8/17/2019 Sample Core Technical Audit Report.pdf
1/90
8/17/2019 Sample Core Technical Audit Report.pdf
2/90
Core Network Audit Report for XXXX
Aircom International 2011– Commercial & Confidence Page | 2 of 90
Table of Contents
1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................. 9
2 NETWORK OVERVIEW ..................................................................................................................................... 9
2.1 Core Hardware Location per City ............................... ........................... .......................... ...................... 9
2.2 BSS Hardware Location per City ............................. .......................... .......................... ......................... 10
3 CAPACITY ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................................................... 11
3.1 VLR Subscriber Register Capacity ............................... ........................... .......................... .................... 11
3.2 VLR Subscriber Capacity Currently in Use ............................ .......................... .......................... ............ 12
3.3 VLR Subscriber Capacity Utilization ............................ .......................... .......................... ..................... 12
3.4 HLR Subscriber Capacity and Utilization .............................. .......................... .......................... ............ 13
3.5 MGW Capacity and Utilization ............................... .......................... .......................... ......................... 13
4 PERFORMANCE INDICATORS ........................................................................................................................ 14
4.1 Introduction ............................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... 14
4.2 Concepts ........................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ......... 14
4.3 Availability........................................ .......................... .............................. ........................... ............... 18
4.3.1 System Downtime ............................ .......................... .......................... .......................... ............. 18
4.3.2 Signaling Performance, SS7 Link availability, ETSI ............................... .......................... ............... 18
4.4 Accessibility ........................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..... 19
4.4.1 Authentication ........................................................................................................................... 19
4.4.2 Ciphering, GSM ......................................................................................................................... 19
4.4.3 CP Processor Load .................................................................................................................... 20
4.4.4 Location Update........................................................................................................................ 21
4.4.5 Mobile IN Calls ............................. .......................... .......................... .......................... ................. 23
4.4.6 Channel Assignment ................................................................................................................. 23
4.4.7 Short Messages Service (SMS), ORG ...................................................................................... 24
4.4.8 Short Messages Service (SMS), TERM .................................................................................... 25
4.4.9 Successful SMS Delivery Terminating SMS............................................................................. 26
4.4.10 Signaling Performance, SS7 Link Congestion ........................... .......................... .................... 27
8/17/2019 Sample Core Technical Audit Report.pdf
3/90
8/17/2019 Sample Core Technical Audit Report.pdf
4/90
Core Network Audit Report for XXXX
Aircom International 2011– Commercial & Confidence Page | 4 of 90
6.4 MSC SIGTRAN M3UA routing performance .............................. .......................... .......................... ....... 50
7 M-MGW KPI .................................................................................................................................................. 51
7.1 Scope ........................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .............. 52
7.2 Introduction ............................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... 52
7.3 Key Performance Indicators for Internal Accessibility................................................. ......................... 55
7.4 Key Performance Indicators for External Accessibility ........................... .......................... .................... 56
7.5 AAL2 Termination Seizure Success Rate .............................. .......................... .......................... ............ 56
7.6 TDM Termination Reservation Success Rate ........................... .......................... .......................... ........ 57
7.7 IP Termination Seizure Success Rate ............................... .......................... .......................... ................ 58
7.8 Originating Nb Connection Initialization Success Rate ........................... .......................... .................... 58
7.9 Software Licensing, Media Stream Channel Seizure Success Rate ........................... .......................... .. 59
7.10 Interactive Messaging, Basic Message Success Rate.................... .......................... .......................... .... 59
7.11 Interactive Messaging, Message Composition Success Rate ........................... .......................... ........... 60
7.12 Outgoing AAL2 Connection Reservation Success Rate ........................... .......................... .................... 60
7.13 Retainability ............................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... 61
7.14 Integrity ............................ .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ......... 62
7.14.1 SS7 over ATM QoS ................................................................................................................... 63
7.14.2 SS7 over TDM QoS ................................................................................................................... 63
7.14.3 Signaling over IP discard Ratio (Giga Bit Ethernet interface) ............................ ................... 64
7.14.4 IP Bearer success rate (HOST)................................................................................................ 65
7.14.5 Aal2 Bearer establish success rate .......................................................................................... 65
7.14.6 SCTP .......................................................................................................................................... 65
7.14.7 Sigtran Retransmission ............................................................................................................ 66
7.14.8 M3UA ......................................................................................................................................... 677.15 Key Performance Indicators for Traffic and Load.................... .......................... ........................... ........ 69
7.15.1 Usage Rate of Received and Transmitted ATM Cells on a VC Link ...................................... 72
7.15.2 TDM termination success rate ................................................................................................. 74
7.15.3 Media stream resource reservation rate ................................................................................. 74
7.15.4 GCP message Statistics ............................................................................................................ 75
8/17/2019 Sample Core Technical Audit Report.pdf
5/90
Core Network Audit Report for XXXX
Aircom International 2011– Commercial & Confidence Page | 5 of 90
7.15.5 MTP2 Link usage ...................................................................................................................... 75
7.15.6 Mtp3b Link usage ..................................................................................................................... 77
7.15.7 TDM utilization Rate ................................................................................................................. 78
7.15.8 Device pool utilization rate ...................................................................................................... 79
7.15.9 Device pool reservation success rate ...................................................................................... 79
7.15.10 Processor Load...................................................................................................................... 79
7.15.11 Current Traffic Load ............................................................................................................. 81
7.15.12 Software Licensing, Media Stream Channel Utilization Rate .............................. ............... 81
8 BSS AUDIT AND TROUBLESHOOTING ............................................................................................................ 83 8.1 TRH Overload ............................. .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... 83
8.2 TRA Pool Supervision Definition ............................. .......................... .......................... ......................... 84
9 DOCUMENTATION AND PROCEDURES .......................................................................................................... 87
9.1 Documentation .............................. ........................... .......................... .......................... ..................... 87
9.2 Procedures ............................ .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ..... 88
9.3 Recommendations .............................. .......................... .......................... .......................... ................. 88
10 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................................ 89
11 APPENDIX ..................................................................................................................................................... 90
8/17/2019 Sample Core Technical Audit Report.pdf
6/90
Core Network Audit Report for XXXX
Aircom International 2011– Commercial & Confidence Page | 6 of 90
List of Figures
Figure 1: VLR Subscriber Capacity Currently in Use..................................................................................... 12
Figure 2: VLR Subscriber Capacity Utilization ............................................................................................... 12
Figure 3: HLR Subscriber Capacity and Utilization ....................................................................................... 13
Figure 4: MGW Capacity ................................................................................................................................. 13
Figure 5: System Downtime ........................................................................................................................... 18
Figure 6: Signaling Performance, SS7 Link availability ................................................................................ 18
Figure 7 Authentication ................................................................................................................................... 19
Figure 8 Ciphering, GSM ................................................................................................................................. 20
Figure 9 CP Processor Load ............................................................................................................................ 20
Figure 10 Location Update ............................................................................................................................. 21
Figure 11 Mobile IN Calls ................................................................................................................................ 23
Figure 12 Channel Assignment....................................................................................................................... 23
Figure 13 Short Messages Service (SMS),ORG ............................................................................................. 24
Figure 14 Short Messages Service (SMS), TERM .......................................................................................... 25
Figure 15 Successful SMS Delivery Terminating SMS .................................................................................. 26
Figure 16: Signaling Performance, SS7 Link Congestion Narrowband ....................................................... 27
Figure 17 Signaling Performance, SS7 Link Congestion High Speed .......................................................... 27
Figure 18: Trunk-Route Performance, Call statistics .................................................................................... 29
Figure 19: Trunk-Route Utilization, Call statistics ......................................................................................... 29Figure 20 Paging ............................................................................................................................................. 30
Figure 21: Call type measurements ORG ...................................................................................................... 33
Figure 22 Call type measurements TE ........................................................................................................... 34
Figure 23 Inter MSC Handover ....................................................................................................................... 35
Figure 24: End of Selection Codes-1 ............................................................................................................. 40
Figure 25 End of Selection Codes-2 ............................................................................................................... 40
Figure 26 End of Selection Codes-3 ............................................................................................................... 41
Figure 27 End of Selection Codes-4 ............................................................................................................... 41
Figure 28 Announcement Data ...................................................................................................................... 43
Figure 29 Trunk Route Devices Status .......................................................................................................... 43
Figure 30 TRH Overload ................................................................................................................................. 83
Figure 31 TRH Failure ..................................................................................................................................... 84
8/17/2019 Sample Core Technical Audit Report.pdf
7/90
Core Network Audit Report for XXXX
Aircom International 2011– Commercial & Confidence Page | 7 of 90
List of TablesTable 1 Core Hardware Location Per City .......................................................................................... 9
Table 2 BSS Hardware Location per City ......................................................................................... 10
Table 3 VLR Subscriber Register Capacity ....................................................................................... 11
Table 4 Clock Reference in XXXX Network ...................................................................................... 37
Table 5 HW FAULT MSC ............................................................................................................... 44
Table 6 HW FAULT BSC ................................................................................................................ 45
Table 7 Unused Cell ID Definitions ................................................................................................. 46
Table 8 Software Level Integrity .................................................................................................... 48
Table 9 SIGTRAN-1 ...................................................................................................................... 49
Table 10 SIGTRAN-2 .................................................................................................................... 49Table 11 SIGTRAN-3 .................................................................................................................... 50
Table 12 SIGTRAN-4 .................................................................................................................... 50
8/17/2019 Sample Core Technical Audit Report.pdf
8/90
Core Network Audit Report for XXXX
Aircom International 2011– Commercial & Confidence Page | 8 of 90
Document Release History
V ERSIONNO.
