UMTS Core Network Planning Model and

Comparison of Vendor Product Performance

R. Shalak, Dr. K. Sandrasegaran, Dr. J. Agbinya, S. Subenthiran
University of Technology, Sydney (UTS)
Faculty of Engineering
1 Broadway, Ultimo
Sydney, N.S.W, Australia
Email: rshalak, kumbes, agbinya, ssuben@eng.uts.edu.au
this balance by exposing how core network planning strategies
Abstract - Third Generation mobile networks are currently being can effectively increase profits and efficiency and reduce
deployed worldwide. For the service provider, upgrading from wasteful expenditure.
their existing second generation network or deploying a new third
generation network brings with it many considerations which will Although, this paper essentially focuses on UMTS core network
prove vital to their ultimate success. In these formative years, planning, it is important to recognise that the RAN has a direct
perhaps the most contentious issue is UMTS network planning and bearing on core network design. With this in mind, it would be
optimisation.
neglectful not to overview various RAN configurations and their
In this article, planning considerations are discussed for the core impact on the core network.
network. A model is generated and proposals are made on how the
operator can maximise efficiency as well as provide the user with An integral part of the UMTS network development process is
the required QoS. network deployment and evolution planning. By deployment,
we are referring to a carrier who is rolling out a ‘greenfield’
Keywords - Universal Mobile Telecommunication Service, core UMTS network, whilst evolution refers to a 2G operator who is
network, Serving GPRS Support Node, Gateway GPRS Support upgrading to UMTS. Both cases primarily involve the
Node, build-ahead.
evaluation and consequent purchase of new network hardware,
followed by the integration of that equipment into the existing
network. This paper recognises that on most occasions this
selection of vendor equipment is rarely done on a merit basis
I. Introduction but more often due to a service provider’s strategic alliance and
ties with a particular supplier. These long built relationships can
Rapid growth in traffic volume combined with a multitude of often be counter-productive, as they breed an air of automatic
new services has begun to alter the structure of wireless acceptance of a vendor’s product devoid of sound judgement.
networks. To cope with increased demands, service providers Furthermore, it is important to recognise that 3GPP standards
must upgrade to flexible networks with high data rate were devised to produce global compatibility of multi-vendor
capabilities and QoS guarantees. In short they must adopt Third equipment. These international standards enable service
Generation technologies. providers to utilise equipment produced by a multitude of
vendors subsequently reaping benefits such as greater
The UMTS network can be segregated into two main bargaining powers and competitively priced equipment.
subsections, the Core Network and the Radio Access Network
(RAN). The Core Network, which is the primary concern of this Initially it may seem wasteful to allocate time and resources to
article, comprises of Mobile Switching Centres, Serving GPRS the process of determining which supplier can provide the most
Support Nodes (SGSN), Gateway GPRS Support Nodes suitable equipment to satisfy a carrier’s current and future
(GGSN), Home Location Registers and Visitor Location needs. However, considering that the decision’s subsequent
Registers. This nucleus is responsible for the main network effects are often long lasting and very costly to reverse adds
functions including switching of traffic, providing of QoS, further weight to the process of selection. This paper addresses
mobility management, network security and billing. this issue by comparing and assessing the strengths and
Consequently, its meticulous planning and careful dimensioning weaknesses of several current market UMTS core network
are imperative in ensuring overall efficiency and reliability. components developed by a multitude of vendors.

To date, almost all planning research, publications and literature The research presented in this paper, is condensed into a core
concentrate on the Radio Access Network and overlook the network planning model. This model utilises several key
Core Network. Our ongoing work, aims to shift planning inputs to produce an optimised configuration output.
The inputs include the breakdown of traffic forecasts into voice,
data and subscriber usage, excess dimensioning based on build-
ahead requirements and interface dimensioning based on several
factors including RAN configuration.

