N E T WO R K E VO L U T I O N : M i g ra t i o n S t ra t e g i e s fo r Success

This paper, jointly prepared by Frost & Sullivan and Tekelec, provides an overview of industry trends and issues impacting the evolution of wireless and wireline networks and proposes signaling related solutions that span the TDM, NGN and IMS domains. Partnering with clients to create innovative growth strategies

TA B L E O F CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction The Promise of IMS Current State of the Market: Operators Perspective
Service Providers and the IMS Business Case Carriers Evaluating Transitional Strategies Network Migration: Key Technical Challenges

3 4 5
5 6 7

Implementing a SIP Signaling Layer in the NGN

Tekelecs NGN SIP Signaling and Session Management Solution

7
10

Limitations of Todays Network and Bridging the Gap to Future Networks

Limitations of Todays Intelligent Network The Hybrid Network has Gaps Between the IN and IP Services Architectures
Service Mediation in Intelligent Networks Service Orchestration with Mediation across IN and NGN and IMS Networks

10
10 11
12 13

Tekelecs SCIM Solution

14

Gradually Deploying an IMS Architecture

Tekelec IMS Solution: Open IMS Alliance

14
15

Ensuring All SIP Issues Are Addressed

Bandwidth Inefficiency of SIP in a Wireless Environment

17
19

The Search for the Best Transitional Strategy Summary and Concluding Remarks

21 22

Frost & Sullivan

INTRODUCTION Given the current environment, how should carriers consider evolving their networks in order to support SIP, VoIP and multimedia services? The communications landscape is dynamic and intensely competitive. Deregulation, mergers and acquisitions, rapidly evolving technology, and changing customer behavior profoundly impact network architects and decision-makers. Operators must carefully consider a number of market drivers as they evolve their networks and explore the potential path of deploying IMS at the control layer. These market trends and network changes are having a significant impact on the signaling network. The migration to the IMS (IP Multimedia Subsystem) architecture has thus far proven to be an evolutionary rather than a revolutionary transition, and it will have an even larger impact on the signaling layer. As the network evolves, the signaling protocol will migrate from signaling system 7 (SS7) to session initial protocol (SIP) and the signal transfer point (STP) of the public switched telephone network (PSTN) will transition to the call session control function (CSCF) of the IMS architecture. Developing a sound understanding of IMS will help to establish the rationale that will guide various decisions in architecting network evolution. Nearly immeasurable investments of time and finances have already been made to develop the IMS standards and supplementary technologies over the last two decades. Fundamental aspects of efficient design have been guiding principles to ensure the maximum benefit to the subscriber while preserving the ability of the service providers and application developers to obtain a successful ROI. Insight into the impetus for IMS can be a guide for determining how to prioritize network transitions. The prevailing consensus in the telecom world is that the evolution to IMS will span many years. In the interim, there will be a mix of signaling technologies deployed. While there will be a gradual build-out oriented towards SIP based signaling, SS7 is expected to remain an important signaling technology for years to come due to several factors such as its importance in enabling roaming in a mobile environment and the large installed base of SS7 technology. Because the network is in a state of perpetual transition, the outcome can be considered indeterminate at the point that migration begins. Ultimately, given any path to IMS, there are several choices operators can make to leverage their existing investment and maximize the probability of success given the dynamic changes in technology. The ideal architecture for the transition is one that provides flexibility to service providers by enabling them to deploy new services on IP based technologies, while leveraging existing services and infrastructure as long as it makes sense. Operators must begin to focus on the steps that will enable a smooth transition. Tekelec presents a multi-pronged strategy for assisting carriers to migrate to the next-generation service delivery model (whether IMS or some other variant) at their own pace.
Frost & Sullivan

THE PROMISE OF IMS IMS is a framework that allows the rapid development and deployment of enhanced, revenue-generating multimedia services for fixed, mobile and cable operators. IMS offers a new modular approach towards call control and service delivery. This modular architecture is achieved by separating the bearer traffic (in the transport layer) from the signaling traffic (in the control layer). By disaggregating the transport, control, and application layers, IMS promises to allow carriers to quickly and cost-effectively launch a wide array of new multimedia services on their networks. This approach also enables operators to seamlessly run a plethora of next-generation converged services over their fixed, mobile and cable networks, achieve a faster time-to-market for new services and have fewer performance bottlenecks. The access agnostic nature of the specification makes it one of the most ambitious and comprehensive standardization efforts to date, specifically addressing the evolution to next-generation telecom infrastructures. IMS utilizes packet technologies for underlying transport and relies upon SIP for call signaling between the various components. The promise of IMS is the notion of re-utilizing common functions (such as billing and presence) and then integrating them in a horizontal fashion. These functions can be reused for many different applications, as illustrated in Figure 1. This approach, called functional decomposition, is far superior to the traditional vertical integration model, in which common functions are replicated for each application. Figure 1: IMS: A More Efficient Service Implementation

Stovepipe Service Model

Push to Talk Service Interactive Gaming Service Video Streaming Service

IMS Service Approach Application Layer

Application Servers
Session Management and control
Billing / OSS

Billing / OSS

Billing / OSS

Billing / OSS

Presence

Presence

........

