1. 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 /

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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)]