Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
Page 2 of 19
Contents
1. 2. Introduction ................................................................................................................. 3 Existing Signaling ....................................................................................................... 4 2.1. Point Code Routing ............................................................................................. 4 2.1.1. Subscriber Registration ............................................................................... 5 2.1.2. Mobile-Originated SMS.............................................................................. 5 2.1.3. Mobile-Terminated SMS ............................................................................ 5 2.1.4. SMS Notification ........................................................................................ 6 2.1.5. Other Roaming Signaling ........................................................................... 6 2.2. Global Title Routing ........................................................................................... 7 2.2.1. General Roaming Signaling ........................................................................ 7 2.2.2. Subscriber Registration and SMS Notification ........................................... 8 3. Proposed Solution ....................................................................................................... 9 3.1. Point Code Routing ............................................................................................. 9 3.1.1. Subscriber Registration ............................................................................. 10 3.1.2. Mobile-Originated SMS............................................................................ 10 3.1.3. Mobile-Terminated SMS .......................................................................... 12 3.1.4. SMS Notification ...................................................................................... 13 3.1.5. Other Roaming Signaling ......................................................................... 13 3.1.6. Signaling Management ............................................................................. 14 3.2. Global Title Translation .................................................................................... 14 3.2.1. Subscriber Registration and SMS Notification ......................................... 14 3.2.2. Mobile-Originated SMS............................................................................ 14 3.2.3. Mobile-Terminated SMS .......................................................................... 15 3.2.4. Other Roaming Signaling ......................................................................... 15 3.2.5. One-way Global Title ............................................................................... 16 3.3. 4. 5. Discussion ......................................................................................................... 16
Page 3 of 19
1. Introduction
The Voice and SMS Working Group (VSWG) of the CDG IRT is working to address the issues involved with International Short Message Service (SMS) Roaming Billing. Of particular interest has been the need to ensure that the home operator is able to charge its subscribers at a rate which accurately reflects the different intercarrier wholesale rates that may be charged by the operators individual roaming partners. There are several broad options possible and/or available for delivery of the necessary information (identification of the serving operator) to the home operator. Based on expressed operator preference (and the fact that some other options are already available), the VSWG has focused on the use of the existing internetwork ANSI-41 signaling to carry the necessary information to the home operators Message Center (MC, aka SMSC). The billing record generated by the MC is used for subscriber billing. Given this general approach, there are a number of parameters within the relevant signaling messages that could be used to carry the necessary information. At the June 2006 IRT, operators expressed their preference for the use of a transport-layer identifier (e.g. point code, Calling Party Address) to specify the serving network. This document describes this approach in further detail, including modifications to accommodate different signaling methods (point code routing and Global Title Translation). When point code routing is used, there are two locations for the serving network identifier, and operator feedback on the preferred approach is invited. An appendix describes an alternative approach using ANSI-41 parameters to identify the serving network.
Page 4 of 19
2. Existing Signaling
Most CDMA operators today connect to their international roaming partners via a Roaming Service Provider (RSP). The RSP can represent all remote network elements as a single identity. This arrangement greatly simplifies the configuration requirements in the operators network, however in the process the identity of the serving network can be masked from the home operator for SMS.
2.1.
Many operators today use Point Code (PC) routing for signaling to and from the RSP. The PCs are meaningful only within a given network/country. The Roaming Service Provider (RSP) is assigned a point code inside each of its customer networks, and uses leased lines to connect back to its own premises. All roaming signaling to and from an operators roaming partners is via the single RSP point code. This arrangement is shown in Figure 1 below.
Signaling flow
Operator 1
RSP
Operator 2
Operator 3
The following subsections show specific scenarios relevant for SMS. In each case there may be one or more Signaling Transfer Points (STPs) present between the RSP and the indicated operator network element these STPs do not modify the traversing message in any way. The Signaling Connection Control Part (SCCP) layer of the messages is assumed to have Called and Calling Party Addresses either containing PCs that match the Destination and Originating Point Codes (respectively) together with a Subsystem Number (SSN), or SSN only. The SCCP routing indicator indicates that routing is based on the MTP PC and the SSN.