........

Presence

........

...

Control Layer

QoS

QoS

QoS

QoS

IP Multimedia Subsystem
Presence

...

Network Subsystem

Transport Layer Access Layer

Multi-service IP Network

Base Station Subsystem

RAN

WLAN

...

PSTN

Common functions are replicated

Common functions are reutilized

Source: Frost & Sullivan

Frost & Sullivan

CURRENT STATE OF THE MARKET: OPERATORS PERSPECTIVE Service Providers and the IMS Business Case In a recent Frost & Sullivan carrier survey 1 over 33 percent of carriers indicated their belief that the IMS business case remains somewhat elusive. In fact, this was the most often mentioned IMS caveat on that survey, as shown in Figure 2. The operator business models will become more refined as carriers develop plans to offer new multimedia services; however, there is still uncertainty about which applications will have the most success. Figure 2: IMS Caveats (According to a February 2007 Global Frost & Sullivan Carrier Survey)

IMS Caveats
2% 4% 2% 4% 8% 33%

Operators Still Adjusting to the IMS Business Case IMS is Still a Work in Progress in the Standards Arena IMS Not as "Open" as Advertised More Interoperability Effort Is Required

9%

IMS Security Still Perceived as a Risk Carriers Need to Tackle Other Technical Issues Prior to Embracing IMS More IMS Handsets and Clients Needed for Success Cost and Complexity of the Systems Integration

13%

25%

No "Killer Apps" as of yet to Justify the Commitment to IMS

Source: Frost & Sullivan Two groups have emerged: the early adopters, who are more willing to embrace IMS today, and a skeptical group focused on immediate and pragmatic issues. The early adopters take a strategic approach and are less concerned with specific IMS applications. At the other end of the spectrum are the service providers who take more of an application prove-in approach. This group of carriers might typically remain sidelined and choose to wait until further issues such as handsets, bandwidth and QoS are resolved, or new IMS applications are created. These operators are concerned with the first five applications to be deployed within the new IMS framework. For these operators its all about the short-term business case for the applications rather than the long-term benefit of the IMS framework. The focus is on a shorter payback period (typically a 6-12 month horizon as opposed to 3 years).

1. Please refer to IMS Ready for Prime Time? by Ronald Gruia, released by Frost & Sullivan in February 2007.

Frost & Sullivan

There are multiple options to transition networks to maximize existing architecture and eventually realize the benefits of IMS. Each of them entails several steps. These incremental steps include migration of the control layer of SS7 to IP this includes deploying SIGTRAN (SS7 over IP) and/or eventually deploying an independent SIP signaling control plane in the NGN. Another step would be linking the application layer to the control layer by implementing SCIM (Service Capability Interaction Manager) functionality to help bridge the transition from TDM to NGN, and eventually IMS. Carriers Evaluating Transitional Strategies Carriers are dealing with issues such as seamless service delivery across a variety of network types as shown in Figure 3. While this happens, SIP and SS7 will continue to coexist in carriers networks. In addition, operators will start capping their investments in current technologies and gradually begin to shift them to new equipment purchases. Figure 3: Co-existence of Signaling Technologies

time

IMS SIP/SS7 Concurrence SIGTRAN 3G R4 SS7 2G

Source: Tekelec Carriers need to be able to provide new services to all subscribers in order to maximize their ROI. The key takeaway is that a carefully planned transition strategy is imperative to make the NGN transition a technological, service and business success.

Frost & Sullivan

Network Migration: Key Technical Challenges Since the IMS transition will be gradual, our discussions with various service providers revealed that there will be a number of technical issues that require more immediate resolution as their networks evolve. These include the following: Implementing a SIP signaling and session control layer in the NGN: how can operators architect a core signaling and session control layer ensuring that it is scalable and that it can form the basis for an eventual migration to IMS? Limitations of todays network and bridging the gap to future pre-IMS and IMS networks: how can operators deliver seamless services in a hybrid network and support service mediation and interaction between legacy, mobile, VoIP and IMS networks? Deploying an IMS architecture gradually: once the transitional issues have been taken care of (i.e., older stovepipe services can be delivered alongside newer IMS applications and the signaling and session control layer has been implemented), how can operators build out the final pieces of their IMS network? Ensuring all SIP issues (present and future) are addressed: after the rollout of the IMS network, some issues associated with the usage of SIP begin to emerge, including overload conditions at the control plane, SIP signaling bandwidth inefficiencies and failure recovery mechanisms. How should operators deal with these SIP issues as their future networks grow? The following sections discuss these challenges in some detail. IMPLEMENTING A SIP SIGNALING LAYER IN THE NGN A major issue with the NGN architecture is the lack of core-signaling infrastructure to assist NGN elements with signaling and session routing activities. Without a hierarchal session control layer, each NGN network element must handle all control layer related tasks such as routing, traffic management, redundancy and service implementation. All of this causes a number of barriers to creating an efficient network. For instance, each NGN network element must make application layer routing decisions based upon the destination address (i.e., SIP URI). Thus, all possible routes must be defined at each network element so that each will have one or more signaling routes between them. Hence, the combination of possible routes at the edge network results in the formation of a logical mesh-network routing architecture 2 as depicted in the following diagram:

