Discussion on EPC-less E-UTRAN Operation for Public Safety (EEOp)

637 views
503 views

Published on

Many national and international Public Safety organisations have endorsed or are considering LTE as the next generation technology either to augment their existing systems, or to provide a future migration path. For public safety operators and their users, the primary perceived benefit of proximity services will in most instances be the actual communication that is possible with other UEs in the absence of network coverage (it is imagined that in many public safety scenarios discovery will be implicit).

In many critical incident related scenarios, the benefit of ensuring the continued ability to communicate between Public Safety officers on the ground, even though they may be moving in and out of LTE network coverage or out of network coverage completely, will be of the utmost importance. To provide voice, video, and data communication service for Public Safety officers which are out of LTE network coverage, the Public Safety authorities may deploy a mobile command post equipped with an eNB or set of eNBs to facilitate communications for nearby Public Safety UEs beyond what is provided by Proximity Services in UE-to-UE direct communication mode. The eNB within a mobile command post could be either a single autonomous eNB without a link to the core network or a set of eNBs without backhaul links but linked to each others.
A second scenario exists where an unexpected incident interrupts and the backhaul /or link between the eNB(s). If such a situation arises eNB(s) are expected to provide resilient operation.
It is vital for the mobile command post to support continuous mission critical network operations regardless of the existence of the backhaul link. When the backhaul link to the core network is unavailable, Public Safety eNB(s) within the mobile command post could either operate autonomously or coordinate with other nearby eNB(s) to provide locally routed communications for nearby Public Safety UEs within a region.

For example, it is undesirable for a UE to have to re-establish communications as backhaul link(s) are lost and then regained in a mission critical situation; handling the dynamics of this loss and resumption is important. Furthermore, FS_ProSe and GCSE_LTE are defining requirements for public safety discovery and communications (including group communications) in the cases of no network coverage and of full (E-UTRAN and EPC) network coverage. The need for discovery and communications will be equally appropriate in the case that a mobile command post eNB(s) with no EPC connectivity is(are) supporting LTE network coverage for a collection of UEs deployed to a public safety incident.

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
637
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Discussion on EPC-less E-UTRAN Operation for Public Safety (EEOp)

  1. 1. 3GPP TSG-SA WG1 Meeting #60 S1-124025 Edinburgh, UK 12th November – 16th August 2012 Agenda Item 5.3 - Proposals for new work (precursor to future Study and Work Items) Source: Institute for Information Industry (III), US Department of Commerce, General Dynamics Broadband, Harris Corporation, ITRI Discussion on EPC-less E-UTRAN Operation for Public Safety (EEOp) Kanchei (Ken) Loa loa@iii.org.tw Yi-Hsueh Tsai lucas@iii.org.tw 1
  2. 2. Tentative Time Scale • • • • • • SA1 #60: Initial FS_EEOp draft for discussion SA1 #61: Revised FS_EEOp draft for discussion SA1 #62: Propose FS_EEOp study item SP #60: Approved FS_EEOp study item SA1 #63~66: Call for use cases and requirements SP #64: Approved TR regarding FS_EEOp SA1 #60 SA1 #61 SA1 #62 SA1 #63 SA1 #64 Time Line Nov ‘12 June ‘13 SP #60 SA1 #65 SA1 #66 June ‘14 SP #64 2
  3. 3. Example Scenario #1 an eNB permanently without connection to the EPC Public Safety eNB Public Safety UE Public Safety UE mobile command post #1 Officer #1 Officer #2 3
  4. 4. Example Scenario #2 a set of eNBs permanently without connection to the EPC but connection to other eNB(s) Public Safety UE Public Safety UE Public Safety eNB Public Safety eNB Officer #1 Officer #3 Public Safety UE Public Safety UE mobile command post Officer #2 mobile command post 4 Officer #4
  5. 5. Example Scenario #3 an eNB temporarily without connection to the EPC Public Safety eNB EPC Public Safety UE Public Safety UE mobile command post #1 Officer #1 Officer #2 5
  6. 6. Example Scenario #4 a set of eNBs temporarily without connection to the EPC but connection to other eNB(s) Public Safety UE Public Safety UE EPC Public Safety eNB Public Safety eNB Officer #1 Officer #3 Public Safety UE Public Safety UE mobile command post Officer #2 mobile command post 6 Officer #4
  7. 7. Example Scenario #5 a set of eNBs temporarily without connection to the EPC or other eNB(s) Public Safety UE Public Safety UE EPC Public Safety eNB Public Safety eNB Officer #1 Officer #3 Public Safety UE Public Safety UE mobile command post Officer #2 mobile command post 7 Officer #4
  8. 8. Expected Output • Technical Report regarding Feasibility Study on EPC-less E-UTRAN Operation for Public Safety (FS_EEOp) 8
  9. 9. Draft WID S1-124037 Draft Feasibility Study on EPC-less E-UTRAN Operation for Public Safety (FS_EEOp) 9

×