Page 5 of 19
HLR
REGNOT: DPC = HLR PC OPC = RSP PC SMS_Address = RSP PC regnot: DPC OPC = RSP PC = HLR PC
RSP
SMDPP:
MC
smdpp:
= MC PC = RSP PC = RSP PC = MC PC
RSP
Page 6 of 19
SMDPP:
MC
smdpp:
= RSP PC = MC PC = MC PC = RSP PC
RSP
MC
SMSNOT: DPC = MC PC OPC = RSP PC SMS_Address = RSP PC smsnot: DPC OPC = RSP PC = MC PC
RSP
INV/RR:
RSP
RR/INV:
Page 7 of 19
2.2.
Some operators use Global Title Translation (GTT) to route calls through their network, and to and from the RSP. Although the use of GTT can allow the transfer of messages between networks without knowledge of each others MTP PC allocations, as used today for CDMA international roaming the RSP is still present as a PC that appears inside the operators network: GTT is used as a tool to simplify routing tables in nodes of large networks. STPs/SCCP Relay points in the operators network route the message, changing the MTP addresses accordingly. The following subsections highlight differences between Point Code and Global Title routing.
STP
RSP
RR/INV:
RR/INV:
Page 8 of 19
Page 9 of 19
3. Proposed Solution
As stated above, the approach preferred by operators is for the RSP to modify an address parameter in a transport layer (MTP and/or SCCP) to identify the serving network. The message will appear to the home operator to be coming from (or going to) a different location for each serving operator, rather than just to the single RSP location as today. Many MCs today include the far end transport layer information in their billing record. If this information is set to a value that is specific to the serving operator, a home operator can potentially implement a per-serve charging scheme with no modifications to their MCs. This was the primary reason for the operator preference for this approach (see the meeting minutes for more detail). The differences between the existing point code and GT routing schemes necessitate different approaches to incorporate serving network information for operators who use these schemes.
3.1.
For operators using point code routing, the proposed approach is to replace the single RSP point code with a PC that is specific to the serving operator. The set of roaming partner PCs would be unique to each home operator (for example, SMS traffic for Operator 1s subscribers roaming in Operator 2s network may appear to Operator 1 to use point code A (a point code assigned to the RSP for this purpose by Operator 1), while SMS traffic for Operator 3s subscribers roaming in Operator 2s network appears to Operator 3 to use point code B). This arrangement is illustrated in Figure 8 below.
Non-SMS signaling
Operator 1
SMS signaling arrow points from Serve to Home, e.g. MOSMS SMDPP RSP PC, as viewed by Operator 1, for non-[Home SMS] traffic RSP PC, as viewed by Operator 3, for Home SMS traffic served by Operator 2. (Different to )
RSP
Operator 2
Operator 3
The following subsections show the changes to specific scenarios. Note that Point Codes can be carried in both the MTP and SCCP layers, leading to some options regarding
Page 10 of 19
where to place the serve-specific value. Except where noted, the SCCP point codes are assumed to either be absent, or the same as their MTP counterparts.
HLR
REGNOT: DPC = HLR PC OPC = RSP PC SMS_Address = RSP new PC for serve regnot: DPC OPC = RSP PC = HLR PC
RSP
Page 11 of 19
SMDPP:
MC
smdpp:
RSP
As an alternative, the RSP could modify the SCCP CgPA PC, while leaving the OPC untouched. This may represent a simpler development effort for the RSP than the MTP modification discussed above. The resulting messaging is shown in Figure 11 below:
SMDPP: DPC OPC CdPA CgPA = MC PC = RSP PC = MC PC/SSN = RSP new PC for serve + SSN
MC
smdpp: DPC OPC CdPA CgPA = RSP new PC for serve = MC PC = RSP new PC for serve + SSN = (MC PC)/SSN
RSP
The Return Result addressing is identical to the MTP modification case. Although it would be convenient if the Return Result were to use the RSP (generic) PC at the MTP layer (thereby avoiding the need for STP routing tables to include the serve-specific PCs), this is unlikely to be the case for real-world MCs. The reason is that the internal primitive used to pass the received message from the SCCP layer up to the application can only carry a single point code. If, as here, both MTP and SCCP carry a (different) PC, only that from SCCP will be preserved. When the application sends the return message, it will be directed to the PC seen by the application. Both SCCP and MTP will use this PC for their respective destination address parameters. This arrangement is shown in Figure 12 below:
Page 12 of 19
Home Operator MC
Appln
N-UNITDATA Indication Calling Address = RSP new PC for serve + SSN Called Address = MC PC User Data N-UNITDATA Request Calling Address = MC PC/SSN (or blank) Called Address = RSP new PC for serve + SSN User Data
SCCP
MTP-TRANSFER Indication OPC = RSP PC DPC = MC PC User Data MTP-TRANSFER Request OPC = MC PC DPC = RSP new PC for serve User Data
MTP
SMDPP smdpp
For the home operator, the SCCP modification approach may mean that no STP gateway screening changes are required (unless gateway screening / access mediation is used that checks the SCCP CgPA). Although the use of different MTP and SCCP PCs may be somewhat unusual, there should be no problem transporting these messages through the operators network, as the SCCP layer is not examined by STPs. The generation of a billing record is presumably a function of the application, rather than the signaling transport layers. The point code included in the billing record should therefore be the one carried in SCCP, which will give the desired effect of identifying the serving network.