2. This architecture exists at the application layer, riding on top of a layer 3 IP packet routing network.

Frost & Sullivan

Figure 4: Hidden layer 5 mesh routing architecture

PBX
VoIP IAD

SIP PBX

VoIP End-Point
SIP Services

Edge Proxy

SBC

A/Abis
RAN MG Edge Proxy

VoIP

A/Abis
RAN MG

MSC Server

SBC

VoIP

A hidden L5 logical mesh routing architecture exists on top of an IP packet routing network. IP Packet Network

Source: Tekelec This mesh architecture entails several critical challenges including: A host of scalability-related issues, for example routing table exhaustion, provisioning and billing errors; Traffic flow controls, network failure recovery and other traffic managementrelated issues; Interoperability tests must be performed between all possible signaling device connections to ensure proper communication between the elements; and Difficulties implementing a consistent number portability scheme across the entire NGN network. Moreover, the current NGN architecture also contains the following architectural deficiencies: Vendor dependencies: Without core session management, an NGN element performs all application layer processing. Consequently, the behavior of communication services (i.e., user interaction, features and more) is dictated by how the vendor of the network element implements the service. Furthermore, implementing independent services offered by third party SIP application servers becomes quite difficult. Hence, an operator may be locked into a single vendor due to vendor specific service implementation in order to maintain service consistencies across the network.

Frost & Sullivan

 NGN lacks the IMS services framework: An important IMS architecture attribute is the Home Service Control (HSC) framework. The HSC framework supports delivery of multimedia services to both Home as well as roaming subscribers, regardless of access method. The HSC framework allows an operator to offer advanced multimedia services utilizing multiple clients (i.e., IP phones, soft-client running on a PC or a wireless client running on smart wireless terminals). The core session management layer contributes directly to the HSC. Because the NGN network architecture relies on the outmoded softswitch architecture for managing sessions, the current NGN network is intrinsically voice-centric as well as access dependent. Even though the NGN architecture utilizes the latest IP technologies, it still follows the TDM voice service model and does not leverage IP capabilities. The core signaling and session control layer has proven its importance in the SS7 signaling network and is identified in the IMS network architecture. The current NGN architecture does not have a core SIP signaling and session control layer. Therefore, it cannot be properly expanded without the implementation of a suitable signaling and session control framework capable of off-loading various SIP signaling and session tasks from the edge NGN elements. With a capable session layer, session-related tasks are migrated from the edge NGN nodes to a centralized core SIP session framework. The resulting architecture, depicted in Figure 5, allows the NGN network to grow systematically in response to increasing demand for VoIP, while avoiding the various limitations previously mentioned. Figure 5: NGN with core SIP signaling & session framework
PBX
VoIP IAD

SIP PBX

VoIP End-Point
SIP Services

Edge Proxy

SBC

A/Abis
RAN MG Edge Proxy

VoIP

A/Abis
RAN MG

MSC Server

SBC

L5 Controls Tekelec is proposing a L5 control framework to provide SIP routing & control IP Packet Network

VoIP

Source: Tekelec
Frost & Sullivan

This session-based framework also presents an ideal opportunity to introduce the benefits of an IMS architecture into the NGN environment. Essentially, the IMS session management technology is a perfect candidate for implementing a signaling layer in the NGN. With the appropriate signaling and session control framework the NGN network can realize many of the attributes promised by the IMS architecture, such as access independence, Home Service Control model, subscription-based service orchestration, and multimedia support. Moreover, with an independent control layer, a robust and bearer independent signaling and session control network can be implemented to offer highly available signaling that provides session setup for any type of multimedia service. Therefore, an operator can offer not only VoIP but any other type of media with the reliability and scalability of an SS7 network. Tekelecs NGN SIP Signaling and Session Management Solution Tekelecs acumen and market leadership in SS7 signaling go a long way in providing credibility to the companys belief in the importance of a media independent session control layer, and in bringing IMS CSCF technology to the NGN community. Nonetheless, the 3GPP IMS CSCF cannot simply be deployed within the NGN without adapting its protocols and procedures. Hence, Tekelec offers a unique session management solution for the NGN environment that adheres to 3GPP IMS CSCF definitions, but is also adaptable to the changing environment of the NGN. Called the TekCore Session Manager, it provides SIP signaling router (SSR) functionality for the NGN and supports 3GPP-defined IMS session control functionality to handle various session management and control tasks needed within the NGN. TekCore is compliant with the 3GPP IMS S/I-CSCF specifications, while offering adaptations for interworking with non-3GPP compliant IP environments. TekCores SIP signaling router (SSR) function introduces a session control framework, plus the latest in IMS technology to the NGN. IMS compatibility provides seamless interworking and facilitates the evolution to an IMS architecture in the future. LIMITATIONS OF TODAYS NETWORK AND BRIDGING THE GAP TO FUTURE NETWORKS Limitations of Todays Intelligent Network The package of services that can be offered to any single subscriber are limited in todays network. To trigger services in the network, the subscriber activates them through the access network of the service provider. When the subscriber activates a call, a single trigger is generated that can be used to initiate applications in the network which likely reside on an SCP. With only a single trigger, the service provider can only offer the

