3GPP Newsletter: Status 5G Architecture Study in 3GPP SA2

Nomor Research GmbH / info@nomor.de / www.nomor.de / T +49 89 9789 8000 1/17
Summary
The System and Service Aspects – Architecture
group (SA2) of 3GPP has a dedicated study item
for the study of the next generation networks. It
is expected that this work will form the basis of
the system architecture for the future 5G
networks. Within SA2 group, regular meetings
and discussions are held to discuss the progress
of this study item. NoMoR Research follows
these activities. This report presents a
condensed summary of the earlier mentioned
study item, including the latest updates from the
most recent meeting held in Vienna, Austria from
11th
– 14th
July, 2016.
Introduction
The 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) is
an organization that works on standardizing the
telecommunication network technologies. Within
3GPP, the study for the next generation
(NextGen) mobile networks1
has officially begun
with start of work on the Release-14
specifications2
. 3GPP has released a tentative
time-line for the completion of specifications for
5G networks [1] and this is shown in Fig. 1.
As it can be seen in Fig. 1, 3GPP has decided to
submit the final 5G specifications by February,
1
In this paper, the term 5G and next-gen shall be
used interchangeably.
2
Features for telecommunication networks are
2020 to the ITU-R to become part of the IMT-
2020 access technologies. There are various
groups within 3GPP working together to meet
the above mentioned target. Among the different
groups, SA2 group is in charge of developing the
system architecture. The activities of SA2 group
include identifying the main functions and
entities of the telecommunication network, and
further also deciding how these entities are
linked to each other. This paper will focus on the
5G activities of the SA2 group.
In the above mentioned Release-14
specifications, the SA2 group has explicitly
dedicated a study item for the architecture of
NextGen mobile networks. This study item is
titled as “Study on Architecture for Next
Generation system” and a technical report of this
study item is publicly available [2]. The technical
report is currently updated with every SA2
meeting [3]. The most recent SA2 meeting was
held at Vienna, Austria from 11th
July – 14th
July
2016. In this report, we summarize the study
item “Study on Architecture for Next Generation
system”, including the significant developments
from the recently held SA2 meeting.
incrementally added in different stages known as
releases.
Status of Next Generation (5G)
Architecture Study in 3GPP SA2
August 2016
Adithyan Ilangovan, Waqar Zia, Eiko Seidel
NoMoR Research GmbH, Munich, Germany

Overall plan
Study items within 3GPP, in general, have their
own execution plan. First of all, it is important to
understand the overall working plan for the
“Study on Architecture for Next Generation
system”. This will provide us a high-level
understanding of this particular study
item. The work plan for this consists of two
approaches that work simultaneously, namely:
1. Top-down approach
2. Bottom-up approach
Top-down approach
In the top-down approach, first of all a
consolidated overall 5G architecture is proposed.
The main focus of this consolidated architecture
is to identify the different generic network
functions3
(NFs) and the related interfaces,
within the architecture. Example of some of the
identified generic NFs are:
3
Network function is a processing function in a
network, which has defined functional behaviour and
• Mobility management control function
• Authentication function
• Policy control function
In this approach, the detailed functional aspects
and behavior of how each NF behaves is not
discussed. The goal is to provide a high-level
modular reference architecture for the NextGen
system. This idea is depicted in Fig. 2. As it can
be seen from the figure, NFs that will become
the functional building blocks of NextGen
network are first identified and next the
interfaces between NFs are assigned a name. To
sum it up, in this approach only building blocks
of the future 5G network are identified, not how
each of the blocks behave. The different
proposals for this approach will be later
discussed in Section “Options for the overall
architecture”.
Bottom-up approach
defined interfaces.
Figure 1 Timeline for 5G [1].

