ALL IP NETWORK

AIPN Scenarios

AIPN or All-IP Network is being introduced part of 3GPP Release 7. TS 22.978 shows some scenarios where AIPN will play a big part

USE CASE 1 (see left in the daigram): Bob has his own Personal Area Network (PAN). While at home, this network is composed with the Home Area Network using WLAN, which in turn connects externally with a local hotspot service, which in turn connects to a cellular network. Bob's PAN, Bob’s Home-WLAN, the local hotspot service and the AIPN cellular access system are under different administrative domains. Still, if Bob moves outside coverage of his Home-WLAN, his PAN will communicate with the outside world via the local hotspot service. If he moves outside coverage from the hotspot service, his PAN will communicate with the outside world via the AIPN cellular access system.

USE CASE 2: The user is driving a car. While being under good radio coverage, he starts an IMS session with several media. The car goes through a tunnel where there is no radio coverage, and comes out of the tunnel into good radio coverage a minute later. Connections using disruption resilient transport protocols are automatically re-established and these protocols restore the communication to the point they were before the interruption.

USE CASE 3: Alice has a mobile device and Bob has a fixed one. Both devices have equal audio but different video capabilities in terms of screen size, number of colors and video codecs supported. Alice establishes a multimedia connection with audio and video components to Bob. The terminal capabilities are discovered and it is realized that Bob's terminal has better video capabilities than Alice. The terminal informs the network that it is unable to support new the new video codec and the AIPN then introduces a video transcoder in the path of the video media to adapt the video signal (stream, codec, format, etc) to the video capabilities and bit rates available on each side of the transcoder.

Enhanced Services should be possible with AIPN:

• Support for advanced application services
• Support for group communication services, e.g. voice group call, instant group messaging, and multicast delivery. In some cases, a group may include a large number of participants.
• Support for integrated services, e.g. a service including a mixture of services among SMS/MMS/Instant Message, or a service including voice call/video call/voice mail.
• Provision of seamless services (e.g. transparent to access systems, adaptable to terminal capabilities, etc) Users should be able to move transparently and seamlessly between access systems and to move communication sessions between terminals.
• Support ubiquitous services (e.g. associations with huge number of sensors, RF tags, etc.) ... see right side of diagram above.
• Improve disruption-prone situations when network connectivity is intermittent.

5G

5G (5th generation mobile networks or 5th generation wireless systems) is a name used in some research papers and projects to denote the next major phase of mobile telecommunications standards beyond the 4G/IMT-Advanced standards effective since 2011. At present, 5G is not a term officially used for any particular specification or in any official document yet made public by telecommunication companies or standardization bodies such as 3GPP, WiMAX Forum, or ITU-R. New standard releases beyond 4G are in progress by standardization bodies, but are at this time not considered as new mobile generations but under the 4G umbrella.

INTERNET WORLD

LTE Advance

In preparation for the next generation of wireless technology, called IMT-Advanced by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), LTE-Advanced was standardized by 3GPP in Release 10 and Release 11.  In November 2010, the ITU ratified LTE-Advanced as IMT-Advanced. LTE-Advanced is  a further evolution of LTE, an OFDMA-based technology, specified in Release 8 and 9, which is supported by a tremendous ecosystem of manufacturers and operators worldwide, and has already proven itself to be the global next generation technology. 

It is expected that LTE-Advanced will first be commercially available in 2012, with wider deployments by 2015. LTE-Advanced will be both backwards- and forwards-compatible with LTE, meaning LTE devices will operate in newer LTE-Advanced networks, and LTE-Advanced devices will operate in older LTE networks.

3GPP is developing the following capabilities for LTE-Advanced:

• Wider bandwidth support for up to 100 MHz via aggregation of 20 MHz blocks
• Uplink MIMO (Two transmit antennas in the device)
• Downlink MIMO of up to 8 by 8
• Coordinated multipoint transmission (CoMP) with two proposed approaches: coordinated scheduling and/or beamforming, and joint processing/transmission.

The table below summarizes anticipated LTE-Advanced performance relative to IMT-Advanced requirements:

IMT-Advanced Requirements and Anticipated LTE-Advanced Capability.

(Source: Mobile Broadband Explosion: 3GPP Broadband Evolution to IMT-Advanced, Rysavy Research/4G Americas, September 2011)

In all cases, projections of LTE-Advanced performance exceed that of the IMT-Advanced requirements.

