Advisory Report

Mobile Packet Core: Engine of Mobile Broadband Success

March 17, 2010

Peter Jarich Research Director, Telecom Infrastructure

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

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

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 broadband services including management of the over the top (OTT) trac. This 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 evolution to LTE; the need to continually grow radio access capacity and coverage; the need to do all of this while still remaining protable. In part, LTE has been the impetus for this thinking. LTE, after all, promises new user experiences backed by mobile broadband speeds topping what operators oer today. Sitting alongside HSPA and EV-DO-based services, its not a complete break with the past. Yet combining new usage with enhanced throughput out to the user, the result is a strain on networks. Perhaps more importantly, LTE is a break with the past to the extent that it represents an all-IP technology. This means that all applications (everything from voice to SMS) will need to be carried as IP taking IP from a necessary evil in 3G networks and backhaul to an integral part of the mobile core. The gateways that form the mobile packet core, in turn, need to scale and handle wire speed transactions more than was ever needed in a 3G era. Often overlooked, these gateways (including the LTE Evolved Packet Core, or EPC) are poised to be more important than ever as 3G data trac continues to ramp and LTE networks get deployed. Developments in the space over the last year should be enough to tip o even casual observers that the 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: Tellabs buys mobile packet core specialist WiChorus February 2010: Juniper goes public with Project Falcon its entry into the mobile packet core As the space moves forward, then, it is worthwhile asking some important questions. What is at the root of the mobile packet cores growing importance? What do operators need in the LTE packet core today? What will they need tomorrow? What are vendors doing to support them?

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

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 the background. 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 3GPPs 3G and LTE packet cores for an obvious reason WCDMA and HSPA are driving a good deal of todays explosion in mobile broadband trac, while LTE looks to be 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. This is why data gateways in the core were sometimes called wireless routers. To simply think of them as routers, however, is to ignore the broader functionality of the packet core whether in a 2G/3G or LTE network. Starting with todays GSM/EDGE and WCDMA/HSPA networks, the architecture of the mobile packet core comprises two key platforms: Serving GPRS Support Node (SGSN) and Gateway GPRS Support Node (GGSN). SGSN. The 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 charging. Beyond tunneling and de-tunneling trac out to the RNC, tunneling and de-tunneling into the core takes place up to the GGSN (Gn interface).

GGSN. Nominally, the GGSN supports inter-SGSN mobility connecting to multiple

SGSNs and storing user SGSN addresses and proles in its location register and provides connectivity with external packet networks such as the Internet. Responsible for IP address assignment of connected devices, the GGSN also delivers application support in terms of trac intelligence (content ltering, dierentiated billing, policy enforcement) as well as security generation. In a direct tunnel implementation, the GGSN interfaces directly with the RNC, bypassing the SGSN and subsuming some of its roles.

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

Mobile Packet Core

In the LTE packet core (the so-called Evolved Packet Core, or EPC), the basic functions provided by the SGSN and GGSN must still be lled; in many cases, vendors have actually promised LTE packet core upgrades for their 2G/3G core platforms. Whether or not the physical components are common across the 2G/3G and LTE 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 is
signaling so much so that many vendors tout an ability to upgrade existing SGSN platforms to MME functionality or deliver combined SGSN/MME products. And, while the MME unlike the SGSN does not actually route IP data trac to devices, to position it as simply a signaling or control plane device is to underestimate its importance. Specic functionalities supported include: mobility across 3GPP networks (e.g., 3G-to-LTE handover and SGSN selection), 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, roaming support, authentication, signaling trac lawful intercept, circuit-switched fallback support for leveraging GSM/WCDMA or CDMA2000 voice.