R ELEASE D ATE PURPOSE
1.0 XXXX FINAL DRAFT
DISTRIBUTION LIST
N AME POSITION / DEPARTMENT
APPROVALS
APPROVED B Y SIGNATUR D ATE
XXXX A IRCOM INTERNATIONAL
XXXX COUNTRY
8/17/2019 Sample Core Technical Audit Report.pdf
9/90
Core Network Audit Report for XXXX
Aircom International 2011– Commercial & Confidence Page | 9 of 90
1 INTRODUCTION
Aircom has conducted a Technical Audit of XXXX Network between the dates of XXXX and XXXX. This Audit
project comprises of a combination of collecting data; discussion with XXXX technical teams; desk based
research; detailed interviews and analysis of documentation and information supplied by the XXXX. This NSS
audit report has been prepared based on the data provided by the Core planning & O&M responsible personal of
XXXX
2 NETWORK OVERVIEW
Following are the core network entities and sites of XXXX
2.1 Core Hardware Location per City
Cities Location Node Name MSC HLR MGW
CITY5 XXMSC1 1
CITY4 XXMSC1 1
CITY3 XXMSC1 1
CITY6 XXMSC1 1
CITY2 XXMSC1 1CITY1 Technical Villa XXMSC3 1
CITY1 Technical Villa XXMSC4 1
CITY1 Park plaza XXMSC 1
CITY1 Park plaza MSCS2 1
CITY1 HLR1 1
CITY1 HLR2 1
CITY1 Technical Villa MGW11 1
CITY1 Technical Villa MGW12 1
CITY2 MGW21 1
CITY1 Park plaza MGW31 1
Total 9 2 4
Table 1: Core Hardware Location per City
8/17/2019 Sample Core Technical Audit Report.pdf
10/90
Core Network Audit Report for XXXX
Aircom International 2011– Commercial & Confidence Page | 10 of 90
2.2 BSS Hardware Location per City
City Location BSC Name BSC Total Node inCity
CITY7 BGNRBSC 1 1
CITY8 GZNRBSC 1 1
CITY5 HEBSC1 1 1
CITY4 JABSC1 1 1
CITY9 JZNRBSC 1 1
CITY3 KDBSC1 1 1
CITY10 KHRBSC1 1 1
CITY6 KUBSC1 1 1
CITY2 MABSC1 1 2
CITY2 MABSC2 1
CITY11 NEBSC1 1 1
CITY1 Technical Villa KABSC1 1 5
CITY1 Technical Villa KABSC2 1
CITY1 Park plaza KABSC3 1
CITY1 Park plaza KABSC4 1
CITY1 Technical Villa KABSC5 1
Total 16 16
Table 2: BSS Hardware Location per City
8/17/2019 Sample Core Technical Audit Report.pdf
11/90
Core Network Audit Report for XXXX
Aircom International 2011– Commercial & Confidence Page | 11 of 90
3 CAPACITY ANALYSIS
This section contains the outcomes of capacity audits.
3.1 VLR Subscriber Register Capacity
NODE Name TOTNSUB REGISTERD VLR CAPACITY Available Capacity
XXMSC1 197380 600000 402620
XXMSC1 283839 600000 316161
XXMSC1 58407 600000 541593
XXMSC1 328894 600000 271106
XXMSC1 437078 1000000 562922
XXMSC3 120015 1000000 879985
XXMSC4 536274 1000000 463726
XXMSC 346476 1000000 653524
MSCS2 267511 1000000 732489
Table 3: VLR Subscriber Register Capacity
8/17/2019 Sample Core Technical Audit Report.pdf
12/90
Core Network Audit Report for XXXX
Aircom International 2011– Commercial & Confidence Page | 12 of 90
3.2 VLR Subscriber Capacity Currently in Use
Figure 1: VLR Subscriber Capacity Currently in Use
3.3 VLR Subscriber Capacity Utilization
Below is the VLR subscriber capacity utilization. Threshold is showing to be 54% No expansion required at this
time.XXXX can add more BSC/BTS to improve radio coverage.
Figure 2: VLR Subscriber Capacity Utilization
8/17/2019 Sample Core Technical Audit Report.pdf
13/90
Core Network Audit Report for XXXX
Aircom International 2011– Commercial & Confidence Page | 13 of 90
3.4 HLR Subscriber Capacity and Utilization
Below is the HLR subscriber capacity utilization. Threshold is reached to be 95% it is highly recommended toperform reconciliation schedule on monthly basis to efficiently utilize HSD memory and avoid its expansion.
Figure 3: HLR Subscriber Capacity and Utilization
3.5 MGW Capacity and UtilizationLicense capacity is enough for current traffic load; XXXX can add more equipment without any expansion of MGW
Figure 4: MGW Capacity
8/17/2019 Sample Core Technical Audit Report.pdf
14/90
Core Network Audit Report for XXXX
Aircom International 2011– Commercial & Confidence Page | 14 of 90
4 PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
4.1 Introduction
This section defines switching system performance indicators for the MSC and MSC Server. The MSC is the callcontrol handling node in layered and non-layered architecture. All counter descriptions in this section are used forinformation. The “Application Information’s” shall be used for latest and more detailed counter descriptions.
4.2 Concepts
Performance indicators defined in this section focus on reliability and how a service is executed in the MSC/VLRServer.
Figure 3-1: Principle definition of ISP
The MSC/VLR Server is the call control handling node in the Ericsson Core Network containing counter, which arestepped/not stepped, based on information received from other core network elements/nodes. Some counters
even reflect end-user and radio network behavior. See figure 2.
8/17/2019 Sample Core Technical Audit Report.pdf
15/90
Core Network Audit Report for XXXX
Aircom International 2011– Commercial & Confidence Page | 15 of 90
Figure 3-2: MSC/VLR Server in Core Network
Monitoring and analyzing Performance Indicators provide information for:
• Benchmarking
• System Improvements
• Performance monitoring
• Node performance fine tuning
Key Performance Indicator
Key Performance Indicators (KPI) are defined on network/system level and reflect the end-to-end performance. A Key Performance Indicator consists of one or more Performance indicators (PI); see also figure 3-3.
8/17/2019 Sample Core Technical Audit Report.pdf
16/90
Core Network Audit Report for XXXX
Aircom International 2011– Commercial & Confidence Page | 16 of 90
Figure 3-3
Availability
Availability is defined as the ability of an item to be in a state to perform a required function at a given point of
time or at any instant of time within a given time interval, assuming that the external resources, if required, areprovided.
Severability
The ability of a service to be obtained - within specified tolerances and other given conditions - when requested
by the user and continue to be provided without excessive impairment for a requested duration. Serve-ability
performance is subdivided into the service accessibility performance, service retain-ability performance and the
service integrity performance.
8/17/2019 Sample Core Technical Audit Report.pdf
17/90
Core Network Audit Report for XXXX
Aircom International 2011– Commercial & Confidence Page | 17 of 90
Accessibility
The ability of a service to be obtained, within specified tolerances and other given conditions, when requested bythe end-user.
Retain-ability
Retain-ability reflects the ability of the user to keep a service once it was accessed under given conditions for arequested period of time.
Integrity
Integrity reflects the ability of a user to receive requested service at desired quality. No Integrity PIs are definedfor the MSC.
8/17/2019 Sample Core Technical Audit Report.pdf
18/90
Core Network Audit Report for XXXX
Aircom International 2011– Commercial & Confidence Page | 18 of 90
4.3 Availability
4.3.1 System Downtime
Figure 5: System Downtime
Accumulated System Down Time (SDT) for the last 12 Months in Second, Its showing no major down time innetwork.
