Virtual Tradeshow

LTE Backhaul:
New Architectures for All-IP
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Moderated by
Patrick Donegan
Senior Analyst
 Our Panelists
• Ran Avital, VP Marketing, Ceragon
• Ralph Santitoro,Director of Carrier
Ethernet Market Development, Fujitsu
Network Communications
• Eitan Schwartz, VP Pseudowire & Ethernet
Access, RAD Data Communications
3G W-CDMA Architecture
Data Core
Iub interface (SGSN/GGSN)
Iu PS interface
ATM/IP
Iu CS interface

Voice Core
Iub interface
(MSC)
ATM/IP

4G LTE Architecture

IP

S1 interface
X2
interface

IP
Evolved
Packet
S1 interface Core
 The statement below should be considered as a debating point – not as an opinion of Heavy Reading.

“LTE is the first genuinely all-IP

wireless standard. It requires IP/MPLS
routing in every node in the network,
including throughout the backhaul.”
 Technology Options
For Connection-Oriented Ethernet (COE)
Significant Differences Among Number of Layers to Manage
Routed Non-Routed

Static VLAN Tag

IP/MPLS T-MPLS MPLS-TP PBB-TE
PW/MPLS Switching

IP/MPLS-Based COE
IS-IS, OSPF, BGP, IP addressing, BFD
MPLS LSP
MPLS-TP-based COE
MPLS-TP LSP
PW
Eth
PW
Ethernet+PW+LSP Eth PW Ethernet+PW+LSP PW Ethernet-based COE
Eth Eth S-VLAN or PBB-TE Tunnel
BFD, RSVP-TE/LDP, FRR BFD, Protection Protocol
T-LDP/BFD, VCCV
Eth Ethernet Eth
BFD, VCCV
802.1ag, 802.3ah, Y.1731 802.1ag, 802.3ah, Y.1731 G.8031, 802.1ag, 802.3ah, Y.1731

(3) Data Plane Layers (3) Data Plane Layers (1) Data Plane Layer
1) Ethernet 1) Ethernet • Ethernet
2) Pseudowire (PW) 2) Pseudowire (PW)
3) LSP 3) LSP
(1) Control Plane Layer
• IP Ethernet-based COE simplifies OAM&P
Only 1 Layer to manage: Ethernet
The statement below should be considered as a debating point – not as an opinion of Heavy Reading.

“The X2 interface between

eNode Bs will only support a little
bit of cell handover traffic initially –
it probably won’t be used
for anything more than that.”
 Proposed LTE Architecture
• Example 3
• Backhaul for LTE
• EVPL for S1 interface
• E-LAN for X2 interface

Carrier Ethernet
Aggregation Network
Carrier Ethernet
Access Network
UNI ENNI UNI
RAN BS RAN NC

UNI
ENNI EVPL 1
EVPL 2
EVPL 3
EVPLAN
RAN BS Carrier Ethernet
Access Network

RAN BS
 The statements below should be considered as a debating point – not as an opinion of Heavy Reading.

“Most integrated fixed and wireless carriers

will implement an L3-based backhaul for
LTE because they already have the L3
engineering skill-sets”

“Most pure-play wireless operators and

wholesale backhaul providers will implement
an L2 backhaul network – because they don’t.”
 L2/L3 Backhaul Challenges
• Wholesale backhaul providers typically prefer L2:
• Simpler to provision
• Scalable BW “pipes” for unpredictable needs
• Strong Ethernet OAM mechanisms  offer SLA
• Sub 50ms failover with 802.3ad and G.8032
• Pseudowire helps support 2G/3G services, in addition to LTE
• Powerful diagnostic tools
• “Pure-Play” wireless operators typically prefer L2:
• Simple / automatic provisioning
• Ethernet circuit validation, PM, fault detection and analysis
• Traffic engineering  oversubscribe link bandwidth
• Integrated carriers may prefer L3 (skill sets)
• Mesh, alternate routing, but less developed OAM
 Audience Poll
“As LTE is an all-IP network, it will require
routing at every node in the network, including
all the backhaul nodes.”

To what extent do you agree or disagree?

• Strongly agree
• Somewhat agree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Somewhat disagree
• Strongly disagree
 The statements below should be considered as a debating point – not as an opinion of Heavy Reading.

Multi-Generation Backhaul
“Transporting legacy 2G and 3G cellular traffic
over the existing TDM network while
LTE is transported over a separate
packet backhaul is optimal.”

“Better that than trying to emulate2G and 3G

over a single packet backhaul for all
generations of cellular traffic.”
 Evolution From Sonet
To Packet-Based Ethernet MBH
FMO Step 1: FMO Step 2:
Add COE over Sonet to Begin Migration to EoF packet
PMO: increase bandwidth network.
Sonet efficiency Existing services unaffected
Packet Packet
MSPP Optical Optical
Networking Networking

Sonet Sonet Sonet EoF

TDM EoS TDM COE TDM COE

DS1s Ethernet DS1s Ethernet DS1s Ethernet

2G/3G 2G/3G LTE 2G/3G 3G/LTE

Packet-optical networking platform with COE facilitates

MBH network migration of multi-generation 2G/3G/LTE services
The statement below should be considered as a debating point – not as an opinion of Heavy Reading.

“There is a big difference

between backhaul equipment
being Ethernet-ready
and being LTE-ready.”
 LTE Backhaul Requirements
(…and the radio perspective)
Requirements Details
High Capacities 50-200 Mbit/s per site
Peak rate & average 173 Mbit/s vs. 35 Mbit/s
Low latency <10msec
Handover interface (X2) E-LAN for eNBs Communication
Enhanced services Service-aware networks
Deployment paradigms Hotspot the size of a city/rural BB
Migration strategies TDM  Ethernet 2G3GLTE
Synchronization E1/T1 for legacy. 1588V2 & SyncE
Convergence True multiplay operators
 The statements below should be considered as a debating point – not as an opinion of Heavy Reading.