S-GW. If the MME is the LTE analog of an SGSN in the control place, the S-GW is the LTE analog of the SGSN in the data plane. Noted earlier, the MME is not involved in the direct delivery of data trac out to end-users making the S-GW the network node that terminates the interface towards the LTE RAN. Beyond user data lawful intercept support and data packet routing/forwarding, the S-GW serves as a mobility anchor point for inter-eNodeB handover and inter-3GPP mobility (relaying trac between 2G/3G systems and the P-GW). At the same time, it buers LTE RAN idle mode downlink packets, performs transport layer packet buering and provides user-level session granularity accounting for inter-operator charging purposes. P-GW. Where the S-GW terminates the interface towards the LTE RAN, the P-GW is the
node terminating the interface towards the packet data network (PDN) the LTE analog to the 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 critical functions: policy enforcement, DHCP and IP address allocation for subscriber devices, charging support, packet screening and ltering thanks to deep packet inspection capabilities. Further, for handovers between 3GPP and non-3GPP networks (CDMA2000, WiMAX) the P-GW acts as the mobility anchor point.

PCRF. Policy control is an integral part of 3GPP standards for 3G as well as LTE. In LTE
networks, however, it takes on new signicance: again, all-IP operations make the treatment of dynamic, application-specic QoS more critical than in the 3G space where circuit connectivity is still an option. Implied by the name, the PCRF represents a decision point for allowing or disallowing QoS requests based on application requirements, user subscriptions or user requests with enforcement being carried out in the P-GW. Of course, policy and charging are tightly tied: with application or user-specic policy representing something an operator could potentially 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 well as inter-operator mobility. CDMA2000 networks rely on a packet data serving node delivering the functionality of a SGSN and GGSN. Ultimately, however, with CDMA operators moving to LTE and operators with unpaired spectrum resources investigating TD-LTE, EPC looks to be a near-uni-

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

Mobile Packet Core

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

Why the Mobile Packet Core Matters More Than Ever

Returning briey to the purpose of the mobile packet core to serve as a conduit between the mobile 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 impact on 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 TB of mobile data trac per month, the companys forecasters (based on insight into the trac running over their own gear) predict a 108% compound annual growth in mobile data usage topping out at 3.565 TB of data trac just ve years into the future! Driven by new technologies such as HSPA, HSPA+ and LTE, its clear that the packet core deployments and solutions of several years ago just wont be able to support this growth. Predictions (or extrapolations) of growth in mobile broadband trac, however, only tell one part of the story. From the service provider perspective, mobile trac growth is about more than just the prospect of 3.6 Exabytes of monthly mobile data in 2014. Its about more mobile broadband users. Its about multiple sessions per user. Its about more powerful devices which make mobile data services more accessible and meaningful. Its about new applications that make these data services an integral part of our lives in the same way that mobile voice services evolved from a luxury into a necessity. Its about 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 stakes data services, better monetize those services and grapple with the undeniable realities of evolving mobile broadband usage, including: More Data Per User. Beyond the simple fact that more people are embracing mobile data services, the throughput being delivered to those users is trending upwards as well and looks to continue doing so through the medium term. Just a few years ago, 7.2 Mbps HSPA was an impressive feat. Today, operators are rolling out 28 Mbps and 42 Mbps oers. Verizon Wireless recent LTE network testing in Boston and Seattle suggests peak downloads up to
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