Page 13 of 19
SMDPP:
MC
smdpp:
RSP
MC
smdpp: DPC OPC CdPA CgPA = MC PC = RSP PC = MC PC/SSN = RSP new PC for serve + SSN
RSP
MC
SMSNOT: DPC = MC PC OPC = RSP PC SMS_Address = RSP new PC for serve smsnot: DPC OPC = RSP PC = MC PC
RSP
Page 14 of 19
3.2.
For operators using Global Title (GT) routing to signal to/from the RSP, a serve-specific Global Title is used instead of a Point Code. The MC must include the SCCP Called/Calling Party Address Global Title in its billing record to enable MT/MO servespecific billing, respectively. The following subsections discuss changes for individual scenarios.
Page 15 of 19
SMDPP:
MC
STP
RSP
smdpp:
MC
STP
RSP
smdpp:
Page 16 of 19
3.3.
Discussion
The solution described above should meet operators needs for serve-specific billing for SMS roaming. Operators using PC routing and those using GT routing require different solutions, both of which must be supported by the RSP. Two options are shown for PC routing. The SCCP modification approach is preferred on the assumption that this is easier for the RSPs to implement (and may also require fewer Gateway Screening changes on the part of the home operator). The requirements on the MC billing record should be the same for either option.
Page 17 of 19
4. Glossary
CDG CdPA CgPA DPC GT GTT HLR IMSI IRT MAP MC MCC MNC MO MSC MSCID MT MTP OPC PC RSP SCCP SMDPP SMS SMS_OA SMSC SMSNOT SMSREQ SSN TFA TFP VSWG CDMA Development Group Called Party Address Calling Party Address Destination Point Code Global Title Global Title Translation Home Location Register International Mobile Station Identity International Roaming Team Mobile Application Part Message Center (aka SMSC) Mobile Country Code Mobile Network Code Mobile-Originated Mobile Switching Center Mobile Switching Center Identification Mobile-Terminated Message Transfer Part Originating Point Code Point Code Roaming Service Provider Signaling Connection Control Part SMS Delivery Point to Point Short Message Service SMS_OriginatingAddress Short Message Service Center (aka MC) SMS Notification SMS Request Sub-System Number Transfer Allowed Transfer Prohibited Voice & SMS Working Group
Page 18 of 19
The parameters described below meet many but not all of these criteria. For the Invoke, custom values of the SMS_OriginatingAddress (SMS_OA) are used to identify the serving network. Information available at the time of writing indicates that while some operators may populate this parameter, no-one is examining it when received at the MC. Whether it is included on MC billing records is unknown. The exact format of the identifier is largely unimportant, and is left for future specification if required. An MSCID-like value or MCC-MNC would seem to be logical candidates. For the Return Result, ANSI-41 Rev E (following IS-725) allows the presence of the MSCID parameter in the message. Although intended for OTASP usage, the MC could be modified to include this value in the billing record (no further MC action on this parameter is required). A single MSCID per serving operator would be defined and advised by the RSP. The serve-specific values chosen are assumed to be common for all home operators using this solution. This is in contrast to the transport-layer solution in the main body of the document, in which a full set of per-serving roaming partner values is maintained by the RSP for each participating home operator. Figure 18 and Figure 19 below show the changes to the SMDPP/smdpp operation for MO- and MT-SMS. PC routing is assumed in the diagram, but the MAP layer changes
Page 19 of 19
apply equally to GT routing. All other operations are unchanged from the existing arrangement.
SMDPP:
MC
DPC = MC PC OPC = RSP PC SMS_OriginatingAddress = Serve-specific value smdpp: DPC OPC = RSP PC = MC PC
RSP
SMDPP:
MC
smdpp:
RSP