George Malim assesses the implications of the all-IP environment for OSS and finds there are many advantages that can be derived even during that transition
 
 
 


Stephen Gleave, Metaswitch: a ctrl-tab key stroke has replaced the swivel chair



Cassandra Millhouse, Amdocs: the issue is the need for a non-silo approach



Remi Bouchard, Comverse: IP is supposed to cut operational expenditure



Ricky Watts, Aircom: to get to all-IP networks is going to take a long time



Sanjay Mewada, Netcracker: no need to wait for all-IP to access the advantages



Tony Kalcina, Clarity: the next generation network is an all-IP network 
 

Although the concept of an all-IP network is something of a misnomer, it is clear that the industry is moving towards networks predominately composed of IP with a small amount of non-IP network making the final connections to users.
From an OSS perspective, that brings the potential to increase automation and streamline processes but, while multiple network technologies are in use, the all-IP utopia remains many years away.
The need remains to continue providing non-IP network, explains Peter Agnew, a technology strategist at Colt. “We’re not rolling out a true all-IP network because, to be able to offer all the services our customers want, we need to take account of network technologies such as ethernet,” he says.
“To say we’re all-IP would be stretching the truth but, having said that, we have significant IP offerings.”
That’s a consistent approach across the industry but the transition to all-IP is happening and is significant, according to Steve Gleave, vice president of marketing in the carrier systems division of Metaswitch Networks. Gleave says established OSS vendors must take on board the understanding that windows into the network have changed.
“Operators expect an easy-to-use, web-oriented, multiple device experience. If existing OSS vendors miss this point, a major sector will be owned by new vendors,” he says.
The advantages of an all-IP environment are set to enable simplification of the network architecture, thereby generating cost reductions. “IP enables a simplification of the network architecture compared to the TDM hierarchical architecture,” says Remi Bouchard, director of Netcentrex IP Communications at Comverse.
“Therefore, IP is supposed to bring operational expenditure reductions and the expectations are also of capital expenditure reductions since IP infrastructure is supposed to be delivered on standard hardware platforms — which is not the case for TDM.”
For Martin Creaner, president of the TM Forum, the move to all-IP requires a new OSS approach. “There are some obvious technical differences which force a change in how OSS/BSS is addressed such as the move to VoIP and the collection of IP detail records, and the management of all-IP network equipment,” he says. “More importantly an all-IP network allows a different level of flexibility in terms of service creation and this drives changes in the OSS/BSS.”
The good news is that many of the OSS benefits offered by the all-IP environment can be derived without having to wait for the utopian, totally IP, architecture to arrive. “There’s no need to wait for all-IP to access the advantages,” says Sanjay Mewada, vice president of strategy at Netcracker.
Tony Kalcina, chief product officer at OSS vendor Clarity, sees a multiple network technology approach continuing as the value of old infrastructure is fully exploited; “All incumbents are transforming to an all-IP next generation network,” he says. “Although they are sweating their legacy infrastructure as much as possible, this will only last for the next five or 10 years. The replacement next generation network is an all-IP network.”
Ricky Watts, chief technology officer at Aircom, sees the hybrid composition of networks continuing for at least that period. “To get to all-IP networks is going to take a long time,” he says. “You’re always going to have this mixed approach, moving to a flattened architecture approach with a modern IP network. You’re probably going to have a hybrid [environment]. I don’t see networks going all-IP because the cost is prohibitive.”
That flattened architecture necessitates a series of different OSS approaches in order to maximise the efficiency of an operation transitioning to an all-IP environment. “All-IP networks are supposed to carry all streams of information so OSS will have to deal with the provisioning, inventory and other functions of all these various services and of all the various platforms supporting these services,” says Bouchard.
“As networks were previously devoted to the delivery of one service this obviously drastically changes the way OSS has to operate.”
However, it needn’t be that giant a leap. “Although in IP networks the transport mechanisms are based on packet technology, the services — connectivity — are conceptually identical to legacy networks,” says Mauro Carobene, head of OSS solution management and integration at Nokia Siemens Networks.
“Also, the supported operator business processes are independent of the transport technology. So the differences in OSS are mostly in the parts that relate directly to the transport technology. The simplification of the OSS can only be achieved by breaking the technology-related OSS silos and introducing end-to-end OSS applications.”