Frost & Sullivan

10

services available on the triggered SCP. While some SCP vendors offer more appealing service portfolios than others, there are typical disadvantages associated with vendor lock-in. Another challenge to easily selecting among application vendors is the variety of flavors of SCP access technologies including BICC, INAP and CAMEL variations. Access networks are only capable of interacting with a single interface without protocol conversion. Each application essentially becomes an isolated service delivery solution within the network. This delivery approach, called a siloed architecture, prevents the service provider from easily maximizing services for their subscriber populations. However, one of the most significant limitations in the IN application layer is that the ideal group of services for a subscriber group are generally not on the same platform and cannot be offered to subscribers as part of a portfolio. Each time a new technology or service is introduced at the access level, existing applications must be modified and reconnected, creating operational and maintenance issues as well as bottlenecking the introduction of new services. To execute more than one IN application requires service orchestration. Service orchestration enables a subscriber to access more than one application and it determines the order and precedence of the services. Service mediation provides protocol interworking when a service application client and an application server employ different protocol technologies. The end result without service orchestration and mediation is an inflexible architecture that creates CAPEX, scalability and interoperability challenges for the operator with limited opportunities to extend ARPU. The Hybrid Network has Gaps Between the IN and IP Services Architectures Operators that deploy NGN networks on any scale with existing networks face challenges. Perhaps one of the most pre-eminent issues for operators that are gradually transitioning a network is the importance of creating a seamless experience for subscribers. This issue is critical because a change in basic and familiar services with the subscriber could trigger a sudden turnover of the subscriber base. Therefore, network providers want to ensure that existing applications can be delivered to subscribers for a familiar experience. However, the advantage for the operator deploying NGN technologies is the opportunity to offer applications provided through SIP application servers. SIP application services have different characteristics than the IN services and can potentially unlock opportunities to increase subscriber ARPU. The driving philosophy of IMS is to create applications that blend shared components, such as presence, to maximize the effectiveness of a service while minimizing the cost and time to deploy. Successfully deploying orchestrated applications requires SCIM functionality which performs the blended service orchestration.
Frost & Sullivan

11

Ultimately, carriers will need to mediate services from IN and SIP domains to attain the best reception from subscribers. Therefore, the SCIM not only assumes the role of orchestrating applications, but also of mediating multiple services across various technologies. The enablement of a cross-generational SCIM creates the opportunity for service blends that can be seamlessly offered to any subscriber at any location. A purpose-built SCIM solution should be able to orchestrate applications and mediate services between multi-technology networks. Additionally, the SCIM solution should support a rules-based execution engine that enables providers to flexibly control service interaction and mediation within and across networks. Although the use of a SCIM solution in networks can be advocated for several use cases, we will focus on two main cases: 1. Service Mediation in Intelligent Networks 2. Service Orchestration with Mediation across IN, NGN and IMS Networks Service Orchestration and Mediation in Intelligent Networks SCIM technology enables operators to solve real-world challenges that they face in their networks today and creates a clear migration path to the future. Operators are presently faced with hybrid networks containing products from multiple vendors, using variants of the same protocols or completely different protocols, as in the case of SCPs using either WIN or CAMEL. Inter-working and blending resources in this environment using current technology is expensive and inefficient, and it hinders an operators ability to deliver mixed service packages to their existing subscribers. Using SCIM, operators can launch multiple services with a single trigger. In this scenario, SCIM, deployed between the switch and the application layer, acts as a virtual SCP. It takes a single service request from the MSC and directs multiple service requests to the SCPs. It then aggregates the responses and sends a single response to the switch. SCIM creates a new model for inter-working IN services when deployed between the control and application layers. From this intermediary layer, the functions of mediation and protocol conversion enhance the capabilities of the orchestration agent at the application layer. This approach enables operators to integrate multiple applications built on different protocols without re-architecting the network or upgrading the switches and/or service control platforms. For example, in GSM networks you could provide personal ring-back tones (PRBTs) to a prepaid roaming subscriber using a single trigger. In this scenario, SCIM, deployed between the switch and the application layer, acts as a virtual SCP. The SCIM takes a single service request from the MSC and directs multiple service requests to the SCPs. It then aggregates the responses and sends a single response to the switch.
Frost & Sullivan

12

Service Orchestration with Mediation across IN and NGN and IMS Networks In pre-IMS and IMS networks, SCIM continues to perform all three functions: 1.) protocol conversion so that the SCIM can talk with all types of application servers; 2.) Mediation, so that it can determine order and precedence of applications; and 3.) Orchestration to blend applications that share information. As carriers transition their networks, an important consideration is how to inter-work their existing networks with future IMS networks to deliver a seamless service experience to subscribers regardless of their access technology. Operators want to leverage their investment in current technology and avoid duplicating services in multiple domains. In addition, providers need the ability to mix services from multiple domains to create unique service packages. SCIM bridges TDM, NGN and IMS networks, providing the orchestration and mediation to enable SIP-based application servers and IN service platforms to inter-work (please refer to Figure 6). This allows carriers to deliver SIP-based services such as presence, location, enhanced VPN and IP conferencing to SS7-based subscribers. Conversely, IMS subscribers have access to SS7-based applications like number portability, directory assistance and calling-name delivery. Figure 6: Service orchestration and mediation between IN, NGN and IMS Networks
HLR HLR
MAP, LDAP & Diameter

