white paper: integration of carrier wi-fi into the mobile...

White Paper Integration of Carrier Wi-Fi Into the Mobile Packet Core

Prepared by Gabriel Brown Senior Analyst, Heavy Reading www.heavyreading.com on behalf of

www.radisys.com September 2012

http://www.heavyreading.com/

http://www.radisys.com/

HEAVY READING | SEPTEMBER 2012 | WHITE PAPER | INTEGRATION OF CARRIER WI-FI INTO THE MOBILE PACKET CORE 2

Strategic Value of Carrier Wi-Fi Wi-Fi has emerged as critical to the smartphone user experience. It has enabled the mobile Internet market to grow faster than would have been possible with cellular-only data connectivity and in many instances provides the fastest, most efficient access to services and applications. This has led mobile operators to reconsider the role of the technology and to investigate how to better integrate Wi-Fi into the network and make it part of their service portfolios. Operators now believe that, through active participation in the Wi-Fi ecosystem, they can contribute to an improved user experience and help shape the technol-ogy to better meet their needs. This points to Wi-Fi becoming a strategic non-3GPP access technology integrated into the mobile network, and ultimately to it being considered a trusted access close to par with 3G and LTE. This white paper will examine that process with reference to 3GPP Technical Specification 23.402 and the Wi-Fi Alliance’s “Passpoint” program for next-generation Wi-Fi hotspots.

Service Provider Wi-Fi: Driven by Demand The underlying driver for operator engagement with Wi-Fi is user demand. Figure 1, sourced from connection manager software vendor Mobidia, shows how much smartphone data traffic originates from cellular and Wi-Fi connections in the U.K. for different operators and device types (by OS).

The chart shows that regardless of carrier or device type, in all cases vastly more data is transmitted over Wi-Fi than cellular. Many other markets show a similar

Figure 1: Smartphone-Originated Data, U.K.

Source: Mobidia, May 2012


pattern. In the U.S., for instance, the number of connections to AT&T’s Wi-Fi hotspots increased from 382 million in 2010 to 1.2 billion in 2011.

Operator Engagement & Experimentation The response to this demand for Wi-Fi connectivity varies widely by operator and by market. Nevertheless, we identify three types operator, with reasonably distinct approaches to Wi-Fi, distributed more or less evenly across the categories:

· Progressive operators that seek to engage with and exploit the technolo-gy, and contribute back into the ecosystem when they can. They are stra-tegically committed to working with the technology.

· Operators that have used Wi-Fi in the past to a limited extent (e.g., public hotspots) and are now conducting root and branch strategy reviews to determine how and if they should move forward.

· Operators that simply aren’t very interested in making Wi-Fi a strategic ac-cess technology and tend toward a passive stance, or will use it tactically.

Even for progressive operators, there is no established “correct” way to engage with Wi-Fi and the market is in a period of invention and experimentation. Figure 2 summarizes some of the approaches that mobile operators are taking.

Wi-Fi as Trusted & Untrusted Non-3GPP Access This period of experimentation will continue for some time. There is, however, a view emerging that the preferred target architecture for integrating Wi-Fi into the mobile core will be based on the non-3GPP access specifications introduced in 3GPP Release 8 using the S2b interface for untrusted access, and S2a for trusted. Implementing the specification in full will take many years, and the target will no doubt evolve over time, but it serves as a useful reference architecture that can help align operators, vendors, handset-makers and the Wi-Fi ecosystem.

Figure 2: Examples of Operator Wi-Fi

OPERATOR SUMMARY OF APPROACH

Softbank (Japan) Large public hotspot investment Adoption of public/private “Fon” model

O2 (UK) Focus on high-value, high-traffic public venues Exploring alternative revenue models

Free (France) Using SIM-based authentication with residential Wi-Fi to offload macro and extend coverage

AT&T (U.S.) Broad public hotspot deployment; global leader Pioneered auto-connect model with iPhone

KT (South Korea) High-density deployments at transport hubs, etc. Innovative Wi-Fi & cellular combinations

Source: Heavy Reading


Many operators want to remove the friction associated with connecting to public access Wi-Fi and are seeking to automate network selection and log-in. The following chart below from a Heavy Reading operator survey carried out in spring of 2012 shows that operators rank “no-touch authentication” as most important to the evolution of their Wi-Fi services. In other words, operators want Wi-Fi to feel like 3G or LTE data and to “just work” without manual configuration.

