Gemming Cept Numberingandaddressing

Numbering and Addressingin

M2M Communications

Overview of the CEPT/ECC Report

ETSI TC M2M workshop, Sophia Antipolis, 20 October 2010 1

M2M CommunicationsSascha Gemming

Chairman of PT Future Numbering Issues within the CEPT

ETSI TC M2M workshopSophia Antipolis, 19-20 October 2010

Overview Who are we? Motivation of our Report Process and status of the Report Our understanding of M2M Assessment of required mobile number ressources Numbering options for M2M applications


Conclusion Draft recommendations

Who are we?

CEPT European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations Group of 48 countries developing policies on numbering and

spectrum Electronic communications committee (ECC) within CEPT

ECC WG NaN (Chaired by Jan Vannieuwenhuyse, BIPT)


Prospective regulations on numbering, harmonisation in Europe and cooperation between public authorities

WG NaN PT FNI (Chaired by Sascha Gemming BNetzA) Expert group on M2M- numbering, evolution of geographic

numbering Future work: numbering of VoIP on mobile networks

Motivation of our report Great advantages of M2M services for business and consumer

purposes expected large amount of M2M devices Machines need to be uniquely identified and addressed Use of existing network infrastructure: Economic reasonable

solution for OP and M2M SP logical choice E.164 numbers high demand for E.164 numbers Impact on numbering plans


POLICY GOALS Help regulators to develop efficient numbering solutions and to

avoid possible numbering exhaustions of existing number ranges Meet the needs of operators and M2M service providers and to

avoid the possible lock in of M2M users e.g. service providers MNC aspects fall outside of the scope (softSIM, direct assignment

to M2M users)

Process

Common effort by members of the PT FNI Many cycles of interactions and dialog with mobile operators, M2M

consultants and M2M service providers Result is the report with 4 options and draft recommendations Is under public consultation (website: www.ero.dk) In essence we ask the market to make a SWOT analyses of each

option


option Get involved, if needed anonymity is ensured (final deadline

consultation: 31 October) Final report will be adopted in WG NaN meeting (end of November)

CONCLUSION: WE NEED YOUR OPINION!

Our understanding of M2MM2M communications is understood as a fully or largelyautomated communication (data transfer) between two or more information and communications (ICT) entities, that may be part of a predetermined group

In our context M2M includes H2M and M2H


Usually the Operator assigns numbers to the M2M SP Today many M2M SP deploy business models on mobile

infrastructures in practise E.164 mobile numbers are needed Typically M2M end-users buys whole M2M package including

CPE, communication process and number numbers not visible for end users no need for user friendliness concerning numbers

Assessment of required mobile number resources Little reliable information on existing market situation for M2M Difficult to estimate the success of different M2M products Estimates do not necessarily take account of all future machine

related applications

Methodology: Information from different sources were collected


Information from different sources were collected We use the number of inhabitants as starting point Amount of used M2M numbers per capita today were assumed Different grow rates were assessed (2010-2020)

Assumptions are not based on scientific facts but rather estimates on markets by different players.

Other M2M growth assumptions Berg Insight estimates an increase of 32,9% M2M connections to

networks in Europe- giving 52m in 2011 Service provider estimation for the Netherlands (16,5 million

inhabitants): 25 million M2M numbers required within 10 years Operator estimation for France (~63m inhabitants): 5m M2M

devices in 2010 and more than 70m M2M devices in 2020 An household (given that 75% have 3 smart metering systems, 25%


An household (given that 75% have 3 smart metering systems, 25% have security systems and 50% of the cars have 2 M2M devices) based approach results in 1.4 devices per capita in 2020

CONCLUSION For our study we assume that in 2020 1,4 devices i.e. numbers per

capita are needed (average grow rate of 20%) Highly unpredictable: immature market

Numbering options for M2M applications Most M2M applications will be based mainly on mobile networks Mobile networks today are not capable to support IP based mobile

access E.164 numbers from national numbering plans seems to be the

most suitable solution for the short and medium run. Likely that IPv6 addressing become more important in the long run


Following options were considered:

A: Existing mobile number ranges E.164 numbersB: A new number range E.164 numbers C: An international number range E.164 numbersD: Network internal numbers NO E.164 numbers

Option A: Existing mobile number ranges Complies with ITU-T Rec. E.164 (interconnection and international

traffic is possible; max. 15 digits) Number portability is directly applicable (flexibility to change

operator) May not allow separate back-office solutions for M2M applications Number ranges may be quite full already (8 CEPT countries do not

have sufficient numbering resources according to our estimation)


have sufficient numbering resources according to our estimation) Less new capacity than the network internal number option D Advantage: Business as usual no changes needed

Option B: New number range Must comply with ITU-T Rec. E.164 (interconnection and

international traffic is possible; max 15 digits) Number portability is applicable (flexibility to change operator) Enough capacity available if full number length is used A fresh start for number analysis Different regulatory requirements possible if needed May allow easier back-office solutions, such as charging and billing


May allow easier back-office solutions, such as charging and billing

Option C: international number range Comply with ITU-T Rec. E.164 (interconnection and international

traffic is possible; max 15 digits) Number portability is applicable (flexibility to change operator) Full capacity of numbers is available Number range needs to be assigned by the ITU and the applicant

needs to be qualified International number, i.e. international prefix has to be always used


International number, i.e. international prefix has to be always used Challenges in number analysis and effective routing New interconnection agreements might be negotiated May need to be treated in the same way as other international

traffic

Option D: Network internal numbers Not regulated in many countries; decisions and management by

operators Same numbers can be used in every network allowing multiplied

capacity Allows long numbers with much capacity even longer than 15

digits numbers are possible if technical feasible No need for determining number length Allows use of hexadecimal digits if technical feasible


Allows use of hexadecimal digits if technical feasible Number portability is in practise not possible M2M SP is locked

with one operator => possible competition issues Difficult or impossible to evolve to network external mode if

required for some reason Didnt comply with ITU-T Rec. E.164 International traffic and

Interconnection only possible with special routing agreements

Conclusion High level of uncertainty on average grow rate of required M2M

E.164 numbers Significant number of CEPT countries dont have sufficient capacity

in the mobile number ranges In the long run IPv6 addresses will become superior No harmonised approach on M2M numbering Solutions in Europe is

needed


needed Combination of options A-D is possible What are further requirements on M2M communications which

might impact the numbering solutions?- Different markets - Data retention- CLI - Emergency calls- Legal interception - Directory services

Draft Recommendations NRA should in cooperation with marked players develop M2M

numbering policies to accommodate future growth Policies should be flexible enough to accommodate also a longer

term solution IPv6 addresses should preferably be used as long term solution for

M2M and other device based communication services The new numbering schemes should not prohibit competition Option A (existing Numbering ranges) should not be used where


Option A (existing Numbering ranges) should not be used where M2M and traditional telecommunication need to be distinguished (e.g. from a regulatory point of view)

Option B (new number range) and D (network internal numbers) are needed if existing numbering ranges can not accommodate the need for numbers

For M2M services where NP is an obligation option D should be excluded

Considerations regarding new M2M number ranges New numbering ranges should accommodate also future

applications similar to M2M and do not have prohibitive conditions to such applications

New numbering ranges should not be used as alternative to existing numbering ranges to escape regulatory requirements


Thank you


Documents

Gemming Cept Numberingandaddressing