It is expected to be mid- to next decade before OFDMA-based systems like LTE have a large percentage of subscribers, and it could be well toward the end of the next decade before LTE-Advanced has a large subscriber base.

LTE will address the market needs of the next decade. After that, operators may deploy 4G networks using LTE-Advanced technology as a foundation.  As new spectrum becomes available, in the next decade, especially if it includes wide radio channels, then LTE-Advance will be the ideal technology for these new bands. Even in existing bands, operators are likely to eventually upgrade their LTE networks to LTE-Advanced to obtain spectral efficiency gains and capabilities.

Here is a new fourth proposal that has been submitted by RIM that is a compromise between the Apple and Nokia designs (see pic here). Proposal as seen below:

According to The Register:


At issue is the shape and size of the standard next-generation SIM: Apple and a band of network operators want a tray-requiring shape and contacts that would permit a convertor for backwards compatibility with chunkier old SIMs. Nokia, Motorola and RIM have pushed for a new contact pattern and a notched SIM for clunk-click, and tray-less, insertion.


The new proposal, apparently put forward by RIM and Motorola, is a compromise but it hasn't secured backing from either of the most-belligerent parties - yet. Copies of the design, as well as Moto's presentation in March that compared the competing interfaces, have been seen by the chaps at The Verge.


What all parties agree on is that a smaller SIM is needed: the first SIMs were the same size as credit cards (conforming to ISO7816), while the second form factor (2FF) is the SIM with which most of us are familiar (conforming to GSM 11.11). Next was the microSIM (3FF), popularised by Apple's adoption in the iPhone; the 3FF just trims off the excess plastic while maintaining the contact pattern.


The undecided 4FF standard (dubbed the nanoSIM) will be thinner as well as smaller, and almost certainly feature a different contact pattern to make that practical, although how different is part of the ongoing debate.


The Apple-backed 4FF proposal was for a contact-compatible SIM with smooth sides necessitating an insertion tray, while Nokia wanted the contacts shifted to the far end and a notch along the side for easy push-to-lock fitting. The new RIM-Moto proposal, if genuine, places the contacts in compatible locations while maintaining the Nokia notch, appeasing both parties or perhaps annoying them both equally.


There have been claims that Nokia is just trying to protect its patent income, fanned by Apple's offer to waive its own IP fees if its proposal were adopted. That's something of a red herring as Apple's hasn't much IP in this area and Nokia's patents cover much more than the physical shape of the SIM so its revenue is pretty much assured.


Not that Nokia has helped itself by threatening to deny patent licences if its own proposal isn't adopted, claiming that Apple's divergence from rules laid down by telecoms standards body ETSI relives Nokia of its FRAND commitment to licence its technology on a fair and reasonable basis.

What is nano-SIM card

BBC reported that there is some dispute between Apple and Nokia/Rim for the next generation of SIM cards, 'nano-SIM'. You can read more about that here.

While looking for how the nano-SIM is different from other SIM cards I came across an interesting presentation from G&D. The above picture summarises the different types of SIM cards in use. The following is an extract from their whitepaper:



When the GSM network first appeared, mobile devices resembled bricks or even briefcases, and SIM cards were the size of credit cards. The subsequent miniaturization of the phones led to the standardization of smaller SIMs, the Plug-in SIM, and later the Mini-UICC also known as 3rd form factor (3FF). With the introduction of Apple’s iPad, the 3FF, or the Micro-SIM as it was then called, established itself widely in the market.


Nevertheless, the trend towards miniaturization of the SIM card is still not over. The latest form factor which is currently in discussion at ETSI (European Telecommunications Standards Institute) is the 4th form factor (4FF) or Nano-SIM. Measuring 12.3 x 8.8 mm, the Nano-SIM is about 30 percent smaller than the Micro-SIM. Even the thickness (0.7 mm) of the card has been reduced by about 15 percent – a tremendous technical challenge.


The Nano-SIM offers device manufacturers the crucial advantage of freeing up extra space for other mobile phone Nano-SIM The smallest SIM form factor on the market components such as additional memory or larger batteries. Popular smart phones in particular have to strike a balance between the need for components that are more powerful but bulkier and a slim design. The reduced volume of the 4FF gives manufacturers the opportunity to produce devices that are thinner and more appealing.


In case you were wandering the differences that are causing the disagreements, here are the differences between the formats: