Nan Chen, President, MEF - PowerPoint Presentation

Nan Chen, President, MEF New Mobile Backhaul Initiative to Resolve 4G/LTE Backhaul’s Most Costly Challenge Introduces

MEF Initiative for Mobile Backhaul According to all wireless operators, delivering the bandwidth required in the 4G-LTE wireless backhaul is “the single biggest challenge and operating cost in the industry.”

New Mobile Backhaul Initiative from the MEF MEF believes this will have significant, positive impact for the 4G/LTE Savings of 25% or more for Mobile Operators 2-3 times the revenue for Access Providers from currently deployed infrastructure Achievement of these results while delivering the same or better mobile user Quality of Experience

New MBH Ph 2 Implementation Agreement Requirements for implementing Carrier Ethernet for Mobile Backhaul MEF 22.1 An Industry-Defining 4G/LTE Suite Carrier Ethernet Service Definitions Carrier Ethernet Service Attributes MEF 6.1 MEF 10.2 10.2.1 MEF 6.1.1 New / recent underlying Carrier Ethernet Definitions New CoS Ph 2 Implementation Agreement Class of Service IA, Multi-CoS, application oriented and distance Performance Objectives MEF 23.1 MEF Guidance and Educational Papers implement Multiple Classes of Service (“Multi-CoS ”) Carrier Ethernet for MBH How to Multi-CoS Positioning Multi-CoS Best Practices Packet Synch for CE over MBH Deploying IEEE 1588 v2, Synch Ethernet Why Tech Overview Presentations FAQs Press Release Videos, Webinar Other Deliverables

Optimizing Mobile Backhaul MEF 22.1, MEF 23.1 New Technical Work Addresses Industry’s Biggest Challenge Multi-Cos: efficiency, better, predictable QoS New performance objectivesService mapping, Link & Service OAM, resiliencyPacket & network-based synch4G(plus 2G, 3G and migration use cases) New Multi-CoS Positioning Paper Help operators understand time is of the essence A tool to start a Multi-CoS Project Best practices paper provides implementation guidance

Multi-Cos: Solution to the industry’s biggest issue The moment when costs will outstrip revenue is fast approaching Most Providers have taken first steps to Carrier Ethernet But with simplistic approach:all traffic treated the same Negative impact is inevitable Time Voice Era Data Era Transition Volume of Network Traffic Cost Revenue Costs outstrip Revenue Traffic Volume / dollars

Single Class vs. Multi Classes (1) Result/Impact Needs very costly overbuild Does not scale - recipe for going out of business High priority traffic subject to delay – especially during traffic bursts and peaks An Access Provider EVC All one Class of Service: costly and with QoS issues Access Provider Bursty, delay & loss tolerant data Delay-sensitive real time data Mobile Operator

Single Class vs. Multi Classes (2) Access Providers (aka Backhaul Operators ) More revenue for same cost: more users, more responsive QoS Avoids costly over-buildMaximize profitability – leverage Ethernet packet efficiencyMobile Operators25% + Savings in a multi-multi-billion Industry Enables resolution of most critical challenge:“Handling unprecedented growth of data while preserving or improving QoS.” Result/Impact An Access Provider EVC Mobile Operator Prioritizing Data: 1. Network control 2. Interactive voice, video, 3. Signaling, 4 Internet data, business data, streamed video High Priority Lane Low Priority Lane Bursty, delay & loss tolerant data Delay-sensitive real time data Multiple-Classes of Service: great rewards

MEF Provides Guidance on Synchronization All generations require synchronization technologySynch must be maintained in packet-only environments such as 4G/LTESupport is required for Indoor cell sites, backup for GPS-based clocking Education on use of frequency, phase & time synchronization Carrier Ethernet Network UNI RAN BS RAN NC UNI RAN BS UNI PRC

MBH Summary Ethernet adoption accepted by vast majorityInitial, single-class adoption needs rapidly replacing with “Multi-CoS” MEF: new solutions for optimization of MBH Leadership, Standards, Guidance, EducationMEF 22.1, MEF 23.1 Multi-CoS, SynchronizationTotal impact of new MEF workLarge savings, additional revenueEqual or better QoSSustainable future for MBH

Back up slides

Traffic Profile Used in the Positioning Paper Traffic Type Required Bandwidth (Mbit/s) Required Performance across the Access Provider networkOne-way Frame Delay (ms) One-way Delay Variation (ms)FrameLoss (%)Synchronization0.5 10 5 0.01% Voice/Conversational & Control 3.5 15 5 0.01% Streaming Media 6 20 10 0.01% Interactive and Background 40 37 Not required 0.1% Representative traffic profile for a 50Mbit/s backhaul circuit used as a basis in the paper to compare Multi-CoS backhaul with Single-CoS backhaul Only 8% of traffic is FD, FDV sensitive . Multi-CoS could allow 10x oversubscription before voice quality impacted !

QoS/CoS Drivers in Mobile Networks 0.05% 0.025% 0.075% 040ms20ms 10ms30msSynchronization Traffic (0.5 Mbit/s)Timing for synchronization Voice / Conversational & Control (3.5 Mbit/s) VoIP bearer traffic Signaling OAM Acceptable Level of Frame Loss Across Access Network Streaming Media (6Mbit/s) Priority IP traffic where a premium price is paid to Mobile Operator Application where Mobile Operator wants to differentiate quality Acceptable Delay Across Access Network 0.1% Background /Interactive (40Mbit/s) Web surfing Peer to Peer Non-priority streaming media Required Bandwidth

Mapping traffic types into single COS EVC Up Stream Egress Queues RAN BS CE Synchronization Traffic Queue Voice & Control Queue Streaming Media Queue Background/Interactive Queue RAN NC CE Single CoS Access EVC Down Stream Egress Queues C lassify 2G 3G C lassify LTE C lassify C lassify Other C lassify Port1 Port 2 C lassify Port 3 C lassify C lassify Port 4 Switch Fabric Switch Fabric Down Stream Up Stream All traffic across Access Provider EVC treated equally with Real-Time COS C lassify C lassify Synchronization Traffic Queue Voice & Control Queue Streaming Media Queue Background/Interactive Queue

Mapping traffic types into Multi-COS EVC Up Stream Egress Queues RAN BS CE RAN NC CE 3 Classes of Multiple CoS Access EVC Down Stream Egress Queues C lassify C lassify C lassify C lassify C lassify C lassify C lassify C lassify Switch Fabric Down Stream Up Stream Priority traffic across Access EVC given appropriate priority Priority per packet passed to Access Provider either using PCP or DSCP values Priority per packet passed to Access Provider either using PCP or DSCP values 2G 3G LTE Other Port1 Port 2 Port 3 Port 4 C lassify C lassify Synchronization Traffic Queue Voice / Conversational Queue Streaming Media Queue Background/Interactive Queue Synchronization Traffic Queue Voice / Conversational Queue Streaming Media Queue Background/Interactive Queue