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

2. 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.”

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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.”

9. 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

10. 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

11. Back up slides

12. 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!

13. 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%

14. 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

15. 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