HSS HSS

Billing Billing Control Control

PRBT PRBT

CAMEL, WIN & INAP with vendor specific extensions

MSC/SSP MSC/SSP
Expensive to Add Multiple Protocols

Vendor 1 Vendor 1

Virtual Virtual SCP SCP

Interaction

VPN/NP VPN/NP

New Network Services Virtual Virtual SIP SIP AS AS Mediation SIP

Presence Presence SIP App SIP App Server Server

MSC/SSP MSC/SSP

Vendor 2 Vendor 2

SoftSwich/ SoftSwich/

CSCF CSCF

Source: Tekelec

Frost & Sullivan

13

After the SCIM functionality is deployed at the STP in the SS7 network, operators can extend the SCIM capabilities to the pre-IMS/NGN and IMS domains with a SIP interface. This is a logical interconnection point since the SS7 network is the backbone for intelligent service delivery, data and application interaction, and flexible routing in circuitbased networks. With SCIM deployed in an NGN or IMS network, its functionality can be extended to an SS7 network using SIGTRAN, an SS7 over IP signaling protocol. Deploying SIGTRAN brings the IP service infrastructure into the core signaling network, allowing SIP and SS7 signaling to be processed over the same IP signaling framework. This arrangement allows users on SIP-based terminals to access legacy network services and interact fully with legacy network users. Tekelecs SCIM Solution The Tekelec TekSCIM Service Mediator solution enables service interaction between legacy, mobile, VoIP and IMS networks. It bridges technologies, allowing SS7-based, IN service platforms to coexist and interact with SIP-based platforms to deliver unified services across virtually any network type. With TekSCIM, operators can: Consolidate mediation and inter-working of IN service platforms with different technologies and protocols Coordinate and manage the interaction of multiple applications to support blended services in pre-IMS networks Extend IN services to the NGN/IMS domain and deliver next-gen, SIP-based services to traditional TDM subscribers Mediate multiple services in the IMS domain to create a rich, multimedia user experience GRADUALLY DEPLOYING AN IMS ARCHITECTURE One of the key assumptions made for this paper is that the IMS architecture is the target architecture. So what is IMS? IMS is a framework for building multimedia applications over IP, with a specified architecture, interfaces, protocols and procedures. IMS was born in the wireless and Internet domains 3GPP, 3GPP2 and the IETF. However, IMS is becoming increasingly applicable to wireline (TISPAN) and cable operators (Packet Cable), who are leveraging the core IMS specification to develop complementary specs that address their specific network, service and operational requirements. In Figure 7, we see that the IMS Architecture has many characteristics and concepts in common with the Intelligent Network (IN) architecture that is an overlay on the PSTN and with the Customized Applications for Mobile Enhanced Logic (CAMEL) architecture

Frost & Sullivan

14

that is an overlay on the GSM mobile network. In fact, the IMS Service Control (ISC) interface adopts many of the concepts of the SS7 IN, including trigger points. Figure 7: Similar Concepts: IN GSM IMS

SCP

SCP

AS

Provisioning

HLR
IN Query CSI Camel Query

HSS
SIP Query Profile

Trigger Details

SSF Bearer

VLR/SSF Bearer MSC

IFC CSCF Bearer MGCF/MG

Switch

IN overlay on PSTN

Camel overlay on GSM

IMS overlay on MM-NGN

Source: Tekelec

Tekelec IMS Solution: Open IMS Alliance Tekelec has elected to partner with HP, BEA Systems and third-party independent software vendors (ISVs) and form the Open IMS Alliance, in order to accelerate the deployment of IMS Services. The Open IMS Solution provides the first open, standardscompliant and end-to-end IMS Solution within a cohesive, integrated infrastructure and service environment. Open IMS is an open, integrated and tested multi-vendor IMS offering that allows service providers to address the challenges arising from decreasing sources of traditional revenue and rising infrastructure costs. The solution includes IMS core network infrastructure, service enablers, operational and business support system linkages and application service offerings that enable the delivery of subscriber-centric services including fixed, mobile and cable broadband networks.

Frost & Sullivan

15

Open IMS is illustrated in the next figure. The key components of the overall solution include the following: Figure 8: Open IMS Solution Tekelec, HP, BEA Systems and third-party ISVs

Source: Tekelec Call session control function (CSCF): TekCore is a Tekelec developed, 3GPP compliant element providing CSCF capabilities to enable the control of nextgeneration multimedia traffic. TekCore also delivers session initiation protocol (SIP) signaling router functionality, allowing operators to cost-effectively upgrade their next-generation networks (NGNs) to IMS Home subscriber server (HSS): The HP OpenCall HSS is derived from the HP OpenCall Home Location Register, which provides mobility management for 35 service providers and more than 200 million subscribers. As a core building block in IMS networks, the HP OpenCall HSS acts as the master database for both 3G and IMS subscribers, providing service data, feature lists and subscriber information. SIP application server (AS): The BEA WebLogic SIP Server, the SIP-IMS application server component of the BEA WebLogic Communications Platform product family, provides a high-performance, available and powerful service creation and execution environment designed for converged Internet-IMS communication and collaboration services.

Frost & Sullivan

16

 Service enablers: including the media resource function (MRF), presence server, electronic numbering (ENUM) and group list management Multimedia applications: such as enhanced voice services, instant messaging (IM) and video sharing Systems integration: Integration with back-office and legacy systems Leveraging a variety of IMS service enablers running on top of the HP-Tekelec IMS infrastructure, the BEA solution is designed to provide a highly flexible, customizable and expandable services environment for Independent Software Vendors (ISVs), Network Equipment Vendors (NEVs) and System Integrators (SIs) deploying revenue-generating voice, data and content services. The joint solution provides a cohesive, integrated infrastructure and service environment, delivered as a whole with expansion and enhancement options provided to meet or fit service providers needs. In order to support customer requirements for fully integrated solutions, the companies have successfully completed interoperability testing between the Tekelec TekCore Session Manager (CSCF), the HP OpenCall home subscriber server (HSS) and the BEA WebLogic SIP Server. In addition, Tekelec is also a very active participant in interoperability testing (IOT) efforts being led by organizations such as the IMS Forum and SIP Forum. ENSURING ALL SIP ISSUES ARE ADDRESSED Undeniably, SIP (Session Initiation Protocol) 3 is one of the hottest specifications du jour, offering some key intangibles such as support for multimedia call set up, and having been incorporated into the recent standard for NGN and IMS based signaling. In fact, SIP is already being used in applications that go above and beyond the original intent, yet it has evolved to meet the requirements of these unanticipated uses. Today SIP is used as: a network access protocol to enable user-to-network call signaling as a core network protocol to enable call setup as a network-to-network call setup protocol as a service and application control protocol

Issues with SIP can potentially emerge before, during and after all of the NGN and IMS elements are deployed. In terms of signaling, a fundamental distinction between SIP and a protocol such as SS7 is the part of the signaling network each was originally intended for. SS7 was designed to be a core network signaling protocol and as such is very robust and resilient to failures.

3. SIP is defined in RFC 3261 from the IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force). Please refer to: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3261.txt

Frost & Sullivan

17

By contrast, SIP was originally designed to operate between VoIP endpoints, as shown in Figure 9: Figure 9: Initial SIP application - endpoint to endpoint call setup

IP
Media Stream

Source: Tekelec Defining a prompt recovery mechanism for failure scenarios was not a design goal for SIP. Since SIP was targeted for endpoint to endpoint communication, and since failure of either endpoint would result in a session failure, there was no need for recovery mechanisms. In NGN and IMS networks, SIP is no longer restricted to signaling between endpoints instead SIP is used for signaling between network elements at the core of the network. In these scenarios, for instance, it is not acceptable for the failure of an S-CSCF to result in failure of the session. Rather, it is expected that failure will result in a failover to another S-CSCF that is also associated with the failed S-CSCF as illustrated in Figure 10. Issues that have been overlooked by ongoing standardization efforts include the achievement of high availability of SIP servers and failure or overload detection within the core SIP signaling network. Within its product portfolio, Tekelec has tackled these issues by providing solutions that enable geographic redundancy and monitoring of SIP endpoints via reactive heartbeats to detect failures at the SIP layer. Tekelec has developed its TRUST package to address the issues associated with using SIP as the signaling protocol for the core of the network. The TRUST package improves robustness and resiliency to failure of a core signaling network that is based on SIP. Geographic redundancy, failure detection and tuned timers are key competitive differentiators for Tekelecs TRUST package, since they are not usually found in other vendors products.

Frost & Sullivan

18

Figure 10: SIP in the Core of the signaling network

SIP AS SIP AS

S-CSCF

S-CSCF

S-CSCF

P-CSCF

Source: Tekelec Bandwidth Inefficiency of SIP in a Wireless Environment SIP was designed for simplicity and easy troubleshooting, not for bandwidth efficiency. The initial use of SIP was on wireline networks that supported broadband speeds, where bandwidth was, relatively speaking, abundant. However, wireless networks are different and bandwidth over the radio access network is not unlimited. A comparison between SS7 signaling and SIP based signaling is captured in the figure below.

