The MPLS WG Archive

[Bora Akyol <akyol@pluris.com>]

Why not run voice just like they do in the current GSM network, and use
IP for data. Much cleaner, IMHO.

Bora


"Casati, Alessio (Alessio)" wrote:

> > ----------
> > From:         tom worster[SMTP:tom@ennovatenetworks.com]
> > Sent:         20 July 2000 18:49
> > To:   'Bora Akyol'
> > Cc:   'MPLS Mailing List (E-mail)'
> > Subject:      RE: IP header compression
> >
> > From: owner-mpls@UU.NET [mailto:owner-mpls@UU.NET]On Behalf Of Bora
> > Akyol
> > >
> > > I thought 3G speeds were up to 2Mbps. If they are still at
> > > 9.6Kbps then they
> > > should named (-1)G.
> >
> > in 3g it can, and will, change rapidly from one to the other.
> >
> >
> > > Seriously, why not run IP with VJ compression instead of MPLS
> > > all the way to
> > > the mobile phones. What else does MPLS buy you?
> >
> > as i recall: the ip version of 3g needs a tunnel from the
> > serving node down to the terminal. the ones they use in
> > gprs are way clunky for a big high speed network. mpls
> > fits the bill and, as a bonus, has this neat header
> > compression feature built right in. since the tunnel
> > can cross several hops, mpls works better than datalink
> > compression.
> >
> > i don't work on that stuff so don't take my word. maybe
> > there's a 3g expert on the list who can give you a better
> > answer.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> In UMTS two GTP (GPRS Tunnelling Protocol)tunnels between
> RNC and SGSN and between SGSN and GGSN (don't care about the names)
> are concatenated to deliver packets to the radio link to
> the User Equipment.
>
> this is the protocol stack if such tunnels would run over MPLS:
>
> MPLS/IP/UDP/GTP/IP
>
> If we want to do voice over IP in this system
>
> MPLS/IP/UDP/GTP/IP/UDP/RTP
>
> The overhead for a voice frame is around 500-600%
>
> I would guess we could do something about it.
>
> So, let's compress.
>
> alessio