4.3.2 Signaling Performance, SS7 Link availability, ETSI
Figure 6: Signaling Performance, SS7 Link availability
8/17/2019 Sample Core Technical Audit Report.pdf
19/90
Core Network Audit Report for XXXX
Aircom International 2011– Commercial & Confidence Page | 19 of 90
Link unavailbity due to the Transmission fluctuation, XXXX should resolve this issue to improve healthy KPI
4.4 Accessibility
4.4.1 Authentication
The average successful Authentication results for the complete XXXX network are shown in the figures below
Figure 7 Authentication
Recommendations:
The Authentication Success rate is indicating normal conditions in all the network; the values are currently around
97% which is in par with the world average according the previously mentioned benchmark and above the
minimum recommended value of 95%
4.4.2 Ciphering, GSM
The average Ciphering results are shown in the table and figures below for the complete XXXX network:
8/17/2019 Sample Core Technical Audit Report.pdf
20/90
Core Network Audit Report for XXXX
Aircom International 2011– Commercial & Confidence Page | 20 of 90
Figure 8 Ciphering, GSM
Recommendations:
The Ciphering Success rate is indicating normal conditions in all the network; the values are currently around
99% which is in par with the world average according the previously mentioned benchmark and above the
minimum recommended value of 95%.
4.4.3 CP Processor Load
Figure 9 CP Processor Load
8/17/2019 Sample Core Technical Audit Report.pdf
21/90
Core Network Audit Report for XXXX
Aircom International 2011– Commercial & Confidence Page | 21 of 90
Recommendations:
The central processor load in all the nodes were considered normal and the peak load in the busy hour did not
reach the maximum recommended limit (75%).
4.4.4 Location Update
Figure 10 Location Update
Recommendations:
The Location Update Success rate is indicating normal conditions in the XXMSC3 and XXMSC; the values are
currently around 97% which is in par with the world average according to the previously mentioned benchmark.
On the other hand, Location Update Success rates in the other MSCs are showing slightly lower values.
Where the gathered performance measurements for consecutive days show a significant drop starting onwards
on a daily basis; normally, there are many major reasons for Location Update failure: Unknown IMSI in HLR,
Timeout, MAP fallback, Network Failure, Congestion... Further investigations are needed to determine the actual
reasons.
The following location update signaling flows show how the above mentioned counters are being increased
accordingly:
8/17/2019 Sample Core Technical Audit Report.pdf
22/90
Core Network Audit Report for XXXX
Aircom International 2011– Commercial & Confidence Page | 22 of 90
8/17/2019 Sample Core Technical Audit Report.pdf
23/90
Core Network Audit Report for XXXX
Aircom International 2011– Commercial & Confidence Page | 23 of 90
4.4.5 Mobile IN Calls
Figure 11 Mobile IN Calls
All the MSC in XXXX Network showed a value of 100% regarding successful IN calls so no recommendation
needed on this KPI
4.4.6 Channel Assignment
Figure 12 Channel Assignment
8/17/2019 Sample Core Technical Audit Report.pdf
24/90
Core Network Audit Report for XXXX
Aircom International 2011– Commercial & Confidence Page | 24 of 90
Recommended KPI Minimum Value: 98%
The results show a normal behavior regarding channel assignment and no additional recommendations are
needed.
4.4.7 Short Messages Service (SMS), ORG
Figure 13 Short Messages Service (SMS)ORG
Recommended KPI Minimum Value: 80%
Recommendations:
According to the above table, we can clearly see that the SMS originating success rate is low for the complete
period on all the MSC-S. There are some known reasons for the SMS sending failure rate
Subscribers being barred from sending SMS due to insufficient credit
Invalid message center numbers
Invalid B Party numbers
8/17/2019 Sample Core Technical Audit Report.pdf
25/90
Core Network Audit Report for XXXX
Aircom International 2011– Commercial & Confidence Page | 25 of 90
4.4.8 Short Messages Service (SMS), TERM
Figure 14 Short Messages Service (SMS), TERM
Recommended KPI Minimum Value: 73%
Recommendations:
From the above figures, we can see that performance measurements are low before reaching the required level.
Most of the MSC-S are showing a standard average equal to the world and European averages. Some known
causes for low SMS receiving rates are:
• Absent Subscriber: The receiving user is either powered off or out of the service area.
• Memory Capacity Exceeded: The MS memory of the receiving user is full.
• Subscriber Busy for MT-SMS: The allocated MS is receiving another SMS.
• System Failure: Mostly related to the radio network and the MS, such as assignment failure of SDDCH,
call drop when receiving SMS, etc…
8/17/2019 Sample Core Technical Audit Report.pdf
26/90
Core Network Audit Report for XXXX
Aircom International 2011– Commercial & Confidence Page | 26 of 90
4.4.9 Successful SMS Delivery Terminating SMS
Figure 15 Successful SMS Delivery Terminating SMS
Recommended KPI Minimum Value: 95%
The average results are above the recommended KPI minimum value so no additional recommendation needed
8/17/2019 Sample Core Technical Audit Report.pdf
27/90
Core Network Audit Report for XXXX
Aircom International 2011– Commercial & Confidence Page | 27 of 90
4.4.10 Signaling Performance, SS7 Link Congestion
Figure 16: Signaling Performance, SS7 Link Congestion Narrowband
Figure 17 Signaling Performance, SS7 Link Congestion High Speed
Recommendations:
8/17/2019 Sample Core Technical Audit Report.pdf
28/90
Core Network Audit Report for XXXX
Aircom International 2011– Commercial & Confidence Page | 28 of 90
• Dimensioning rules are allowing utilization 30% load in a non-failure situation and 60% load in a load in
a failure situation.
• It is very important that load limits are maintained within the range, as when the SS7 links reaches a
certain load level, the message success rate decreases dramatically.
8/17/2019 Sample Core Technical Audit Report.pdf
29/90
Core Network Audit Report for XXXX
Aircom International 2011– Commercial & Confidence Page | 29 of 90
4.4.11 Trunk route Performance, Call statistics
Figure 18: Trunk-Route Performance, Call statistics
Figure 19: Trunk-Route Utilization, Call statistics
Observed the occurrence of EOS codes in XXMSC1, XXMSC3, XXMSC, XXMSC, XXMSC1 and XXMSC1, the reason
for the errors is improper CIC assignment which includes Cross Connections of E1s, due to this the subscriber
received Wrong(ambiguous) calls and Cross Talk. To rectify the issue it is recommended to check all
Interconnect routes individually with TCTDI command to make sure all CIC are integrated properly
8/17/2019 Sample Core Technical Audit Report.pdf
30/90
Core Network Audit Report for XXXX
Aircom International 2011– Commercial & Confidence Page | 30 of 90
4.4.12 Loss Route Performance
Remove unnecessary configuration to have a clean alarm list. Block Devices on Routes are responsible for Low ASR, Route Congestion and Call Rejection. See attached file for more detail.
4.4.13 Paging
Figure 20 Paging
Suss_GSM_First Page Recommended KPI Minimum Value 84%
Succ_GSM_Paging Recommended KPI Minimum Value 88%.
Recommendations: (Suss_GSM_First Page)
The XXMSC3, XXMSC, XXMSC and XXMSC1 paging results show a normal behavior and in accordance to the
global values.
In the other hand, for the XXMSC1,XXMSC1,XXMSC1 located outside of CITY1 the values could be improved a bit
with improvements to radio coverage e.g. an attached mobile out of coverage will not be able to receive orrespond to a page.
Check the parameter settings of the network; it can often improve the paging performance especially if coverage
is not the main problem.
The time between periodic registrations, the function Implicit IMSI detach, the Nr. of LAs and the size of the LAs
are the key issues. TMSI should be used at least for the first page.
8/17/2019 Sample Core Technical Audit Report.pdf
31/90
Core Network Audit Report for XXXX
Aircom International 2011– Commercial & Confidence Page | 31 of 90
Recommendations: (Succ_GSM_Paging)
The XXMSC1, XXMSC1 XXMSC1 and XXMSC1 MSCs are showing a slightly lower average results that the global
benchmark (around 88%) mentioned above.
As for the other MSCs, there seem to be problems as the number of repeated page attempts to a location area
over A-interface is high. The following causes might explain the low paging success rate:
LA dimensioning should be carried out in order to have proper Nr. of LA in 1 MSC. If LA is under dimensioned,
then it will affect paging success rate, on the other hand if LA is over dimensioned, then it will increase LU load,
and affect LU success rate.
