Shaping Future 6G Networks. Группа авторов

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ define requirements and help build a supply chain ecosystem to realise its objectives [20].

      The Alliance, which was launched in 2018, seeks to:

      drive new levels of openness in the radio access network of next generation wireless systems [20].

      This is significant because the RAN accounts for up to 70% of a mobile operator’s total infrastructure [21].

      Others, such as the Open RAN Policy Coalition, pursue similar goals, aiming to:

      promote policies that will advance the adoption of open and interoperable solutions in the Radio Access Network (RAN) as a means to create innovation, spur competition and expand the supply chain for advanced wireless technologies including 5G [22].

      In this context, the term “open” is used to denote the opening of interfaces:

      While 3GPP defines the new flexible standards… the O‐RAN Alliance specifies reference designs consisting of virtualised network elements using open and standardised interfaces [23].

      As such, current “open” initiatives are tightly bound to 3GPP standards [24]. They do not seek to replace 3GPP standards, in other words, but rather to augment them. So, while there may, in time, be divergence from 3GPP efforts, such divergence is not the raison d’être for such organizations. They are focused on diversity and innovation, not a radical new approach to standards.

      That’s because 3GPP defines functionality, while implementation has been the preserve of the vendor. By enabling further decomposition and promoting off‐the‐shelf hardware and processing solutions, it is hoped that more stakeholders can deliver discrete components, ultimately resulting in a more diverse supply chain – each element could be said to represent a lower barrier of entry.

      The recent policy decisions by national governments that we have already discussed highlight the importance of promoting such efforts, and there is growing eagerness among the operator community to adopt products that result and which reduce dependency on a small number of powerful vendors.

      In summary, 3GPP standards have had the perverse effect of limiting supply to the operator community by creating difficult barriers for new entrants to surmount, but initiatives that seek to break this model are gaining ground and are likely to lead to a more diverse vendor community – which is increasingly politically desirable to de‐risk supply chains and to avoid dependence on HRVs.

      Moves are afoot to find alternative actors and even new national champions to deliver critical infrastructure. Some also seek early deployment of 6G, which may end reliance on 3GPP, as we have seen. And, other bodies could also create new open standards that can be adopted by the industry at large or by discrete sectors.

      From where else may such pressures come? Another avenue to explore is the nature of 5G itself. There are aspects of 5G that move beyond traditional models and that suggest a future non‐3GPP‐based approach. We shall explore this briefly.

3.7 New Operating Models

      5G brings a shift from tightly specified protocol interaction between different systems and entities within the mobile network, to interaction based on APIs. While these may be specified, they may also evolve rapidly. The API‐based network may also lead to fragmentation, as different approaches to APIs for specific integration requirements emerge.

      Until 5G, mobile network architecture had followed a broadly similar template. Functional entities are defined, with interfaces specified that allow communication and information transfer between them, according to rules and criteria. The interfaces have been implemented using standardized protocols. As such, a vendor can develop a solution to meet functional criteria and then use the required interfaces to connect to the relevant adjacent nodes. Protocols used have included the Signaling System No. 7 (SS7) family of interfaces, session initiation protocol (SIP) and Diameter, as well as others such as H.248, and so on.

Access to mobile entities has also been possible from external systems. While there have been different approaches to this, the general principle is that application programming interfaces (APIs) can be exposed, enabling third‐party systems and processes to control, at some level, services and procedures within the mobile core. Examples of such initiatives include Parlay, among others. Although there is a long history of such initiatives, adoption and uptake were relatively slow and constrained, but, today, RESTful API exposure is relatively commonplace.

      5G is different, because API exposure has become fundamental to both internal and external systems. Third‐party access will be enabled by RESTful APIs, but this now also extends to internal communications. This is due to the adoption of the new service‐based architecture (SBA). Functions that are internal to the 5G core – network functions (NFs) – will connect to others via service‐based interfaces (SBIs), which will also present RESTful APIs [25]. “It is this change that enables the network programmability, thereby opening up new opportunities for growth and innovation beyond simply accelerating connectivity” [26].

      This is an important shift – not only for how 5G networks will be built and for how innovation from operators and third parties will be enabled but also because it points to the likely growth in openness of all subsequent generations of mobile technology. With APIs available internally and externally, there may be less need for the standardization of such interfaces and, instead, more emphasis on a functional definition, not a specified definition.

      As such, it can be seen that 5G networks are inherently more open than any previous generation and that 6G is likely to adapt and build on the same principles. Vendors and solution providers will be able to create their own APIs – for internal and external consumption. As such, other interest groups will, in all likelihood, align around the needs of vertical industries (as has already happened) and hence drive APIs and SBIs defined according to their needs, in addition to any defined by a globally focused standards organization – or any others that emerge, for that matter. They may derive their own interpretations of IMT‐2030 in order to accelerate time to market and alongside efforts from 3GPP.

3.8 Research – What Is the Industry Saying?

      Stakeholders believe that 6G can be standardized by 2030 and that 3GPP will play a leading role. However, it is increasingly difficult to be heard, with the result that independent voices could lead to new approaches, while growing political pressure is also recognized – and could be disruptive.

      Thus far, we have considered factors that are shaping 5G and are likely to influence the ways in which 6G is likely to take shape. We have explored how standardization happens, based on high‐level definition of performance goals in the shape of ITU‐T IMTs; the increasingly diverse stakeholder ecosystem; political influences; emerging models for open solutions; and changes inherent to 5G architecture that are likely to have significant and lasting impact on all subsequent generations of mobile technology. We also conducted interviews with a number of industry stakeholders to solicit external opinions.

      The interviews were conducted in July 2020. Representatives from academia, standards bodies, and the wider industry were presented with the same set of questions. Key findings are discussed next.

3.9 Can We Define and Deliver a New Generation of Standards by 2030?

      Respondents believe that we can, presumably based on the success of moves toward 5G. However, when asked if the definition of 6G should be led by traditional stakeholders – in other СКАЧАТЬ