©2009 Fujitsu Network Communications Migrating the Core

©2009 Fujitsu Network Communications ©2009 Fujitsu Network Communications

Migrating the Core

The Evolution of the Backhaul Networkto Enable Wireless Data Services

Migrating the Core

The Evolution of the Backhaul Networkto Enable Wireless Data Services

© Copyright 2009 Fujitsu Network Communications. All Rights Reserved.© Copyright 2009 Fujitsu Network Communications. All Rights Reserved. 4GWE – Evolution of Backhaul Sept 3, 20094GWE – Evolution of Backhaul Sept 3, 2009

This is MeThis is Me

Responsible for Business and Market Development for wireless technologies in North America.Many years in the CLEC industry deploying metropolitan fiber networks.

Jim OrrMarket Development DirectorFujitsu Network Communications


Backhaul – The Boring PartBackhaul – The Boring Part

Backhaul is a necessary evil

Enables revenue, but does not create new revenue (adds to CCPU)


Backhaul – There is Not One AnswerBackhaul – There is Not One Answer

Wireless, optical and copper

LECs, CLECs, Cable Cos, Power Companies, etc.

If you as me about a technology, the answer is probably “yes” at least somewhere


AgendaAgenda

Part 1 – There is a Network Already Today Towers exist and have backhaul in place Physical connectivity exists from tower to MSC

Part 2 – The Network Demand is Changing Network usage is skyrocketing Carriers must enable new revenue streams and services 4G Network Architecture is based on packets 4G Core Network Architecture is Distributed

Part 3 – Connection Oriented Ethernet Evolves the Network What is Connection-Oriented Ethernet (COE) ? Mobile backhaul technology migration COE Attributes addressing MBH network requirements Fujitsu Packet Optical Networking Solution for MBH Summary


• Huge increases in data traffic- 11 of NSN’s HSPA customers saw data

traffic increase 10X in 2008 over 2007

• Negligible impact on total ARPU- Total wireless service revenue in the

U.S up 6% in 2008- Leaders ARPU up 1- 4%- Voice ARPU still trending downwards

Mobile Broadband:The Operator’s Experience to DateMobile Broadband:The Operator’s Experience to Date

• Strong growth in wireless messaging and data revenue

- AT&T and VZW reported ~$3bn in data revenues in Q408

- Up 45-50% YoY

• Beginnings of fixed broadband substitution behavior

- Not just personal but primary broadband.- Major new business opportunities

Heavy Reading research licensed to Fujitsu - may not be used by non-licensees


• Huge increases in data traffic- 11 of NSN’s HSPA customers saw data

traffic increase 10X in 2008 over 2007

• Negligible impact on total ARPU- Total wireless service revenue in the

U.S up 6% in 2008- Leaders ARPU up 1- 4%- Voice ARPU still trending downwards

Mobile Broadband:The Operator’s Experience to DateMobile Broadband:The Operator’s Experience to Date

• Strong growth in wireless messaging and data revenue

- AT&T and VZW reported ~$3bn in data revenues in Q408

- Up 45-50% YoY

• Beginnings of fixed broadband substitution behavior

- Not just personal but primary broadband.- Major new business opportunities



Massive Growth in Data Traffic Volumes Massive Growth in Data Traffic Volumes

Source : NSN, February 2009



Mobile Broadband:In Search of ProfitabilityMobile Broadband:In Search of Profitability

Mobile broadband is still in the build-out phase HSPA and EV-DO in 3rd/4th year of roll-out Operators are investing for near term subscriber acquisition and long

term transformation of their business models

Mobile broadband isn’t profitable (yet) In 3G, voice and data are still mostly discrete network elements Large majority of new network capex is driven by mobile broadband If costs are allocated separately to voice and messaging on the one

hand, and mobile broadband on the other, mobile broadband isn’t profitable today

Early in the investment cycle, but need to start aligning for profitability



Heavy Reading’s Outlook:2009 is the year of packet backhaulHeavy Reading’s Outlook:2009 is the year of packet backhaul

Backhaul a key lever in realigning for profitability

Heavy Reading’s packet backhaul forecasts 108,000 cell sites in live service world-wide by the end of 2009 12,300 in live service in the U.S by the end of 2009 Forecasts are for packet backhaul in live service at 2G/3G cell sites;

