CurrentAnalysis-MobilePacketCore_WP

8/3/2019 CurrentAnalysis-MobilePacketCore_WP

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/currentanalysis-mobilepacketcorewp 1/10

© 2010 Current Analysis Inc. All rights reserved.

For more information, please call +1 703 404 9200, toll-free +1 877 787 8947

Europe +33 (0) 1 41 14 83 15. Or visit our Web site: www.currentanalysis.com 1

Advisory Report

Mobile Packet Core: Engineof Mobile Broadband Success

Peter JarichResearch Director,Telecom Infrastructure

March 17, 2010

Contents

What Goes on in the Mobile Packet Core?

Why the Mobile Packet Core Matters More Than Ever

What Operators Need in the Mobile Packet Core

Where the Market Needs to Focus Going Forward






Mobile Packet Core

A colleague recently suggested that the wireless industry was best characterized by a “sense of urgency.” He felt this most around the need for operators to better monetize their mobile broad-band services including management of the “over the top” (O) traffi c. Tis urgency, however,can be just as clearly felt around any number of transitions facing operators today: the move to

high-capacity, IP backhaul; the need to support 2G and 3G services while planning for an evolu-tion to LE; the need to continually grow radio access capacity and coverage; the need to do all of this while still remaining profitable.

In part, LE has been the impetus for this thinking. LE, after all, promises new user experiences– backed by mobile broadband speeds topping what operators offer today. Sitting alongside HSPA and EV-DO-based services, it’s not a complete break with the past. Yet combining new usage withenhanced throughput out to the user, the result is a strain on networks. Perhaps more importantly,LE is a break with the past to the extent that it represents an all-IP technology. Tis means thatall applications (everything from voice to SMS) will need to be carried as IP – taking IP from anecessary evil in 3G networks and backhaul to an integral part of the mobile core. Te gatewaysthat form the mobile packet core, in turn, need to scale and handle “wire speed” transactions morethan was ever needed in a 3G era.

Often overlooked, these gateways (including the LE Evolved Packet Core, or EPC) are poised tobe more important than ever as 3G data traffi c continues to ramp and LE networks get deployed.Developments in the space over the last year should be enough to tip off even casual observers thatthe mobile packet core is taking on a new importance for operators and vendors alike.

• February 2009: Ericsson and NSN announce new EPC solutions

• April 2009: Alcatel-Lucent announces a new EPC solution

• September 2009: Cisco buys mobile packet core specialist Starent Networks

• October 2009: ellabs buys mobile packet core specialist WiChorus

• February 2010: Juniper goes public with “Project Falcon” – it’s entry into the mobile packetcore

As the space moves forward, then, it is worthwhile asking some important questions. What is at theroot of the mobile packet core’s growing importance? What do operators need in the LE packetcore today? What will they need tomorrow? What are vendors doing to support them?






Mobile Packet Core

What Goes on in the Mobile Packet Core?

Before we address the question of what operators need in the mobile packet core, we need to set thebackground.

While every mobile technology supporting data services (e.g., GSM/EDGE, WCDMA/HSPA, WiMAX, CDMA2000 etc.) has its own packet core with varying architectures and functionalities, we will be focusing on the 3GPP’s 3G and LE packet cores for an obvious reason – WCDMA andHSPA are driving a good deal of today’s explosion in mobile broadband traffi c, while LE looks tobe the mobile broadband technology to dominate the market through the long-term.

At a very basic level, the mobile packet core serves as an interface been the RAN and data networks.Tis is why data gateways in the core were sometimes called wireless routers. o simply think of them as routers, however, is to ignore the broader functionality of the packet core – whether in a2G/3G or LE network.

Starting with today’s GSM/EDGE and WCDMA/HSPA networks, the architecture of the mobilepacket core comprises two key platforms: Serving GPRS Support Node (SGSN) and Gateway GPRS Support Node (GGSN).

• SGSN. Te SGSN sits closest to the subscriber, connecting to the radio network controller(Iu-PS interface) to deliver packets out to devices and support functionality such as mobility management within its geographical area, logical link management, authentication and charg-ing. Beyond tunneling and de-tunneling traffi c out to the RNC, tunneling and de-tunnelinginto the core takes place up to the GGSN (Gn interface).

