Multivendor Interoperability Introduction, Interoperability Verification at Nokia Siemens Janos Arrakoski, Nokia Siemens Networks, IOT Helmut Schink, Nokia Siemens Networks, Industry Environment Nairobi, July 30, 2010 /

Content Basis for Interoperability Interoperability Verification requirements are different Drivers for Interoperability Interoperability Verification at Nokia Siemens Networks Interoperability Verification Output/Benefit (for developing countries) Interoperability Verification Projects Experiences from developing countries Two Categories of “Interoperability Issues” Summary

Basis for Interoperability Open Standards and Conformance make multivendor configurations possible Conformance, compliance with standards is essential for interoperability, but; No standard is perfect Standards evolve Implementations are different Implementations evolve Although Standards and Conformance are in general good, some Interoperability challenges will exist in telecommunication networks due to the complexity of the systems Interoperability Verification is needed to identify those challenges Open Standards + Conformance enable multivendor configurations Conformance, compliance with standards creates the basis for interoperability but; no standard is perfect (options, incomplete, ambiguous, “errors”,…) Standards evolve i.e. there are several different versions and “compatibility” between versiosn is/can not always be assured All implementations are different (implemented standards version, conformance level, options, interpretation, proprietary extensions, product quality,...) Implementations evolve i.e. there are several different products & versions resulting in a endless number of possible combinations Interoperability can be improved by Interoperability Verification

Interoperability Verification requirements are different Interoperability Verification needs vary; Standards/Interface maturity and evolution, the complexity,… Deployment scenario and configuration … There are usually numerous possible multivendor configurations Different Vendor/Product/Interface/SW Version/Configuration & Parameter combinations Different Interoperability Verification activities and approaches are needed to address the various needs efficiently All stakeholders must participate and do their share Majority of networks where NSN is a supplier are multivendor networks and it’s also in NSN interest to endorse interoperability Need and type of InterOperability Verification depend on many factors like; Standards/Interface maturity and evolution (both in terms of standardization and individual vendor implementations), complexity, deployment (number of customer deployments i.e how widely is it used) … There are usually numerous possible multivendor configurations Different Vendor/Product/Interface/SW Version/Config.&Parameter combinations Different activities are needed to address above items (cost) efficiently All stakeholders (Vendors and Operators) must participate and do their share Majority of networks where NSN is a supplier are multivendor networks and it’s also in NSN interest to endorse interoperability

Drivers for Interoperability Interoperability is driven by market requirements, Operators demand: State of art products Latest Functionality & features, Early Timing, High Quality, Low Cost,… Supplier independency and competition Manage and minimize risks and costs,… Secure investment Product Evolution, Long lifecycle, Maintenance,… Interoperability is driven by market requirements, Operators demand State of art products Functionality & features Timing Quality Cost Supplier independency and competition Manage and minimize risks and costs Secure investment Evolution Consolidation and convergence Fixed/mobile, all IP,… Consolidation and convergence Fixed/mobile, all IP,… Everything and Anything Seeking for Competitive Advantage

Interoperability Verification at Nokia Siemens Networks Interoperability Verification is a integrated part of the Nokia Siemens Networks Product Development process: Driven by Technical requirements Market requirements Interoperability Verification is additionally supported and offered in the in the Product Delivery process: Other infrastructure manufacturers have the very same approach Interoperability Verification at NSN follows basically two schemes 1) Interoperability Verification is a integrated part of the Nokia Siemens Networks Product Development process: Driven by Technical requirements Market requirements 2) Interoperability Verification is supported and offered in the in the Product Delivery process Other infrastructure manufacturers have the very same approach

