5G SBP 5G and 5G Advanced Capabilities

Owned by Ike Alisson
Last updated: Jul 28, 2022
6 min read

@Ike Alisson This section includes some of Ike Alisson's questions and remarks expressed during his presentation on 3GPP 5G and 5G Advanced releases selected Capabilities on June 7th, 2022 to the LFN 5G Super Blueprint Project meeting (Ref.:  06-07-22 - 5G SBP Off-Week Working Group Meeting).

The remarks made during the presentation were expressed in form of “questions” to enable the recipients to judge the relevance to and/or importance for the 5G Super Blueprint and therein determine whether to consider to further pursue to find an answer or have a discussion to determine whether the raised questions and remark are worthwhile to be pursued.

Question/Remark 1: With respect to Project Magma and its support to EPC, which 5G Option definition (as defined by 3GPP and GSM  attached below) the 5G Super Blueprint follows/implements so that the “Super Blueprint Project” derives its reference to be denoted as “5G”?

In case that there is any member Project that can supply NR Solution to 5G Super Blueprint Project (as specified by 3GPP and O-RAN Alliance utilizing the IAB (Integrated and Access Backhaul solution)), with reference to current Member Magma project involvement for supply of CN functionality and recent media press release on MNOs launch of voice over NR (with indications a year ago that voice  over NR would have a fall back to EPC), could the 5G Super Blueprint Project consider as an option to utilize/explore within 5G Super Blueprint the Solution “Voice over NR” as an UC?

Please see below some reference information related to the remark’s content above:

Is it worthwhile to check with LF ONAP Enterprise Task Force about AT&T’s current plans, interest and/or availability of resources of VoLTE to be involved with Voice over NR?

Question-Remark 2: Is there available a written input from the circled in red circle in the below LFN 5G Super Blueprint infographic participating LF Mmeber Projects:

  1. How are the respective Projects “related”/connected” to “5G” in terms of providing information about the respective 3GPP Releases, Architecture/Applications/ Services Requirements/Security/Management etc, that they support/implement?

The Purpose with this “inventory requirement” and outcome, could be twofold:

First, to verify the respective project relevance with 3GPP Specifications for 5G and therein prevent/avoid ground for undermining not only credibility of the 5G Super Blueprint as a Project pursuing 5G evolvement within LFN, but also, in case that the respective Projects are not involved with 5G, to contain and prevent the risk from that “disconnection/lack of relevance” to cause any mistrust and doubt to be spread/shift/spill over to the rest of the Member Projects participating at the 5G Super Blueprint Project as shown on the infographic below.

Second, when being able to identify with which 3GPP Release Specifications, related to 5G and/or 5G Advanced (TRs), the respective LF Member Project(s) is/are involved with, the LFN 5G Super Blueprint prepare a plan about assist with providing information about the relevant specifications evolvement within 3GPP (as e.g. related to 3GPP “5G Advanced” Release) and in this way assist and contribute to the respective Member project Roadmap evolvement related to 5G & 5G Advanced.

 Example info attached below on 3GPP decision in 2019 for “full wired Ethernet replacement (with Wireless connections) in factories and latest evolvement by 2021 related to that (as part of the 3GPP Specifications for Verticals and FoF (Factory of the Future).

Question - Remark 3 on the 5G Super Blueprint intended discission on identifying “relevant” UCs for 5G”.

The 5G Super Blueprint Project had initiated discussion on “identifying the relevant UCs for 5G.

Question 1: Is the purpose/objective of the 5G Super Blueprint Project to identify, then outline, categorize and group the Member Projects selection of specified by 3GPP WG SA1 Service Requirements and afterwards to assist with information on the specifications from the rest of the 3GPP WGs (SA2-SA6) as well as 3GPP Specifications for TN and RAN specifications? (please see attached below info on 3GPP WGs SA1- SA6)?  or

Question 2: Is the 5G Super Blueprint intends to discuss the “preliminary/tentative” interest in potential 5G Use Cases (UCs) and once the respective UCs are identified to undertake within the 5G Super Blueprint build-up of small groups that can undertake the Functional role, similar to 3GPP WGs SA1-to-SA6 to identify e.g. Requirements, Architecture, Security, Multimedia, Management, Applications and apply the Open Source SW Dev Ops Business Model (please see below) to promote the use of Cloud-native Mechanisms? (please see further below on the difference between use of SW Telco Business Model (“aaP”) and Open Source DevOps Business Model “SaaS” (SW as a Service”):

With respect to the above, it might be worthwhile to take into account the following:

 Difference in Business Models between Telcos in terms of “aaP” (as a Product implementing 3GPP specifications) and Open Source SW DevOps Business Model “SaaS” (SW as a Service). Below attached an infographic on that:

Diminishing importance of using Open Source SW as a mean to lower TCO (Total Cost of Ownership).

The above made remark about the use of Open Source SW use as a mean to lower TCO needs to be updated. It might be worthwhile to get aware about the change and shift in the priority related to use of Open Source SW in this context.

Please see below from Red Hat’s reports from 2021 and 2022 about the outcome related to use of Open Source SW as a mean to lower TCO.

 

Question – Remark: With respect to the 3GPP EDGEAPP Architecture (evolvement) related to enabling Applications on “the Edge”, aligned evolvement with ETSI MEC Architecture for supply and commissioning of E2E Applications, as foreseen by GSMA OPG (please see further information on that below), would 5G Super Blueprint undertake any activity?

Please see below some general information on the subject: