Introduces New Mobile Backhaul Initiative to Resolve 4G/LTE Backhaul’s Most Costly Challenge Nan Chen, President, MEF

MEF Initiative for Mobile Backhaul According to all wireless operators, delivering the bandwidth required in the 4G-LTE wireless backhaul is “the single biggest challenge and operating cost in the industry.”

New Mobile Backhaul Initiative from the MEF MEF believes this will have significant, positive impact for the 4G/LTE Savings of 25% or more for Mobile Operators 2-3 times the revenue for Access Providers from currently deployed infrastructure Achievement of these results while delivering the same or better mobile user Quality of Experience According to all wireless operators, delivering the bandwidth required in the 4G-LTE wireless backhaul is “the single biggest challenge and operating cost in the industry.” Most Providers have taken the first steps to Carrier Ethernet But with simplistic approach - all traffic treated the same Approach has inevitable negative impact on Cost, QoS The moment when cost will outstrip revenue is fast approaching MEF believes this will have significant, positive impact for the wireless industry: Savings of 25% or more for Mobile Operators that could amount to $500m-to $1bn for the larger operators 2-3 times the revenue for Access Providers generated from currently deployed network infrastructure Achievement of these results while delivering the same or better mobile user experience

An Industry-Defining 4G/LTE Suite New MBH Ph 2 Implementation Agreement Requirements for implementing Carrier Ethernet for Mobile Backhaul MEF 22.1 New CoS Ph 2 Implementation Agreement Class of Service IA, Multi-CoS, application oriented and distance Performance Objectives MEF 23.1 MEF Guidance and Educational Papers implement Multiple Classes of Service (“Multi-CoS”) Carrier Ethernet for MBH How to Multi-CoS Positioning Best Practices Packet Synch for CE over MBH Deploying IEEE 1588v2, Synch Ethernet Why Tech Overview Presentations FAQs Press Release Videos, Webinar Other Deliverables Carrier Ethernet Service Definitions Carrier Ethernet Service Attributes MEF 6.1 MEF 10.2 10.2.1 MEF 6.1.1 New / recent underlying Carrier Ethernet Definitions

Optimizing Mobile Backhaul MEF 22.1, MEF 23.1 New Technical Work Addresses Industry’s Biggest Challenge Multi-Cos: efficiency, better, predictable QoS New performance objectives Service mapping, Link & Service OAM, resiliency Packet & network-based synch 4G(plus 2G, 3G and migration use cases) New Multi-CoS Positioning Paper Help operators understand time is of the essence A tool to start a Multi-CoS Project Best practices paper provides implementation guidance According to all wireless operators, delivering the bandwidth required in the 4G-LTE wireless backhaul is “the single biggest challenge and operating cost in the industry.” Most Providers have taken the first steps to Carrier Ethernet But with simplistic approach - all traffic treated the same Approach has inevitable negative impact on Cost, QoS The moment when cost will outstrip revenue is fast approaching Multi-CoS Positioning Paper Help mobile operator VPs and Directors understand time is of the essence for multi-CoS Provide arguments for Providers to start a Multi-CoS Project

Multi-Cos: Solution to the industry’s biggest issue Most Providers have taken first steps to Carrier Ethernet But with simplistic approach: all traffic treated the same Negative impact is inevitable The moment when costs will outstrip revenue is fast approaching Time Voice Era Data Era Transition Volume of Network Traffic Cost Revenue Costs outstrip Revenue Traffic Volume / dollars The very nature of mobile applications means it’s subject to extreme bursts of traffic with a wide variety of QoS requirements.   To respond and avoid customer dissatisfaction, mobile operators and their access provider partners must accommodate for these peaks in traffic or face the high cost of customer dissatisfaction Most providers have taken the first steps by migrating to Ethernet … but have taken the simplistic step of building networks that treat all traffic the same and requires a massive, costly and unnecessary overbuild of the network, without an accompanying revenue model to sustain the cost. Effectively it’s a recipe for going out of business

Single Class vs. Multi Classes (1) All one Class of Service: costly and with QoS issues Bursty, delay & loss tolerant data Delay-sensitive real time data Access Provider Mobile Operator An Access Provider EVC Result/Impact Needs very costly overbuild Does not scale - recipe for going out of business High priority traffic subject to delay – especially during traffic bursts and peaks Prioritizing Data: 1. Network control 2. Interactive voice, video, 3. Signaling, 4 Internet data, business data, streamed video Extremely costly – needs very costly overbuild Does not scale - recipe for going out of business High Priority traffic subject to delay – especially during traffic bursts and peaks