Frost & Sullivan

19

Figure 11: Signaling Intensity Expands Dramatically with IMS

Number of Messages Per Service

0 IMS (FMC) IMS (Basic) POTS Call

10

20

30

40

50

Signaling Intensity Expands Dramatically with IMS

POTS Msg Type

IAM

IMS (Basic) Bytes

60 20 20 20 20 20

Msg Type
Invite 100 Trying 180 Ringing 200 OK ACK BYE 200 OK

Bytes
1000 300 700 1000 500 500 400

and Signaling Message Sizes Increase as Well

*Tekelec Analysis

CPG ACM ANM REL RLC

TOTALS

160

4400

07 | 23

Source: Tekelec As the figure indicates, using SIP for signaling increases the size of the messages as well as the number of messages resulting in a significant impact on the signaling control layer. Hence, the evolution to IMS and new services will significantly increase the number of messages compared to traditional telephony services. This factor significantly impacts the design of the signaling network, especially if SIP is used at the handset or user device. The issue of message size is particularly important for the air interface. The standards bodies have addressed this issue by defining RFC 3320 Signaling Compression (SigComp) as well as an Internet Draft RFC titled Applying Signaling Compression (SigComp) to the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Standard. Carriers that intend to send SIP over the radio access interface should consider using SigComp. Tekelec has gained significant experience with SigComp during IMS trials in wireless environments. Leveraging its expertise in SS7 signaling, Tekelec has implemented several new, patented technologies on its TekCore product, which brings the best attributes of SS7 to SIP. Another challenge arising from the high traffic increase due to SIP is overload management at the control plane. Unlike SS7, which exchanges network management messages between nodes, there is no similar concept in SIP. There is no current work underway in the IETF, however, the Multi-Service Forum (MSF) as well as the TISPAN (Telecoms & Internet converged Services & Protocols for Advanced Networks) standards groups, are investigating ways to address these issues. The Multi-Service Forum has recently published a paper on this topic (MSF-TR-ARCH-007-FINAL: NGN Control Plane

Frost & Sullivan

20

Overload and its Management). Tekelecs use of DNS Caching and Exception List helps eliminate unnecessary requests to downed SIP servers and is one way to reduce congestion in the network in failure scenarios. THE SEARCH FOR THE BEST TRANSITIONAL STRATEGY Table 1 shows that operators have several solution alternatives to chose from from in addressing the earlier mentioned challenges, and the eventual migration to IMS. One alternative would be to migrate all existing network services and applications over to the new SIP infrastructure, a logistical and financial nightmare. Another option would be to add SIP to all existing SCPs, which would be another costly and unrealistic option. A third, less costly and disruptive option is to use transitional technologies, like service mediation, to provide a bridge between the SIP-based IMS network and SS7-based PSTN and 2G mobile networks. Implementing a transitional strategy based on the signaling control layer appears to be the most promising option. Bridging technologies can be used between the SS7- and SIP-signaling networks. A close linkage of the STP and CSCF can facilitate a more graceful and cost-effective migration to IMS. Table 1 - The best transitional strategy is migrating at the signaling layer

Implementation Alternatives
Complete cutover to IMS? Run parallel isolated networks? Upgrade legacy equipment to handle IMS/SIP interfaces? Replicate existing services into the IMS Domain? Custom build our own solutions? Transitional strategy based on the control layer.

Outlook?
Not very realistic and way too costly. Would result in islands of IMS. Requires a lot of investment in legacy equipment rather than in next-gen equipment. Very costly and not a good use of nextgen investment dollars. This is a big undertaking could be very costly and time consuming. Looks like the most logical solution
Source: Tekelec

A key part of an operators transition strategy is to start from the IN control layer, and pursue a service mediation solution between the SS7-based TDM and legacy fixed/mobile networks, and the SIP-based IMS network. This bridge will allow SIP-based terminals to access legacy PSTN/2G services and allow PSTN/2G terminals to access (some) IMS services, thereby reducing service replication costs. Hence, this strategy will deliver revenues from existing subscribers to help fund the capital expenditure that will be
Frost & Sullivan

21

needed to pay for the evolution to the IMS. A transitional approach, leveraging service mediation to create a unified signaling layer (see Figure 12), will help operators: Minimize investment in pre-IMS technologies Provide service continuity across hybrid networks Lower costs by leveraging existing investment in key IN/AIN applications for both domains during transition to IMS There are additional advantages of the service mediation approach over alternative solutions. Centralizing mediation intelligence at the signaling core eliminates the need for costly network upgrades or overhauls. Also, the same service mediation model and equipment can be re-used for other services and mediation issues. Figure 12: Unified Signaling Layer Accelerates Migration

Source: Tekelec SUMMARY AND CONCLUDING REMARKS Signaling is embedded in every service today and will continue to be in the future. Industry drivers and technology trends are changing rapidly, creating new business and network challenges for operators. The core signaling and session control layer, which has proven its importance in the SS7 signaling network, is identified in the IMS network architecture and will soon be introduced into the NGN to support the expansion of VoIP and a new generation of multimedia services. While the transition to IMS appears to be the end goal, the path and length of time to get there are unknown at this point in time. The reality is that operators are borrowing the

Frost & Sullivan

22

best of IMS today to get the most benefits possible, without deploying a full-blown IMS infrastructure, which causes the IMS business case not to work that well. The incremental approach being taken by operators allows them to prove-in the IMS business case much easier than just building the entire IMS infrastructure and waiting for the subscribers and revenues to come. One thing is clear: the move to IMS will be a gradual transition over time, requiring the interplay of different network applications, technologies and protocols as the networks evolve. The key to success in this complex and competitive environment is to understand how the evolution of the network will impact a service providers business and signaling network, and how to create a good transitional strategy. In this paper, we made a case that the most logical transitional strategy is one that is based on the control layer. By leveraging its expertise in signaling, Tekelec has a unique angle of attack for the IMS marketplace. This is in contrast to its other competitors, such as the large network equipment providers (NEPs) that typically try to leverage their acumen in legacy switching products as they tackle the transition towards IMS. These vendors try to position the central office switch as the optimal point from which the network should evolve. The NEPs pitch to upgrade their softswitches to a CSCF is a somewhat risky proposition, as it inevitably leads to vendor lockdown (due to the proprietary nature of most switching implementations), and possibly even some scalability issues and other performance bottlenecks (as the IMS network begins to increase). Another key pitfall associated with a softswitch-based architecture is the lack of a core signaling infrastructure, which can cause scalability and availability issues, routing and service complexity, increased interoperability testing and higher operation costs associated with NGN expansion. By contrast, Tekelec, given its signaling expertise, maintains that signaling is the obvious starting point of the evolution of the network. As a result, the company developed the TekCore SIP Signaling Router (SSR). TekCore SSR introduces an independent SIP signaling and session control layer in the NGN that can respond to increasing demand for VoIP, as well as support multimedia services. A session framework also offers an excellent opportunity to introduce the benefits of IMS architecture into the NGN environment. With the appropriate signaling and session control framework the NGN network can realize many of the attributes promised by the IMS architecture, without the cost of deploying a full blown IMS infrastructure. IMS is moving forward in a variety of ways, albeit slower than originally forecasted. Part of the reason for this is the fact that operators are still grappling with how best to migrate their network and services to IMS, and how to make the IMS business case work. With Tekelecs TekSCIM solution, carriers can harness the power of IMS technology in their networks today to deliver innovative mixed service packages AND create a clear migration path to the future.

Frost & Sullivan

23

In the final step, operators will deploy an IMS-compliant, SIP-based CSCF, similar in role to the STP in TDM networks. To overcome the initial barriers to deploying IMS, Tekelec has teamed with HP, BEA Systems and third-party independent software vendors (ISVs) to create the Open IMS Solution - to accelerate the deployment of IMS Services. The Open IMS Solution provides the first open, standards-compliant and end-to-end IMS Solution within a cohesive, integrated infrastructure and service environment. Furthermore, TekCore incorporates several new, patented technologies that will bring the best attributes of SS7 to SIP. Finally, via strong partnerships with the more innovative vendors, operators can ease the transition by staying attuned to emerging issues, and can work with their vendors to meet these challenges before they arise. Given the expertise that it has developed in the SIP domain, Tekelec is well positioned to address performance issues related to the increased traffic due with the advent of IMS. Key differentiators by Tekelec in this area include geographic redundancy, failure detection and tuned timers. Summarizing, Tekelec supports a multi-prong strategy for helping operators migrate to the next-generation service delivery model at their own pace and via the path that best suits their needs: For those who want to gradually move into IMS while continuing to leverage everything theyve already deployed, there is TekSCIM, which supports service orchestration and mediation across the IN, NGN and IMS domains. For operators who want to continue building out their NGN to support VoIP growth, but who also want the benefits of IMS without the cost of deploying the entire architecture there is the TekCore SIP Signaling Router (SSR). For carriers who want to go straight to IMS or who want to deploy IMS-based applications, there is the Open IMS Solution with Tekelecs TekCore CSCF, HPs OpenCall HSS, BEAs WebLogic SIP Application Server and third-party ISVs.

Frost & Sullivan

24

Silicon Valley 2400 Geng Road, Suite 201 Palo Alto, CA 94303 Tel 650.475.4500 Fax 650.475.1570 San Antonio 7550 West Interstate 10, Suite 400, San Antonio, Texas 78229-5616 Tel 210.348.1000 Fax 210.348.1003

C O N TAC T US

London 4, Grosvenor Gardens, London SWIW ODH,UK Tel 44(0)20 7730 3438 Fax 44(0)20 7730 3343

877.GoFrost

Palo Alto

myfrost@frost.com http://www.frost.com

New York

San Antonio

Toronto

Buenos Aires

Sao Paulo

London

Oxford

Frankfurt

ABOUT TEKELEC
Paris

Israel

Beijing

Chennai

Tekelec is a high-performance network applications company that is enabling the transition to IP Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) networks for service providers around the globe. With its experience at the intersection of network applications and session control, Tekelec creates highly efficient platforms for managing media and delivering network solutions. Corporate headquarters are located near Research Triangle Park in Morrisville, N.C., U.S.A., with research and development facilities and sales offices throughout the world. For more information, please visit www.tekelec.com. ABOUT FROST & SULLIVAN

Kuala Lumpur

Mumbai

Shanghai

Singapore

Sydney

Frost & Sullivan, a global growth consulting company, has been partnering with clients to support the development of innovative strategies for more than 40 years. The company's industry expertise integrates growth consulting, growth partnership services and corporate management training to identify and develop opportunities. Frost & Sullivan serves an extensive clientele that includes Global 1000 companies, emerging companies, and the investment community, by providing comprehensive industry coverage that reflects a unique global perspective and combines ongoing analysis of markets, technologies, econometrics, and demographics. For more information, visit http://www.frost.com.

Tokyo