Low paging success rate could be explained with coverage problems or that the function Implicit IMSI detach is
not used or that T3212 is set too high.
Paging performance is mainly depending on radio performance, especially radio coverage, radio capacity, cell
planning and frequency planning to reduce as much interference as possible.
Figure 1: Paging of a MS
8/17/2019 Sample Core Technical Audit Report.pdf
32/90
Core Network Audit Report for XXXX
Aircom International 2011– Commercial & Confidence Page | 32 of 90
Figure 2: Paging Strategies via A-interface
Figure 3: Paging Strategies
8/17/2019 Sample Core Technical Audit Report.pdf
33/90
Core Network Audit Report for XXXX
Aircom International 2011– Commercial & Confidence Page | 33 of 90
Other strategies than those recommended affect the paging load as follows: No second page: No second page reduces the paging load in both the BTS and the BSC. The
disadvantage is risk of more unsuccessful MS paging. Global second page: Compared to a local second page, a global second page increases the
paging load. The advantage is that MSs that, for some reason, have the wrong LA status in the VLR stand a better chance of being successfully paged.
TMSI for second pages: If the second page is global, IMSI must be used to identify the MS. If thesecond page is local, either IMSI or TMSI can be used to identify the MS. Using TMSI increasesthe paging capacity in the BTS. The drawback is that some pages may be unsuccessful if an MShas the wrong TMSI in the VLR, for example, immediately after having crossed an LA boarder.
4.4.14 MTRAFTYPE, Call type measurements
This performance indicator monitors the performance of the nr. of successful calls compared to the nr. of totalcalls for originating and terminating calls.The counters are defined per main traffic type (ORG, TE, OEX, IEX).For this PI only traffic type ORG and TE, hasbeen selected.
Figure 21: Call type measurements ORG
Analysis Observation & Recommendation
The major failure in the ORG-Setup is due to subscriber missed calls or early disconnects and wrongdialing.
In XXMSC1 area the wrong dialing ratio is high. Call testing is required to identify the missing routes.
8/17/2019 Sample Core Technical Audit Report.pdf
34/90
Core Network Audit Report for XXXX
Aircom International 2011– Commercial & Confidence Page | 34 of 90
Figure 22 Call type measurements TE
In this audit it is observed that in the areas where the MT-SUCC% is low the major cause of degradation is lowpaging success rate. Relationship of MT-SUCC% and MT-Subscriber unreachable is also presented to give apicture of radio coverage impact of MT calls.
8/17/2019 Sample Core Technical Audit Report.pdf
35/90
Core Network Audit Report for XXXX
Aircom International 2011– Commercial & Confidence Page | 35 of 90
4.5 Retain-ability
4.5.1 Inter MSC Handover /Intra-MSC Handover
This performance indicator reflects the successful incoming and outgoing inter-MSC handover attempts includingsubsequent handovers. Events are counted for each neighboring MSC.
Observe in many directions the Inter MSS handover (In and out) success rates are low. The external LACdefinition needs to be verified by the help of radio team. In few cases the intra MSS handover is also low. Thisshould be checked by BSS team, because in intra MSS handover procedure MSS does not play any role.
Figure 23 Inter MSC Handover
Recommendations: The Network LAC diagram should be marinated by the help of radio team. The core
network personnel should define the external or adjacent LACs according to the radio geographical boundaries
designed by Radio department.
8/17/2019 Sample Core Technical Audit Report.pdf
36/90
Core Network Audit Report for XXXX
Aircom International 2011– Commercial & Confidence Page | 36 of 90
5 FINDING5.1 Roaming
The ROAMWARE version XXXX is using is only capable of retaining the users i.e., it will only hold the user which
are already on the XXXX network or after they are registered for the first time due to better radio coverage. This
is not helping to attract new incoming roamers registration in XXXX network.
In order to capture maximum number of incoming new roamers with priority to XXXX, newer version of
ROAMWARE should be used in which the capturing feature is available. (See Attached file for more detail).
5.2 Network Time Synchronization
5.2.1 Overview
Network synchronization deals with the distribution of common time and frequency references to all the nodes ina network, in order to align the time and frequency scales of all the clocks employed in the network.
Time synchronization in particular ensures that all nodes share the same time reference, which is important for
charging and O&M functions. For example, it may be crucial to know exactly when (in terms of
day/hour/minute/second/millisecond) a certain event has occurred, so that events from different nodes can be
correlated. Event correlation is of fundamental importance not only for trouble shooting and charging but also
for services as the XXXX Revenue Assurance Solution.
Time synchronization is achieved through time servers, which provide Time-of-Day (ToD) information and deliver
it over an IP network to the clients, i.e., the network nodes, by means of the Network Time Protocol (NTP) or its
simplified version Simple Network Time Protocol (SNTP). (More details are available in attached file below)
Clock Reference in XXXX Network
NODE REFERENCE1 REFERENCE2 REFERENCE3 STATE URC1 (NTP)
BGNRBSC 0ETM2,MS-0 0ETM2,MS-1 EX,MBL NOTCONNECTED
GZNRBSC 0ETM2,MS-0 0ETM2,MS-1 EX,SB NOTCONNECTED
HEBSC1 0ETM2,MS-0 0ETM2,MS-1 EX,SB NOTCONNECTED
JABSC1 0ETM2,MS-0 0ETM2,MS-1 ABL,EX NOTCONNECTED
JZNRBSC 0ETM2,MS-0 0ETM2,MS-1 EX,SB NOTCONNECTED
KABSC1 0ETM2,MS-0 9ETM2,MS-0 EX,SB NOTCONNECTED
KABSC2 0ETM2,MS-0 3ETM2,MS-0 EX,SB NOTCONNECTED
KABSC3 0ETM2,MS-0 4ETM2,MS-0 EX,SB NOTCONNECTED
KABSC4 0ETM2,MS-0 4ETM2,MS-0 EX,SB NOT
8/17/2019 Sample Core Technical Audit Report.pdf
37/90
Core Network Audit Report for XXXX
Aircom International 2011– Commercial & Confidence Page | 37 of 90
CONNECTED
KABSC5 0ETM2,MS-0 1ETM2,MS-0 EX,SB NOTCONNECTED
NEBSC1 0ETM2,MS-0 0ETM2,MS-1 EX,UPD NOTCONNECTED
KHRBSC1 0ETM2,MS-0 0ETM2,MS-1 EX,SB NOTCONNECTED
KUBSC1 0ETM2,MS-0 0ETM2,MS-1 EX,ABL NOTCONNECTED
MABSC1 1ETM2,MS-0 3ETM2,MS-0 EX,SB NOTCONNECTED
MABSC2 0ETM2,MS-0 4ETM2,MS-0 EX,SB NOTCONNECTED
KDBSC1 1ETM2,MS-0 1ETM2,MS-1 EX,ABL NOTCONNECTED
HLR1 0E1551,MS-0 0E1551,MS-1 SB,EX NOTCONNECTED
HLR2 0E1551,MS-0 0E1551,MS-1 SB,EX NOTCONNECTED
XXMSC3 NOTCONNECTED
NOTCONNECTED
NOTCONNECTED
XXMSC4 NOTCONNECTED
NOTCONNECTED
NOTCONNECTED
XXMSC NOTCONNECTED
NOTCONNECTED
NOTCONNECTED
XXMSC NOT
CONNECTED
NOT
CONNECTED
NOT
CONNECTED
XXMSC1 NOTCONNECTED
NOTCONNECTED
NOTCONNECTED
XXMSC1 1E1551,MS-0 1E1551,MS-1 RCM-0 MBL,MBL,EX NOTCONNECTED
