ims status (tno presentation for ims arcs workshop 2008)

8/6/2019 IMS Status (TNO Presentation for IMS ARCS Workshop 2008)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ims-status-tno-presentation-for-ims-arcs-workshop-2008 1/15

Toon Norp, Business Consultant

Presentation for IMS ARCS Stakeholder event

Examining the status of IMS



Dublin, October 2008IMS ARCS Stakeholder Event2

TNO is a leading independent contractresearch organization

• About TNO• Founded by a Dutch law

• Independent organisation• Annual turnover: EUR 579 mln• ~ 4600 Employees

• TNO Information and Communications Technology• Established: January 2003, bundling of former KPN Research

with ICT related departments within TNO• One of the largest ICT knowledge centres in Europe• Annual turnover: EUR 42 mln• 390 professionals, mainly PhD or MSc

• TNO and IMS

• Extensive experience since start of IMS in standardisation• IMS consultancy: strategy, impact analysis, RFQ & architecture support, business modelling• IMS Experience Centre for proof of concept demonstrations• IMS surveys• Standardisation

Services

Organization&

Processes

Markets&

CustomerBehaviour

BusinessModels

Technology

TNO ICT expertise*




Outline

IMS strategy

IMS status

IMS interoperability

Conclusions

IMS survey




IMS surveys

• IMS vendor survey *)• In 2007 TNO conducted a

survey amongst some 20

IMS vendors to hear their

views on IMS vision,

interoperability and

service creation

• IMS operator survey *)

• In 2008 TNO conducted a

survey amongst 17

European operators to

hear their views on IMS

vision, business drivers,

and IMS status

IMS Survey

24%

6%

58%

12%

Fixed

Mobile

Fixed + MobileCarrier

*) The IMS vendor survey report is freely downloadable via www.tno.nl/ims, the IMS operator survey report can be purchased via the same website.




IMS strategy options

• Operator provides same services as before

• Replace existing network with IMS network to

achieve OPEX reduction

Cost reduction

• Applications provided by third parties

• Operator add billing, QoS, subscription and

basic connectivity

3rd party

Intermediary

• Operator provides integrated services

• Service innovation is key

Service

Integration

IMS Strategy




First IMS services

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

H o s t e d

P B X

S I P

t r u n c k i n g

C

o n s u m e r

V

o I P

f i x e d

P r e s e n c e /

m e s s a g i n g

R o u t i n g

s e r v i c e

V C C

V o I P

f o r

m o b i l e

I P

T V

I P X

O t h e r

17%

24%

34%

24%Replacement services

Fixed Mobile Convergence

Enriched voiceOther

Operator plans

Vendors’ view

Voice services focus of first IMS deployments

IMS Strategy




Main business driver for IMS

“[IMS is] Strategic platform for OPEX savings.” “[IMS is] Strategic platform for OPEX savings.”

OPEX/CAPEX savings and converged services arethe main business driver for operators to migrate to IMS

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Alignment with standards

Converged services

PSTN replacement

Legacy VoIP replacement

Shorter time to market

Network evolution / rationalisation

OPEX/CAPEX reduction

None

IMS Strategy




0%0%

34%

18%

24%

24%0%

Not thinking about it

Considering future use

Experimenting / trials

Concrete plans for introduction

Implementing infrastructure

Commercial exploitation

Decision not to implement IMS

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Most operators will launch before 2010

Mar-06 Oct-06 Apr-07 Nov-07 Jun-08 Dec-08 Jul-09 Jan-10 Aug-10

Status of IMS with European operators

IMS Status




IMS market penetration

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Year 1 Year 3 Year 5

Less than 10%

Between 10% and 25%

Between 25% and 50%

Between 50% and 100%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Year 1 Year 3 Year 5

Less than 10%

Between 10% and 25%

Between 25% and 50%

Between 50% and 100%

Operator expectations formarket pentration of IMS

Operator expectations formarket pentration of IMS terminals

Full market penetration not expected within next 3 years

IMS Status




Main obstacles for IMS

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Immature technology

High costs

Complexity

No IT interface standards

No IMS devices availableParadigm shift difficult

Fixed and mobile on 1 platform

No real business driver

“Main obstacle is bringing IMS from a first deployment for one or very few services into an established platform leveraging Telco assets with mashed Internet services.

Naturally the latter is at least as much a business model issue as a technical challenge.”

“Main obstacle is bringing IMS from a first deployment for one or very few services into an established platform leveraging Telco assets with mashed Internet services.

Naturally the latter is at least as much a business model issue as a technical challenge.”

Immature IMS technology still an obstacle for operators

IMS Status




Technical obstacles for IMS introduction

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

QoS guarantees

No support multiple domains

Processing time

Interoperability

Complexity

“Interoperability within one vendor is good.

Difficult with multiple vendors because of different interpretation of standards.”

“Interoperability within one vendor is good.

Difficult with multiple vendors because of different interpretation of standards.”

Operators see lack of IMS interoperability as an issue

IMS interoperabilty




Lack of interoperability

Percentage of respondents

17%

17%

22%

39%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%

Vendor specific additions

Technology not mature

enough

Standards lacking

Adaptations needed with

each vendor

• 66 % of vendors indicated IMS interoperability has not yet been achieved

• Different reasons mentioned for lack of interoperability

Vendors didn’t think interoperability has been achieved

IMS interoperabilty




Lack of interoperability

• IMS application layer:

• standards lacking• interoperability is a problem• testing of many different

entities

• ISC interface• well standardised

• vendor specifics

• IMS control layer• well standardised• few interoperability problems

• IMS handsets• many issues on end-to-end

integration

• adaptation still required

IMS

MGW

DNS ENUMIBCFMRF

HSSMGCF

XDMPOC IM P VCC TEL IPC SIPAS

SCIM

OSASCS

SCE

IM-SSF

Service Exposure Parlay X

CSCF

SOAWS

PDF

ISC

UEBGABG

PEF

IMS interoperability depends on layer

IMS interoperabilty




Conclusions

IMS is an accepted technology amongst European operatorsOperators are planning, implementing or

commercially exploiting IMS technology

IMS interoperabilty

IMS is still immatureInteroperability issues lead to proprietary solutions

Initial services are voice orientedFocus on voice makes interoperability and interconnection easier




Contact

Toon NorpBusiness ConsultantMobile Networks

TNO Information andCommunication Technology

Brassersplein 2P.O. Box 5050

2600 GB DelftThe Netherlands

T +31 15 285 72 08M +31 6 200 102 12F +31 15 285 73 70

[email protected]

More information about TNO’s activities related to IMS can also be obtained via www.tno.nl/ims

ims status (tno presentation for ims arcs workshop 2008)

Documents