University of Madrid in 2003. He
joined Ericsson in 1998. Since 2003 he has been working as a
product manager in the digital identity and policy management
areas. He has participated in BBF since 2011. He is BBF Editor of
Technical Reports in Fixed Mobile Convergence.
G uiu F abregas S egales (guiu.fabregas@nokia.com) received
an M.Sc. in telecommunications engineering from the Poly-
technic University of Catalunya in 2005 and an M.Sc. in
information and communication technology from the Royal
Institute of Technology in 2006. He is a senior engineer spe-
cialized in consulting and network design in Nokia’s IP and
Optical Networks department. He has broad experience in
the areas of IP/MPLS networks, software defined networking,
and network functions virtualization and is active in BBF in
the areas of network virtualization and wireline-wireless net-
work convergence.
43