1.6 Conclusion
2.1.3 Problems / state of the art / other possible solutions
The previous sections have described the service access procedure, constituted of a registra-
tion/authentication phase and a service establishment phase. This section identifies the
performance problems of these phases, that are: a high access delay and a service non-adaptation to the IP-AN available resources. I detail each problem and give the state of the art of the proposed solutions or provide my own solutions.
2.1.3.1 High access delay
The registration/authentication and the service establishment phases induce a high access delay, that is mainly due to:
1. The high number of messages, tasks and mapping functions executed during these phases. 2. The fact that these phases involve centralized nodes (first IP router, P-CSCF, PCRF and
S-CSCF) that may be overloaded by a high number of users.
3. The nature of the protocol (SIP) used to execute most of these steps. SIP is an application layer protocol with text-based messages containing a large number of headers and header parameters, including extensions and security-related information. This allowed the flexible characteristic of the IMS in orchestrating different applications and setting up different sessions with different requirements, however the drawback is the high time necessary to process SIP messages.
4. The independence between the IMS and the IP-AN, that generates a redundancy between some steps e.g. the step registration/authentication to the IP-AN (ATH_1) and the step registration/authentication to the IMS (ATH_5) or the step policy rules calculation for the IP level (Estb_2) and the step policy rules calculation for the IP-AN level (Estb_3).
Chapter 5 gives numerical results for the service establishment delay and proves the negative impact of centralized nodes on this delay.
Some solutions are proposed to reduce these delays as presented hereafter.
• Mapping between the IP-AN and the IMS user IDs to reduce the delay of the
step registration/authentication to the IMS (ATH_5)
Authors in [70] and [63] propose solutions for an optimized ATH_5 step, with less messages than the 3GPP ATH_5 step presented in section 2.1.1.6.
The principles of the proposed solutions are: (1) an initial binding between the IP-AN user ID (e.g. IMSI in UMTS) and the IMS user IDs is set in the HSS network database and in the MN, (2) during ATH_5, the S-CSCF checks directly or indirectly that the user trying to register/authenticate using IMS user IDs, has an IP-AN user ID compliant with the binding in the HSS. [70] and [63] differ in the way this checking is performed during the ATH_5 step:
– In [70], as shown in figure 2.5, the SGSN inserts in the ATH_5 SIP REGISTER message,
natively containing the IMS user IDs, the IP-AN user ID of the user sending this message. Indeed, as the SGSN is involved in the step registration/authentication to the IP-AN (ATH_1), it is able to insert such information. Then, when the S-CSCF receives the SIP REGISTER message containing the IP-AN user ID and the IMS user IDs, it asks the HSS to check this mapping. If the result is positive, registration/authentication to the IMS is accomplished. Thus, there is no need to perform a second round of SIP REGISTER/SIP OK exchange as in the 3GPP ATH_5 (see figure 2.2).
48 CHAPTER 2. MAIN NETWORK PROCEDURES IN THE IP-AN//PCC//IMS MODEL
– In [63], as shown in figure 2.6, during the step IP address acquisition (ATH_3), the
GGSN adds in the HSS a mapping between the IP-AN user ID and the IP address (@IP1) acquired by the MN. This enables to deduce in the HSS a mapping between the IMS user IDs and @IP1, based on the already existing IMS user IDs - IP-AN user ID mapping. Then, in ATH_5, when the S-CSCF receives the SIP REGISTER message natively containing the IMS user ID and @IP1, it asks the HSS to check this mapping. If the result is positive, registration/authentication to the IMS is accomplished. Thus, there is no need to perform a second round of SIP REGISTER/SIP OK exchange as in the 3GPP ATH_5 (see figure 2.2).
These solutions bring a gain of 50% of signalling volume compared to the 3GPP ATH_5 step [70]. However, it presents a major drawback as it does not enable to establish the IPsec SA between the MN and the P-CSCF.
• Parallel step execution
The service establishment phase is shown by figure 2.4. Its delay can be reduced by executing some steps in parallel. A first possibility is to begin the step resource establishment (Estb_4) at the same time as the step session initiation and negotiation (Estb_1), e.g. as soon as the first round of SDP offer/answer is performed. However, this may lead to reserve more resources in the IP-AN than needed.
A second possibility is that, as proposed in [71], the CN sends the SIP RINGING message to the MN as soon as resource reservation is completed on its side (i.e. possibly before receiving the SIP UPDATE message from the MN informing that resources are reserved on the MN side). This possibility increases the probability of ghost calls (in case resources are not available on the MN side).
As a conclusion, whatever the possibility for delay reduction, QoS will be badly impacted.