This approach in contrast to the previous one,
approaches the problem from bottom-up. Guided
by the service requirements to be met by 5G
network [4], this approach first identifies “Key
issues”4
for the future networks. For example,
one of the key requirements is to meet diverse
use cases (e.g. Internet of things, Enhanced
broadband, critical communication) on top of the
same 5G network. “Support of network slicing”
(explained in later sections) has been identified
as a “key issue”/solution for this particular
requirement. Several such “key issues”, that are
meant to address different requirements are
identified.
After identifying the key issues, detailed
architectural solutions specific to each key issue
are proposed. Typically, the architectural
solutions for key issues, will contain NFs and
interfaces that are only specific for it.
Additionally, the functional aspects of each NF
within the architecture is explained in detail.
Also, the signaling flow between the different
4
The key issues could be thought of as innovative
features that are introduced in 5G networks to meet
NFs is also discussed. This idea is depicted in
Fig. 3. For example, an architecture for the
“Support of network slicing” will have a NF in the
Access network that is unique to it. This NF
could have a “Network slice selection function"
that decides which network slice to allocate
depending upon the user requirement. It is
important to note that the NFs proposed here
need not necessarily be one of the NFs proposed
earlier in Top-Down approach (see Fig. 2).
To sum it up, this approach identifies what “key
issues” have to be solved in the NextGen
network. Then, proposes architectural solutions
that are specific to each key issue. The “key
issue” and their solutions shall be further
discussed in the later sections.
Combining Top-Down and Bottom-up
It is quite evident from the descriptions in earlier
sections that the two approaches are very
different. The Top-Down approach gives a bird’s
eye view of the architecture. Whereas, the
the next-generation requirements.
Figure 2: Top-down approach of identifying network functions and the next-gen
interfaces. Only an overall high-level architecture is proposed in this method. Network
functions (NF) will be the building blocks of the future networks.

Bottom-up approach provides the different nuts
and bolts of the architecture.
The Bottom-up approach provides “architectural
solutions to key issues with narrow scope to
specific functional areas of the network”. But,
the problem with the bottom-up approach is that
the different solutions (for the different key
issues) are not put into the context of an overall
architecture. Also, the other problem is that
there could be important “aspects that span
across the multiple key issues” [5] that have to
be looked at. The top-down approach tackles
these drawbacks. The top down approach
creates a common network architecture that is
capable of (later) integrating the different
proposed solutions. There is an understanding
within the SA2 group that the parallel progress
on both the approaches enable a comprehensive
next-gen system design [5].
Option for the overall architecture
Earlier in Section “Top-down approach”, it was
explained that the top-down approach defines an
overall consolidated architecture. In the recent
SA2 meeting, there were different options
proposed for the overall architecture in the top-
down approach. Four options to be precise, and
two among these four received most of the
interest.
The first one was proposed by a consortium of
network operators: Cisco Systems, ATT, Sprint,
Allot Communications. Their proposed overall
architecture is depicted in Fig. 4. For detailed
description of this overall architecture, refer to
[6]. During the recent meeting, it was agreed
that this current proposal does not satisfactorily
address the case of roaming. It is fair to expect
that in the future meetings; this proposal will be
updated to better accommodate the roaming
cases.
The other proposal came from a team of mobile
vendors: Nokia, Ericsson, Samsung, Intel, LG
Electronics, Alcatel-Lucent Shanghai Bell (also
Verizon). Their approach is shown in Fig. 5. For
detailed description of this architecture, refer to
[7]. Unlike the previous proposal, this approach
did include support for roaming. There was
feedback to improve certain aspects and this can
be expected to be reflected in the next meeting
cycles.
Figure 3: A depiction of bottom-up approach. An architectural solution specific to Key
issue is defined. The functions of NF are explained. Also, signaling flow between NF is
included.

Key issues and their guidelines
Earlier in Section “Bottom-up approach”, it was
explained in brief how the bottom-up approach
works. Here, we will discuss in detail about this
approach. To reiterate, guided by the
requirements and the assumptions laid out by
the other groups, the bottom-up approach
identifies “key issues” that have to be solved for
the architecture design. Further, it also proposes
solutions for “key issues”. This idea is depicted in
Fig. 6. To know more about the architectural
requirements and assumptions, refer to [2]. In
the following, we will explain about the “key
issues" and their solutions.
5
These brief descriptions come from the original
source document [2]. Reader is asked to refer to
the original document for further detailed
Key issues
In total, there are 21 “key issues" identified for
now. The key issues, along with a brief
description5
for each, are listed out in the
following:
1. Support of network slicing
Network slicing is envisioned as one of
the key capabilities that will enable
flexibility in 5G networks. Essentially,
network slicing allows multiple logical
networks to be created on top of a
descriptions.
Figure 4: Overall architecture option as proposed by network operators [6].
Figure 5: Overall architecture option as proposed by mobile vendors [7].