Gleave at Metaswitch takes Carobene’s point; “Service providers are demanding configuration interfaces that abstract away the complexities of equipment management,” he says.
“In an all-IP network, services are delivered across multiple products as opposed to the vertical stovepipes of the past. If the vendors do not deliver modern user interfaces that make it simple to configure services — rather than products — then the appeal of the all-IP network will be saddled with the management behemoths of the past.”
Prabir Bishayee, practice head for OSS/BSS at Wipro Technologies, points out that it’s not just a case of breaking down silos but also separating services from the network.
“IP transformation results in a converged services delivery environment that separates network access from service access,” he says. “It helps the operators to position themselves as content and solutions providers and not only as telephony providers. The silos of IT and network dissolve in the new paradigm as the proposed OSS/BSS should be dexterous enough to handle them both and address cross-domain issues.”
That silo-breaking approach is also shared by Cassandra Millhouse, director of product marketing at Amdocs. “The main issue with IP-based networks is the need for a non-siloed approach to planning and operations,” she says.
“An end-to-end view of service is required in an IP network as the customer product or bundle is made up of many pieces and all these need to be planned, provisioned and assured as a single entity. The OSS is really the only place where this can be done. Without it, customers cannot self-serve and automatically set up new services, capacity cannot be proactively monitored and trended, and service cannot be managed and assured.”
That granularity brings new capability to the OSS function, as Gleave explains. “The advantage of an all IP network is the sheer amount of data that can be collected and searched,” he says.
“When a customer call is received, the service provider has a complete, searchable record of every experience that the customer has encountered. These complete capability sets were simply not available in a non-IP world. Management interfaces are now new tabs in your existing browser. The swivel chair has been replaced by a ctrl-tab key stroke.”
Agnew at Colt sees clear advantages in the IP environment but warns challenges remain; “It is lighter in terms of its suitability for automation down to the element management capabilities of traditional OSS,” he says.
“For example, legacy SDH circuits were provisioned by inventory management and routed through the network on the basis of network availability. That is far more cumbersome than next generation management. For instance, ethernet transport can be provisioned by point and click and the job is done. That’s much less labour intensive.
“To do everything on IP manually would be far more complex,” adds Agnew. “The skills required to manage SDH are [relatively straightforward] whereas MPLS-VPN is much more complex to manage. In the IP environment the skills required are inherently greater but IP networks lend themselves to automated OSS and problem solving which can drive efficiency and takes out human error. That automation is key in delivering quickly and avoiding errors because it minimises manual processes.”
Far from seeing the OSS burden decreasing as all-IP networks deploy, Kalcina sees increased difficulty. “It is much harder,” he says. “The OSS has to fulfil the function that classical network management systems provided in the past. All-IP networks support more demanding services that require more effective customer experience management and frequent real-time adjustments to the network.”
Carobene takes a similar view but points out that the all-IP environment provides an OSS transformation opportunity. “The OSS burden does not become lighter by merely introducing all-IP networks,” he says. “However, the migration to all-IP networks offers a good opportunity for OSS transformation, which can help simplify the OSS, increase flexibility and reduce costs.”
That migration, however, will increase the OSS burden as multiple systems continue to operate. “In theory, over time the single protocol will drive down the number of systems as you will not need to manage many technologies, such as ATM or Sonet,” says Peter Briscoe, executive director of innovation in the strategy office at Telcordia.
“And there will be a common set of processes for delivering all services which will reduce operating costs in the end. However, the process to get there means there will be greater dual running therefore knowing which process to focus on first will be the major challenge to get the savings in the early stages of all-IP deployment.”
For Mewada, what looks complex can be simple and what looks simple can be complex. “In many ways, it’s a contradictory situation,” he says. “It looks complex but the opposite can be true. When you have such a dynamic [all-IP] network, you need to drive automation because you don’t have the luxury of doing things manually. It has to be automated and all-IP makes that possible. If you tried to do it manually it would be impossible.” GTB