In addition, the paper evaluates and underlines various

considerations taken in dimensioning an efficient UMTS core MSC D
network. Section II gives a brief outline of UMTS network
Iu -CS HLR Packet
components and architecture. The functionality of each element Gs Data
is reviewed including a description of how these components Gr Networks
function collectively. Section III outlines the differences in G
RNC Iu-PS
network structure between GSM and UMTS. The migration SGSN
from 2G to 3G is outlined with special attention given to the Iub Gn
new packet handling components. Section IV discusses core Iur
network planning considerations, highlighting the dimensioning GGSN
limitations of Core Network elements. Our novel core network Node B RNC
planning model is presented. This model aims to increase
overall network efficiency by targeting and improving core
network structure. It goes further to underline the impact of the
Key:
radio access network on interface dimensioning and core Signalling Interface
network. Section V compares different vendor product
offerings, providing insight into current capacity limitations for Data & Signalling interface
the various core network components. Finally, proposals are
Core Network Boundaries
made on how an operator can maximise efficiency as well as
provide a subscriber with the required QoS.
Figure 1: UMTS Core Network Model
II. UMTS Network Structure

UMTS networks are designed to support user applications

requiring high data rates. Consequently, the architecture of
UMTS core networks is an adaptation of its GSM predecessor.
The release’99 architecture depicted below contains all the
traditional GSM core network components with the addition of
two packet handling nodes – The SGSN and GGSN. These two
nodes work collectively enabling UMTS networks to exchange
information with external data networks.
The SGSN is the central element in the packet switched
network. The main SGSN functions are mobility management,
traffic routing and user information and authorisation. In
addition to this, it provides a number of functionalities such as
ciphering and compression. The SGSN location register stores
location information (eg. Current cell, current VLR) and user
profiles (eg. IMSI and temporary identities) of all users
registered with this SGSN.
The GGSN acts as an interface between the UMTS backbone
network and external packet data networks. It converts packets
coming from the SGSN into the appropriate packet data
protocol (PDP) format (IP or X.25) and sends them out on the
corresponding packet data network. In the other direction, PDP
addresses of incoming data packets are converted to the UMTS
address of the destination user. The readdressed packets are sent
to the responsible SGSN. For this purpose, the GGSN stores the
current SGSN address of the user and their profile in its location
register. The GGSN is also responsible for charging and
authentication.
Generally, there is a many to many relationship between SGSNs
and GGSNs. A GGSN is the interface to external packet data
networks for several SGSNs and a SGSN may route its packets
over different GGSNs to reach different packet data networks.
III. Evolution from GSM to UMTS
Projections for future network utilisation point towards a
significant mobile data usage increase. The predictions indicate
that although “ simple voice” will remain a vital component of
operators’ service portfolio, by 2010 voice will only generate
$88bn compared to $237bn for all other services. It is also
anticipated that in 2010, the average subscriber will spend about
$30 per month on 3G data services [1]. These utilisation pattern
forecasts are driving the push for a change from the current
mobile standards to mobile networks with high data processing
capabilities.
During the upgrade from 1st generation to 2nd generation
networks existing technologies were not retained. Service
providers were forced to abandon old for new. The move from
2G to 3G promises to be different. New technologies are
designed to function alongside existing technologies rendering
the transition almost seamless.
From a core network perspective, the transition from GSM to
UMTS involves more than just a software upgrade. The actual
configuration of the GSM network is dramatically altered. The
existing MSC/VLR and HLR are retained but upgraded. Two
additional nodes have been added. The SGSN and GGSN
provide the network with its packet handling capabilities. The
SGSN is responsible for the delivery of data packets to and from
mobile nodes within its service area, whilst the GGSN provides
network connectivity to several external Packet Data Networks
(PDN) including the Internet.
UMTS’ ability to process high data rates is a direct result of its
new W-CDMA radio access technology. However, in contrast to
the core network, the existing GSM radio network will remain
relatively unaltered. Instead, UMTS designers have opted to
develop the UMTS Terrestrial Radio Access Network
(UTRAN) to attach and run in parallel with existing Base
Station Controllers (BSCs) and Base Transceiver Stations
(BTSs). The strategy developed aims to allow the UTRAN to
handle the delivery of packet switched data to and from the
mobile nodes, whilst existing GSM infrastructure maintains
control of the circuit switched traffic.