• GGSN. Nominally, the GGSN supports inter-SGSN mobility – connecting to multipleSGSNs and storing user SGSN addresses and profiles in its location register – and providesconnectivity with external packet networks such as the Internet. Responsible for IP addressassignment of connected devices, the GGSN also delivers “application” support in terms of traffi c intelligence (content filtering, differentiated billing, policy enforcement) as well assecurity generation. In a “direct tunnel” implementation, the GGSN interfaces directly with

the RNC, bypassing the SGSN and subsuming some of its roles.






Mobile Packet Core

In the LE packet core (the so-called Evolved Packet Core, or EPC), the basic functions provided by the SGSN and GGSN must still be filled; in many cases, vendors have actually promised LE packetcore upgrades for their 2G/3G core platforms. Whether or not the physical components are commonacross the 2G/3G and LE cores, their roles and interactions are distinct with the EPC comprising:

Mobility Management Entity (MME), Serving Gateway (S-GW), Packet Data Network Gateway (P-GW) and Policy and Charging Rules Function (PCRF).

• MME. Like the SGSN in a 2G/3G architecture, the primary purpose of the MME issignaling – so much so that many vendors tout an ability to upgrade existing SGSN platformsto MME functionality or deliver combined SGSN/MME products. And, while the MME– unlike the SGSN – does not actually route IP data traffi c to devices, to position it as simply a signaling or control plane device is to underestimate its importance. Specific functionalitiessupported include: mobility across 3GPP networks (e.g., 3G-to-LE handover and SGSNselection), mobility to 3GPP2 networks (e.g., HRPD access node selection and handover),MME-to-MME mobility, idle mode device tracking, S-GW and P-GW selection, roamingsupport, authentication, signaling traffi c lawful intercept, circuit-switched fallback support forleveraging GSM/WCDMA or CDMA2000 voice.

• S-GW. If the MME is the LE analog of an SGSN in the control place, the S-GW is theLE analog of the SGSN in the data plane. Noted earlier, the MME is not involved in thedirect delivery of data traffi c out to end-users – making the S-GW the network node thatterminates the interface towards the LE RAN. Beyond user data lawful intercept support anddata packet routing/forwarding, the S-GW serves as a mobility anchor point for inter-eNodeBhandover and inter-3GPP mobility (relaying traffi c between 2G/3G systems and the P-GW).

At the same time, it buffers LE RAN idle mode downlink packets, performs transport layerpacket buffering and provides user-level session granularity accounting for inter-operatorcharging purposes.

• P-GW. Where the S-GW terminates the interface towards the LE RAN, the P-GW is thenode terminating the interface towards the packet data network (PDN) – the LE analog tothe GGSN. More appropriately, it terminates the interface towards a single PDN; if a user

device is accessing multiple PDNs, that device may be associated with more than one P-GW. As the gateway out to external data networks, the P-GW is responsible for a number of criti-cal functions: policy enforcement, DHCP and IP address allocation for subscriber devices,charging support, packet screening and filtering thanks to deep packet inspection capabilities.Further, for handovers between 3GPP and non-3GPP networks (CDMA2000, WiMAX) theP-GW acts as the mobility anchor point.

• PCRF. Policy control is an integral part of 3GPP standards for 3G as well as LE. In LEnetworks, however, it takes on new significance: again, all-IP operations make the treatment of dynamic, application-specific QoS more critical than in the 3G space where circuit connectiv-ity is still an option. Implied by the name, the PCRF represents a decision point for allowingor disallowing QoS requests based on application requirements, user subscriptions or userrequests – with enforcement being carried out in the P-GW. Of course, policy and charging are

tightly tied: with application or user-specific policy representing something an operator couldpotentially earn added revenues from.

Noted earlier, other technologies outside the 3GPP family have their own packet core architectures. WiMAX relies on an Access Service Network gateway to support connectivity and inter-cell as wellas inter-operator mobility. CDMA2000 networks rely on a packet data serving node – delivering thefunctionality of a SGSN and GGSN. Ultimately, however, with CDMA operators moving to LEand operators with unpaired spectrum resources investigating D-LE, EPC looks to be a near-uni-






Mobile Packet Core

versal long-term mobile broadband core architectures, in the same way LE looks to be the mobilebroadband RAN technology that dominates a post-3G world.