common shared physical infrastructure.
These different logical networks enable
operators to provide networks on an as-
a-service basis and meet the wide range
of use cases. For example, on top of the
same shared physical infrastructure,
three network slices can be created:
• Slice 1: Smartphones
• Slice 2: Autonomous driving
• Slice 3: Massive IoT
These three slices would be configured
with entirely different parameters that
are attuned for their specific use case.
In general, the greater flexibility brought
about by network slicing will help to
address the cost, efficiency, and
flexibility requirements imposed by
future services.
2. QoS framework
This key issue studies the overall QoS
framework for the system architecture.
The QoS framework ideally should
enable the operator to provide QoS for
the wide range of use cases that is
expected to be fulfilled by the NextGen
architecture.
3. Mobility frame work
This key issue will look into solutions for
a mobility management framework that
enables the operator to provide mobility
support which, if needed, includes
session continuity for all types of
devices that connect to NextGen core
via 3GPP accesses and/or non-3GPP
accesses.
4. Session management
The session management is responsible
for the setup of the IP or non-IP traffic
connectivity for the UE, as well as
managing the user plane for that
connectivity. Scenarios and mechanism
on connectionless traffic transmission,
which may not require the session to be
established, will also be investigated in
this key issue.
5. Enabling selection of efficient user plane
paths
This issue will look into the aspects of
identifying efficient user plane paths in
the NextGen networks.
6. Support for session and service
continuity
The purpose of this key issue is to study
aspects such as:
• The types of sessions to be
considered in the context of
session continuity;
• The level of session continuity
to be supported depending on
e.g. the type of service such as
broadband, group
communications, mission critical
communications, etc.;
Figure 6: Working approach for the identifying
key issues and defining their solutions.

7. Network function granularity and
interaction
As already described, future networks
network systems will consist of multiple
physical and/or virtual network functions
that may be deployed in the operator’s
network, and they should support
diverse service requirements. To achieve
such a scenario, we would have to
carefully study the function granularity.
The solution for the functional
granularity should cover:
• Criteria to determine the right
level of granularity of next
generation network functions
• The level of inter-dependency
between network functions
• Need for independent scalability
of individual network functions
8. Next generation core and access –
functional division and interface
This issue shall analyze in detail the
functionality for the Next Generation
Core and for the interface between the
access networks and the Next
Generation Core to support the LTE
radio access network, the new,
expected 5G radio access network, and
also for non-3GPP networks.
9. 3GPP architecture impacts to support
network capability exposure
As discussed earlier, the next generation
system is expected to accommodate
various services, such as massive IoT,
critical communications, and enhanced
mobile broadband. Requirements from
the network for each of the service
categories have been defined (and will
be updated). To allow the 3rd party/UE
to access information regarding services
provided by the network (e.g.
connectivity information, QoS, mobility,
etc.), the next generation system should
provide suitable access/exchange of
network/connectivity information (e.g.
via APIs) to the 3rd party/UE. This key
issue looks into such aspects.
10. Policy framework
Simply put, policy framework is a
service-based framework that is used
for flow-based online policy control, and
also for online/offline charging. Most of
the aspects are expected to be similar to
LTE/EPC. An evolution of the earlier
policy framework is expected.
11. Charging
Mobile System Architecture cannot be
considered complete without having
appropriate charging support. While the
charging requirements in Next
Generation System are expected to be
similar in nature to LTE/EPC, depending
upon the Next Gen System Architecture
how, where and when charging data
gets collected and communicated can be
different. This key issue will look into
the architectural aspects of collection of
charging data.
12. Authentication framework
The authentication function is
responsible for the authentication of the
identity (e.g. user identity) that is
presented to the network, when a UE
requests to receive service(s) from the
next generation network.
13. Broadcast/Multicast Capabilities
This key issue will address the need and
possible solutions to support
capabilities, such as provided by eMBMS
in LTE/EPC networks. It will specifically
investigate how to architecturally
support one-to-many and one-to-all

