Lessons Learned:

Implementing Private LTE

© 2019 Syniverse Technologies, LLC

Introduction 3

What is a private LTE Network? 3

Implementing a private LTE Network 4

Syniverse Innovation Lab: Test Center for private LTE and Neutral Host Models 4

Implementing a private LTE Network 5

LTE Small Cells 5

Syniverse findings 5

More on the CBRS Alliance 7

Core Network 7

Syniverse findings 7

Spectrum Access Service (SAS) 8

Syniverse findings 8

Conclusion 9

© 2019 Syniverse Technologies, LLC | All rights reserved under U.S. and international copyright laws 2
Introduction

The concept of a private LTE network continues to grow in popularity as businesses and organizations with large
campuses, buildings, and properties seek improvements in their wireless connectivity options. The influx of internet
of things (IoT) applications that are becoming more critical to the operation of crucial equipment and resources in
industrial applications has driven the need for localized networks that take advantage of cellular technologies once
only achievable by larger mobile networks. At the same time, there has been a rising need for improving wireless
bandwidth at large venues and events, and for improved, secure wireless connectivity for mobile devices by
businesses and educational institutions.

Understanding not only the benefits of private LTE, but also the intricacies of how a private network is rolled-out
at a business’s location, is a critical step when evaluating how a private LTE solution will fit within one’s organization
and structure.

What is a Private LTE Network?

Private LTE is a 3GPP standards-based Evolved Packet System. The Fourth Generation (4G) mobile system
consists of two parts – a radio network utilizing Long Term Evolution (LTE) technology, and an Evolved Packet
Core (EPC) network supporting the non-wireless data connectivity, developed specifically to handle the wireless
needs for business, government or educational purposes separated from the macro LTE networks operated
by mobile operators. Taking the components necessary to support large-scale carrier networks, private LTE
networks are new, scaled-down, customized, business wireless network systems. Designed to fit a smaller
footprint, private mobile networks make it possible for businesses and organizations to cost-effectively deploy
and operate high-performance, on-premise wireless networks, without requiring access to licensed spectrum,
and while still taking advantage of the performance and global accessibility of LTE technology. This is applicable
across many industries, specifically when wireless connectivity reliability, multi-service capability, and security
have a higher level of importance.

The recent availability of Citizens Broadband Radio Service (CBRS) bands by the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) will allow businesses to gain a better level of control through the development of private
LTE networks. These LTE networks will enable in-building and outdoor coverage and capacity expansion on a
massive scale, easily deployable and cost-efficient local network capabilities, and highly secure alternatives to
Wi-Fi for communication service providers and businesses.

Private LTE will be a $16.3 billion opportunity by 2025 and the foundation
for 5G Services in vertical markets.
– ABI Research

© 2019 Syniverse Technologies, LLC | All rights reserved under U.S. and international copyright laws 3
Implementing a Private LTE Network

The implementation of a private LTE network does not come without its challenges. Syniverse
implemented a private LTE network on-site at its Tampa office in order to assess the process, resources
and complexities involved.

Earlier this year, our Syniverse Innovation Lab announced a private, high-speed, and highly secure
wireless network. The network brings together the speed of the LTE mobile standard with the versatility
of the CBRS spectrum.

Enterprise
Premises

On-site Enterprise Enterprise

Applications SGA Applications in
Public Cloud
Private LTE MME HSS
SGW/PGW
eNodeB
Policy
Secure data access
SGW PGW to cloud based
application (SGA)

Local Data access policy

Internet enforcement

Syniverse Innovation Lab: Test Center for Private LTE and Neutral Host Models

The Syniverse Innovation Lab was set up as a global, real-time test bed designed to allow companies to
experience innovative technologies firsthand and prepare for transformative technologies that will enhance the
profitability of their businesses. In this capacity, Syniverse has implemented private LTE at the Innovation Lab to
document the steps necessary to successfully install a private wireless network.

This private LTE network uses LTE small cells on every floor and connects to both a Syniverse LTE core network
and a Spectrum Access System (SAS). Not only does this allow Syniverse to showcase CBRS functionality to
customers and partners, but it also allows stakeholders to connect, develop, and test new business models that
CBRS will enable, such as neutral host networks and roaming models. In addition, the private LTE network has
provided real-world experience with the benefits and challenges involved in implementing a private network.

This paper will highlight these lessons learned while describing the critical pieces necessary to successfully
implement a private LTE network.

© 2019 Syniverse Technologies, LLC | All rights reserved under U.S. and international copyright laws 4
Implementing a Private LTE Network

Development of a private LTE network starts with implementing and connecting three core pieces:

··    
LTE small cells (eNodeB)

··    
Core network or Evolved Packet Core (EPC)

··    
Spectrum Access System (SAS)

All three pieces need to interoperate seamlessly to launch a private LTE network in the U.S. private LTE networks
outside the U.S., however, will likely not need a SAS, unless there are shared spectrum requirements.