Why the Mobile Packet Core Matters M ore Than EverReturning briefly to the purpose of the mobile packet core – to serve as a conduit between themobile broadband RAN and data networks – its increasing importance should come as a surprise to

nobody. As the mobile Internet moves from “interesting concept” to “everyday reality” the impacton the core is nothing short of obvious.

Consider the projections Cisco has made around the growth in mobile data services.

Starting from just over 90 B of mobile data traffi c per month, the company’s forecasters (based oninsight into the traffi c running over their own gear) predict a 108% compound annual growth inmobile data usage – topping out at 3.565 B of data traffi c just five years into the future! Driven by new technologies such as HSPA, HSPA+ and LE, it’s clear that the packet core deployments and

solutions of several years ago just won’t be able to support this growth.Predictions (or extrapolations) of growth in mobile broadband traffi c, however, only tell one part of the story.

From the service provider perspective, mobile traffi c growth is about more than just the prospect of 3.6 Exabytes of monthly mobile data in 2014. It’s about more mobile broadband users. It’s aboutmultiple sessions per user. It’s about more powerful devices which make mobile data services moreaccessible and meaningful. It’s about new applications that make these data services an integral partof our lives – in the same way that mobile voice services evolved from a luxury into a necessity. It’sabout the simple fact that these applications are all built on IP.

And, what does this all mean?

It means that the mobile packet core, once a simple necessity for supporting avant garde mobile data

users, has developed into a critical network asset – a tool for helping operators deliver table stakesdata services, better monetize those services and grapple with the undeniable realities of evolvingmobile broadband usage, including:

• More Data Per User. Beyond the simple fact that more people are embracing mobile dataservices, the throughput being delivered to those users is trending upwards as well – and looksto continue doing so through the medium term. Just a few years ago, 7.2 Mbps HSPA wasan impressive feat. oday, operators are rolling out 28 Mbps and 42 Mbps offers. Verizon

Wireless’ recent LE network testing in Boston and Seattle suggests peak downloads up to






Mobile Packet Core

50 Mbps with uploads topping out at 25 Mbps, resulting in average data rate expectationsaround 5 to 12 Mbps on the downlink and 2 to 5 Mbps on the uplink. Tis is a major bumpover the data rate expectations the service provider set around its 3G offer.

• More Users Who Aren’t People. For years, machine-to-machine (M2M) communications was positioned as the next big thing in wireless. After all, connecting everything from utility meters to vending machines to vehicles to appliances and consumer electronics promisesincremental growth in an operator’s revenues while potentially doing very little to strainnetwork bandwidth. oday, moving forward on 3G upgrades and LE deployments, an inter-est in M2M wireless has resurfaced. Yet while the value proposition to the user is somewhatobvious (the effi ciencies from fewer service visits out to a meter or appliance, the effi cienciesof anywhere uploads and downloads to a camera or GPS device) the bandwidth implicationscannot be ignored – nor can the signaling strain on the MME or SGSN of a device base thatcould quickly be a multiple of the operator’s current subscriber base.

• Higher Expectations of Reliability. We said it before, and though it’s become rather clichéover the past year, it’s worth repeating: mobile data services are no longer a luxury service formany people. More importantly, based on the trajectory of mobile data uptake, it looks likethey’re poised to be more than a luxury for most people as the concept of mission critical datais applied to mobile enterprise and even consumer applications, not to mention public safety and M2M applications where connectivity truly is mission critical. Of course, mission critical3G or LE applications cannot exist without an expectation of reliability that reaches acrossthe network.

• Higher Expectations of Experience. Reliable service availability is meaningless if it doesn’tmeet the needs of a particular application or user. If mobile data usage is focused on low-valueInternet traffi c, best-effort delivery may be good enough. If mobile data usage is increasingly focused on multimedia services such as video, VoIP and gaming, best-effort data will be unac-ceptable – unable to provide the bandwidth and latency guarantees to make these applicationsusable. Beyond the fact that VoIP is a long-term necessity in an LE world where circuit voiceis no longer an option, another look at the mobile data forecasts suggests the industry is con-

vinced that these types of applications are set to dominate mobile data usage, that operatorsneed to think about application level bandwidth and quality demands, and that the packetcore will need to support them to keep user quality of experience up and churn in check.