The chart does not specify how operators will achieve automated login – a mixture of approaches can be used – and there remain substantial challenges to making Wi-Fi fully transparent to mobile operator services. Nevertheless, the main point is that mobile operators are starting to view Wi-Fi as a bona fide access technology. A number of them are now discussing Wi-Fi in terms of it having the potential to be viewed as trusted access on a par with 3G and LTE. Even though more theoretical than actual today, this represents a major shift in attitude.

Why Not Integrate Wi-Fi? To understand how to engage with Wi-Fi and better execute the integration, it is as well to understand the barriers. The fundamental issue is that Wi-Fi is not a 3GPP or mobile operator technology; it is part of a different ecosystem with its own processes, norms, economic incentives, and so on. When viewed as a low-cost, best-effort technology that is hard to monetize; is not yet well supported by equipment vendors and handset makers; and is not trans-parent to operator services, it is understandable that mobile operators might take a hands-off stance, leaving Wi-Fi to be addressed by third parties using client-side solutions. Operators can instead look to the emergence of small cells in licensed spectrum that offer better, more predictable performance and are, by design, part of the 3GPP system architecture, to resolve coverage and capacity issues. This is a legitimate view and suitable for some operators. However, to opt out of Wi-Fi altogether does potentially leave the operator strategically exposed and uncompetitive. In many cases, therefore, a mixture of Wi-Fi and licensed small cell could likely be most effective.

Figure 3: Importance of No-Touch Authentication

“On a scale of 1 to 5, please rate the importance of the following aspects of a mobile operator’s public access Wi-Fi service.” (n=78-80)

Source: Heavy Reading’s Small Cell Operator Survey, 2012


Wi-Fi Environment & Mobile Operators Not all Wi-Fi is created equal, and not all of it is suitable for integration into the carrier environment. What made Wi-Fi so successful (standardized link-layer and unlicensed spectrum) has also driven a diversity of implementations – from free, unsecure Wi-Fi on low-quality backhaul in a guest house in Katmandu, through high-performance, managed, public access Wi-Fi at a new office complex. It is not realistic to attempt to address the entire global base of Wi-Fi access with the same approach. Identifying which type of Wi-Fi to work with is the first priority. Many operators will focus initially on telco-managed public hotspots, owned by the carrier itself, or by a trusted third party or aggregator. Such hotspots give a somewhat predictable level of performance and are less of a Wild West proposi-tion. A number of providers, especially those with fixed and mobile properties, are also looking at how residential Wi-Fi might be pressed into service, perhaps through use of public/private sharing schemes. Some are also looking at how free, unsecured Wi-Fi can be exploited, although we believe this will not be attractive to mainstream mobile operators.

Secure Wi-Fi & 802.1X A good starting point is a Wi-Fi network that uses WPA2 (i.e., 802.1X) security and, therefore, can support secure user-plane and secure authentication. Astonishingly, many operators do not yet adequately secure traffic at hotspots – for example if they use WiSPr or MAC authentication – reasoning that customers are used to that level of service on public Wi-Fi. A disclaimer in the terms and conditions might suffice legally in these cases, but it makes it difficult to automate connections on behalf of the user, and to make Wi-Fi truly part of the service. Implementing WPA2 is not, in theory, a high hurdle. It may present a problem for some consumer-grade access points and for older hotspot infrastructure, but is already widely deployed in the enterprise and in new carrier Wi-Fi deployments. With 802.1X in place, operators can start using SIM-based (e.g., EAP-SIM and EAP-AKA) and non SIM-based (e.g., EAP-TLS and EAP TTLS) authentication so users can benefit from air link encryption that is more or less on par with 3G. It is, therefore, a basic building block for service provider Wi-Fi. Note, however, that the use of 802.1X and IPsec are not mutually exclusive. There are scenarios where both will be useful. For example, where the Wi-Fi provider is not fully trusted or where transport link between the Wi-Fi provider and mobile core need to be secured.