communications involving 5G capabilities
specified by RAN. There is also
discussion on including support for
features related to mission-critical
applications via multicast.
14. Support for Off-Network Communication
This key issue is to define support for
off-network communication capabilities
for in-coverage and out-of-coverage
devices
15. NextGen core support for IMS
This key issue will study the system
requirements and the solutions required
in order to enable the next generation
system to support IMS. The IP
Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) is an
architectural framework for delivering
internet protocol (IP) multimedia to
mobile users.
16. 3GPP system aspects to support the
connectivity of remote UEs via relay UEs
This key issue, among other things, will
study about:
• Definition of a relay UE in the
NextGen framework.
• The effects of a relay UE on the
mobility framework as well as
session management and
session continuity.
• Which functions are further
required/enhanced comparing
to Rel-13 relay UE functionality.
• If there is need for selection
criteria based on operator policy
between the direct connectivity
to the network and the
connectivity via a relay UE to
provide efficient service.
17. 3GPP architecture impacts to support
network discovery and selection
“In order to enable integration of
various 3GPP accesses and non-3GPP
accesses and to cater for the
architectural requirements and
assumptions for the NextGen system,
the introduction of a network discovery
and selection mechanism will provide
operators with a solution to flexibly
control UE to select various accesses
according to operator policy” [2].
18. Interworking and Migration
This key issue focuses on migration and
interworking scenarios.
19. Architecture impacts when using virtual
environments
The NextGen system is expected to
support deployments in virtualized
environments. This key issue will
determine the need for and architecture
impacts due to load rebalancing and
load migration in the context of:
• scaling of a network function
instance, and
• dynamic addition or removal of
a network function instance.
20. Traffic Steering, Switching and Splitting
between 3GPP and non-3GPP Accesses
For UEs that can be simultaneously
connected to both 3GPP access and
non-3GPP access, the NextGen system
should be able to take advantage of
these multiple accesses in a way that
improves the user experience, optimizes
the traffic distribution across various
accesses, enables the provision of new
high-data-rate services, etc. This key
issue will look into such aspects.

21. Minimal connectivity within extreme
rural deployments
This key issue will address the need and
possible solutions to support minimal
services in the context of extreme rural
deployments, where territories are very
large or resources are limited, e.g.,
limited electricity provided by alternative
energy sources as there is no electricity
grid, unreliable and costly backhaul, etc.
Guidelines
After identifying the key issues for the NextGen
architecture, the technical report provides “a set
of guidelines” for each key issues. The idea
behind the guideline is that they define what
aspects should the solution for each “key issue”
consider. To better elucidate this, we consider an
example in the following. One “key
issue”/feature that has been identified as
essential for future 5G network is the “Support of
network slicing”. The study item defines the
following points to be studied carefully for this
specific “key issue”:
• How to achieve isolation/separation
between network slice instances and
which levels and types of
isolation/separation will be required;
• How and what type of resource and
network function sharing can be used
between network slice instances;
• How to enable a UE to
simultaneously obtain services from
one or more specific network slice
instances of one operator;
• How to support Network Slicing
Roaming scenarios.
These points are used as guidelines to develop
solutions for the key issue: “Support of network
slicing”. Similar to the earlier shown example,
every “key issue” has a set of base guidelines (or
points) to follow. For the complete list of
guidelines for each “key issue" refer to the
technical report [2].
Architectural solutions for key issue
Based on the above mentioned guidelines,
architectural solutions are proposed for each key
issue. Until the last meeting in Vienna,
architectural solutions are still being contributed
by different consortium companies. Work is still
Figure 7: Approach of arriving at a consolidated solution for each Key issue.