WiMAX sites and ML-PPP implementations excluded

Still expecting a slow rate at which packet backhaul is turned up to commercial service Still expect 75% of the world’s cell sites will be served exclusively by

TDM backhaul in 2012



L1 Backhaul Forecasts:Europe & North AmericaL1 Backhaul Forecasts:Europe & North America



Ethernet Backhaul will be in service at 37% of U.S cell sites by the end of 2012

US Cellular Backhaul ForecastUS Cellular Backhaul Forecast

Source: Heavy Reading



Key Backhaul RequirementsKey Backhaul Requirements

Big enough pipeCorrect interfacesLow latencySimple SurvivableCost effective


Wireless Impacts on BackhaulWireless Impacts on Backhaul

BIG problem from tower to wire centerMoving from 3Mb to 100+MbMaybe 12 sites/wire center for a total of about

1Gb SMALL amount of the traffic after that

first wire centerEven small wire centers generate several

10Gb circuits Wireless will add 10% at most to the

existing network


A Backhaul Network ExistsA Backhaul Network Exists

All of these towers are connected to the other components of the network Physical network deployed Considerable capital value remains on the books

4G deployments are not going to generate a total replacement of all of the existing network

Leased facilities exist for the 2G T1s Average of 7 actual orders to create a T1 circuit from a cell tower to the

MSC 7 to disconnect 12 to move a circuit Large opportunity cost to groom existing T1s


Network SegmentsNetwork Segments

Access Aggregation Core


1-2 DS3s1-6 DS1s

The Towers Have Service TodayThe Towers Have Service Today

We are nearing 300,000 towers – and all of them have some kind of backhaul capacity Service capacity is a “Two Hump” distribution function

Have FiberDon’t Have Fiber


Backhaul Capacity Requirements at the Cell SiteBackhaul Capacity Requirements at the Cell Site



4G Takes Over 4G Takes Over

Delivers Unmatched Spectral Efficiency Record spend on spectrum makes it the most valuable resource Recent LTE drive tests in Hokkaido produced 10 bits/Hz peak and as

much as 5 sustained Current 3G is about 1 bit/Hz

Delivers Core Network Efficiency Low latency architecture drives far higher

schedule efficiencies RAN contribution 5 ms or less, compared

to more than 100 ms today

New Bands Get New Technology Planners strive to minimize operational handling of network elements Placing EVDO or HSPA on 700 MHz or AWS creates an upgrade

requirement best to be avoided


4G in Stages4G in Stages

Build For Those Who Use Everything And Those Who Have Nothing Major metro areas Rural deployment (direct and through partnerships)

Coverage First 700 MHz for wide coverage Existing sites 3G/2G Fallback creates total coverage pattern

Capacity Second 10% of users generate 80% of wireless data We know where these people are (today) – first focus for LTE Distribution will shift – and we will follow the users

Full Portfolio of Base Station Models RequiredMacro – Wide Area Micro – Enterprise CampusPico – Neighborhood Femto – In Home/In Business

Metro CoreMetro Core

Sub UrbanSub Urban

RuralRural


Base Stations Get SmallBase Stations Get Small

LTE is expected to augment the deployment of picocells.

Boost indoor coverage Offload macro network

traffic Provide enhanced coverage

for enterprise customers.

Build the coverage network with Macrocells, supplement with Micro and Pico cells Deploy for coverage and offload the heavy users when traffic patterns

require


Core Network Migrates Over TimeCore Network Migrates Over Time

The Enhanced Packet Core (EPC) is build to be distributed Reality is that these devices will be concentrated into the

Mobile Switching Center for some time Backhaul network needs to be designed to transport the

messaging and data to the MSC, with the ability to migrate those devices to the edge


Migrate with Circuit Oriented Ethernet


A Tale of Two EntitiesA Tale of Two Entities

“Mobile Backhaul” typically involves two business entities Mobile provider & Backhaul provider Even if there is one “integrated provider” as the parent company Money/services exchanged between the two entities

Two network deployments Two sets of networking requirements and operational issues Networks have a client/server relationship – not a peer to peer relationship

Cell Site

BSCRNCS-GW

BTSNodeBeNodeB

Mobile Switching Office

Cell Site

BTSNodeB

eNodeB


“Backhaul”