Interoperability Verification Output/Benefit (for developing countries) All parties (Vendors and Operators in both developing and developed countries) benefit from the performed Interoperability Verification equally Products with improved interoperability become available to all Operators Results of Interoperability Verification are available to Operators for their multivendor configurations Operators striving for Technology Leadership trigger and participate in early Interoperability Verification (usually developed countries) Certain “well proven” configurations will arise Other operators (e.g. in developing countries) will benefit from that All parties (Vendors and Operators in both developing and developed countries) benefit from the performed Interoperability Verification equally Products with improved interoperability become available to all Operators (in both developing and developed countries) Results of Interoperability Verification are available to Operators for their multivendor configurations (in both developing and developed countries) Operators striving for Technology Leadership (implements the newest technologies, products and SW first) trigger and participate in early Interoperability Verification (usually developed countries). [These operators will also potentially have to invest more in the Interoperability verification than others] Certain “well proven” configurations will arise Other operators (e.g. in developing countries) will benefit from that

Interoperability Verification Projects Experiences from developing countries Nokia Siemens Networks has run several successful multivendor projects in developing countries; Nigeria, South Africa, Tanzania,… Projects cover infrastructure for several technologies, GSM/GPRS, WCDMA and for both Core Network and Radio Network Elements Multivendor verification project duration is usually one to some weeks per interface depending on interface and test scope No blocking issues have been reported Interoperability, conformity and standards are good Configuring the network is a key activity in the project A task that must be done in every project anyway No differences compared to projects in developed countries Nokia Siemens Networks has run several successful multivendor projects in developing countries Nigeria, South Africa, Tanzania,… Multivendor verification project duration is usually one to some weeks per interface depending on interface and test scope No blocking issues have been reported Interoperability, conformity and standards are good Configuring the network is a key activity in the project A task that must be done in every project anyway No differences compared to projects in developed countries

Two Categories of “Interoperability Issues” 1) Problems appearing as “interoperability issues” (i.e. occur in single vendor environment too) Many times wrongly perceived as “interoperability issues”, typically due to: Invalid Configuration of network Inadequate System Testing (Conformance, Functionality, Performance,…) 2) Real “interoperability issues” (i.e. occur only multivendor environment) Protocol conformance is usually high, issues arise mostly due to: Different options allowed by specifications Incomplete and/or ambiguous specifications Invalid Configuration of network Can be categorized in two groups: 1) Problems that appear as “interoperability issues” i.e. same problem occur in single vendor environment du to; Invalid Configuration Inadequate System Testing (Conformance, Functionality, Performance, Stability…) 2) Real “interoperability issues” i.e. problem occur only in a multivendor environment Protocol conformance level is usually high but issues arise mostly due to: Different options allowed by specifications Incomplete and/or ambiguous specifications Category 1) issues represent unfortunately many times the majority of issues and result in a perception that interoperability is poor. The correct conclusion would is thus in many cases: System is not properly configured and parameterized Can be addressed with proper configuration (operator+vendor) [and easier configuration (vendor)] Product Quality is poor Can be addressed by better system testing (vendor) [and higher demands/acceptance criteria (operator)] Category 1) represent many times majority of issues in a multivendor project resulting in a false perception that interoperability is poor. The correct conclusion is in many cases: System not properly configured and parameterized and/or Product Quality is poor

Summary Open Standards and Conformance alone will not ensure 100% interoperability Standards are widely available and adopted Conformance is mostly at a good level Each Vendor define and ensure their conformance Market driven Interoperability Verification is efficient and focus on operator needs A mechanism to address potential interoperability issues is already in place Final configuration and parameterization of the operator network must always be done in the operator network Can be categorized in two groups: 1) Problems that appear as “interoperability issues” i.e. same problem occur in single vendor environment du to; Invalid Configuration Inadequate System Testing (Conformance, Functionality, Performance, Stability…) 2) Real “interoperability issues” i.e. problem occur only in a multivendor environment Protocol conformance level is usually high but issues arise mostly due to: Different options allowed by specifications Incomplete and/or ambiguous specifications Category 1) issues represent unfortunately many times the majority of issues and result in a perception that interoperability is poor. The correct conclusion would is thus in many cases: System is not properly configured and parameterized Can be addressed with proper configuration (operator+vendor) [and easier configuration (vendor)] Product Quality is poor Can be addressed by better system testing (vendor) [and higher demands/acceptance criteria (operator)]