• Continued Need for Network Effi ciencies. We can detail everything an operator needs toprepare for in the core – everything it needs to do to roll out a successful 3G or LE mobilebroadband service. At the end of the day, however, the operator needs to remain profitable(keeping network CapEx and OpEx in check wherever possible) if it hopes to continueexpanding services, growing coverage, evolving its network to new technologies and keepingshareholders happy.

• Greater Need for Session Intelligence & Control. Profits can be grown in one of two ways;costs can be cut, or revenues can be grown. Tis is nothing more than basic finance. In searchof new revenue streams, operators have made “service monetization” a mantra, looking for

ways to earn a return on their shiny new mobile broadband networks beyond the service tariffsthey collect every month. Sometimes this is simply positioned as the service provider fightagainst becoming a “dumb pipe.” Regardless of how the discussion is framed, the tools andpractices it implies are the same: tiered service policies based on specific user profiles; tieredservice policies based on application demands; third-party revenue contribution; an ability todevelop and enforce these policies dynamically in a scalable manner. Regardless of how thediscussion is framed, the role of the packet core in terms of classifying and controlling userdata cannot be denied.






Mobile Packet Core

• Grappling with an All-IP World. Tat LE is an all-IP technology has been a part of itsallure from day one. All-IP operations promise network effi ciencies, an end to the need forhybrid circuit-packet backhaul solutions, and better integration with IP service and applica-tion platforms such as IMS. It also puts operators in a position where IP quickly moves from

an important core network technology to one where it is a critical (if not the only) one thatmatters – responsible for any application the operator hopes to deliver. Tis sets the mobilepacket core up as a potential bottleneck unless it can deliver these applications as quickly asthey are demanded.

What Operators Need in the Mobile Packet Core

Current Analysis has been delivering detailed product analysis across the telecom infrastructurelandscape since its inception. Our coverage of the mobile packet core kicked off more than sevenyears ago – long before most operators had a solid business justification for their initial 3G network launches (beyond the fact that they had to do something with the billions of dollars of spectrumthey owned).

A key part of this analysis has always been an investigation into the buying criteria that guide opera-tor decisions around network investments. As 3G packet core renewals begin to take place and EPClaunches kick off, however, it is worth explicitly looking at the buying criteria we’ve identified. Why?In part, because they represent the mobile packet core and demands that will ultimately determinethe success of vendors in an increasingly crowded market. In part, because many operators are justbeginning the process of upgrading their packet core infrastructure and can benefit from the insightsof their compatriots and competitors.

Again, just as LE is a logical extension of 3G air interfaces, the EPC is a logical extension of 2G/3G packet core technologies and products. Te technologies and architectures may be differentin some respects, but the basic purpose is the same. Tis should mean that operator buying criteria(the criteria we’ve been evaluating for several years) should remain largely intact.

While this is largely true, it’s also true that some buying criteria have been magnified or elevated in

importance. Combined with the fact that vendors in the space routinely report hundreds of perfor-mance metrics, the result is literally thousands of performance considerations and tradeoff combina-tions. For our part, we’ve distilled the key considerations into four categories: solution completeness,capacity and scalability, application support, and deployment flexibility.

Solution Completeness

With the exception of direct tunnel architectures, operators need complete packet core solutions– not just products. An SGSN without a GGSN doesn’t do much good. An MME without a P-GW and S-GW is useless. Tis doesn’t mean that vendors who only address the signaling plane or thedata plane have no value; since the interfaces between these products are standardized, it is com-pletely possible to build multi-vendor packet core networks. Instead, it simply means that operatorsneed to think about the core as an “end-to-end” proposition in the same way they think about their

end-to-end LE network.• Single-Vendor Solutions. Vendors promising a complete mobile packet core or EPC offerneed to deliver on all components including SGSN/GGSN or MME/P-GW/S-GW andPCRF, pointing to the proven interworking between, and common management across, them.

• Multi-Vendor Interoperability. Where a vendor produces only one component of the2G/3G or LE packet core, operators must know that its products seamlessly fit into abroader solution. In other words, the vendor must lead with proven interoperability – ideally






Mobile Packet Core

based on partnerships which aim to deliver an end-to-end solution.