Next-Generation Hotspot Initiative & “Passpoint” The Next-Generation Hotspot Initiative (NGHi) and the Wi-Fi Alliance’s Passpoint program are critical to making public access Wi-Fi more operator-friendly. The aim is to normalize Wi-Fi security, network selection, log-in and roaming across compat-ible networks, so that operators and handset makers have a consistent Wi-Fi environment to work in. By implication, such standardization should enable mobile operators to pursue Wi-Fi services at greater scale. The NGHi is led by the Wireless Broadband Alliance (WBA) and in the first instance aims to provide Wi-Fi hotspot operators with a roaming framework that leverages Passpoint capabilities (which the WBA has championed). The Wi-Fi Alliance’s


“Passpoint” program provides a compatibility certification for hotspot equipment that conforms to the Hotpost 2.0 specification, which in turn references the IEEE’s 802.11u amendment. The first phase of Passpoint compatibility testing is already underway with operator trials scheduled for the third quarter of 2012. This should enable the first commer-cial networks with Passpoint-certified Wi-Fi access points to go live in the first quarter of 2013. The primary focus of Phase I of Passpoint certification is related to authentication and pre-authorization of users. It includes the following features:

· Password-free login, for example, using SIM credentials or certificates stored on the device. This meets the “No-Touch” authentication operator requirement identified in Figure 3.

· Secure access via WPA2 using four different 802.1X EAP types. The choice of EAP method will normally be associated with a particular operator and de-vice profile – e.g., EAP-SIM for a smartphone, EAP-TLS for a Wi-Fi-only tablet.

· Network discovery and selection, where devices are able to discover and prioritize Wi-Fi access points based on various criteria before associating to the network. This uses the emerging 802.11u specification and means that devices will be offered the appropriate EAP method to authenticate with.

· Billing & roaming enables devices to authenticate and attach to Wi-Fi services based on subscription authorizations. An associated settlement roaming framework that allows for inter-operator billing is being devel-oped by the Wireless Broadband Alliance.

Phase II of Passpoint is under development and will focus more on policy related functions such as knowing which Wi-Fi to connect to under which conditions. For example, Wi-Fi networks will be able to advertise (via a new protocol) that they have good Internet connectivity before devices attach. For mobile operators, Passpoint and NGHi provide a platform from which they can move forward and start to seriously consider integration of Wi-Fi into their networks.

Wi-Fi-to-Mobile Boundary Conditions A challenge with Wi-Fi on mobile devices occurs at the boundary with mobile networks. Typically devices associate with known SSIDs and disconnect from the mobile network automatically, regardless of the performance the Wi-Fi network is capable of – for example, the Wi-Fi may offer poor service due to congestion, poor quality backhaul, weak signal, and so on, but may still be prioritized by the device. Even when connected to a known “good” Wi-Fi network (say, at home), the device will remain attached at the edge of Wi-Fi coverage (say, in the garden) even though throughput is poor. In certain circumstances, devices will also automatically disconnect from the mobile network and associate to Wi-Fi that the user is not authorized to access unless payment is made via a browser. This behavior is annoying for advanced users, and outright hostile for the mass-market. It is also hard to solve. Smartphone operating systems are currently not capable of addressing the problem natively, although interestingly, Apple’s new iOS 6 beta recognizes this problem and proposes what looks a useful, if partial solution, with a feature called “Wi-Fi Plus Cellular” to enable services to continue to access the mobile network if the automatically selected Wi-Fi is poor. It is unclear how Apple will proceed, but that fact that it has made a move is important.


The best solution will involve both network and client-side responses, and therefore will require coordination across the handset, Internet, Wi-Fi and telecom ecosys-tems. It is also an area where mobile operators and telecom vendors can make a substantial positive contribution to the user experience. The challenge is that, until recently, it was only mobile operators that cared about the problem. The NGHi/Passpoint initiatives and Apple’s Wi-Fi Plus Cellular feature are serious indicators that the wider industry has recognized the issue and wants to resolve it. There is now an opportunity to influence handset-makers to start developing the client-side capabilities needed to better integrate Wi-Fi with mobile networks. It isn’t all straightforward, however: The Wi-Fi, mobile and handset camps have each proposed partial solutions that need to be made compatible.