in progress. Hence, there are multiple
architectural solutions proposed for a single “key
issue”. In general, these different architectural
solutions could be either competing or could
cover different aspects of the same issue.
For example, for the key issue “Support of
network slicing”, 4 solutions are proposed until
now:
• Network slicing without slicing the radio
• Network slicing selection
• Support of multiple connections to
multiple network slices
• Network slicing architecture for Network
Slice Instance Selection
In this specific example, Solution 2 and 4 offer
alternative architectural strategies on how to
select the network slice instance. Whereas,
solution 1 and 3 cover different architectural
aspects of this key issue.
Also, certain “key issues” (among the 21) do not
have any architectural solutions for now. This is
mainly due to lack of contribution from companies
towards certain key issues. Contributions are
expected in future meetings.
To conclude, there are multiple architectural
solutions proposed for a single issue. These
different solutions will be carefully compared,
consolidated and refined later during the course
of the next meetings. This idea of deriving
solution is solution is depicted in Fig. 7.
As mentioned earlier, there are different solutions
for each key issue. For the recently held Vienna
meeting, the title of all the different solutions,
along with the contributing companies, could be
found in [8]. Summarizing the large number of
solutions is out of scope of this paper. Instead, in
the following, we list out some of the interesting
solutions and provide references to them.
Interested readers can follow the references for
further details.
In the following sections, first we will discuss the
solution for “Network slicing”. Next, a solution for
“QoS framework” will be briefly discussed. Third,
the solutions for “Efficient user plane paths” will
be presented. Finally, we will look at a specific
solution for “Interworking and migration”. This
final solution was particularly interesting and it
Figure 8: Depiction of offloading data to local cache using the concept of dedicated
bearers [18].

proposed a way-forward on how to smoothly
move from the current LTE-network to 5G
including support for backwards compatibility.
Solutions for “Network slicing”
1. How to decide which network slice to
select?
There were solutions that were
dedicated to discuss about which slice
within the network should the UE be
connected to [9, 10, 11, 12, 13].
Particularly interesting was a solution
proposed by a consortium of major
mobile vendors [13]. This solution
proposed the concept of Multi-
Dimensional Descriptor (MDD) together
with other miscellaneous information to
support the Network Slicing Selection
over the NextGen system. This solution
generated a lot of discussion in the
latest Vienna meeting.
2. How to be connected to multiple
network slices at once?
There might be multiple applications
running in a single UE and there might
be a need for this UE to be connected to
multiple network slices at once. There
were solutions proposed that discussed
on how can multiple connections to
multiple network slices be achieved
[14,15].
There were few other solutions that cannot be
categorized in either of the above categories.
Refer to [8] for further details.
Solution for “QoS framework"
A solution proposed by Qualcomm “introduces a
granular traffic differentiation via a mechanism
to enable differentiated QoS treatment of
encrypted multimedia traffic (e.g. video
Figure 9: Deployment perspective for future 5G networks [20].