“The differences in synchronization

requirements between
3G and LTE are academic.”

“This is because most operators are going

to leave a T1/E1 at the cell site for
packet backhaul synchronization
rather than adopt a new standard,
none of which is mature yet.”
Multi-Generation Backhaul with
Multiple Synchronization Options
Sync-E
ETH FE/GbE
IP Node B Adaptive / 2G BSC
NTR IP-DSLAM IEEE 1588-2008 TDM
ATM IMA
Packet
Node B SHDSL
Switched
3G RNC
Network
ETH
Sync-E E1/T1 ATM
eNode B
TDM
aGW
TDM/SONET TDM link
S1 (ETH)
E1/T1
Network

ATM IMA

Physical-layer Sync Packet-based Sync

E1/T1 TDM link Adaptive
Sync-Ethernet (G.8262) 1588-2008
NTR – DSL/GPON NTP
 The statements below should be considered as a debating point – not as an opinion of Heavy Reading.

“LTE’s All-IP architecture will leave the

backhaul open to security attacks on
a far greater scale than ever before.”

“A lot of operators haven’t thought the

implications through nearly well enough.”
Security With Connection-Oriented
Ethernet
• COE uses few protocols. IP & MPLS require many
• The more protocols used, MBH network is more susceptible to attacks
• Management VLANs isolated from user traffic
• Similar to DCC isolation from user traffic in Sonet networks
• COE has many security advantages over bridged solutions
• COE disables MAC address learning / flooding
• MAC address spoofing cannot occur
• MAC table overflow DOS attacks cannot occur
• COE disables vulnerable Layer 2 control protocols (L2CPs)
• Protocol-based DOS attacks cannot occur

COE is immune to IP-based attacks & popular L2-based attacks

 The statements below should be considered as a debating point – not as an opinion of Heavy Reading.

“With any new technology, it’s always

the OAM that get’s left till last, and
IP/Ethernet backhaul is no different.”

“The OAM standards are not mature,

particularly as regards integration
with legacy TDM OAM systems.”
 Sample Scenario:
Carrier Ethernet Services in Mobile Backhaul #1
End-to-end
End-to-end connectivity
connectivity
per service is
is verified
verified
using
using periodic
periodic 802.1ag
802.1ag
CCM
CCM messages
messages between
between
service end points.

Ethernet
Microwave
Tail site #1
Packet or TDM
Ethernet Ring site based fiber
Microwave #1
A aggregation
A network
or leased lines
Ethernet
B
Ethernet B Wireless Microwave
Tail site #2 Microwave
Carrier Ethernet Fiber site
Ring RNC

Ethernet
Microwave

Ring site
#2

Ethernet
C
C Microwave
Ring site
#3
Ethernet
Microwave
Tail site #3
 Sample Scenario:
Carrier Ethernet Services in Mobile Backhaul #2

Ethernet
Microwave
Tail site #1
Packet or TDM
Ethernet Ring site based fiber
Microwave #1
A aggregation
A network
or leased lines
Ethernet
B
Ethernet B Wireless Microwave
Tail site #2 Microwave
Carrier Ethernet Fiber site
Ring RNC

Ethernet
Microwave

Ring site
#2

Ethernet
C
C Microwave
Ring site
#3
Ethernet
Microwave
Tail site #3
 Sample Scenario:
Carrier Ethernet Services in Mobile Backhaul #3
No alternate path available
for
for Service
Service A.
A.
Service
Service connectivity failure
connectivity failure
is reported by service end
points.

Ethernet
Tail site #1 Microwave
Packet or TDM
Ethernet Ring site based fiber
Microwave #1 A aggregation
A
network
A or leased lines
A
Ethernet
Ethernet Wireless Microwave
Tail site #2 Microwave
Carrier Ethernet Fiber site
Ring RNC

Service
Service B B is
is restored
restored
using
using alternate
alternate path
path
over the ring.
Ethernet
No service connectivity Microwave
alarm
alarm is
is generated.
generated.
Services B & C now share the
Ring site B same
same radio
radio link
link resulting
resulting in
in
B higher
#2 higher traffic load.
traffic load.
QoS is used to provide service
differentiation for high priority
Ethernet and
and delay
delay sensitive
sensitive traffic.
traffic.
Microwave
C
C Ring site
#3
Ethernet
Microwave
Tail site #3
The statements below should be considered as a debating point – not as an opinion of Heavy Reading.

“The vast majority of wholesale backhaul

providers and wireless operators
will design their packet backhaul
for 2G and 3G as well as LTE.”

“And since 90% of wireless traffic

will be 2G and 3G through 2014,
the LTE design requirements aren’t
critical in today’s design assumptions.”
 2G/3G/4G Backhaul Services
over Ethernet/IP/MPLS
Mobile Operator E2E T1 & Ethernet Diagnostics
Mobile
Operator A E2E SLA Monitoring and Diagnostics
4G eNB
Test Equip.
ETH 2G/3G
CT3/OC3 Transport Provider Fixed
T1/E1
MSC Wireless

4G G/W GigE
4G eNB
2G/3G
Wholesale ETH

Carrier Ethernet T1/E1

Mobile
MPLS
Operator B
Test Equip.

4G eNB
CT3/OC3
Ethernet ETH 2G/3G
MSC Access Ring
(50ms) T1/E1
4G G/W Portal
GigE
NMS

Data VLANs – Carry BH traffic, OAM and test data.

Mgt VLAN – Management and SLA statistics