Interoperator fixed-mobile network sharing Ireneusz Szczeniak, Piotr - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Interoperator fixed-mobile network sharing

Ireneusz Szcześniak, Piotr Chołda, Andrzej R. Pach

Department of Communications AGH University of Science and Technology Poland

Bożena Woźna-Szcześniak

Institute of Mathematics and Computer Science Jan Długosz University Poland

ONDM 2015

Grant number DEC-2013/08/S/ST7/00576 from the Polish National Science Centre

Introduction Contribution Evaluation Results Conclusions

Introduction

• Fixed-mobile networks are wide-spread, and expensive.
• Operators need to share, but sharing is limited.
• Sharing of physical infrastructure: buildings, masts, etc.
• Roaming and virtual operators are about leasing, not sharing.
• Operators can build joinly a single network and use it together.
• Sharing can improve performance and bring resiliency.
• Performance improvement is so needed for 5G.
• Currently, fixed-mobile networks are not resilient.

slide 1

Introduction Contribution Evaluation Results Conclusions

Novel idea

The novel idea of interoperator fixed-mobile network sharing, and the evaluation of the benefits the sharing brings in terms of resiliency. The hallmark of our proposed sharing is the interoperator communication in access networks.

slide 2

Introduction Contribution Evaluation Results Conclusions

Interoperator fixed-mobile network sharing in general

Internet

× ×

O1 default router O2 default router

× ×

Ethernet switch interoperator trunk O1 FMN O2 FMN IC IP network aggregation network access network

slide 3

Introduction Contribution Evaluation Results Conclusions

Interoperator sharing in passive optical networks

CO CO IC IC IC

slide 4

Introduction Contribution Evaluation Results Conclusions

Disclaimer: we need active nodes

• In the proposed sharing we need active remote nodes.
• Active, not passive, nodes can diverge traffic to a backup path.
• But it’s hard to argue for active nodes in passive optical

networks...

• So active nodes are also needed for:
• longer reach,
• better performance,
• inter-ONU communication,
• inter-base station communication,

slide 5

Introduction Contribution Evaluation Results Conclusions

Evaluation scenarios

• How does the proposed sharing improve the service availability?
• An ONU is capable of the interoperator communication or not.
• We studied two scenarios:
• in the first, the locations of active remote nodes are given,
• in the second, the active nodes are randomly distributed.

slide 6

Introduction Contribution Evaluation Results Conclusions

First scenario, and second too

CO

1:g 1:g 1:g 1 − s s 1 − s 1 − s s 1 − s

1st stage 2nd stage 3rd stage

slide 7

Introduction Contribution Evaluation Results Conclusions

Service availability calculation

• Numerical evaluation: a mix of analysis and Monte Carlo

simulation.

• We analytically evaluate a given, concrete network.
• We randomly produce a sample of concrete networks from the

populations with the given probabilities:

• r - an ONU is capable of inter-operator communication,
• q - a remote node is active.
• We produced 87400 concrete networks, and averaged the

results.

slide 8

Introduction Contribution Evaluation Results Conclusions

Service availability calculation - continued

Calculations: traversing the reliability block diagram. The availability is calculated using this recursive function: f (c, p) =                                  acauc→cf (uc, c) 1st case 2nd case ac 3rd case ac(1 −

i∈Nc i=p

(1 − ai→cf (i, c))) 4th case hc(1 −

v∈Vc

(1 − dc,v)) 5th case

slide 9

Introduction Contribution Evaluation Results Conclusions

Service availability calculation - an interesting case

IC-ONU1 NIC-ONU IC-ONU2

slide 10

Introduction Contribution Evaluation Results Conclusions

Results for the first scenario

10−3 10−2 10−1 100 0.999 0.9995 1 r availability

1st scenario r = 0 traditional baseline

slide 11

Introduction Contribution Evaluation Results Conclusions

Results for the second scenario

10−3 10−2 10−1 100 0.5 1 0.999 0.9995 1 r q availability

slide 12

Introduction Contribution Evaluation Results Conclusions

Conclusions

• We proposed the interoperator fixed-mobile network sharing.
• We evaluated the benefits the sharing brings in terms of

resiliency.

• Downtime can be significantly reduced with little network

upgrades.

• Upgrades can be rolled out in stages and where needed most.
• The proposed sharing should improve performance too.
• There are many problems to solve, for instance:
• performance studies,
• optimization,
• implementation details.

slide 13