XXMSC1 0E1551,MS-0 0E1551,MS-1 RCM-0 MBL,MBL,EX NOTCONNECTED
XXMSC1 1E1551,MS-0 1E1551,MS-1 RCM-0 EX,SB,SB NOTCONNECTED
XXMSC1 0E1551,MS-0 0E1551,MS-1 RCM-0 MBL,MBL,EX NOTCONNECTED
Table 4: Clock Reference in XXXX Network
8/17/2019 Sample Core Technical Audit Report.pdf
38/90
Core Network Audit Report for XXXX
Aircom International 2011– Commercial & Confidence Page | 38 of 90
5.3 Size Alteration Event Utilization
The recommended SAE utilization is between 40% - 50% during normal traffic behavior. If utilization persistentlyhigh for a duration of more than a week, then SAE individual increment is advisable, Use Ericsson Formula in Alex
for Increment
SDATE NODE BLOCK SAE SAE_Utilization
4/7/11 7:00 PM HLR HMAPTC 500 60%
4/7/11 7:00 PM HLR HSUDAP2 500 67%
4/7/11 7:00 PM HLR HUEXAP2 500 67%
4/8/11 7:00 PM HLR HMAPTC 500 50%
4/8/11 7:00 PM HLR HSUDAP2 500 56%
4/8/11 7:00 PM HLR HUEXAP2 500 56%
4/9/11 7:00 PM HLR HMAPTC 500 51%
4/9/11 7:00 PM HLR HSUDAP2 500 56%4/9/11 7:00 PM HLR HUEXAP2 500 56%
4/10/11 7:00 PM HLR HSUDAP2 500 53%
4/10/11 7:00 PM HLR HUEXAP2 500 53%
4/11/11 7:00 PM HLR HMAPTC 500 52%
4/11/11 7:00 PM HLR HSD 786 86%
4/11/11 7:00 PM HLR HSUDAP2 500 59%
4/11/11 7:00 PM HLR HUEXAP2 500 59%
4/12/11 7:00 PM HLR HMAPTC 500 54%
4/12/11 7:00 PM HLR HSD 786 96%
4/12/11 7:00 PM HLR HSUDAP2 500 62%
4/12/11 7:00 PM HLR HUEXAP2 500 62%
8/17/2019 Sample Core Technical Audit Report.pdf
39/90
Core Network Audit Report for XXXX
Aircom International 2011– Commercial & Confidence Page | 39 of 90
SDATE NODE BLOCK SAE SAE_Utilization
4/7/11 7:00 PM JAMSC1 COMAIN 1130 61%
4/7/11 7:00 PM JAMSC1 MMM 1132 60%
4/7/11 7:00 PM JAMSC1 MRRM 1139 60%
4/7/11 7:00 PM JAMSC1 MRRMH 1053 58%
4/7/11 7:00 PM JAMSC1 MSCCO 500 60%
4/7/11 7:00 PM JAMSC1 SHMM 604 59%
4/8/11 7:00 PM JAMSC1 COMAIN 1130 60%
4/8/11 7:00 PM JAMSC1 MMM 1132 58%
4/8/11 7:00 PM JAMSC1 MRRM 1139 58%
4/8/11 7:00 PM JAMSC1 MSCCO 500 58%
4/9/11 7:00 PM JAMSC1 COMAIN 1130 60%
4/9/11 7:00 PM JAMSC1 MMM 1132 59%
4/9/11 7:00 PM JAMSC1 MRRM 1139 59%
4/9/11 7:00 PM JAMSC1 MSCCO 500 59%
4/9/11 7:00 PM JAMSC1 SHMM 604 58%
4/12/11 7:00 PM JAMSC1 COMAIN 1130 59%
4/12/11 7:00 PM JAMSC1 MMM 1132 58%
4/12/11 7:00 PM JAMSC1 MRRM 1139 58%
4/12/11 7:00 PM JAMSC1 MSCCO 500 58%
SDATE NODE BLOCK SAE SAE_Utilization
4/7/11 7:00 PM KAMSC1 SHEC 604 72%
4/8/11 7:00 PM KAMSC1 SHEC 604 69%
4/9/11 7:00 PM KAMSC1 SHEC 604 70%
4/11/11 7:00 PM KAMSC1 SHEC 604 68%4/12/11 7:00 PM KAMSC1 SHEC 604 72%
SDATE NODE BLOCK SAE SAE_Utilization
4/11/11 7:00 PM KAMSC2 COHW 500 54%
SDATE NODE BLOCK SAE SAE_Utilization
4/7/11 7:00 PM KUMSC1 UPPC4S 500 64%
4/8/11 7:00 PM KUMSC1 UPPC4S 500 60%
4/9/11 7:00 PM KUMSC1 UPPC4S 500 60%
4/10/11 7:00 PM KUMSC1 UPPC4S 500 60%
4/11/11 7:00 PM KUMSC1 UPPC4S 500 61%
4/12/11 7:00 PM KUMSC1 UPPC4S 500 64%
SDATE NODE BLOCK SAE SAE_Utili zation
4/9/11 7:00 PM MAMSC1 MSMMCAH 287 51%
4/10/11 7:00 PM MAMSC1 MSMMCAH 287 50%
4/11/11 7:00 PM MAMSC1 MSMMCAH 287 51%
8/17/2019 Sample Core Technical Audit Report.pdf
40/90
Core Network Audit Report for XXXX
Aircom International 2011– Commercial & Confidence Page | 40 of 90
5.4 End of Selection Codes
Figure 24: End of Selection Codes-1
Recommendation: Defined Proper Selection Type (ST Value) on Trunk Route Both Side
Figure 25 End of Selection Codes-2
SDATE NODE BLOCK SAE SAE_Utili zation
4/7/11 7:00 PM MSCS1 UPMHS4S 647 56%
4/8/11 7:00 PM MSCS1 UPMHS4S 647 56%4/9/11 7:00 PM MSCS1 UPMHS4S 647 56%
4/10/11 7:00 PM MSCS1 UPMHS4S 647 56%
4/11/11 7:00 PM MSCS1 UPMHS4S 647 56%
4/12/11 7:00 PM MSCS1 UPMHS4S 647 56%
8/17/2019 Sample Core Technical Audit Report.pdf
41/90
Core Network Audit Report for XXXX
Aircom International 2011– Commercial & Confidence Page | 41 of 90
Observation & Recommendation: Analysis of alternate routing case in XXMSC1, XXMSC2 and XXMSC3, There
is some branching not defined properly for over flow traffic.
Observed occurrence of EOS codes in XXMSC1, XXMSC1, XXMSC1 and XXMSC1. The reason for the errors is
improper CIC assignment which includes Cross Connections of E1s, due to this the subscriber received Wrong
(ambiguous) calls and Cross Talk. To rectify the issue it is recommended to check all Interconnect routes
individually with TCTDI command to make sure all CIC are integrated properly
Figure 26 End of Selection Codes-3
Recommendation: Check Link Failure/Congestion between SSF and SCF
Figure 27 End of Selection Codes-4
Recommendation: Set BTDM/T3212 Setting accordingly for implicit detach marking of mobile subscribers.
Check Radio Coverage and Link Fluctuation.
8/17/2019 Sample Core Technical Audit Report.pdf
42/90
Core Network Audit Report for XXXX
Aircom International 2011– Commercial & Confidence Page | 42 of 90
5.5 Echo Canceller Setting
Analysis of routing data leads to the conclusion that the switching equipment congestion (resources not utilizedoptimally) is due to the incorrect Echo Canceller settings. These setting will also adversely contribute to increased
processor load and excessive use of EC’s in other switches which will degrade the performances other connected
switches.
With the recommended setting mentioned below users will observe improved voice call quality with no delay.
ALL PLMN Routing ESS=1
ALL PLMN Routing ESR=1
ALL PSTN Routing ESS=1
ALL PSTN Routing ESR=1
5.6 B Number Table
In Analysis of B Number Table of all MSCs, all parameters were found correctly defined with the exception of
XXMSC3 where there should be no Charging Case on Announcement Route
The Value should be set as below:
ANBSI:B=99-8,RC=94,L=4;
ANBSI:B=99-9,RC=95,L=4;
5.7 Announcement Data
In the analysis announcement route highly congested and blocked devices were found in XXMSC1, XXMSC1 and
XXMSC1.
In order to reduce congestion all blocked devices should be fixed and more HW to be added. This will increase
the QOS for the subscriber
8/17/2019 Sample Core Technical Audit Report.pdf
43/90
Core Network Audit Report for XXXX
Aircom International 2011– Commercial & Confidence Page | 43 of 90
Figure 28 Announcement Data
Recommandation: Replace faulty HW or move all announcement route to MGW.
5.8 Trunk Route Devices Status
Figure 29 Trunk Route Devices Status
Recommendation: There are lot of devices on trunk routs blocked due to lack of O&M, Preventive maintenance
and proper integration is highly recommended, Block Devices on Routes are responsible for Low ASR, Route
Congestion and Call Rejection
8/17/2019 Sample Core Technical Audit Report.pdf
44/90
Core Network Audit Report for XXXX
Aircom International 2011– Commercial & Confidence Page | 44 of 90
5.9 HW FAULT Drill-down by MSC
Table 5: HW FAULT MSC
Recommendation: The RPs highlighted in red are having high errors therefore needs to be replaced with higher
versions. For this CSR to Ericsson should be raised on priority.