Always Best Connected (ANDSF & 802.11u Compatibility) A decade, or more, ago the idea of “Always Best Connected” devices came to the fore. Today the technical building blocks needed to realize the vision are maturing and a view is emerging of how to deliver it in practice. Part of the solution will involve better compatibility between the IEEE’s 802.11u and the 3GPP’s Access Network Decision and Selection Function (ANDSF). 802.11u provides information that allows a device to decide which access points are suitable for its needs, and will allow it to authenticate. Using the Access Network Query Protocol (ANQP), 8011.u-capable access points share information with devices prior to association such as, authentication types offered, network names, connection capability, WAN performance metrics and venue information. So for example, an 802.11u-capable mobile device that that scans for nearby access might see a Wi-Fi network with the appropriate PLMN (a type of network name) to allow it to authenticate using EAP-SIM, and with good enough Internet connectivity to make it worthwhile. The process would be automated and transparent to the user. Meanwhile on the mobile network side, ANDSF has been proposed as way for the network to inform the device which access the operator would like it to connect to according to various configurable criteria, such as performance, cost, etc. Although both these schemes have a similar objective, the mechanics of each is different. An important step forward, therefore, will be to make these two network selection technologies compatible with each other. This potentially will be ad-dressed from a standards perspective in later 3GPP Releases, but solutions will probably be incrementally introduced into the commercial market before that. A key issue to progress will be to reach a common agreement on the format of messages within and between each system so that handset-makers can start developing the necessary connection manager software to interpret the two schemes. Establishing best-practice on that issue will involve lots of multi-lateral work and the participation, and leadership, of groups such as the GSM Associa-tion. This form of collaboration will help the industry move forward in a way that is aligned with commercial priorities and practicalities.


Integration of Wi-Fi with the Mobile Network There have been a number of attempts by operators and telecom vendors to better address, and take advantage of, the opportunities afforded by Wi-Fi. The intent, ultimately, is to create an architecture that allows operators to use Wi-Fi access to securely offer the same services users would have on the cellular network, without having to support complex interworking. This is technically possible, but achieving it at scale, and with a cost-effective operational model, has been difficult due to the sheer number of dependencies between devices, Wi-Fi networks, backhaul, security and the mobile network itself. Historically the industry has perhaps over-emphasized IP session continuity be-tween Wi-Fi and cellular to support IMS-based applications, such as voice. This will be important in time, but most data applications today do not require this level of integration. Attention has therefore shifted to integration that allows the operator to maintain common user and policy information across networks. This allows operators to start with modest, achievable, objectives and then to evolve incre-mentally to more advanced services over time.

Device & App-Based Approaches Device-based approaches are one relatively low-impact way operators have used to offer public access Wi-Fi with automated log-on. In some cases this is via simple MAC addressing and in other cases connectivity manager clients can be pre-installed on the device, or downloaded from app stores. These connectivity managers that run in the “user space” (i.e., can be installed or configured by the end user) are alluring, but are fundamentally limited. Pre-installed operator software is often limited to specific devices in an operator’s range and varies between operating systems, making it difficult to maintain and evolve. Connectivity managers downloaded from app stores are limited to advanced hobbyist users and do not offer a good mass-market solution. Device functionality is absolutely critical to improving the way Wi-Fi/cellular interactions work, however, and there is a critical role for connectivity managers that are tightly integrated with the firmware, and ideally native to the OS itself. In this context, it’s interesting to note that Apple devices running iOS, and Android devices from Version 4.0 onward (“Ice Cream Sandwich”), ship with native IPsec VPN clients. Remote configuration and management of such clients remains a challenge, but these capabilities are potentially interesting to operators pursuing untrusted Wi-Fi access strategies, and where IPsec is desired in addition to WPA2-secured Wi-Fi. Advances in “native” connection managers and VPN capabilities, however, must also be part of a system-wide integration that incorporates evolution on the network side.

Target Architecture: Wi-Fi as Trusted & Untrusted Access The 3GPP has pursued a number of different approaches to Wi-Fi integration over the years. WLAN Interworking (I-WLAN) introduced in Release 6 was the first such example and remains the inspiration for the architectures that have superseded it,


as well as the basis for the SIM-based authentication increasingly in use by operators around the world. Today’s thinking about Wi-Fi integration is rooted in 3GPP Release 8 Technical Specification 23.402, which introduced “Architecture Enhancements for Non-3GPP Accesses.” This specification is not specific to Wi-Fi (it had been thought it could also apply to WiMax and CDMA), but it essentially provides the reference target architecture for Wi-Fi integration. As shown in Figure 4 (in green), it includes both trusted and untrusted non-3GPP access over the S2a and S2b interfaces.

Untrusted Access & IPsec The untrusted access part of this architecture is similar to I-WLAN in that it requires IPsec clients on end-user devices. The advantages are that the operator does not need to rely on security provided by third-party Wi-Fi providers over which it may have insufficient control and influence, and that users can access operator services over any Internet-connected Wi-Fi network. There are two related approaches to integration of untrusted Wi-Fi using IPsec tunnels between the device and mobile network:

· To integrate with a 3G core network via the GGSN using a Tunnel Termi-nating Gateway (TTG) or Packet Data Gateway (PDG)

Figure 4: Target Architecture: Wi-Fi as Trusted & Untrusted Access Network

Source: Heavy Reading


· To integrate into an LTE core network via the P-GW using an Evolved Packet Data Gateway (ePDG)

A primary function of both the TTG/PDG and ePDG is to terminate IPsec tunnels. A more detailed view of the LTE-centric architecture is shown below.