Single Class vs. Multi Classes (2) Multiple-Classes of Service: great rewards Delay-sensitive real time data High Priority Lane Bursty, delay & loss tolerant data Low Priority Lane Mobile Operator An Access Provider EVC Prioritizing Data: 1. Network control 2. Interactive voice, video, 3. Signaling, 4 Internet data, business data, streamed video Result/Impact Access Providers (aka Backhaul Operators ) More revenue for same cost: more users, more responsive QoS Avoids costly over-build Maximize profitability – leverage Ethernet packet efficiency Mobile Operators 25% + Savings in a multi-multi-billion Industry Enables resolution of most critical challenge: “Handling unprecedented growth of data while preserving or improving QoS.” Creates an intelligent Mobile backhaul network Access Providers (aka Backhaul Operators ) More Revenue for same cost: more users, more responsive QoS Avoids costly over-building network to ensure integrity, QoS Maximize profitability by leveraging nature of Ethernet Mobile Operators 25% + Savings in a multi-billion Industry Enables resolution of their most critical challenge: “Handling unprecedented growth of data while preserving or improving QoS.”

MEF Provides Guidance on Synchronization All generations require synchronization technology Synch must be maintained in packet-only environments such as 4G/LTE Support is required for Indoor cell sites, backup for GPS-based clocking Education on use of frequency, phase & time synchronization Carrier Ethernet Network UNI RAN BS RAN NC PRC

MBH Summary Ethernet adoption accepted by vast majority Initial, single-class adoption needs rapidly replacing with “Multi-CoS” MEF: new solutions for optimization of MBH Leadership, Standards, Guidance, Education MEF 22.1, MEF 23.1 Multi-CoS, Synchronization Total impact of new MEF work Large savings, additional revenue Equal or better QoS Sustainable future for MBH Ethernet adoption accepted by vast majority Initial, simple, single class adoption models needs rapidly replacing with “Multi-CoS” to generate sustainable business model MEF providing solution for optimization Leadership, Standards, Guidance, Education MEF 22.1 Phase 2 for 4G/LTE Carrier Ethernet with Multiple Class of Service Synchronization Total impact of new MEF work Large Cost savings, Additional Revenue Equal or better QoS Sustainable future for MBH

Back up slides

Traffic Profile Used in the Positioning Paper Representative traffic profile for a 50Mbit/s backhaul circuit used as a basis in the paper to compare Multi-CoS backhaul with Single-CoS backhaul Traffic Type Required Bandwidth (Mbit/s) Required Performance across the Access Provider network One-way Frame Delay (ms) One-way Delay Variation (ms) Frame Loss (%) Synchronization 0.5 10 5 0.01% Voice/Conversational & Control 3.5 15 Streaming Media 6 20 Interactive and Background 40 37 Not required 0.1% Only 8% of traffic is FD, FDV sensitive . Multi-CoS could allow 10x oversubscription before voice quality impacted!

QoS/CoS Drivers in Mobile Networks Background /Interactive (40Mbit/s) Web surfing Peer to Peer Non-priority streaming media Streaming Media (6Mbit/s) Priority IP traffic where a premium price is paid to Mobile Operator Application where Mobile Operator wants to differentiate quality Required Bandwidth Voice / Conversational & Control (3.5 Mbit/s) VoIP bearer traffic Signaling OAM Synchronization Traffic (0.5 Mbit/s) Timing for synchronization Acceptable Delay Across Access Network 40ms 30ms 20ms 10ms 0.025% 0.05% 0.075% Acceptable Level of Frame Loss Across Access Network 0.1%

Mapping traffic types into single COS EVC RAN BS CE RAN NC CE Up Stream Egress Queues 2G Port1 Classify Classify Synchronization Traffic Queue Single CoS Access EVC Voice & Control Queue Up Stream Streaming Media Queue Classify 3G Port 2 Background/Interactive Queue Down Stream Egress Queues Classify Classify Synchronization Traffic Queue Voice & Control Queue Down Stream Classify Streaming Media Queue Other Port 3 Background/Interactive Queue Classify Classify Switch Fabric Switch Fabric All traffic across Access Provider EVC treated equally with Real-Time COS Port 4 LTE Classify Classify

Mapping traffic types into Multi-COS EVC RAN BS CE RAN NC CE 3 Classes of Multiple CoS Access EVC Up Stream Egress Queues 2G Port1 Classify Classify Synchronization Traffic Queue Voice / Conversational Queue Up Stream Streaming Media Queue Classify 3G Port 2 Background/Interactive Queue Classify Classify Priority per packet passed to Access Provider either using PCP or DSCP values Down Stream Egress Queues Synchronization Traffic Queue Down Stream Voice / Conversational Queue Other Port 3 Classify Streaming Media Queue Classify Classify Background/Interactive Queue Port 4 LTE Switch Fabric Priority traffic across Access EVC given appropriate priority Classify Classify