Mobile Provider Mobile Provider

Backhaul Provider

BSCRNCS-GW

Backhaul Provider

Client layer

Server layerCECE CECE

Cell Site

BSCRNCS-GW

BTSNodeBeNodeB


Cell Site

BTSNodeB

eNodeB


“Backhaul”

Mobile Provider Mobile Provider

Backhaul Provider

BSCRNCS-GW

Backhaul Provider

Client layer

Server layerCECE CECE


Networking requirements / issuesNetworking requirements / issues Mobile services provider

Must reduce backhaul costs in the face of expanding CCPU Requires reliability, performance, rapid service commissioning from

backhaul provider Management of equipment at many remote tower locations

Backhaul provider Serves multiple providers & multiple technologies at a single tower

• Universal, transparent solution Meet Mobile Operators’ stringent SLA requirements

• Guaranteed Ethernet performance and reliability Minimize retraining of engineering staff

• A SDH transport engineer cannot become an IP router engineer overnight

Achieve ROI with < 3 year contract• Bandwidth efficient & simple to own and operate

Backhaul provider: deterministic, simple, reliable, general client layer

© Copyright 2009 Fujitsu Network Communications. All Rights Reserved.© Copyright 2009 Fujitsu Network Communications. All Rights Reserved. 4GWE – Evolution of Backhaul Sept 3, 20094GWE – Evolution of Backhaul Sept 3, 2009Confidential - Fujitsu Internal use Only2626

What is Connection-Oriented Ethernet?What is Connection-Oriented Ethernet?

Explicit definition of Ethernet connections & tunnels Forward on tags vs. Ethernet MAC address learning

and flooding

Resource reservation and admission control For each CoS per each connection

and tunnel Per-flow traffic management and traffic

engineering

MEFCarrier

Ethernet

Connectionless Ethernet802.1Q/ad/ah bridging

Connection-oriented Ethernet

MEFCarrier

Ethernet

Connectionless Ethernet802.1Q/ad/ah bridging

Connection-oriented Ethernet

Connection-oriented Ethernet: High-performance “Carrier Ethernet”


Connection-Oriented Ethernet•Good Aggregation / Statistical Multiplexing•Deterministic and precision QoS•Bandwidth reserved per EVC•Consistent QoE: 99.999% Availability

Confidential - Fujitsu Internal use Only27

The Best of Both WorldsThe Best of Both Worlds

Connectionless 802.1 Ethernet Bridging

•No Aggregation /Stat Muxing•Deterministic QoS•Bandwidth reserved for each channel•Consistent QoE: 99.999% Availability

• Good Aggregation / Stat Muxing• Non-deterministic QoS• No Bandwidth Reservation• Inconsistent QoE: 99.9% Availability

MSPP

Eth

MSPP

MSPP

Eth

Eth

Eth

Ethernet over SDH

Eth

Eth

Eth

PDH quality, security, availability – Ethernet Flexibility and Low Cost

Packet ONP


Aggregation Site

Connection-oriented EthernetSurvivability Tools for MBHConnection-oriented EthernetSurvivability Tools for MBH

Cell Site

BTSNodeB

eNodeB

Mobile Office

MobileProvider

Mobile Provider

BackhaulProvider

BSCRNC

S-GWCECE CECE

BackhaulProvider

Ethernet LAG

Multi-chassis LAG

G.8031 Ethernet network protection

COE provides 50ms dedicated network protection for 5-9’s availability

Variety of scenarios and requirements Client protection

Single and multi-chassis LAG Network protection

G.8031 Server layer protection

Backhaul provider / client network is unprotected

ITU-T G.8031 Ethernet Linear Protection Dedicated 1:1 EVC or tunnel protection Guaranteed, identical resources Similar to SONET UPSR path protection Independent of Network Topology Segment and end-to-end protection Protects against node and link failures

work

ptct

work

ptct

CECE


Implementing Connection-oriented EthernetImplementing Connection-oriented Ethernet

Functional Deterministic connections Survivability Fault sectionalization and

performance management

Operations Management-plane centric

• Vs. dynamic control plane Fewest layers Single set of OAM tools

29

Ethernet tag switching provides all capabilities with simplest operations

MPLS-centric COE

Eth Eth

Ethernet-centric COE

Ethernet tunnel

Eth EthMPLS LSPPW PW

Tagswitching

Tagswitching

Static PWStatic PW T-MPLST-MPLS MPLS-TPMPLS-TP IP/MPLSIP/MPLS

•Ethernet OAM•MPLS pseudowire OAM•MPLS Label Switched Path – OAM / protection

•Ethernet OAM•MPLS pseudowire OAM•MPLS Label Switched Path – OAM / protection

•Ethernet OAM, Protection•Ethernet OAM, Protection

RequirementsRequirements


Packet Optical Networking Platforms:Integrating COE Aggregation and Layer 1 TransportPacket Optical Networking Platforms:Integrating COE Aggregation and Layer 1 Transport

“Open-platform” approach Pluggable environment for networking vs. enhanced ROADM/MSPP

Integration of COE with all native Layer 1 networking/encapsulations

SDH/PDH for access transport ROADM for core transport

Consideration of access vs. core Fabric-based COE, TDM, wave

grooming at the core I/O card level optimizations at the

edge

Transport Operations Model Management plane driven,

Connection-Oriented networking Simple, in-service software upgrades

Reduces network costs Eliminates elements Eliminates complexity

Provides new services COE – SDH quality, Ethernet

cost

COE and TDMAggregation Wave

Transport

SDHnetworks

Ethernetnetworks

“Open-platform” Implementation Example


Packet Optical NetworkingFor Full-service backhaulPacket Optical NetworkingFor Full-service backhaul

MSPP

Packet ONP

Packet ONP

Packet ONP

Mobile Office

Mobile Office

2G3G

4G

2G3G

4G

Mobile Office

2G3G

4G

2G3G

N x 10G Waves

2G3G

4G

3G4G

NID

2G3G

4GPacket

ONP

Ethernet

SDH

EthernetMSPP

SDH

Packet ONP

Packet ONP

Ethernet

Packet ONP

SDH and COE aggregation/grooming

SDH and Ethernet access

termination

ROADM integrationfor bandwidth scaling


SummarySummary

Irresistible drivers for turnover of backhaul networks from PDH to Ethernet over optical

Backhaul provider delivers hubbed ‘client’ transport and aggregation services to mobile provider Point to point, non-routed services

Connection-oriented Ethernet provides Transparent, Deterministic quality, Survivable Ethernet transport and

aggregation SDH quality, Ethernet cost Mgmt-plane-centric Ethernet-only implementations have lowest cost of

ownership

Packet Optical Networking Integrates COE + DWDM for scalable core rings Integrates COE + SDH to terminate new Ethernet and legacy SDH access


COE-related Standards SummaryCOE-related Standards Summary


COE-related Standards SummaryCOE-related Standards Summary


Q & A



What Drives Cell Site ConnectivityWhat Drives Cell Site Connectivity

Meet Requirements with COE (Connection Oriented Ethernet) Operationally simple Ethernet connectivity network not where it needs to be, yet Purely from a connectivity model perspective, all that is required within

the backhaul/transport network are simple Layer-2 P2P connections between the various elements (eNBs, MMEs and S-GWs..)

Carriers Planning for 100Mbps to each cell site Not just the Macro sites Micro and Pico sites are driven by capacity Smaller eNodeB will drive DAS (Distributed Antenna System) to

concentrate data traffic


Mobile Backhaul Business DriversChallenges facing Mobile OperatorsMobile Backhaul Business DriversChallenges facing Mobile Operators

Data rate grows with 3G and beyond but revenue doesn’t follow Flat rate data plans

Network Operations How do you ensure backhaul network provides uninterrupted service to

millions of subscribers served by 50,000+ cell towers ?

What if LTE ubiquity makes it the “mobile Wi-Fi” ? Integrated into wide range of devices. Applications run “in the cloud”. Backhaul networks must be ultra available with predictable QoS

Number of years to upgrade all cell towers with new backhaul technology Tremendous pressure to make the right choice while

achieving ROI/margin objectives

Many business issues affect technology selection


Challenges facing Mobile Backhaul ProvidersChallenges facing Mobile Backhaul Providers

Retraining of network operations personnel A SONET transport engineer cannot become an IP

router engineer overnight

Which technology do I pick given the eventual migration to Ethernet for MBH ? Should I use Ethernet with Circuit Emulation? Should I use an integrated SONET/Ethernet/ROADM

packet optical networking approach ?

