11 3GPP TS Mobile Application Part MAP specification 12 RFC June from CSE 10 at Krishna Institute Of Engineering and Technology. 3GPP TS Telecommunications System (UMTS); Mobile Application Part (MAP) specification, 3. Expanded ASN.1 modules for Mobile Application Part (MAP) (3GPP TS ) in JSON format f30 ASN1 · Update ASN.1 files to latest, 5 months ago.
|Published (Last):||4 July 2010|
|PDF File Size:||3.98 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||17.52 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Operators that have deployed networks based on 3rd Generation Partnership Project 3GPP network architectures are facing IPv4 address shortages at the Internet registries and are feeling pressure to migrate to IPv6. This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes.
It represents the consensus of the IETF community. Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at http: Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document.
This support extends to all radio access and packet- based system variants of the 3GPP architecture family. In addition, a lot of work has been invested by the industry to investigate different transition and deployment scenarios over the years.
However, IPv6 deployment in commercial networks remains low. There are many factors that can be attributed to this lack of deployment. The most relevant factor is essentially the same as the reason for IPv6 not being deployed in other networks either, i.
In addition, the number of subscribers and devices using the 3GPP networks for Internet connectivity and data services has also increased phenomenally — the number of mobile broadband subscribers has increased exponentially over the last couple of years. With subscriber growth projected to increase even further, and with recent depletion of available IPv4 address space by IANA, 3GPP operators and vendors are now in the process of identifying the scenarios and solutions needed to deploy IPv6.
Some of the issues and concerns with respect to deployment and shortage of private IPv4 addresses within a single network domain are also discussed. In addition to operating dual- stack networks during the transition from IPv4 to IPv6, the two alternative categories for the transition are encapsulation and translation. There is no single approach for transition to IPv6 that can meet the needs for all deployments and models. However, GTP also provides functionality beyond mobility, such as in-band signaling related to Quality of Service QoS and charging, among others.
The Home Location Register HLR is a pre-Release-5 database but is also used in Release-5 and later networks in real deployments that contains subscriber data and information related to call routing. All subscribers of an operator, and the subscribers’ enabled services, are provisioned in the HLR.
The Mobility Management Entity MME is a network element that is responsible for control-plane functionalities, including authentication, authorization, bearer management, layer-2 mobility, etc. The user-plane traffic bypasses the MME. Each telecommunications operator providing mobile services has its own PLMN.
It has two main functions: The Packet Data Network PDN is a packet-based network that either belongs to the operator or is an external network such as the Internet or a corporate intranet. The user eventually accesses services in one or more PDNs. The user plane refers to data traffic and the required bearers for the data traffic. In practice, IP is the only data traffic protocol used in the user plane.
The UE can choose to attach to a specific gateway in the packet core. An operator may also include gateways that do not provide Internet connectivity but rather provide connectivity to a closed network providing a set of the operator’s own services. A UE can be attached to one or more gateways simultaneously. Figure 1 illustrates the APN-based network connectivity concept. The SGSN is responsible for the delivery of data packets from and to the UE within its geographical service area when a direct tunnel option is not used.
Template:Cite techreport/testcases – Wikipedia
The control-plane traffic always goes through the SGSN. A UE may hence be attached to one or more gateways via separate connections, i. 3glp application on the host, such as a web browser, would use the PDP context that provides Internet connectivity for accessing services on the Internet. An application such as a MMS would use APNy in the figure above, because the service is provided through the private network.
In its most basic form, the EPS architecture consists of only two nodes on the user plane: The basic EPS architecture is illustrated in Figure 4. The functional split of gateways allows operators to choose optimized topological locations of nodes within the network and enables various deployment models, including the sharing of radio networks between different operators.
This also allows independent scaling, growth of traffic throughput, and control-signal processing. A UE may hence be attached to one or more gateways via separate. The logical concept of a bearer has been defined to be an aggregate of one or more IP flows related to one or more services.
Services with IP flows requiring different tx treatment would therefore require more than one EPS bearer. This default bearer will be allowed to carry all traffic that is not associated with a dedicated bearer.
IPv6 in 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP)
Dedicated bearers are used to carry traffic for IP flows that have been identified to require specific packet-forwarding treatment. They may be established at the time of startup — for example, in the case of services that require always-on connectivity and better QoS than that provided by the default bearer. Non-GBR bearers can suffer packet loss under congestion, while GBR bearers are immune to such losses as long as they honor the contracted bit rates.
The deferred address allocation is based on the use of DHCPv4 as well as appropriate UE-side implementation- dependent triggers to invoke the protocol.
The UE must configure its link-local address using this Interface Identifier. The UE is allowed to use any Interface Identifier it wishes for the other addresses it configures. However, there are network drivers that fail to pass the Interface Identifier to the stack and instead synthesize their own Interface Identifier usually a Media Access Control MAC address equivalent. The address collision may then cause issues in IP connectivity — for instance, the UE not being able to forward any packets to the uplink.
Details of the 3GPP link-model and address configuration are provided in Section Therefore, multi-homing within a single bearer is not possible. Renumbering without closing the layer-2 connection is also not possible. IPv6 prefix delegation is a part of Release and is not covered by any earlier releases. DHCPv6 prefix delegation has an explicit limitation, described in Section This implies that the shorter ‘delegated prefix’ cannot be given to the requesting router i.
The UE IP stack has to take this into consideration. This has a few known issues, especially when the IP stack is made to believe that the underlying link has link-layer addresses. It is then possible that the address resolution never completes when the UE tries to resolve the link-layer address of the GGSN, thus stalling all IPv6 traffic. There is little that can be done about this in the GGSN, assuming the neighbor-discovery implementation already does the right thing.
But the UE stacks must be able to handle address resolution in the manner that they have chosen to represent the interface. The two PDP contexts of different type may use the same APN and the gateway ; however, this aspect is not explicitly defined in standards.
Therefore, cellular device and gateway implementations from different vendors may have varying support for this functionality.
Figure 8 illustrates the high-level process and signaling involved in the establishment of a PDN connection. The dual- stack PDN connection, i. This information element contains only the Interface Identifier of the IPv6 address.
The chosen approach for mobility is as follows, in short: Essentially, this indicates the following deployment options:. When a network operator and their roaming partners have upgraded their networks to Release-8, it is possible to use the new IPv4v6 dual-stack bearers.
A Release-8 UE always requests a dual-stack bearer, but accepts what is assigned by the network.
WSFD-110522 Camp & Handover Based on SPID
By doing so, devices and applications that are IPv6 capable can start utilizing IPv6 connectivity. This will also ensure that legacy devices and applications continue to work with no impact. As newer devices start using IPv6 connectivity, the demand for actively used IPv4 connections is expected to slowly decrease, helping operators with a transition to IPv6. With a dual-stack approach, there is always the potential to fall back to IPv4.
A device that may be roaming in a network wherein IPv6 is not supported by the visited network could fall back to using IPv4 PDP contexts, and hence the end user would at least get some connectivity. Unfortunately, the dual- stack approach as such does not lower the number of 3glp IPv4 addresses.
Every dual-stack bearer still needs to be given an IPv4 address, private or public. This is a major concern with dual-stack bearers concerning IPv6 transition.
As the networks evolve to support Release-8 EPS architecture and the dual-stack PDP contexts, newer devices will be able to leverage such capability and have a single bearer that supports both Ys and IPv6. About 16 million UEs can be assigned a private IPv4 address td is unique within a domain.
However, for many operators, the number of subscribers is greater than 16 million. As a result, the IPv4 address assigned to a UE within the context of a single operator realm would no longer be unique.
These are generic issues and not only a concern of the EPS. Obvious deployment choices apply also to the EPC:.
The underlying transport for te reference points can be IPv4 or IPv6. Eventually, these roaming networks will also get migrated to IPv6, if there is a business reason for that. The migration period can be prolonged considerably, because the 3GPP protocols always tunnel user-plane traffic in the core network, and as described earlier, the transport-network IP td is not in any way tw to the user-plane IP version.
Furthermore, the design of the inter-operator roaming networks is such that the user-plane and transport-network IP addressing schemes are completely separated from each other. The inter-operator roaming network itself is also completely separated from the Internet. Only those core network nodes that must be connected to the inter-operator roaming networks are actually visible there, and are able to send and receive tunneled traffic within the inter-operator roaming networks.
Obviously, in order for the roaming to work properly, the operators have to agree on supported protocol versions so 2902 the visited network does not, for example, unnecessarily drop user-plane IPv6 traffic.
Operating dual-stack networks does imply cost and complexity to a certain extent. However, these factors are mitigated by the assurance that legacy devices and services are unaffected, and there is always a fallback to IPv4 in case 3gp issues with the IPv6 deployment or network elements. The model also enables operators to develop operational experience and expertise in an incremental manner. 92002 dual-stack networks requires the management of multiple IP address spaces.
Network elements will also need to be dual-stack capable in order to support the dual-stack deployment model. Deployment and migration cases see Section 6. This is a major concern against providing dual-stack connectivity using techniques discussed in Section 6.