Mobile Packet Core

50 Mbps with uploads topping out at 25 Mbps, resulting in average data rate expectations around 5 to 12 Mbps on the downlink and 2 to 5 Mbps on the uplink. This is a major bump over the data rate expectations the service provider set around its 3G oer. More Users Who Arent 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 promises incremental growth in an operators revenues while potentially doing very little to strain network bandwidth. Today, moving forward on 3G upgrades and LTE deployments, an interest in M2M wireless has resurfaced. Yet while the value proposition to the user is somewhat obvious (the eciencies from fewer service visits out to a meter or appliance, the eciencies of anywhere uploads and downloads to a camera or GPS device) the bandwidth implications cannot be ignored nor can the signaling strain on the MME or SGSN of a device base that could quickly be a multiple of the operators current subscriber base. Higher Expectations of Reliability. We said it before, and though its become rather clich over the past year, its worth repeating: mobile data services are no longer a luxury service for many people. More importantly, based on the trajectory of mobile data uptake, it looks like theyre poised to be more than a luxury for most people as the concept of mission critical data is 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 critical 3G or LTE applications cannot exist without an expectation of reliability that reaches across the network. Higher Expectations of Experience. Reliable service availability is meaningless if it doesnt meet the needs of a particular application or user. If mobile data usage is focused on low-value Internet trac, best-eort delivery may be good enough. If mobile data usage is increasingly focused on multimedia services such as video, VoIP and gaming, best-eort data will be unacceptable unable to provide the bandwidth and latency guarantees to make these applications usable. Beyond the fact that VoIP is a long-term necessity in an LTE world where circuit voice is no longer an option, another look at the mobile data forecasts suggests the industry is convinced that these types of applications are set to dominate mobile data usage, that operators need to think about application level bandwidth and quality demands, and that the packet core will need to support them to keep user quality of experience up and churn in check. Continued Need for Network Eciencies. We can detail everything an operator needs to prepare for in the core everything it needs to do to roll out a successful 3G or LTE mobile broadband service. At the end of the day, however, the operator needs to remain protable (keeping network CapEx and OpEx in check wherever possible) if it hopes to continue expanding services, growing coverage, evolving its network to new technologies and keeping shareholders happy. Greater Need for Session Intelligence & Control. Prots can be grown in one of two ways; costs can be cut, or revenues can be grown. This is nothing more than basic nance. In search of 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 taris they collect every month. Sometimes this is simply positioned as the service provider ght against becoming a dumb pipe. Regardless of how the discussion is framed, the tools and practices it implies are the same: tiered service policies based on specic user proles; tiered service policies based on application demands; third-party revenue contribution; an ability to develop and enforce these policies dynamically in a scalable manner. Regardless of how the discussion is framed, the role of the packet core in terms of classifying and controlling user data cannot be denied.
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

Mobile Packet Core

Grappling with an All-IP World. That LTE is an all-IP technology has been a part of its allure from day one. All-IP operations promise network eciencies, an end to the need for hybrid circuit-packet backhaul solutions, and better integration with IP service and application 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 that matters responsible for any application the operator hopes to deliver. This sets the mobile packet core up as a potential bottleneck unless it can deliver these applications as quickly as they are demanded.

What Operators Need in the Mobile Packet Core

Current Analysis has been delivering detailed product analysis across the telecom infrastructure landscape since its inception. Our coverage of the mobile packet core kicked o more than seven years ago long before most operators had a solid business justication for their initial 3G network launches (beyond the fact that they had to do something with the billions of dollars of spectrum they owned). A key part of this analysis has always been an investigation into the buying criteria that guide operator decisions around network investments. As 3G packet core renewals begin to take place and EPC launches kick o, however, it is worth explicitly looking at the buying criteria weve identied. Why? In part, because they represent the mobile packet core and demands that will ultimately determine the success of vendors in an increasingly crowded market. In part, because many operators are just beginning the process of upgrading their packet core infrastructure and can benet from the insights of their compatriots and competitors. Again, just as LTE is a logical extension of 3G air interfaces, the EPC is a logical extension of 2G/3G packet core technologies and products. The technologies and architectures may be dierent in some respects, but the basic purpose is the same. This should mean that operator buying criteria (the criteria weve been evaluating for several years) should remain largely intact. While this is largely true, its also true that some buying criteria have been magnied or elevated in importance. Combined with the fact that vendors in the space routinely report hundreds of performance metrics, the result is literally thousands of performance considerations and tradeo combinations. For our part, weve distilled the key considerations into four categories: solution completeness, capacity and scalability, application support, and deployment exibility.

Solution Completeness With the exception of direct tunnel architectures, operators need complete packet core solutions not just products. An SGSN without a GGSN doesnt do much good. An MME without a P-GW and S-GW is useless. This doesnt mean that vendors who only address the signaling plane or the data plane have no value; since the interfaces between these products are standardized, it is completely possible to build multi-vendor packet core networks. Instead, it simply means that operators need to think about the core as an end-to-end proposition in the same way they think about their end-to-end LTE network.
Single-Vendor Solutions. Vendors promising a complete mobile packet core or EPC oer need to deliver on all components including SGSN/GGSN or MME/P-GW/S-GW and PCRF, pointing to the proven interworking between, and common management across, them. Multi-Vendor Interoperability. Where a vendor produces only one component of the 2G/3G or LTE packet core, operators must know that its products seamlessly t into a broader solution. In other words, the vendor must lead with proven interoperability ideally

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

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 infrastructure landscape making them some of the most commonly quoted performance metrics by vendors. At its most basic level, the concept that more is better (like megapixels in a camera or horsepower in a car) holds true. Overall, capacity signals how well a platform can actually support current network demands along with trac growth going forward. In the context of LTE promising to push more data out to more users, the obsession with capacity in the EPC is completely logical, extending to:
IP Bearers. The LTE equivalent of 2G/3G PDP contexts, IP bearers consist of data ows including user session information. Subscribers. While a given P-GW or S-GW can serve a nearly innite number of users over the course of its operations, the number of simultaneously attached users it can support represents its maximum active user capacity at a given point in time. Throughput. P-GW/S-GW throughput directly equates to the amount of bandwidth available to support data-intensive subscriber sessions. With LTE operators already promising capacity upwards of 5 Mbps on the downlink, throughput gures need to be evaluated in the context of subscriber capacity i.e., how much throughput is available per subscriber under full utilization? Activations. Again, high-quality data services require sucient bandwidth in the packet core. At the same time, users must be quickly activated on (attached) or deactivated (detached) o of gateways in order to keep service latency in check and avoid subscriber capacity exhaust. RAN Fan Out. Increasingly, operators are considering small cell architectures as a way to deliver robust LTE RAN capacity and coverage especially when launching in high-frequency spectrum bands. This 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 trac between the RAN and data networks was an admitted over-simplication. More than just dumb pipes, the packet core is responsible for providing trac intelligence (i.e., what trac is running across the network) and then leveraging that intelligence to deliver a better user experience and help operators better monetize their services, thanks to: Security Scalability. Mobile data gateways obviously need to support security measures like rewalls (personal, stateful) and IPSEC generation. How well they scale this support how much security they can oer will determine how secure an operators user base truly is. Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) Capabilities. DPI has become table stakes in the packet core as a tool for understanding what types of data are running across an operators networks, setting the stage for dierentiated billing, and other monetization plans. How much insight it can provide i.e., Layer 7 visibility determines how well a solution can execute on these promises. Trac Analytics. DPI may provide insight into session content, but solutions for visualizing or reporting on this trac are critical for helping operators make sound decisions around how to manage their trac: which users or applications are clogging the network, when congestion is occurring, when usage can be encouraged, etc.

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

Mobile Packet Core

Bandwidth Management. Bandwidth management is a taboo topic in some markets, but a business necessity for an operator faced with abusive users and abusive applications (P2P is a commonly claimed villain) or simply wanting to enforce usage caps or taris with a bandwidth component. Beyond tools to actually identify applications outside the capabilities of DPI (P2P is notoriously tricky), maintaining a sucient number of policers to enforce bandwidth management over a broad set of users is equally important. Monetization Tools. Trac insights and bandwidth management are about more than just keeping managing trac usage or curbing abusive subscribers and applications. They are also about 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 application developers. Ideally, this means a solution would also be linked into solutions or services for courting and integrating those third-party apps. Applications vs. Throughput vs. Users. It is one thing for a solution to promise stellar throughput, subscriber and application support. It is another thing for the solution to promise all three simultaneously. To fully evaluate the capabilities of a gateway, then, operators need to understand how subscriber and throughout capacity actually scale when, for example, DPI is applied to all (or some) users.