LTE Small Cells

The macro LTE infrastructure includes a cell tower and cell sites that are called eNodeBs (Evolved Node B).
These are essentially the cell sites that are often seen scattered throughout cities and along highways. All based
on 3GPP standards, these eNodeBs allow mobile devices to connect to the mobile service provider’s network.

In the world of private LTE, eNodeBs make up small cell networks, which are smaller, lower-powered radio access
nodes than the macrocells used by mobile operators, and their setup is similar to Wi-Fi access points.

Businesses having exceptional mobile connectivity both indoors and outdoors create a baseline requirement
for applications using the IoT and mobile edge computing (MEC). For some, low latency may be important. For
others, massive device density or enhanced security is necessary. All of these can be delivered optimally by
CBRS, but the design of the network and the business model to deploy it via a private network, for example, must
be tailored to the business.

Syniverse findings

There is a lot of synchronization that needs to happen on the business network between the eNodeBs. The
reason for this is similar to a macrocellular network. The devices must have the ability to hand over between
eNodeBs. These eNodeBs are normally connected to and synchronized over the traditional business IP network.
However, synchronization is extremely sensitive in LTE, so a big part of the implementation of the hardware by
the vendors of the eNodeBs is ensuring the synchronization is correct. The IT team needs to look at its internal
architecture to minimize latency, jitter, etc. In other words, it must be a high-performance network. The routers
and switches should also support and enable Precision Time Protocol (PTP) to allow for accurate synchronization
across master and slave eNodeBs.

In addition to a high-performing network, reliable synchronization relies on GPS for the master eNodeB.
Preferably, the master eNodeB should have good signal strength from multiple satellites. In outdoor venues, the
PTP requirements in a network are less of a concern since all eNodeBs might be able to get a GPS signal, and the
architecture allows multiple master eNodeBs.

© 2019 Syniverse Technologies, LLC | All rights reserved under U.S. and international copyright laws 5
Making sure that there was a master eNodeB with good GPS visibility was something that we did not initially
consider a challenge. We expected that low-e glass would be fine, but we weren’t 100% sure. The placement of
small cells had to take into account the building architecture and materials while trying to maximize coverage per
cell site. Our limited experience with RF coverage made it a bit stressful trying to figure out optimal placement.
As much as possible, we wanted to carefully plan out the placement of eNodeBs in order to minimize additional
costs associated with relocation and reinstallation of equipment.

To plan this as best as possible, we took a tour on the roof of our Tampa headquarters building to look for a
suitable spot that had good GPS line of sight. This introduced several challenges, such as obtaining building
management’s approval and incurring additional costs for mounting and cabling on the roof.

Scoping out the roof of our headquarters for an eNodeB placement.

In addition to eNodeB locations, we determined that we also had to make a change to the Power over Ethernet
plus (PoE+) switch ports. Although PoE+ was enabled, we needed to adjust the ports to accept the additional
power draw from the eNodeBs.

Being an early adopter of CBRS, we only had a limited number of devices available for testing. Initially, our testing
was limited to unlocked Essential phones and ZTE dongles that supported band 42, which is at the lower end of
the band 48 CBRS spectrum. The ZTE dongles using band 42 never could establish a connection, so we couldn’t
use those devices to troubleshoot. Using the Essential phone helped us get several of the kinks worked out.
Using the access points with multiple cells and carrier aggregation, the download speeds where impressive,
reaching greater than 120MB, but getting to that point meant a lot of walking around and testing signal strengths,
download speeds, and handovers between eNodeBs.

As part of this, in order to maintain levels of quality and performance, we utilized equipment certified through the
CBRS Alliance’s OnGo Certification program.

© 2019 Syniverse Technologies, LLC | All rights reserved under U.S. and international copyright laws 6
More on the CBRS Alliance

The CBRS Alliance is a consortium of companies that supports the commercialization and adoption of CBRS.
They also offer their OnGo certification program that will help ensure interoperability and quality of CBRS
products and, ideally, speed up product time to market for devices and eNodeBs. Once a product is authorized by
the FCC and OnGo-certified, then it should be ready for commercial use.

Over the last few months, we’ve been able to test several OnGo-certified products, including Cradlepoint and
MultiTech . In the future, we look forward to developing and testing roaming and neutral host network use cases
as well as integrat ing multiple wireless technologies, such as CBRS and LoRaWAN (long-range wide area
network), for IoT devices.

To be authorized to field test with CBRS spectrum, Syniverse had to apply for an FCC Special Temporary
Authority (STA) license. One of our partners helped us with the application, but we mistakenly applied for the
entire band 48 spectrum, 150 MHz, and, as a result, our application was rejected. Our partner helped correct the
mistake, and after reapplying for 50 MHz, our application was quickly granted.

Core Network

The Evolved Packet Core, or EPC, represents the LTE core network, the essential infrastructure necessary for
an LTE wireless network. It provides IP connectivity for both data and voice services. In essence, the LTE mobile
network cannot work without the capabilities of an EPC. The EPC’s mobility management allows for the location
of the user’s equipment, or UE, the authentication of users, determination of the level of service access for a
subscriber, quality of service (QoS), and access to the internet.