In some cases, the move to WPA2 security on the Wi-Fi radio link may make IPsec clients less necessary, or even redundant. However, there are likely to be exam-ples where the Wi-Fi provider uses WPA2, but is not fully trusted by the mobile operator and, therefore, to the mobile operator this type of Wi-Fi still looks like untrusted access. There is also likely to be some form of halfway house between fully trusted and untrusted access. A hotspot operator using Passpoint, for example, that looks to pre-authorize a potential user will need to send authentication requests back to the mobile operator and may need to encapsulate this traffic in IPsec tunnels. Similarly, where WPA2 & Passpoint is used, the mobile operator may still want to secure traffic over untrusted transport links between the Wi-Fi network and the mobile core, and may again use IPsec for this function. In this sense, Wi-Fi access points are similar to small cells and femtocells, which are placed in physical locations where tampering with the backhaul communications and/or physical connectivity may compromise security.

S2a Mobility & “SaMOG” The jump to fully trusted access is important strategically, but it is a massive conceptual leap for mobile operators to depend on Wi-Fi security operated by a third party. In practice it may be that trusted access is limited to Wi-Fi owned and operated by the operator itself – for example, its own hotspot network or where Wi-Fi is integrated with licensed small cell products. There are also detailed Wi-Fi-specific issues that are not addressed in the generic non-3GPP access architecture shown in Figure 4. This is being worked on in the

Figure 5: Untrusted Access Network via ePDG

Source: Radisys


3GPP, in association with other groups such as the IEEE and IETF. For example, the notion of trusted access implies mobility over the S2a (and over untrusted S2b) interface so that a user can hand-over between Wi-Fi and mobile. This is the subject of the 3GPP technical report “A Study on S2a Mobility based On GTP & WLAN access to EPC” (TR 23.852), which explores potential solutions for Wi-Fi access to the Evolved Packet Core. This is not a standard, but appears to have reasonably wide industry support, and may be a good candidate for inclusion into a later 3GPP Release. 3GPP allows for both Proxy Mobile IP (PMIP) and GTP tunneling to be used to support mobility across the S2a and S2b interfaces. Sentiment appears to be behind GTP – so much so that a new acronym “SaMOG” has been coined to refer to “S2a Mobility based On GTP and WLAN access to EPC.” Whether this view (and acronym) will prevail over the long-term is hard to judge. The argument is that GTP is used extensively in mobile networks to connect core network elements in 3G and LTE. Adoption of GTP over S2a means operators maintain a familiar operating model and can avoid introducing a new PMIP demarcation point into their networks. Since GTP headers can contain useful bearer and policy information, there is also a desire to take advantage of this to extend the mobile network policy model to Wi-Fi. The basic idea is shown in Figure 6 below.

We should also note, however, that GTP is alien to the Wi-Fi and Internet worlds, and that PMIP-based solutions for cellular-to-Wi-Fi mobility are already in opera-tion. It may not, in the end, be an either/or outcome and PMIP and GTP may coexist, with different operators selecting different approaches, perhaps for different use cases. One plausible scenario, for example, could see PMIP being used on the Wi-Fi/Internet side and GTP on the mobile network side of a demarca-tion point, meaning some form of interworking will be required.

Figure 6: Mapping to Non-3GPP Access Over GTP

PGW

DL TFT UL TFT

UE

Non-3GPP connectivity

The mapping between Non-3GPP connectivity and multiple GTP bearers (default and dedicated bearers)

Trusted Non-3GPP IP Access

GTP Tunnel GTP Tunnel GTP Tunnel

S2a

Source: 3GPP TR 23.852


Wi-Fi Gateways One question about any of the approaches to Wi-Fi integration into the mobile packet core, is about the need for a dedicated gateway between the P-GW or GGSN and the Wi-Fi access network. In theory, a physical gateway is not required because 3GPP specifies logical elements rather than actual equipment. In practice, however, it appears likely that a Wi-Fi gateway will be needed, or that “gateway-type applications” will be integrated with the P-GW in some form. Such gateways can perform a range of functions, some specific to SaMOG, some specific to the ePDG function (e.g., IPsec termination), and some related to AAA proxy functions, and some of general utility such as IP addressing, traffic-shaping, metering/accounting, and local breakout to offload best-effort Internet traffic before it hits the mobile core. While there is uncertainty about how Wi-Fi gateways will evolve, there are a number of plausible scenarios. One such scenario could see an ePDG being introduced for untrusted Wi-Fi access, and then upgraded to become what is known as a Trusted Wi-Fi Access Gateway at a later stage. A flexible software-defined platform could potentially support both applications. In this scenario, the Phase I deployment of an ePDG for untrusted access would look something like Figure 7 below.