8/17/2019 Sample Core Technical Audit Report.pdf
45/90
Core Network Audit Report for XXXX
Aircom International 2011– Commercial & Confidence Page | 45 of 90
5.10 HW FAULT Drill Down BSC
Table 6: HW FAULT BSC
Recommendation: The RPs highlighted in red are having high errors therefore needs to be replaced with higherversions. For this CSR to Ericsson should be raised on priority.
5.11 Unused Cell ID Definitions
In this section the comparison of MSC and BSS defined cells is presented. The main objective of this practice was
to identify the extra cells defined on the MSC & to remove the junk data for making space available in cells table
and to organize cells tables. Mentioned below is the list of cells which are identified as extra on MSC by
comparing with BSS data.
Notice:
Please do not dilute any cell from the MSC side prior to the final confirmation from BSS Team. BSS should double
check the traffic on these cells. The cells ID dilution should take place with the cooperation of BSS and NSS
teams.
8/17/2019 Sample Core Technical Audit Report.pdf
46/90
Core Network Audit Report for XXXX
Aircom International 2011– Commercial & Confidence Page | 46 of 90
5.12 System Logs
System log defined in all MSCs is of fixed size which eventually results in loss of data after reaching its maximum
limit because the new data coming is over written on the previous data. Therefore it is recommended to define
transfer queue for direct data transfer to the OSS in order to avoid data loss.
5.13 Signalling Error Reports Fixing
The Signaling error reports from the nodes were analyzed after which it was concluded that data coming from the
nodes have some necessary information missing which help in identifying/rectifying the problem occurred. The
missing information issue is resolved for accurate fault fixing in future. (See attached file)
5.14 APG Drive Full
Analysis of Alarms on the APG leads to the fact that on some nodes the APG Drive is almost full, and once it is
completely filled the APG will be down and no statistical data will come forward thus no performance reports
could be generated for the management of the network. Therefore it is recommended to have proper
maintenance of the APG drive.
MSC NODE CELL in MSC not in BSC BSC NODE XXMSC1 HRT084A HEBSC1
HRT084B HEBSC1
HRT084C HEBSC1
HRT085A HEBSC1
HRT085B HEBSC1
HRT085C HEBSC1
XXMSC1 KNR009A BSC1JA
KNR009B BSC1JA
KNR009C BSC1JA
XXMSC1 SMN023C MABSC1
XXMSC KBL211X KABSC3KBL211Y KABSC3
KBL261C KABSC3
XXMSC KBL261A KABSC3
KBL261B KABSC3
KBL261C KABSC3Table 7: Unused Cell ID Definitions
8/17/2019 Sample Core Technical Audit Report.pdf
47/90
Core Network Audit Report for XXXX
Aircom International 2011– Commercial & Confidence Page | 47 of 90
5.15 Unused Route
A lot of unused route data is defined in BSCs as well in the MSCs. This results in High CP load and increased Call
Setup Time. To avoid this situation this data should be removed and proper size alteration to be done for
enhanced CP performance.
5.16 Naming Standard
There are no standard Naming Convention followed in Core Network. One single network element has different
name in different domains, e.g. the Node X is named as “A” in the Exchange-Header where it is named “B” in
Signaling Point ID (SPID). These inconsistencies make handling/troubleshooting process complex and difficult.
Therefore standard naming must be followed to improve Emergency handling and O&M.
5.17 Software Level Integrity
8/17/2019 Sample Core Technical Audit Report.pdf
48/90
Core Network Audit Report for XXXX
Aircom International 2011– Commercial & Confidence Page | 48 of 90
Table 8: Software Level Integrity
After investigating the Alarms (Software fault) on the nodes it is concluded that Software running on all the MSCsis defective. In order to avoid events such as system restart (i.e., outage in the network) an immediate CSR
should be raised to fix the issued
MTNA Software Level Integrity (BSS)
MTN Core Node APZ Type IO Type System IPA Missing Corrections
BGNRBSC 21230/33 APG40 08B 10
GZNRBSC 21230/33 APG40 08B 10
HEBSC1
JABSC1 21250 APG43 08B 10
JZNRBSC 21230/33 APG40 08B 10
KABSC1 21230/33 APG40 08B 10
KABSC2 21230/33 APG40 08B 10
KABSC3 21230/33 APG40 08B 10
KAMSC4 21250 APG43 08B 10
KABSC5 21250 APG43 08B 10
KDBSC2 21250 APG43 08B 10
KHRBSC1 21250 APG43 08B 10
KUBSC1 21230/33 APG40 08B 10
MABSC1 21230/33 APG40 08B 10
MABSC2 21250 APG43 08B 10
NEBSC1 21230/33 APG40 08B 10
Software level Discrepancies
8/17/2019 Sample Core Technical Audit Report.pdf
49/90
Core Network Audit Report for XXXX
Aircom International 2011– Commercial & Confidence Page | 49 of 90
6 SIGTRAN
6.1 MSC SIGTRAN SCTP “Out of Blue” packets
“Out of Blue” packets are received with correct format, right checksum,
but the receiver is not able to identify the association to which the packet belongs.
Those packets will be discarded.
Node Name Out of Blue Packets
XXMMS3 4
XXMSC4 0 XXMSC 0
XXMSC 0
XXMSC1 11
Table 9: SIGTRAN-1
6.2 MSC SIGTRAN Association Unavailability
Node Name Asso. Unavail. (number of time) Asso. Unavail.
(sec.)
Object
XXMSC3 12 55 M3_NI2_XXMSC
XXMSC4 0 0
XXMSC 0 0
XXMSC 0 0
XXMSC1 16 67 M3_NI2_XXMGW11
Table 10: SIGTRAN-2
Recommendation: As shown in the table for XXMSC3 and XXMSC1, M3UA has interruption recorded during
110311 to 130311. Check the error interruption on MPBN side
8/17/2019 Sample Core Technical Audit Report.pdf
50/90
Core Network Audit Report for XXXX
Aircom International 2011– Commercial & Confidence Page | 50 of 90
6.3 MSC SIGTRAN Destination Unavailability
Node Name Dest. Unreach. (number of time) Dest. Unreach.(sec.)
XXMSC3 3033 121639
XXMSC4 375 14007
XXMSC 162 14575
XXMSC 160 11606
Table 11: SIGTRAN-3
Recommendation: Check the Transmission Availability
6.4 MSC SIGTRAN M3UA routing performance
Node Name Routing Errors
XXMSC3 4994181
XXMSC4 135894
XXMSC 127
XXMSC 0
XXMSC1 965390
Table 12: SIGTRAN-4
Recommendation: Check Event Record properly, Time out somewhere in the network
8/17/2019 Sample Core Technical Audit Report.pdf
51/90
Core Network Audit Report for XXXX
Aircom International 2011– Commercial & Confidence Page | 51 of 90
7 M-MGW KPI
8/17/2019 Sample Core Technical Audit Report.pdf
52/90
Core Network Audit Report for XXXX
Aircom International 2011– Commercial & Confidence Page | 52 of 90
7.1 Scope
This study cover the request of XXXX for list the KPI needed on M-MGW. It can be used for:
List of needed measurements/KPI
Possible reasons for unhealthy value/measurement.
7.2 Introduction
XXXX has M-MGW R5 on ATM backbone and the KPI suggested in this study are relative to ATM network and M-MGW R5.
Normally the KPI used in MGW are:
Accessibility (ratio of successful connection establishments) Retainability (ratio of end user initiated connection releases) Integrity (QOS end user perception of the network)
In addition to these KPI mentioned above it is important to know also the traffic/load.
8/17/2019 Sample Core Technical Audit Report.pdf
53/90
Core Network Audit Report for XXXX
Aircom International 2011– Commercial & Confidence Page | 53 of 90
Overview on KPI Counter Stepping Phases
M-MGw
Check licensed capacity
Ok?
Step counter ‘termReq’’
Reserve internal
resources
Respond to MSC
Ok?Step counter ‘termRej’
Bearer establishment
Ok?
Through connected.
(QoS related counters
are stepped.)
Step counters ‘rejected due
to capacity’ and ‘termRej’
Step counter ’unmaturerelease’
Release resources.
Step counter ’normalrelease’.
Release resources.
AddReq received
Step counter ‘external
accessibility failure’.
Release resources.
Reason for termination?
Failure*
Normal**
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
MSC AddReq
AddRsp (NOK).
AddRsp (NOK).
AddRsp (OK).
NotifyReq
NotifyReq
SubRsp (OK).