streaming)" [16]. This solution mainly seems
solve to the problem of traffic differentiation for
HTTP based video streaming.
Other new solutions proposed for the QoS
framework in the Vienna meeting can be found
in [16, 17].
Solution for “Efficient user plane paths"
Related to this key issue, there was a new
solution proposed for “user plane optimization
based on use of dedicated bearers” [18]. The
main idea is that some of the traffic can be
better served from an operator’s local network
that is geographically closer to the UE’s location.
“This can be the situation for the case of content
delivery networks, where the content that the
user is interested in is cached in a local network
which is closer to the UE’s location and hence
can save operator’s core network resources and
also reduce the latency in providing traffic to the
user” [18]. This idea is depicted in Fig. 8.
Essentially, a functionality is deployed in the
user-plane of the UE’s traffic. By inspecting the
traffic, this functionality enables the offloading of
traffic destined to local operator’s network. The
functionality provides features such as packet
routing, packet forwarding, traffic offloading to a
local network as well as charging. Refer to
[18] for further details.
An another interesting solution regarding the
efficient user plane paths can be found in [19].
Solution for “Interworking and migration"
In general, there were many solutions proposed
or updated for this specific key issue in the
Vienna meeting [20, 21, 22]. The document
proposed by AT&T [20] generated the most
discussion and this is summarized in the
following.
It has been agreed that the Options shown in
Fig. 9 will considered as initial deployment
options for Release-14 (note the option numbers
in Fig. 9, they shall be referenced later). Further,
it was discussed on how to move things
forwards. Especially, what are the key migration
paths, migration principles and roaming
scenarios to consider. Appropriate text has been
extracted from [20] and presented here.
The report states that Option 2 / Option 4 (see
Fig. 9) will be the target architecture for the
NextGen network. But it further argues that for
the “majority of the operators it may involve one
or more intermediate steps in some cases over a
longer period of time”. It is also to be noted that
the goals of target architecture (e.g. fulfilling
service level or architectural requirements) will
not be sacrificed in order to fit a specific
intermediate step. This target architecture along
with intermediate steps is termed as “key
migration paths” or migration scenario. The
document recommends the following migration
scenarios to be worked on in Release 14:
• [now] -> [intermediate steps] -> [Target
architecture]
a. LTE/EPC -> Option 7 -> Option 2/
Option 4
b. LTE/EPC -> Option 3 -> Option 2/
Option 4
c. LTE/EPC -> Option 3 -> Option 7 ->
Option 2 / Option 4
d. LTE/EPC -> Option 2 / Option 4
The document also recommends the following
“Key migration principles” to be considered for
the above mentioned migration paths:
• “A standalone deployment of NextGen
System without interworking is the goal
after migration. NextGen Core’s
requirements therefore shall not be
compromised to improve inter-working.”
• “eLTE in option 7 (see Fig. 9) provides
direct connectivity to the NextGen core.
Upgrade of LTE to eLTE should
therefore be considered not only from
option 7 solution perspective but also as
a migration strategy.”
Further, UE’s forward compatibility is also ensured
to be part of this work while keeping in mind UE
complexity and agreed migration paths and
roaming scenarios.

Time frame for the study item
The development of a completely new system
architecture including a new core network is a
significant and complex standardization effort.
The completion of this task is expected to take
multiple 3GPP releases. But that being said,
there is an understanding within the SA2 group
on how to meet various deadlines for anticipated
technology trials and deployment. The overall
plan is split in two stages:
1. “An early availability of basic system for
trials and limited deployments that fulfils
the goals and expectations set about for
Next Generation of System including the
Core Network."
2. “Building of a complete and feature rich
system using the basic system defined
in step 1 as a foundation thereby
ensuring backwards compatibility within
Next Gen Ecosystem."
Keeping the above guidelines in mind, in the
recently held Vienna meeting it was agreed that
“some prioritization is essential to focus on the
NextGen work on essential building blocks for
the foundation architecture” [23]. The idea is to
address important key issues in Phase 1/Rel-14
and push the other key issues to Phase 2.
Consolidated solutions for Phase-1 key issues is
expected to be available by December, 2016. In
the meeting, discussion was held on what “key
issues should be completed during the Rel-14
study to result in Rel-15 normative specification.”
[23]. The priority as decided in the meeting is
shown in Tab. 1. The whole work plan is
depicted pictorially in Fig. 10.
Table 1 : Priority of key issues.
Key issue Priority
Phase 1 or 2
(Rel. 14 or 15)
1. Support of network
slicing
Phase 1
2. QoS framework Phase 1
3. MM framework Phase 1
4. SM framework Phase 1
5. Enabling
(re)selection of
efficient user plane
path
Phase 1
6. Support for Session
and Service
continuity
Phase 1
7. NF granularity and
interaction
between NFs
Phase 1
8. NG Core and
Access - functional
Phase 1
Figure 9: Future plan of the NextGen study item.

split
9. 3GPP arch impacts
to support Network
capability exposure
Phase 2
10. Policy framework Phase 1
11. Charging Phase 1
12. Security Phase 1
13. Broadcast/Multicast
Capabilities
Phase 2
14. Support for Off-
Network
Communication
Phase 2
15. NG Core support
for IMS
Phase 1
16. 3GPP system to
support remote
UEs
Phase 2
17. 3GPP arch Impact
to support
discovery
Unclear/Still in
discussion
18. Interworking and
Migration
Phase 1
19. Virtual
environments
Phase 1
20. Traffic steering and
others
Phase 2
21. Minimal
connectivity
Phase 2
Conclusions
In this paper, we presented a condensed
summary of “Study on Architecture for Next
Generation system” study item of the SA2 group.
This study item will be basis for the next
generation telecommunication networks. The
aspects of this study item such as:
• Timeline
• Overall plan
• Features being considered
• Preliminary solutions for the features
were briefly summarized. Extensive references
are also provided in this paper for the benefit of
interested readers.