Terminal manufacturers are also following “the seamless
transition” and have committed to producing dual – mode
UMTS/GSM terminals enabling users to roam freely
concurrently utilising both 2G and 3G services. These dual-
mode devices are expected to cost up to 30% less than those of
any other technology [2].
IV. Core Network Planning
Under normal circumstances, careful planning of wireless
networks is vital if operators wish to make full use of existing
investments. However, during the transition phase from 2nd
generation to 3rd generation networks, planning assumes a new
importance. The increase in radio network capabilities means
that even the well established 2G network operators will need to
re-dimension their core networks to ensure service quality and
network efficiency is maintained. The integration of new packet
handling components including the Serving GPRS Support
Node (SGSN), the Gateway GPRS Support Node (GGSN) and
the Radio Network Controller (RNC) necessitate an entire
review of current running planning policies.
The UMTS network planning model illustrated in this section
highlights the various factors affecting core network design and
planning. These factors include traffic usage projections, node
capacity limitations, build-ahead policy and RAN configuration.
Networks must be dimensioned to support user demands.
Consequently, traffic projection figures are vital for planners.
Traffic Projection is a blanket term used to denote the volume
and nature of traffic processed by network nodes. The volume
of traffic received determines the number of nodes used and
capacity provisioned between nodes, whilst the nature of
traffic has a bearing on the type of nodes deployed as well as
allowing the planner to forecast traffic trends [3]. For example,
if subscribers are accessing the Internet, then the quantity of
downlink traffic would be sufficiently greater than the uplink
traffic. Planners can use this trend to efficiently dimension
network capacity.
Traffic forecasts are separated into two main categories: data
and voice. Voice usage forecasts are further disseminated into
mobile to land, land to mobile, mobile to mobile and mobile to
voice mail usages. In evaluating data usage forecasts, planners
must dimension the network according to the nature of data
traffic and its intended destination. For example, the volume of
Internet traffic passing to and from mobile users has a direct
bearing on the dimensioning of SGSN and GGSN interfaces.
Alternatively, the volume of data traffic terminating on an email
server inside the network directly affects the interface
dimensioning of that server as well as SGSN. This process
should be reiterated for all types of data traffic passing through
the network.
In calculating the required number of each type of core network
node, it is important to initially understand the capacity
limitations of each node. By contrasting node capacity
limitations with expected traffic volumes, it is possible to
clearly determine the basic network node requirements. It is
imperative to recognise that these calculations represent the
minimal network operating requirements. To meet any expected
growth in demand, networks must be over-dimensioned. This is
referred to as build-ahead [4].
Build-ahead accounts for traffic growth over a period of time. In
its infancy, the operator’s network will be dimensioned
according to traffic forecasts alone, therefore it is wise to
dimension for a longer build-ahead period of around 12 months.
This ensures that the network will cope with any excess demand
as well as allow the operator’s traffic to grow without needing
to constantly re-dimension their network. As the operator’s
understanding of traffic trends increases, it will become possible
to safely dimension for a much shorter build-ahead period
increasing overall network efficiency.
To determine projected growth in traffic, carriers rely on widely
available government statistics involving population types,
incomes, distribution of wealth, taxation and spending habits.
There is also a need for statistics depicting the existing
penetration of mobile voice services and average Internet usage
in the market [5].
The radio access network has a direct bearing on core network
dimensioning. The Iu-CS and Iu-PS links are dimensioned to
reflect expected RNC loading. Taking the case where a
particular RNC is expected to process 40Mbps of data traffic,
then the bandwidth of the Iu-PS should be 20% -30% more to
allow for GTP and ATM overhead. Iu-CS dimensioning can be
similarly determined by estimating the amount of Erlangs
processed by the RNC.
A SGSN with a maximum throughput of around 250Mbps can
support a maximum of five RNCs carrying 40Mbps. If more
than five RNCs are required in a particular service area then
another SGSN will need to be deployed.
All other network interfaces can be dimensioned according to
expected user rates with a little extra capacity for overhead and
bursty periods.
V. Comparison of Vendor Equipment
As previously mentioned, each node in the UMTS network has
design limitations. The exact limitations differ from vendor to
vendor. Node limits coupled with traffic projections are used to
determine the quantity of a particular node element used in the
network.
In this section , functionality and limitations of multi-vendor