Deployment Flexibility Compared with the massive amounts of user trac running across a packet platform or its ability to identify (and manage) specic trac types, considerations around actually operating the platform may seem mundane, at best. They are not - beyond the issues of site acquisition and platform sizing, simple or familiar management tools help to ensure service reliability while promising to keep management-related OpEx in check.
Platform Familiarity. Even where a new gateway oer promises incredible performance leaps, consideration must be given to how simply an operator can integrate the platform into its network. How much new training will be required? Will new stocking and sparing processes be needed? Gateways that have been well deployed or built on well-deployed platforms clearly provide an advantage. Proven Operations. It is unfair to suggest that all vendors exaggerate the performance of their solutions. That 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/3G networks, EPC solutions can be deployed as an overlay. Vendor oers supporting EPC functionality alone suggest an interest in the strategy. However, if solutions can support both 2G/3G and LTE networks, the CapEx, OpEx and management eciencies are clear. Sizing. Platform sizing relates directly to how expensive (or inexpensive) a mobile packet core solution is to site. Perhaps more importantly, sizing becomes an issue where vendors claim impressive scalability thanks to massive gateways which might occupy several times the physical space of competing products. Redundancy. Any network asset that impacts the service availability and quality of millions of users will be deployed with redundancy. In the mobile packet core, how redundancy is achieved directly impacts how a gateway is deployed, how many need to be deployed (2N vs. N+1, etc.), and how meaningful capacity gures are when judged from a per gateway or per solution perspective.
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

Mobile Packet Core

Where the Market Needs to Focus Going Forward
In the near-term, operators launching new LTE networks and 3G upgrades have their marching orders. They need to move forward on new mobile packet core and EPC deployments. They need to evaluate these solutions along well-dened buying criteria extending what weve known about 3G into 4G. They need to evaluate which buying criteria are more important for them, based on their own service plans and user demographics. What about the medium, and long-term? No dierent than the RAN, the mobile packet core and EPC will continue evolving as will the marketing around them. Vendors will need to support the evolution. Operators will need to look for proof points out of their favorite vendors. Beyond the broad topic of evolution three areas of focus stand out. Commitment & Innovation. Despite recent consolidation, the number of credible vendors in 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 erce 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 importance of the mobile packet core to their mobile broadband service aspirations, no operator can aord to take this risk. To signal that its nothing they need to worry about, vendors need to prove a continuing commitment to the space with regular innovations and product updates aimed at specic service provider pain points. Testing. Noted earlier, vendor claims are helpful for gauging the performance of their data gateway oers but they dont always tell a complete story. Claims can be skewed by the newness of a solution. More often, they can be skewed by the assumptions a vendor makes when reporting its performance gures. Do throughput and bearer claims assume DPI applied to 100% of subscribers? 50%? What packet sizing do throughput claims assume? Do performance gures assume redundancy, or not? Operators need to test solutions based around their own 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 from a single vendor. Oering them, however, cant hurt if only to target smaller operators who dont want the hassle of integrating gear from multiple suppliers. Of course, more than just mobile packet core components which can always be pulled together into a solution where interoperability has been established solutions need to address other operator concerns anchored in the core. This means developing a synergy with transport products and the inclusion of mobile broadband application and monetization tools which stretch beyond the gateway, ideally pulling in third-party vendors. This nal point may seem a little disjointed. After spending so much time discussing the demands of 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 operators team focused on data gateway requirements. Realistically, however, it is dicult to consider any set of products in a vacuum. An end-to-end EPC solution needs to be considered within the context of an end-to-end LTE solution including multi-standard RAN equipment, mobile backhaul and application exposure assets. Network management and self-optimizing network tools that stretch across the LTE network must also be considered. No mobile packet core vendor should be penalized for a lack of RAN assets a strict focus on IP and mobile data gateways brings its own merits. However, the proven interoperability and operations that come from a holistic, end-to-end network solution cannot be ignored either.
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

10