• Less time for the step resource reservation (Estb_4)
The service establishment phase is shown by figure 2.4. Its delay can be reduced by compressing the time consumed by the step resource reservation (Estb_4). The only way to do that is to reduce the number of IP-AN node types, since the admission control task performed by each of these nodes consumes time.
The patent [72], recently disclosed, brings this last idea; however, it does not develop an IP-AN with a reduced number of IP-AN node types. It considers the case of UMTS and EPS IP-ANs and supposes that only one node in these IP-ANs performs admission control and is involved in Estb_4. In addition, it claims that, in Estb_4, reconfiguring bearer1 with authorized
IP-AN QoSand not establishing a new bearer (bearer2) from scratch helps to reduce Estb_4
delay. In my opinion, reconfiguration does not save a considerable amount of time, especially in the case of a high number of nodes in the IP-AN, since each of these nodes has to be reconfigured. In UMTS [51, 22], the procedure for bearer reconfiguration is almost the same as the procedure for bearer establishment from scratch.
2.1.3.2 Service non-adaptation to the IP-AN available resources
With SIP and IMS, services can be a mix of different application types (e.g. voice+video+file transfer). Moreover, for the same application, different codecs can be proposed.
2.1. SERVICE ACCESS PROCEDURE IN THE IP-AN//PCC//IMS MODEL 49
MN P-CSCF
1- SIP REGISTER (IMS user IDs, @IP1)
S-CSCF
2- Diameter- IP-AN user ID ↔? IMS user IDs
HSS
- IMS user IDs - shared keys - user profile - IP-AN ID
I-CSCF
1- SIP REGISTER (IMS user IDs, @IP1, IP-AN user ID)
3- SIP OK 3- SIP OK
- name of S-CSCF user is registered in
- IMS user IDs - IP route for SIP sig to MN - @ IP1 - user profile - IMS user IDs
- IP route for SIP sig to S-CSCF
- @IP1 - IPsec SA
- IMS user IDs - IP route for SIP sig to S-CSCF
- IP route for SIP sig to MN
- IPsec SA
A
TH
_5
ATH_5 ATH_5 ATH_5 ATH_5
GGSN
ATH_0
ATH_1
ATH_2
ATH_3- IP address acquisition (@IP1)
ATH_4 - IMS user IDs - shared keys - IP-AN ID
SGSN
- IP-AN ID
Insert IP-AN ID
1- SIP REGISTER (IMS user IDs, @IP1, IP-AN user ID)
fir
st
r
ou
nd
IP route for SIP signalling to S-CSCF (@IP1, @P-CSCF, @S-CSCF) IP route for SIP signalling to MN (@S-CSCF, @P-CSCF, @IP1) Text barred =no more exist compared to 3GPP registration/authentication phase
Text underlined =exist in addition to 3GPP registration/authentication phase Context created during registration/authentication phase
Task
Existing/updated information
2- Diameter- IP-AN user ID ↔YES IMS user IDs Determine S-CSCF
Figure 2.5: Registration/authentication to the IMS detailed message flow in [70])
MN P-CSCF
1- SIP REGISTER (IMS user IDs, @IP1)
S-CSCF
2- Diameter- @IP1 ↔? IMS user IDs
HSS
- IMS user IDs - shared keys - user profile - IP-AN user ID
I-CSCF
1- SIP REGISTER (IMS user IDs,@IP1)
3- SIP OK 3- SIP OK (user authenticated)
- name of S-CSCF user is registered in
- IMS user IDs - IP route for SIP sig to MN - @ IP1 - user profile - IMS user IDs
- IP route for SIP sig to S-CSCF
- @IP1 - IPsec SA
- IMS user IDs - IP route for SIP sig to S-CSCF
- IP route for SIP sig to MN - IPsec SA A T H _5
IP route for SIP signalling to S-CSCF (@IP1, @P-CSCF, @S-CSCF) IP route for SIP signalling to MN (@S-CSCF, @P-CSCF, @IP1)
Text barred =no more exist compared to 3GPP registration/authentication phase Text underlined =exist in addition to 3GPP registration/authentication phase
ATH_5 ATH_5 ATH_5 ATH_5
GGSN
ATH_0 ATH_1 ATH_2
ATH_3- IP address acquisition (@IP1)
ATH_4
@IP1 ↔ IP-AN user ID - IMS user IDs
- shared keys - IP-AN user ID - @IP1
- IMS user IDs - shared keys - user profile - IP-AN user ID - @IP1 - IMS user IDs
- shared keys - IP-AN user ID
2- Diameter- @IP1 ↔YES IMS user IDs
Context created during registration/authentication phase Task Existing/updated information fi rs t ro u n d S IP R E G IS T E R /S IP O K Determine S-CSCF
50 CHAPTER 2. MAIN NETWORK PROCEDURES IN THE IP-AN//PCC//IMS MODEL
Service adaptation shall be possible according to the network resource availability. When resources are partially available, it should be possible to downgrade the service by eliminating one or more applications from the service, or by choosing the least bitrate consuming codec for the different applications. When resources become available for the initial requested service, it should be possible to upgrade the service.