Capacity & Scalability

“Speeds and feeds” represent classic operator buying criteria across the telecom infrastructurelandscape – making them some of the most commonly quoted performance metrics by vendors. Atits most basic level, the concept that “more is better” (like megapixels in a camera or horsepower ina car) holds true. Overall, capacity signals how well a platform can actually support current network demands along with traffi c growth going forward. In the context of LE promising to push moredata out to more users, the obsession with capacity in the EPC is completely logical, extending to:

• IP Bearers. Te LE equivalent of 2G/3G PDP contexts, IP bearers consist of data flowsincluding user session information.

• Subscribers. While a given P-GW or S-GW can serve a nearly infinite number of usersover the course of its operations, the number of simultaneously attached users it can supportrepresents its maximum active user capacity at a given point in time.

• Troughput. P-GW/S-GW throughput directly equates to the amount of bandwidthavailable to support data-intensive subscriber sessions. With LE operators already promisingcapacity upwards of 5 Mbps on the downlink, throughput figures need to be evaluated in thecontext of subscriber capacity – i.e., how much throughput is available per subscriber underfull utilization?

• Activations. Again, high-quality data services require suffi cient bandwidth in the packetcore. At the same time, users must be quickly activated “on” (attached) or deactivated(detached) “off” of gateways in order to keep service latency in check and avoid subscribercapacity exhaust.

• RAN Fan Out. Increasingly, operators are considering small cell architectures as a way todeliver robust LE RAN capacity and coverage – especially when launching in high-frequency spectrum bands. Tis implies an S-GW that can support a large number of eNodeBs.

Application Support

Our characterization of the mobile packet core and EPC as conduits for traffi c between the RANand data networks was an admitted over-simplification. More than just dumb pipes, the packetcore is responsible for providing traffi c intelligence (i.e., what traffi c is running across the network)and then leveraging that intelligence to deliver a better user experience and help operators bettermonetize their services, thanks to:

• Security Scalability. Mobile data gateways obviously need to support security measures likefirewalls (personal, stateful) and IPSEC generation. How well they scale this support – how much security they can offer – will determine how secure an operator’s user base truly is.

• Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) Capabilities. DPI has become table stakes in the packetcore as a tool for understanding what types of data are running across an operator’s networks,setting the stage for differentiated billing, and other monetization plans. How much insightit can provide – i.e., Layer 7 visibility – determines how well a solution can execute on thesepromises.

• raffi c Analytics. DPI may provide insight into session content, but solutions for visualizingor reporting on this traffi c are critical for helping operators make sound decisions around how to manage their traffi c: which users or applications are clogging the network, when congestionis occurring, when usage can be encouraged, etc.






Mobile Packet Core

• Bandwidth Management. Bandwidth management is a taboo topic in some markets, buta business necessity for an operator faced with abusive users and abusive applications (P2Pis a commonly claimed villain) or simply wanting to enforce usage caps or tariffs with abandwidth component. Beyond tools to actually identify applications outside the capabilities

of DPI (P2P is notoriously tricky), maintaining a suffi cient number of policers to enforcebandwidth management over a broad set of users is equally important.

• Monetization ools. raffi c insights and bandwidth management are about more than justkeeping managing traffi c usage or curbing abusive subscribers and applications. Tey are alsoabout helping operators earn new revenue streams from their mobile broadband networks– whether those are based on subscriber up-selling or come thanks to third-party applicationdevelopers. Ideally, this means a solution would also be linked into solutions or services forcourting and integrating those third-party apps.

• Applications vs. Troughput vs. Users. It is one thing for a solution to promise stellarthroughput, subscriber and application support. It is another thing for the solution to promiseall three simultaneously. o fully evaluate the capabilities of a gateway, then, operators need tounderstand how subscriber and throughout capacity actually scale when, for example, DPI isapplied to all (or some) users.

Deployment Flexibility

Compared with the massive amounts of user traffi c running across a packet platform or its ability toidentify (and manage) specific traffi c types, considerations around actually operating the platformmay seem mundane, at best. Tey are not - beyond the issues of site acquisition and platform sizing,simple or familiar management tools help to ensure service reliability while promising to keepmanagement-related OpEx in check.

• Platform Familiarity. Even where a new gateway offer promises incredible performanceleaps, consideration must be given to how simply an operator can integrate the platform intoits network. How much new training will be required? Will new stocking and sparing pro-

cesses be needed? Gateways that have been well deployed or built on well-deployed platformsclearly provide an advantage.