SGSNs and GGSNs are compared. All data has been collected
from the respective vendor websites.
Serving GPRS Support Node (SGSN)
The SGSN produced by Alcatel, Ericsson, Lucent, Nokia,
Nortel and Siemens have the same functionality as listed in the
standards GSM 3.60, these include:
• Authentication and authorization,
• Mobility management, admission control relay and
routing,
• Address translation and mapping
• Encapsulation tunnelling,
• Compression, ciphering logical management
• Path management
Ericsson have additional performance measurements and event
recording functions built into their SGSN. Nokia have prepaid
functions and Nortel possess an additional SGSN Accounting
Server (SAS), responsible for billing functionality.
The interfaces supported by all the vendor's SGSNs are the Gb
(SGSN-BSS) and the Gn (GSN-GSN in same PLMN)
interfaces. Alcatel's SGSN supports the most interfaces while
Lucent support the least.
The number of subscribers supported by SGSNs range from
50,000 up to 900,000. Alcatel's SGSN can support the largest
number, whilst the 'Entry Level' SGSN/GGSN by Lucent
supports the least. However, it is worth noting that Lucent’s
platform can be scaled to support 300 000 attached users.
There is also great variation in the number of PDP contexts
supported by different SGSN vendors. Ericsson's SGSN can
support 200,000 simultaneous PDP contexts while Nokia's
Release 2 SGSN can support up to 960,000.
The data rates of the SGSN vary around the 200Mbps. Lucent’s
Flexent is highly scalable offering data rates ranging from
200Mbps to a maximum of 1.2Gbps. The Siemens’ @dvange
and Ericsson SGSN platform offer rates of 250Mbps and 350
Mbps respectively.
Only Ericsson, Nokia and Siemens specified the Quality of
Service of their SGSN. Ericsson's SGSN are compliant with the
GSM 3.60 class. It supports the reliability classes 2 and 3, Delay
classes 1 to 4 for subscriber data. Nokia's QoS was based on
priority, interactive and background classes while Siemens’ QoS
are configurable to meet the needs of different types of users.
Most of the vendors collect charging information in relation to
the time and date, QoS, duration and volume of the packet data
transferred. Nokia also collect information in regards to the
radio resources used for re-transmitting.
Gateway GPRS Support Node (GGSN)
The GGSN by Cisco, Ericsson, Nokia, Nortel and Siemens has
the following functions:
• Authentication and authorisation
• Ciphering
• Relay and routeing
• Address translation and mapping
• Encapsulation and tunnelling
• Mobility management
Only the GGSN by Ericsson, Lucent, Motorola, Nokia and
Nortel have the charging information collection function.
The number of subscribers supported ranges from 400,000 to 15
000. Lucent's GGSN supports the most while Ericsson's
combined platform of SGSN/GGSN supports the least.
Ericsson’s platform can be scaled to support more users.
The number of PDP contexts varies from the 1 Million
supported by Nortel to the 180,000 supported by Cisco.
The supported data throughput varies from 2Gbps by Nortel’s
Univity platform to 100 Mbps by Siemens’ @vantage.
Most vendors allocate IP addresses statically via the HLR and
dynamically using a RADIUS server. The Cisco GGSN
supports QoS negotiation and handling and its QoS classes are
mapped to Internet Differentiated Service Classes. Nortel's
GGSN supports traffic management functions such as queuing,
policing and shaping of the traffic while Ericsson's model
complies with the reliability and delay classes of the GSM 3.60
standard.
The charging information collected includes time taken between
the commencement and termination of PDP contexts, volume of
data exchanged, and packet network destinations.
It should be noted that the above-mentioned comparisons are
void of pricing considerations. Equipment pricing and support
play a vital role in vendor product selection. On most occasions,
vendors are hesitant to provide equipment pricing unless a non-
disclosure contract is signed.

Conclusion

Increased services and subscriber numbers are pushing service

providers to acquire Third Generation wireless technologies. As
the 2G network structure begins to change, current planning
strategies become dated and new strategies must be adopted.
The aim of these strategies is to maintain network efficiency
throughout the transition period and beyond.

This paper outlines core network changes experienced by

service providers upgrading from GSM to UMTS.
Modifications, mainly involve the addition of packet handling
nodes and a requirement for increased interface dimensioning
due to the extra capabilities of the W-CDMA radio network.

In addition, the paper presents a core network planning model

yielding long term planning strategies as well as performing a
comparison of current market vendor products.

REFERENCES

[1] K. Van der Spiegel, “Accessing the development of UMTS and 3G

overseas”, UMTS Forum, Institute for International Research Conference,
Sydney, May 2001.
[2] Siemens URL, “UMTS Overview”, http://www.siemens.com.
[3] Clint Smith P.E, Daniel Collins, “3G Wireless Networks”, McGraw-Hill,
2000.
[4] J.P. Castro, “The UMTS Network and Radio Access Technology”, published
by Wiley, New York, NY, 2001.
[5] UMTS World, “ Planning Basics”, URL http://www.umtsworld.com.