To perform service adaptation, one immediate solution is to establish one bearer per data
flow/application based on the authorized (IP-AN) QoS per data flow5. In this case, if for
a given bearer, the step resource reservation (Estb_4) fails because of resource problems, the MN can easily recognize in the step resource reservation detection (Estb_5) that the related application cannot be established because of resource problems. Thus, service adaptation can be easily per- formed in the step session update (Estb_6). Practically, this solution cannot be considered since it increases the number of active bearers and their related contexts within the different IP-AN nodes. This may impact IP-AN performances and increase its cost. The best way to go about it, is to: (1) try to establish one global bearer (bearer2), or reconfigure bearer1, for the sum of data flows constituting the service, based on the authorized (IP-AN) QoS; (2) then, if the requested resources are not entirely available, adapt the service. Based on this last assumption, solutions for service adaptation are presented hereafter. They are classified depending on whether the network supports bearer renegotiation or not.
• Case 1: the network supports resource renegotiation
During the step resource reservation (Estb_4), a given IP-AN node may be not able to satisfy authorized (IP-AN) QoS. Resource renegotiation is the capability of this node to propose an alternate QoS (modified (IP-AN) QoS) and of the other nodes to meet on it. This capability is executed through Estb_4a step, shown in figures 2.8 and 2.7. When this capability is supported, there are two solutions to perform service adaptation, depending on whether it is initiated by the network or by the MN.
– Solution 1: service adaptation is initiated by the network
This solution is shown in figure 2.7. I propose that, when the PCEF receives the modified
(IP-AN) QoS in Estb_4a, it determines the data flows set matching it, based on the
authorized (IP-AN) QoS per data flow(already available through the step Estb_3).
Then, accordingly, the PCEF performs a reverse mapping function to calculate, for the data flows set, the modified (IP) policy rules that it sends to the PCRF. The PCRF and AF also perform reverse mapping functions to deduce respectively the
modified SI and SDPO. Finally, the P-CSCF updates the session (Estb_6) i.e. sending
a SIP UPDATE message containing SDPO towards the MN and the CN. The service is
thus adapted.
– Solution 2: service adaptation is initiated by the MN
This solution is shown in figure 2.8. Based on SDPc, the MN, implementing the
AF+PCRF+PCEF functions beforehand determines the SI, the authorized (IP) QoS
per data flowand the authorized (IP-AN) QoS per data flow.
Then, in Estb_4a, when the PCEF in the MN receives the modified (IP-AN) QoS, it de- termines, through an evolved resource reservation detection step (Estb_5), the data flows set matching with it, based on the authorized (IP-AN) QoS per data flow. Subse- quently, as for solution 1, the PCEF+PCRF+AF in the MN perform reverse mapping
functions to deduce the modified (IP) QoS, the modified SI and SDPO. In Estb_6
step, the MN updates the session i.e. sending a SIP UPDATE message containing SDPO
towards the CN. The service is thus adapted.
5
2.1. SERVICE ACCESS PROCEDURE IN THE IP-AN//PCC//IMS MODEL 51 MN first IP router P-CSCF S IP S-CSCF IP-AN node2 IP-AN node1
(IP) policy rules -> (IP-AN) policy rules : >authorized (IP-AN) QoS/ data flow
>flow descriptors, >gate status...
