From: Nouman Ahmed Khan (nomy@mis.com.sa)
Date: Sat Apr 22 2006 - 09:12:43 GMT-3
Dear kumar:
Very informative email.Can u send me links where I can find good information
about Cisco involvement in GPRS networks and operation of NGSN nodes.
Regards,
Nouman Khan
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Kumar Raja-Q16843
Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 2:51 PM
To: Radioactive Frog; kevin gannon
Cc: ccielab
Subject: RE: Cisco MWR-1941 LUB optimization
Hi Frog,
In the outset, unlike CDMA the GSM network traditionally designed only
for Voice traffic, when CMDA came to the market, the GSM family which is
predominantly European lobby, started working on full fledged data
capable Wireless network.
First step in the direction was the GPRS network, this provides Internet
access to the existing voice infrastructure (13Kbps), similar to wired
Dial access which is 64 Kbps. Here you may understand the restriction is
in the access even you might Gigs of bandwidth in the backhaul it's of
no use.
Now, the second step the EDGE network, which slightly improves the
access bandwidth, because there isn't change in the existing access node
i.e GSM BTS, which is again no way in competition with the CDMA 1x which
can provide a capability of 153 Kbps. At this point "GSM Consortium and
all those who advocates GSM like IETF for IP) have no way but to change
the Access Nodes i.e. BTS that's where the new Node-B (UMTS BTS called
Node-B) and RNC (analogous to GSM BSC) this would change the entire
access node infrastructure. Here again in order to take advantage of
boom in the data infrastructure in the past 10 years like the (Metro
Ethernet and its uncles, brothers) this is exactly where Cisco MWR 1900
comes into picture, this is widely used by Motorola in its CDMA 2000
architecture as the access router for the BTS. Also one need to
understand in Europe this access is predominantly ATM unlike in US and
other countries it is MPLS, since the big brother of GSM are sitting in
Europe and they are always against anything US advocates irrespective of
whether it is good or bad that's the reason they have gone against MPLS.
Hope the above gives the understanding of the dynamic of Cellular
Infrastructure, now at the end user level you cant really do much why
because of the attraction of IP and IP and so on, then there is no way
but to give IP to each and every User Handset, then when you give IP in
the core you have IP Multimedia Subsystem the IMS, this is Release 5
your question R5, in which SIP as defacto signaling protocol. This is
expected to make existing GSM/GPRS/EDGE/UMTS to go ALL IP eventually to
compete CDMA in all it direction.
Walk into any book store check this book, Convergent Technologies by
three authors Bannister, Mather Paul and one more I couldn't recollect
right now, there is no better on this subject than this.
Thanks and regards,
Raja Kumar
Core Engineering Group
Motorola
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Radioactive Frog
Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 5:06 AM
To: kevin gannon
Cc: ccielab
Subject: Re: Cisco MWR-1941 LUB optimization
Kevin,
Thanks for your reply. Can you please explain whats R5 ? any url for
that ?
Which product will support R5?
Thanks in advance
frog
On 4/22/06, kevin gannon <kevin@gannons.net> wrote:
>
> We dont use it however from the presentations I have seen it basically
> compresses the CODECs again and offers some VAD additions. The cisco
> figures were showing 30% savings over E1 transport. It might also be
> worth looking at ATM contention on the backend I know we moved from
> Nokia ATM switches to Lucent PSAX's to groom the B node links and made
> some good transport savings.
>
> You might be better waiting for R5 to do IP to the edge.
>
> Regards
> Kevin
>
>
> On 4/21/06, Radioactive Frog <pbhatkoti@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Group,
> Has anybody had any experience with Cisco MWR-1941, TN/lub
> optimization over ETHERNET ?
> I know it's a new and hot psudeowire emolutoin over IP for optimizing
> and transporting of 3G/HSPDA traffic.
> The RNC and BTS has an LUB interface and supports ATM pvcs/svcs.
>
> Any good docs which shows how the technology works?
>
> Thanks
>
> Frog.
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> _ Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon May 01 2006 - 11:41:58 GMT-3