< 3 year service contracts with mobile operators How can I make an acceptable ROI to meet margins objectives ?

How can I meet Mobile Operators’ stringent SLA requirements ? < 5ms Delay, < 1ms Jitter, 3x10-7 Loss, 5x9s Availability

Introducing Connection-oriented Ethernet for Mobile Backhaul....


What is Connection-Oriented Ethernet (COE)?What is Connection-Oriented Ethernet (COE)?

Provides Deterministic QoS via explicit paths (EVCs) across network Reserves bandwidth for each EVC per CoS Highly efficient BW aggregation via statistical multiplexing & oversubscription Predictable QoE: 99.999% Availability

Ethernet over SONET (EoS)•No Aggregation / No Statistical Multiplexing•Deterministic and precision QoS•Bandwidth reserved for each SONET channel•Consistent QoE: 99.999% Availability

Connectionless Ethernet Bridges•Good Aggregation / Statistical multiplexing•Non-deterministic QoS•No Bandwidth Reservation•Inconsistent QoE: 99.9% Availability

MSPPMSPP

Connection-Oriented Ethernet•Good Aggregation / Statistical Multiplexing•Deterministic and precision QoS•Bandwidth reserved per EVC•Consistent QoE: 99.999% Availability

Packet ONP

COE combines the best attributes of Ethernet Bridges and EoSKeeps Ethernet Simple – Like SONET


Reliability•G.8031 50ms Linear Path Protection

•802.3ad Link Aggregation (LAG)

Service Management•802.3ah Link Fault Mgmt.

•802.1ag/Y.1731 EVC Fault Mgmt.

Security•Bridging disabled - no L2CP vulnerabilities

•L2CP threats mitigated•No MAC table overflows

Standardized Services•EPL, EVPL, EP-Tree, EVP-Tree

•MEF 6, MEF 10

Scalability•Millions of EVCs

•Aggregation and stat-muxing•Oversubscription

Deterministic QoS•802.1ag / Y.1731 / MEF 10 PMs

•Delay, Delay Variation, Loss•Resource Reservation through CAC

Attributes of Connection-oriented EthernetAttributes of Connection-oriented Ethernet

COECOEAttributesAttributes

COE is a high performance implementation of MEF Carrier Ethernet


Technology Options for COESignificant differences among number of layers to manageTechnology Options for COESignificant differences among number of layers to manage

IP/MPLS

(3) Data Plane Layers1) Ethernet2) Pseudowire (PW)3) LSP

VLAN TagSwitching

Routed Non-Routed

StaticPW/MPLS T-MPLS

(1) Data Plane Layer• Ethernet

MPLS-TP PBB-TE

PW

MPLS-TP LSP

PWEth Eth

BFD, Protection Protocol

BFD, VCCV

802.1ag, 802.3ah, Y.1731

MPLS-TP-based COEIP/MPLS-Based COE

PW

MPLS LSP

Eth Eth

BFD, RSVP-TE/LDP, FRR

802.1ag, 802.3ah, Y.1731

IS-IS, OSPF, BGP, IP addressing, BFD

PW

T-LDP/BFD, VCCV

S-VLAN or PBB-TE Tunnel

Eth Eth

G.8031, 802.1ag, 802.3ah, Y.1731

Ethernet-based COE

Ethernet

(3) Data Plane Layers1) Ethernet2) Pseudowire (PW)3) LSP

(1) Control Plane Layer• IP

COE simplifies OAM&P with only 1 layer to manage: Ethernet

Ethernet + PW + LSPEthernet + PW + LSP


Why Ethernet-based COE for MBH ?Why Ethernet-based COE for MBH ?

Meets the MBH functional requirements set forth by SONET Deterministic and precision performance Link (Line) and EVC (Path) fault management tools Guaranteed bandwidth through resource reservation Optimized for P2P and P2MP topologies used in MBH networks Sub 50ms protection / restoration

Simpler Network OAM – just one layer to manage: Ethernet Consistent with existing SONET-based network operations No IP knowledge required. Easy to learn by SONET transport staff Provisioning model similar to SONET

Non-routed operational simplicity MBH networks do not require routing between the cell site and hub

sites/MSCs Higher network element reliability (significantly fewer protocols / simpler

SW)Fujitsu’s COE implementation facilitates the migration from existing SONET MBH infrastructures to Ethernet over Fiber and EoWDM


Mobile Backhaul Technology Migration …on the road to EthernetMobile Backhaul Technology Migration …on the road to Ethernet

Compelling case to keep 2G traffic on TDM 2G traffic growth very small so T1 MRC is essentially flat

What do you do with high growth 3G traffic? Some Base Stations can be upgraded to Ethernet COE over SONET, Fiber or Microwave choices

Wireline LEC or MSO with a SONET infrastructure COE over SONET: Simplest to implement with maximal bandwidth efficiency for data Legacy, low growth 2G services remain on TDM

For Ethernet over Fiber infrastructures must consider MEF 22 GIWF: Generic Interworking Function: Non-Ethernet Ethernet (via Circuit Emulation)

Time

Ba

nd

wid

th

Voice + 2G Data

3G/4G Data

3G BS

4G BS Ethernet

Ethernet

ATM over T1sMLPPP over T1s

T1sGIWF Ethernet

2G BS T1s (TDM) SONET

COE over SONET

COE over Fiber

Hub site or Mobile

Switching Center

3G backhaul most challenging because it is transitional


Clock Synchronization for GIWFClock Synchronization for GIWF

Frequency Synchronization (Syntonization) Process to align clocks in frequency Synchronizes clocks to a Primary Reference Source (PRS)

• Required for Circuit Emulation Can use IEEE 1588v2 Precision Time Protocol Can use Synchronous Ethernet for a physical layer implementation

• Similar to a BITS clock used to obtain T1 line timing Phase Synchronization (relative time synchronization)

Process to aligns clocks in phase Can use Global Positioning System (GPS) radio

Time of Day Synchronization Process to set clocks to a universal time-base such as UTC Use 1588v2 for a software-based implementation

COE’s precision QoS optimally facilitates a 1588v2 implementation

GIWF EthernetT1s

Generic Interworking Function


MBH Network Classes of ServiceHow many should you support?MBH Network Classes of ServiceHow many should you support?

No. of CoSs determined by supported services Do you offer a streaming

service, e.g., TV on Demand ?

Understand the application to properly engineer the traffic management

Streaming and Conversational classes use UDP for media and TCP for control Synchronization requires lowest FD, FDV and FLR Streaming class is delay tolerant due to application buffering Conversational class (VoIP) is loss tolerant due to device playback buffering

COE provides SONET-like deterministic performance so CoS differentiation becomes less difficult to engineer


COE ScalabilityScalability addressed in two dimensionsCOE ScalabilityScalability addressed in two dimensions

1. EVC Address Space Scalability VLAN tag switching can use C-VLAN IDs, S-VLAN IDs or B-VLAN IDs

• VLAN IDs have local significance so 4095 IDs reused at each interface

• 4095 VLAN ID restriction no longer applies

2. EVC Aggregation via COE Tunnels Many EVCs mapped to COE Tunnel COE Connection Admission Control manages COE tunnel bandwidth

• Similar to managing SONET VCGs but with much higher BW efficiency

COE meets EVC scalability requirements for MBH networksCOE Tunnels simplify MBH bandwidth management


COE Tunnels Improved network efficiency and scalabilityCOE Tunnels Improved network efficiency and scalability

Tunnel aggregates EVCs to achieve stat muxing gains Like SONET STS with VT1.5s but more granularly and efficiently

Tunnel can support guaranteed and oversubscribed bandwidth Manage tunnel BW rather than individual EVCs within the tunnel Each Tunnel can support multiple CoSs

Provides CIR plus enables Subscriber traffic to burst to EIR Results in better traffic Goodput – resulting in better QoE

EVCs

Tunnel-aware NEsFLASHWAVE

CDSFLASHWAVE

4100ES

FLASHWAVE

CDSFLASHWAVE

CDS

FLASHWAVE

CDSFLASHWAVE

CDS

COE Tunnels supported over SONET, Ethernet, WDM and OTN Networks

MSC-2

SONET, Ethernet, WDM or OTN Network

EVC-aware NEs

EVC-aware NE MSC-1

COE Tunnel

COE TunnelEVCs

EVCs

FLASHWAVE 9500

FLASHWAVE 9500

FLASHWAVE 9500

EoSOC12

1GbE

1GbE


COE Tools for Network SurvivabilityMeeting MBH networks high availability requirementsCOE Tools for Network SurvivabilityMeeting MBH networks high availability requirements