CN
IP
Estb_6- session update (SDPO, resources are reserved for SDPO)
Estb_1- session initiation (SDPi) and negotiation (SDPc/SDPx)
SI -> (IP) policy rules: >authorized (IP) QoS/data flow >flow descriptors, >gate status
PCEF
Estb_3- (IP) policy rules
PCRF IPsec SA Estb_2 Estb_3 Dialog1, SDPc Estb_1 A u th o ri za ti o n (S D Pc ) Authorization Bearer1 Estb_1
Context created during registration/authentication phase Context created during session establishment phase Tasks / Mapping function
Bearer
IPsec SA established during ATH_5 Resource problem
Policy control function Reverse tasks/ mapping function
SDPi=> SDP initiated by MN
SDPc=> SDP common to MN and CN
SDPx=> final SDP negotiated between MN and CN
SDPO=> SDP downgraded by the network Estb_4a- resource reservation (modified (IP-AN) QoS)
Estb_4b- modified (IP) policy rules
Estb_4c-modified SI PCRF AF AF SDPx-> SI Estb_2 AF PCEF Estb_2- SI SI Estb_1 Dialog1, SDPc Bearer1/2 Estb_4 Estb_1 AF Estb_4b Estb_4c Estb_4c
1st and 2nd SDP offer/answer rounds
Estb_4-resource reservation (authorized (IP-AN) QoS for all data flows)
Authorization
Figure 2.7: case 1/solution 1: the network supports resource renegotiation/ service adapta- tion is initiated by the network
MN first IP router P-CSCF S IP S-CSCF IP-AN node2 IP-AN node1
(IP) policy rules -> (IP-AN) policy rules : >authorized (IP-AN) QoS/ data flow, >flow descriptors, >gate status... CN M o d if ie d ( IP -A N ) Q o S > S D PO
Estb_4-resource reservation (authorized (IP-AN) QoS for all data flows)
IP
Estb_6- session update (SDPO, resources are reserved for SDPO)
Estb_1- session initiation (SDPi) and negotiation (SDPc/SDPx)
SI -> (IP) policy rules: >authorized (IP) QoS/data flow, >flow descriptors, >gate status
PCEF
Estb_3- (IP) policy rules PCRF IPsec SA Estb_2 Estb_3 Dialog1, SDPc Estb_1 A u th o ri za ti o n (S D Pc ) Estb_1 Authorization Bearer1 Estb_1
Context created during registration/authentication phase Context created during session establishment phase Tasks / Mapping function
Bearer
IPsec SA established during ATH_5 Resource problem
Policy Control function Reverse tasks/ mapping function
SDPi => SDP initiated by MN
SDPc=> SDP common to MN and CN
SDPx=> final SDP negotiated between MN and CN
SDPO => SDP downgraded by MN Estb_4a- resource reservation (modified (IP-AN) QoS)
AF SDPx-> SI Estb_2 AF E s tb _ 5 Estb_2- SI Dialog1, SDPc Bearer1/2 Estb_4 SI AF Estb_1 1st and 2nd SDP offer/answer rounds
>authorized (IP-AN) QoS/data flow >SDPc-> SI
>authorized (IP) QoS/data flow
AF PCRF PCEF Authorization A F + P C R F + P C E F
Figure 2.8: case 1/solution 2: the network supports resource renegotiation/ service adapta- tion is initiated by the MN
52 CHAPTER 2. MAIN NETWORK PROCEDURES IN THE IP-AN//PCC//IMS MODEL
Solution 1 (initiated by the network) is more coherent than solution 2 (initiated by the MN),
with the policy control principles, whose functions are located in the network6. Moreover,
solution 1 does not require as much additional intelligence or as many functions as solution 2, but just reverse mapping functions. Despite this, solution 1 remains complex because of the need to support resource renegotiation by the network, and to specify new messages on the interfaces PCEF-PCRF and PCRF-AF. Note that, it is not planned to specify the resource renegotiation feature for LTE/EPC as mentioned in [29]; contrary to UMTS, where it has been specified since Release 4 [73].
• Case 2: the network does not support resource renegotiation but a Resource
Manager (RM) node
When the resource renegotiation capability is not supported, the only means to obtain the IP-AN resource information is to introduce a network node responsible for collecting this information from the different IP-AN nodes performing admission control [74]. This node is called Resource Manager (RM). Resource information in the RM are assumed to be very precise and related to the end-to-end path, between the cell the MN is attached to, and the first IP router. Two solutions are possible to use the RM for service adaptation.
– Solution 1: service adaptation is implicitly performed based on policies re- ceived from the network, before the service establishment phase
This solution [75] requires network policy servers connected to the RM. When the policy servers detect that resources are temporally unavailable in the network, they order the MNs to reduce the requirements of their future service establishment requests (e.g. the number and the type of applications).
– Solution 2: service adaptation is performed during the service establishment phase
This solution is inspired from [76] that suggests to link the RM to the policy control function, the PCRF. During the step (IP) policy rules calculation (Estb_2) (refer to figure 2.3 to understand this solution), based on the resource information received from the RM, the PCRF compares the authorized (IP) QoS with the resources available on the end-to-end path on which the bearer is going to be established. If they are not matching, the PCRF deduces a modified (IP) QoS and the corresponding modified (IP) policy rules. The latter are sent to: the P-CSCF that deduces the modified
SIand the corresponding SDPO, and to the PCEF that deduces the modified (IP-AN)
policy rulesand establishes resources accordingly. Finally, the P-CSCF sends the SDPO
to the MN.
Solution 1 and solution 2 are both complex as they require additional nodes and interfaces. Solution 1 is difficult to apply if we need to perform a precise and a customized service adaptation per MN. Indeed, this would require specific policies for each MN, without knowing