SubReq**
Accessibility
(internal)
Ratio of successful
Termination
reservations/term.
requests
Accessibility
(external)
RetainabilityRatio of mature
released connections/all connections
Integrity(BER/BLER/..)
* E.g. due to program/board restart
** Normal release = SubReq received from MSC
Rsp?NOK
OK
NotifyReq?
Yes
No
1000
Connection attemptsI.e. AddReqs
999
Successful attempts
I.e AddRsp OK
=>accessibility
(internal) = 99,9%
997
Bearer establismentsOK =>accessibility
(external)997/999*100% = 99,8%
996
Normal releases I.eSubRsp OK
=>retainability996/997*100% = 99,9%
Example case of KPI calculation. Note that successive measurement is based on number of connections
that have reached that particular phase.
t
8/17/2019 Sample Core Technical Audit Report.pdf
54/90
Core Network Audit Report for XXXX
Aircom International 2011– Commercial & Confidence Page | 54 of 90
Accessibility
Accessibility has been divided into two parts:
Internal Accessibility measurement-Measured from reception of AddReq to sending of AddRsp.-Considers all internal resources of MGw except admission control for IP and ATM.
External Accessibility measurement-Measured from sending of AddRsp i.e. where internal accessibility ends to successful bearerestablishment. In non-CSD termination the Nb or Iu has been initialized, in UDI calls the Q.Aal2connection has been established and in CSD calls Iu or Nb has been initialized & the radio and fixedprotocols are up.
-Considers IP & ATM admission control and external bearer setup protocols.
Retainability
Retainability should it be just one KPI that cover the following measurement:
Internal Retainability measurement
Measurement starts after external bearer is up i.e. where external accessibility ends.
Considers failures of internal resources e.g. MSB or ET in MGw that lead to that call is disconnectedabnormally.
External retainability
Failures e.g. Q.aal2 RES or ICMP DU that lead a call.
GCP commands that are replied with error code due to external failure.
can be left on lower priority as those can be assumed to be covered by other nodes contributing the networkretainability.
Integrity
The integrity is the ability of an external connection to maintain requested service at desired quality.
Traffic load
This category provides information about the current status of a node, mainly from resource usage point of view.
Following items should be considered for daily measurement:
8/17/2019 Sample Core Technical Audit Report.pdf
55/90
Core Network Audit Report for XXXX
Aircom International 2011– Commercial & Confidence Page | 55 of 90
Current Traffic Load Software Licensing, Media Stream Channel Utilization Rate Processor Load Media Stream Resource Reservation Rate STP&SGw, SEP and SRP Signaling Traffic (MSU/s) AAL2 Pipe Utilization Rate MTP3b Signalling Link Usage
The following KPI should be considered for check the traffic during special events (High Traffic) or after somenetwork change.
MTP3b Signaling Link Usage Number of Received and Sent M3UA Payload Data Messages MTP2 Signaling Link Usage
Received and Transmitted Bandwidth (bps) on a VC Link Usage Rate of Received and Transmitted ATM Cells on a VC Link Received and Transmitted Bandwidth (Mbps) in Fast Ethernet Signalling
7.3 Key Performance Indicators for Internal Accessibility
The internal accessibility is the ability to obtain requested service from the system between the reception of aGCP Add message and the sending of a GCP AddReply message.This KPI can be used for example monitoring the utilization and congestion rate of resources.
MGW Accessibility
Healthy value range: 99.7 — 100% (long term average)
Possible reasons for falling below the healthy value range:
Congestion in some M-MGw resources Maximum use of licensed software capacity
Possible consequence of falling below the healthy value range: Increased traffic rejection rate
Recommended actions when falling below the healthy value range:
MGW11 MGW21 MGW31
99.35% 92.95% 99.57%
8/17/2019 Sample Core Technical Audit Report.pdf
56/90
Core Network Audit Report for XXXX
Aircom International 2011– Commercial & Confidence Page | 56 of 90
Check if the event 80 % Capacity Limit Met for Media Stream Channels or the event 100 % CapacityLimit Met for Media Stream Channels is issued.
Check software capacity licenses. Analyze the following PIs to see if the problem concerns ATM, IP or TDM traffic, AAL2 Termination
Seizure Success Rate, IP Termination Seizure Success Rate and TDM Termination Reservation SuccessRate.
Identify and redimension (if possible) the congested resources in the node. Check the status of related resources and devices. Check the counter MgwApplication.pmNrOfRejsByStaticAdmCtrl.
7.4 Key Performance Indicators for External Accessibility
This chapter specifies the PIs for external accessibility that are supported by the M-MGw. The external
accessibility is the ability to obtain requested service from the system between the sending of a GCP AddReplymessage and the completion of a bearer setup.
The major KPI to monitor is “Incoming AAL2 Connection Reservation Success Rate”:The Incoming AAL2 Connection Reservation Success Rate measurement is used for calculating the incoming AAL2connection reservation success rate initiated by the adjacent node. This measurement is made for AAL2 AccessPoint (Aal2Ap).
Successful Rate in AAL2AP
Healthy value range: 99.7 - 100% (long term average).
Possible reasons for falling below the healthy value range: AAL2 configuration mismatch between this node and remote node Congestion in remote node
Possible consequence of falling below the healthy value range: Increased traffic rejection rate
Recommended actions when falling below the healthy value range:
Check the AAL2 configuration on remote node, fix the detected faulty configurations. Redimension the AAL2 pipe.
Consider rerouting of traffic to other nodes or network expansion.
7.5 AAL2 Termination Seizure Success Rate
MGW11 MGW21 MGW31
100% 100% 100%
8/17/2019 Sample Core Technical Audit Report.pdf
57/90
Core Network Audit Report for XXXX
Aircom International 2011– Commercial & Confidence Page | 57 of 90
MGW11
Aal2 Rejection = 16466
Aal2 Request = 15917054851
Aal2 Termination success Rate = 99.98%
Healthy value range: 99.7 — 100%
MGW21
Aal2 Rejection = 13202
Aal2 Request = 3245811935
Aal2 Termination success Rate = 99.95%
Healthy value range: 99.7 — 100%
MGW31
Aal2 Rejection = 52290
Aal2 Request = 13450554991
Aal2 Termination success Rate = 99.96%
Healthy value range: 99.7 — 100%
7.6 TDM Termination Reservation Success Rate
MGW11
TDM Rejection = 2247053
TDM Request = 24816959645
TDM Termination success Rate = 99.09%
Healthy value range: 99.7 — 100%
MGW21
TDM Rejection = 7057901
8/17/2019 Sample Core Technical Audit Report.pdf
58/90
Core Network Audit Report for XXXX
Aircom International 2011– Commercial & Confidence Page | 58 of 90
TDM Request = 10919805864
TDM Termination success Rate = 93.53%
Healthy value range: 99.7 — 100%
MGW31
TDM Rejection = 952605
TDM Request = 15153868410
TDM Termination success Rate = 99.37%
Healthy value range: 99.7 — 100%
7.7 IP Termination Seizure Success Rate
Not Applicable. N/A
7.8 Originating Nb Connection Initialization Success Rate
MGW11
Nb Init Fault = 0
Nb Init = 4486564122
Nb Connection Initialization Success Rate= 100 %
Healthy value range: 99.7 — 100%
MGW21
Nb Init Fault = 0
Nb Init = 75132256
Nb Connection Initialization Success Rate= 100 %
Healthy value range: 99.7 — 100%
MGW31
8/17/2019 Sample Core Technical Audit Report.pdf
59/90
Core Network Audit Report for XXXX
Aircom International 2011– Commercial & Confidence Page | 59 of 90
Nb Init Fault = 0Nb Init = 5027045203
Nb Connection Initialization Success Rate= 100 %
Healthy value range: 99.7 — 100%
7.9 Software Licensing, Media Stream Channel Seizure Success Rate
MGW11
Stream Channels Rejection= 0
Stream Channel request = 35791661320
Channel Seizure Success Rate = 100%
Healthy value range: 99.7 — 100%
MGW21
Stream Channels Rejection= 0
Stream Channel request = 14008237011
Channel Seizure Success Rate = 100%
Healthy value range: 99.7 — 100%
MGW31
Stream Channels Rejection= 0
Stream Channel request = 24743543905
Channel Seizure Success Rate = 100%
Healthy value range: 99.7 — 100%
7.10 Interactive Messaging, Basic Message Success Rate
Not Valid as no data is available
8/17/2019 Sample Core Technical Audit Report.pdf
60/90
Core Network Audit Report for XXXX
Aircom International 2011– Commercial & Confidence Page | 60 of 90
7.11 Interactive Messaging, Message Composition Success Rate
MGW11
Call Attempt = 5614692755
Call Rejection = 0
Message composition success Rate = 100%
Healthy value range: 99.7 — 100%
MGW21
Call Attempt = 3095522565
Call Rejection = 0
Message composition success Rate = 100%
Healthy value range: 99.7 — 100%
MGW31
Call Attempt = 4019940232
Call Rejection = 0
Message composition success Rate = 100%
Healthy value range: 99.7 — 100%
7.12 Outgoing AAL2 Connection Reservation Success Rate
MGW11
Succ Out Conns Remote Qos ClassA= 3922201
UnSucc Out Conns Remote Qos ClassA=2087
Aal2 connection success rate = 99.94%
8/17/2019 Sample Core Technical Audit Report.pdf
61/90
Core Network Audit Report for XXXX
Aircom International 2011– Commercial & Confidence Page | 61 of 90
MGW21
Data Not Available
MGW31
Succ Out Conns Remote Qos Class A= 2543085
UnSucc Out Conns Remote Qos ClassA= 2069
Aal2 connection success rate = 81.29%
7.13 Retainability
It shall be possible to measure retainability on a M-MGw node level. In addition it shall be ensured that externalfaults and problems, independent from M-MGw, are excluded from M-MGw retainability result.