• Proven Operations. It is unfair to suggest that all vendors exaggerate the performance of their solutions. Tat said, it happens – particularly with new solutions where capabilities may still be in development. Where performance claims have been backed by real world operations,this worry is somewhat mitigated. In the absence of (or run-up to) widespread deployments,lab testing can be a proxy.

• Combined Operations. Having deployed mobile packet core gateways for their 2G/3Gnetworks, EPC solutions can be deployed as an overlay. Vendor offers supporting EPCfunctionality alone suggest an interest in the strategy. However, if solutions can support both2G/3G and LE networks, the CapEx, OpEx and management effi ciencies are clear.

• Sizing. Platform sizing relates directly to how expensive (or inexpensive) a mobile packetcore solution is to site. Perhaps more importantly, sizing becomes an issue where vendorsclaim impressive scalability thanks to massive gateways which might occupy several times thephysical space of competing products.

• Redundancy. Any network asset that impacts the service availability and quality of millionsof users will be deployed with redundancy. In the mobile packet core, how redundancy isachieved directly impacts how a gateway is deployed, how many need to be deployed (2N vs.N+1, etc.), and how meaningful capacity figures are when judged from a per gateway or persolution perspective.






Mobile Packet Core

Where the Market Needs to Focus Going ForwardIn the near-term, operators launching new LE networks and 3G upgrades have their marchingorders. Tey need to move forward on new mobile packet core and EPC deployments. Tey need toevaluate these solutions along well-defined buying criteria – extending what we’ve known about 3Ginto 4G. Tey need to evaluate which buying criteria are more important for them, based on theirown service plans and user demographics.

What about the medium, and long-term?

No different than the RAN, the mobile packet core and EPC will continue evolving – as will themarketing around them. Vendors will need to support the evolution. Operators will need to look forproof points out of their favorite vendors. Beyond the broad topic of “evolution” three areas of focusstand out.

• Commitment & Innovation. Despite recent consolidation, the number of credible vendorsin the mobile packet core is at an all time high. For operators, this is generally a good thing;forcing innovation while keeping prices in check. Yet it could quickly become a problem if fierce competition drives vendors and solutions out of the market – something that seems

inevitable with over ten vendors and solutions bumping up against one another. Given the im-portance of the mobile packet core to their mobile broadband service aspirations, no operatorcan afford to take this risk. o signal that it’s nothing they need to worry about, vendors needto prove a continuing commitment to the space with regular innovations and product updatesaimed at specific service provider pain points.

• esting. Noted earlier, vendor claims are helpful for gauging the performance of their datagateway offers – but they don’t always tell a complete story. Claims can be skewed by thenewness of a solution. More often, they can be skewed by the assumptions a vendor makes

when reporting its performance figures. Do throughput and bearer claims assume DPI appliedto 100% of subscribers? 50%? What packet sizing do throughput claims assume? Do perfor-mance figures assume redundancy, or not? Operators need to test solutions based around theirown assumptions. Ideally, they would band together to specify common assumptions and

models, in order to obtain more easily comparable vendor claims.

• Solutions & Monetization. Not all operators need end-to-end packet core solutions froma single vendor. Offering them, however, can’t hurt – if only to target smaller operators whodon’t want the hassle of integrating gear from multiple suppliers. Of course, more than justmobile packet core components – which can always be pulled together into a solution whereinteroperability has been established – solutions need to address other operator concerns an-chored in the core. Tis means developing a synergy with transport products and the inclusionof mobile broadband application and monetization tools which stretch beyond the gateway,ideally pulling in third-party vendors.

Tis final point may seem a little disjointed. After spending so much time discussing the demandsof the mobile packet core, linking solution demands to products such as backhaul and third-party applications might seem like a stretch – unnecessary concerns for an operator’s team focused ondata gateway requirements. Realistically, however, it is diffi cult to consider any set of products in avacuum. An end-to-end EPC solution needs to be considered within the context of an end-to-endLE solution including multi-standard RAN equipment, mobile backhaul and application exposureassets. Network management and self-optimizing network tools that stretch across the LE network must also be considered.

No mobile packet core vendor should be penalized for a lack of RAN assets – a strict focus on IPand mobile data gateways brings its own merits. However, the proven interoperability and opera-tions that come from a holistic, end-to-end network solution cannot be ignored either.

CurrentAnalysis-MobilePacketCore_WP

Documents