A central part of a mobile operator’s network, the EPC network is composed of these core components: Mobility
Management Entity (MME), Home Subscriber Server (HSS), and Serving Gateway (SGW) and PDN Gateway
(PGW). Other functions often found in LTE core networks include the Policy and Charging Rules Function (PCRF)
and the Policy and Charging Enforcement Function (PCEF).

Syniverse findings

There are countless permutations, configurations and architectures in a mobile network operator’s network. This
often leads to answering technical questions with the response, “It depends.” In the case of CBRS and private LTE,
customers will often be businesses with IT departments that may not fully understand CBRS or LTE architecture
and functions. Although many services are beginning to be offered in cloud systems, such as a hosted EPC, the
complexities are often understated. It simply isn’t connecting LTE access points to cloud services.

Onboarding and troubleshooting these systems requires experience, and it’s imperative to seek out the right
vendors and partners for a successful launch. As mentioned earlier, IP metrics, such as latency, jitter, and loss,
become more important with a private LTE network than a Wi-Fi network. For example, an IT expert knows
maximum transmission unit (MTU) and the consequences of adjusting MTU values in routers and switches. This
may need to be adjusted when designing a network for private LTE. An MTU may cause fragmentation by the
Security Gateway (SeGW), since the SeGW adds overhead to the IP packet for the IPSec tunnel, which, in turn,
limits the PGW’s throughput. We configured UE MTU in the EPC to be 1,430 bytes to ensure packets would never
go beyond 1,500 bytes with overhead added.
© 2019 Syniverse Technologies, LLC | All rights reserved under U.S. and international copyright laws 7
Moving beyond network design considerations, an IT department may not have the knowledge or skill set to
troubleshoot the EPC, such as S1 interfaces (the user and control plane interfaces from an eNodeB to an
MME and SGW), or other Diameter-based interfaces. Again, the need for competent vendors and solution
providers is crucial.

Connectivity type from the business’s Radio Access Network (RAN) must also be considered. Direct
connections to its EPC provider are preferable, since they perform better and offer more security. However, cloud
implementations using the public internet can be considered for smaller businesses. Connections from the RAN
do need for the cloud provider to support a Security Gateway, which creates an IPSec tunnel that front-ends the
cloud EPC.

Spectrum Access Service (SAS)

The SAS allows companies to use the shared spectrum of CBRS safely and without interfering with critical
communications of government and military agencies. The FCC says that the spectrum used for naval
communications (military) and fixed satellite communications can be shared with commercial interests as
long as it is properly managed. SAS companies also have Environmental Sensing Capabilities (ESC) along the
coastlines of the U.S. to detect naval radar activity, so that spectrum can be managed accordingly.

Syniverse findings

As the eNodeBs come online, they first get their configuration from the cloud, then check in with the SAS to
get their spectrum allocated. The SAS checks that each eNodeB requesting spectrum is authorized by the FCC
and there is no conflict with naval communications or other “tiers” in CBRS. These tiers (see below) are the
Incumbents (military radar and fixed satellite stations), Priority Access License (PAL), which will have auctioned
spectrum, and the General Authorized Access (GAA). During our field testing, the SAS also validated our FCC
STA license. Once the green light is given, the eNodeBs then connect to their respective EPC.

Knowing this sequence of events is critical for troubleshooting:

··    
Is there a routing or connection issue with the configuration cloud environment?

··    
Is there a routing or connection problem with the SAS?

··    
Is there a connection problem to the EPC?

··    
Are the EPC nodes communicating and synchronizing (if necessary) correctly with each other?

··    
Are the Diameter attribute or value pairs correct in the EPC signaling?

··    
Are the SIM cards provisioned in the HSS?

EPC and SAS logs and alarms can be concise, industry-specific and challenging to decipher. For example, an
EPC alarm might be meaningless to SAS personnel and vice versa. Working with the correct vendors that are
knowledgeable with their respective systems will decrease implementation complexities and time to market.

© 2019 Syniverse Technologies, LLC | All rights reserved under U.S. and international copyright laws 8
Conclusion

As private LTE implementations continue to become more numerous, supporting a number of use cases
from business connectivity to the IoT, organizations must realize the steps to fully understand the required
knowledge necessary to allow for a seamless implementation. These steps include having expert knowledge of
the intricacies of setting up a small cell LTE infrastructure, including the core network and the external issues
involved. In this paper, we highlighted the findings we made while implementing a private LTE network with the
intent of offering more insight for those interested in or involved with the deployment of local wireless network.
If you would like additional information on how Syniverse can help your organization with the implementation of
a private LTE network, please visit www.syniverse.com or contact@syniverse.com.

© 2019 Syniverse Technologies, LLC | All rights reserved under U.S. and international copyright laws 9