References
[1] Dino Flore, Tentative 3GPP timeline for 5G,
http://www.3gpp.org/news-events/3gpp-
news/1674-timeline_5g [Online; posted March
17, 2015].
[2] 3GPP, "Study on Architecture for Next
Generation System”, TR 23.799, version-0.5.0,
June 2016.
[3] List of all the SA2 meetings, "3GPP meetings
for group S2",
http://www.3gpp.org/dynareport/Meetings-
S2.htm?Itemid=441 [Online; posted July, 2016].
[4]"SA1 completes its study into 5G
requirements",
http://www.3gpp.org/news-events/3gpp-
news/1786-5g_reqs_sa1 [Online; posted June,
2016].
[5] 3GPP, “Proposal on NextGen Architecture
Top-Down Approach”, TDoc S2-163708, Meeting
S2-116, Vienna, July 2016.
[6] 3GPP, “Consolidated overall CN architecture
option”, TDoc S2-163265, Meeting S2-116,
Vienna, July 2016.
[7] 3GPP, “Next Generation Network
Architecture”, TDoc S2-163529, Meeting S2-116,
Vienna, July 2016.
[8] 3GPP, List of all the TDoc for the S2-116
meeting,
ftp://ftp.3gpp.org/tsg_sa/WG2_Arch/TSGS2_116
_Vienna/TdocsByAgenda.htm [Online; posted
July, 2016].
[9] 3GPP, “Selection of a network slice instance”,
TDoc S2-163338, Meeting S2-116, Vienna, July
2016.
[10] 3GPP, “Network slicing selection solution
based on Slice ID.”, TDoc S2-163344, Meeting
[11] 3GPP, “Service triggered Network slice
selection procedure.”, TDoc S2-163344, Meeting
[12] 3GPP, “Network slice selection based on
Usage class.”, TDoc S2-163399, Meeting S2-116,
Vienna, July 2016.
[13] 3GPP, “Network slice.”, TDoc S2-163507,
Meeting S2-116, Vienna, July 2016.
[14] 3GPP, “Support of multiple connection to
multiple network slices.”, TDoc S2-163707,
[15] 3GPP, “Support access to multiple
independent network slices.”, TDoc S2-163400,
[16] 3GPP, “QoS packet differentiation.”, TDoc
S2-163388, Meeting S2-116, Vienna, July 2016.
[17] 3GPP, “Application based UL traffic
differentiation.”, TDoc S2-163262, Meeting S2-
116, Vienna, July 2016.
[18] 3GPP, “Dedicated bearers based user plane
optimization.”, TDoc S2-163491, Meeting S2-
116, Vienna, July 2016.
[19] 3GPP, “Application aware UP selection.”,
TDoc S2-163600, Meeting S2-116, Vienna, July
2016.
[20] 3GPP, “Migration and interworking
aspects.”, TDoc S2-163348, Meeting S2-116,
Vienna, July 2016.
[21] 3GPP, “Solution for interworking and
migration 1.”, TDoc S2-163391, Meeting S2-116,
Vienna, July 2016.
[22] 3GPP, “Solution for interworking and
migration 2.”, TDoc S2-163481, Meeting S2-116,
Vienna, July 2016.
[23] 3GPP, “Phase 1 priority features.”, TDoc S2-
163537, Meeting S2-116, Vienna, July 2016.
Note: This white paper is provided to you by
Nomor Research GmbH. Similar documents can
be obtained from www.nomor.de. Feel free to
forward this issue in electronic format. Please
contact us in case you are interested in
collaboration on related subjects.
Please note in our assessment(s) we only
considered those facts known to us and
therefore the results of our assessment(s) are
subject to facts not known to us. Furthermore,
please note, with respect to our assessment(s)
different opinions might be expressed in the
relevant literature and for this purpose there
may be some other interpretations which are
scientifically valid.