IEEE 802.3ad Link Aggregation Groups (LAG) For local (link level) diversity and protection If any fiber or port in LAG fails, other LAG members share the load

1+1 equipment protection Create LAGs across different cards in a chassis

ITU-T G.8031 Linear Path Protection for EVC path diversity and sub-50ms path protection Similar to SONET UPSR path protection

• Simple Provisioning: Setup Working path and Protect path Independent of Network Topology

• Works over Rings, Meshes, Multiple Rings and Linear Topologies

Fujitsu’s COE implementation enables ultra high available service Achieved through multiple levels of protection


Service OAM for MBH NetworksITU-T Y.1731 and IEEE 802.1agService OAM for MBH NetworksITU-T Y.1731 and IEEE 802.1ag

Different MBH Scenarios result in different number of SOAM MDs MBH Provider backhauls multiple generations of services (2G/3G/4G) MBH Provider backhauls traffic from one mobile operator at a tower MBH Provider backhauls traffic from several mobile operators at a tower MBH provided by Mobile Operator

Mobile Operator’s Network

Mobile Backhaul Provider

MEG Intermediate Point (MIP)MEG Endpoint (MEP)MEG = Maintenance Entity Group

Fujitsu’s COE solution provides Service OAM that addresses the different MBH network deployment scenarios

NID

MSCWholesale Ethernet Access

ProviderNID

Mobile Operator MD

Mobile Backhaul (MBH) Provider Maintenance Domain (MD)

FLASHWAVE

CDSFLASHWAVE

4100ESFLASHWAVE

CDSFLASHWAVE

4100ES FLASHWAVE

9500NIDFLASHWAVE

CDSFLASHWAVECDS NID

Wholesale Access Provider MD


COE at the Cell Site Facilitates the Evolution from SONET to a Packet-based Ethernet MBH NetworkCOE at the Cell Site Facilitates the Evolution from SONET to a Packet-based Ethernet MBH Network

FLASHWAVE 4100ES and CDS Compact, integrated platform at Cell Site serving multiple base stations from multiple service providers

FLASHWAVE 9500 Multiservice aggregation and transport over SONET, Ethernet and WDM

FMO Step 1: Add COE to increase bandwidth utilizationPMO: SONET

SONET

FMO Step 2: Begin Migration to EoF packet network

Existing services unaffected

DS1s Ethernet

Fujitsu’s Packet Optical Networking Platforms with COE simplify the SONET to Ethernet MBH migration while minimizing risk

EoS

MSPP

TDM

SONET

DS1s Ethernet

COETDM

SONET

DS1s Ethernet

COETDM

EoF

FLASHWAVE 9500

FLASHWAVE 9500

FLASHWAVE

CDSFLASHWAVE

4100ESFLASHWAVE

CDSFLASHWAVE

CDS


Fujitsu’s Packet Optical Networking FamilyEnd-to-end solution for evolving Mobile Backhaul NetworksFujitsu’s Packet Optical Networking FamilyEnd-to-end solution for evolving Mobile Backhaul Networks

FLASHWAVE CDS

FLASHWAVE 4100ES

FLASHWAVE 9500

NETSMART 1500Management System

GE/10GE

OC-48/GE

10GE

OC-192

44/88 ChannelROADM

Multiservice Access

Multiservice Aggregation

Metro Core

MSC

MSC


SummarySummary

Different Business Drivers and Challenges for Mobile Operators & Mobile Backhaul Providers impact their migration to Ethernet

Connection-Oriented Ethernet (COE) combines the best attributes of Connectionless Ethernet and Ethernet over SONET

COE is a high performance implementation of MEF-defined Carrier Ethernet with a full complement of existing standards

Fujitsu’s Packet Optical Networking Platforms with COE simplify the SONET to Ethernet MBH migration while minimizing risk

©2009 Fujitsu Network Communications Migrating the Core

Business

network physical network

network usage

network demand

g network architecture

wireless data services

data revenue att

data revenues

g core network architecture