Then Phase II, when trusted access is viewed as viable, would see deployment of a Trusted Wi-Fi Access Gateway between the Wi-Fi access and the mobile core network, as shown in Figure 8 below.

Figure 7: Phase I – Untrusted Access via ePDG

Source: Radisys


Figure 8: Phase II – Trusted Wi-Fi Gateway

Source: Radisys


Conclusion The non-3GPP access architecture introduced in Release 8 represents a major step forward in industry thinking about mobile network design and serves as the basis for the longer-term evolution of carrier Wi-Fi and tighter integration with the mobile packet core. The objective is to gradually move from entirely separate networks, to integrated networks with separate connectivity paths, to eventually being able to select connectivity according to the prevailing load, application requirements, operator policies, and so on. The ability to overlay emerging functions such as MAPCON (Multi Access PDN Connectivity), IFOM (IP Flow Mobility) and eANDSF on this architecture, and to evolve it in line with technical progress and commercial demand, is what makes non-3GPP access strategically important. The notion of trusted Wi-Fi access is strategically important. The rate at which the trusted access model will be adopted in practice, however, is hard to judge at this stage. It certainly looks appealing, but actually deploying trusted Wi-Fi is about more than making a conceptual advance, it is also a huge leap in practical terms and will have a deep impact on day-to-day network operations. Much will depend on the nature of the Wi-Fi access the operator wants to use, or to put it another way, is prepared to work with. As noted at the start of this paper, Wi-Fi access that is 100 percent owned and operated by the mobile operator is a different proposition from Wi-Fi owned by third parties of different types and trustworthiness. Broadly speaking, the more Wi-Fi networks an operator seeks to work with, the greater the need for Wi-Fi gateways that are flexible enough to span a wide range of Wi-Fi access types – both trusted and untrusted.


Background to This Paper About the Author Gabriel Brown Senior Analyst, Heavy Reading Brown’s coverage at Heavy Reading focuses on wireless data networking tech-nologies, including WLAN, 3G/HSPA and LTE, with reference to how these technol-ogies impact the wider mobile data services market. Brown has covered the wireless data industry since 1998. Before moving to Heavy Reading, Brown was Chief Analyst of the monthly Insider Research Services, published by Heavy Reading’s parent company Light Reading. Brown is based in the U.K. and can be reached at [email protected].

About Heavy Reading Heavy Reading (www.heavyreading.com) is an independent research organiza-tion offering deep analysis of emerging telecom trends to network operators, technology suppliers and investors. Its product portfolio includes in-depth reports that address critical next-generation technology and service issues, market trackers that focus on the telecom industry’s most critical technology sectors, exclusive worldwide surveys of network operator decision-makers that identify future purchasing and deployment plans, and a rich array of custom and consult-ing services that give clients the market intelligence needed to compete success-fully in the $4 trillion global telecom industry. As a telecom research arm of the Light Reading Communications Network (www.lrcn.com), Heavy Reading contrib-utes to the only integrated business information platform serving the global communications industry.

About Radisys Radisys (Nasdaq: RSYS) is a leading provider of embedded wireless infrastructure solutions for telecom, aerospace, defense and public safety applications. Radisys’ market-leading ATCA, IP Media Server and Com Express platforms coupled with world-renowned Trillium software, services and market expertise enable customers to bring high-value products and services to market faster with lower investment and risk. Radisys solutions are used in a wide variety of 3G & 4G/LTE mobile network applications including: Radio Access Networks (RAN) solutions from femtocells to picocells and macrocells, wireless core network applications, DPI and policy management; conferencing and media services including voice, video and data, as well as customized mobile network applications that support the aerospace, defense and public safety markets. Heavy Reading 240 West 35th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10001 Phone: +1 212-600-3000

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.heavyreading.com/

http://www.lrcn.com/

white paper: integration of carrier wi-fi into the mobile...

Documents