3GPP Simulation Services
Nomor Research has developed a comprehensive
simulation environment supporting various
standards such as LTE, LTE-A, LTE-A Pro and 5G
and offers related services to support research,
development and standardisation. Different
simulator approaches include link level, system
level, protocol simulators as well as a SON
simulator.
Features of the dynamic multi-cell, multi-user
system level simulator include:
• macro-cell and HetNet deployments (pico-,
femto-cell, relay nodes)
• various feature groups e.g. eMBMS for LTE-
Broadcast, D2D for LTE V2X, SC-PTM for
Public Safety
• flexible base station and user configurations
and drop models
• different transmitter and receiver chains incl.
MIMO, ZF, MMSE
• channel modelling with slow/fast fading,
pathloss, full user mobility
• intra- and intercell interference modelling for
OFDMA, SC-FDMA and WCDMA
• 2D and 3D antenna pattern and multi-
antenna beam forming
• extensive metrics and KPIs: capacity,
throughput, spectral efficiency, user QoS etc
The simulators can be used on project basis or in
customized simulation campaigns. The perfor-
mance of the system level simulator has been
calibrated to simulation results obtained in
standardisation.
Research on advanced algorithms include, but
are not limited to:
• LTE-B, LTE-V2X, LTE Public Safety link
budget and performance analysis
• various aspects of scheduling and resource
allocation algorithms considering channel
and buffer status, QoS etc.
• inter-cell interference coordination,
avoidance and cancellation
• single user-, multi-user MIMO with open and
closed loop feedback
• cooperative multi-point transmission and
reception
• functions for self-organising and self-
optimizing networks (e.g. load balancing,
mobility optimization, tilt optimisation, range
extension, power saving etc.)
If you are interested in our services please
contact us at info@nomor.de or visit us at
http://www.nomor-research.com/simulation

Standardisation Service
Standardisation is often essential to drive
technology, to get knowledge about market
trends, customer or competitors and basically
to lay ground for future business with the
required knowledge for implementation. Real
impact in standardisation will be time and cost
intensive since it requires years of attendance
with excellent contributions, working across
various groups and contacts to the decision
makers, and is thus mostly limited to the key
player. Right not 5G standardisation starts as
a huge standardisation effort.
Nomor Research's standardisation services
provide you the resources and the knowledge
needed to understand and influence
standardisation from the beginning. Sharing
the resources between partners and projects
maximized your impact and presence while
limiting your cost.
3GPP RANx, 3GPP SAx, ETSI, DVB, IETF, ITU,
ISO/MPEG, and DASH-IF, we can support you
in manifold tasks on short notice as well as in
long lasting projects.
Contact us at standard@nomor.de or visit
http://www.nomor.de/lte-standardisation
Technology Training
NoMoR provides you professional training held
by distinguished expert in mobile
communication industry and in standards.
Standard Courses:
LTE Technology and Signalling/Protocols
Advanced LTE MIMO Technologies
LTE-Advanced and LTE-Advanced Pro
Overview Release 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14
Future LTE based Public Safety Systems
NEW: 5G New Radio and Core Network
Consulting can include, but is not limited to:
Regular standardisation updates,
In-depth information on technical areas,
Release overview, analysis, feature
roadmaps and complexity analysis,
Contribute and influence standards
activities,
Represent your company at
standardization,
Analyze the feasibility of concepts for
standardization,
Evaluation of own and other
contributions,
Answer questions concerning certain
standards.
As development cycles are getting shorter and
new technologies are emerging frequently in
a rapidly changing market, your teams need
to act quickly once strategic decisions have
been taken. Professional training tailored to
your specific needs and any level of
background will get your team up-to-date and
will save you money, since your staff can
focus on the task to be done.
Contact us at training@nomor.de or visit
http://www.nomor.de/training

3GPP Newsletter: Status 5G Architecture Study in 3GPP SA2

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to 3GPP Newsletter: Status 5G Architecture Study in 3GPP SA2 (20)

More from Eiko Seidel (13)

Recently uploaded (20)

3GPP Newsletter: Status 5G Architecture Study in 3GPP SA2