The external part is can be left on lower priority as those can be assumed to be covered by other nodescontributing the network retainability.
Note: the core network level retainability shall be measured in MSC server.
The Service Retainability measurement shows the M-MGw ability to retain the services, once obtained, for thedesired duration. The measurement is made for physical M-MGw.
Reatinabilty
MGW11 MGW21 MGW31
100% 100% 100%
8/17/2019 Sample Core Technical Audit Report.pdf
62/90
Core Network Audit Report for XXXX
Aircom International 2011– Commercial & Confidence Page | 62 of 90
pmNrOfGcpNotifyCsdFaultAEst
The total number of encountered Circuit Switched Data (CSD) termination faults after bearer establishment (between establishment of bearer and reception of Gateway Control Protocol (GCP) Sub, resulting in the sendingof a GCP Notify message towards the MGC.
Condition: The counter is incremented when a notify message is sent for CSD calls (both internal and externalreasons counted) between establishment of bearer and GCP Sub (tear down of connection).
pmNrOfGcpNotifySpeechFaultAEst
The total number of encountered speech termination faults after bearer establishment (betweenestablishment of bearer and reception of Gateway Control Protocol (GCP) Sub that result in the sending of a GCP
Notify message towards the Media Gateway controller (MGC).
Condition: The counter is incremented when a notify message is sent for speech calls (both internal and externalreasons counted) between establishment of bearer and GCP Sub (tear down of connection).
Possible reasons for falling below the healthy value range: High processor load Congestion in device pool, for example in AMR pool Problems (for example. faults) in some M-MGw resources
Possible consequence of falling below the healthy value range: Increased amount of dropped calls
7.14 Integrity
The integrity is the ability of an external connection to maintain requested service at desired quality.It shall be possible to measure integrity on a M-MGw node level. Even though it might be difficult to get anobjective view on what level of integrity (=quality of service) is still normal and acceptable M-MGw shall haveindicators for data handling quality.
The possible measures integrity on a connection type level are:
8/17/2019 Sample Core Technical Audit Report.pdf
63/90
Core Network Audit Report for XXXX
Aircom International 2011– Commercial & Confidence Page | 63 of 90
Traffic over ATM, except broadband signalling, is left out since quality related measurements on ATM wouldcause considerable high load on the node.Due to the same reason all current ATM quality supervision measurements have to be set ‘ON’ separately andnumber of them is l imited. Besides, ATM is considered very reliable and robust and would not be meaningful tobe monitored (except when building up the network or debugging specific problems).
7.14.1 SS7 over ATM QoS
The SS7 over ATM QoS measurement is used for calculating the SS7 broadband signalling quality (over ATM). Itshows the ratio of successfully handled signalling packets. The measurement is made for physical M-MGw.
Formulas
SS7 Broad Band Signalling Quality
Healthy value range: 99.999–100% (long term average)
Possible reason for falling below the healthy value range:
Protocol errors Link congestion
Possible consequence of falling below the healthy value range: Decreased capacity for handling ATM based broadband signalling
Recommended action when exceeding the healthy value range: Reconfigure Nni Saal Profile.
7.14.2 SS7 over TDM QoS
PI Integrity Healthy ATM Transport QoS, Jitter 99,9%
IP Transport QoS, Packet Loss 99,9%
IP Transport QoS, Jitter 99,9%
SS7 over ATM QoS 99,9%
SS7 over IP QoS 99,9%
SS7 over TDM QoS 99,9%
MGW11 MGW21 MGW31
99.99% 99.99% 100%
8/17/2019 Sample Core Technical Audit Report.pdf
64/90
Core Network Audit Report for XXXX
Aircom International 2011– Commercial & Confidence Page | 64 of 90
The SS7 over TDM QoS measurement is used for calculating the incoming and outgoing SS7 narrowbandsignalling quality (over TDM). It shows the ratio of successfully handled signalling packets. The measurement ismade for physical M-MGw.
Narrow Band Signalling Quality
termination point types: Mtp2TpItu (when using ITU standard) Mtp2TpAnsi (when using ANSI standard) Mtp2TpChina (when using MII standard)
Healthy value range: 99.999–100% (long term average).
Possible reason for falling below the healthy value range: Protocol errors Link congestion
Possible consequence of falling below the healthy value range: Decreased capacity for handling TDM based narrowband signalling
Recommended action when exceeding the healthy value range: Reconfigure Mtp2 Profile.
7.14.3 Signaling over IP discard Ratio (Giga Bit Ethernet interface)
The Signaling over IP QoS, IP Packet Discard Ratio measurements are used for calculating the IP Packet DiscardRatio (IPDR) of connections in an IP interface, defined for signaling over IP traffic, on an ET-MFG board. Themeasurement is made for IpInterface.
Discard received IP datagram
MGW11 MGW21 MGW31
0 0 0
Healthy value: At most 10^-5 (long term average, 0 - 0.001%)
Discard send IP datagram
MGW11 MGW21 MGW31
99.97% 99.98% 99.98%
8/17/2019 Sample Core Technical Audit Report.pdf
65/90
Core Network Audit Report for XXXX
Aircom International 2011– Commercial & Confidence Page | 65 of 90
MGW11 MGW21 MGW31
0 0 0
Healthy value: At most 10^-5 (long term average, 0 - 0.001%)
Values are in healthy range no action required
7.14.4 IP Bearer success rate (HOST)
The Signaling over IP QoS, IP Packet Error Ratio (Host) measurements are used for calculating the received IP
Packet Error Ratio (IPER) in an IP host in the M-MGw, for signaling over IP related traffic. The measurement ismade for IpAccessHostGpb.
MGW11 MGW21 MGW31
0 0 0
Healthy value: At most 10^-5 (long term average, 0 - 0.001%)
Value in healthy range no action required
7.14.5 Aal2 Bearer establish success rate
The AAL2 Bearer Establishment Success Rate measurement is used to monitor the AAL2 bearer establishment
success rate. The measurement is made per VMGw.
MGW11 MGW21 MGW31
95.97% 100% 99.99%
Health value = 99.99%
Very slight Rejection in MGW11.Recommended actions when falling below the healthy value range:
Identify and redimension (if possible) the congested resources in the local node.
7.14.6 SCTP
8/17/2019 Sample Core Technical Audit Report.pdf
66/90
Core Network Audit Report for XXXX
Aircom International 2011– Commercial & Confidence Page | 66 of 90
Number of SCTP packets received from the peers, with an invalid checksumMGW11 MGW21 MGW31
0 0 0
Number of unordered chunks sent to the peers
MGW11 MGW21 MGW31
Not Zero 0 Not Zero
Number of unordered chunks received from the peers.
MGW11 MGW21 MGW31
Not Zero 0 Not Zero
Number of sent chunks dropped, when the sending buffer overflows.
MGW11 MGW21 MGW31
0 0 0
The target value for all of them should be 0.For the case where it is not Zero please check the IP backbone, disturbance and fluctuation for the IP associated
with the relevant SCTP.The problem is in the IP backbone.
7.14.7 Sigtran Retransmission
MGW11 MGW21 MGW31
0.0328 0.0030 0.0034
8/17/2019 Sample Core Technical Audit Report.pdf
67/90
Core Network Audit Report for XXXX
Aircom International 2011– Commercial & Confidence Page | 67 of 90
Healthy value: (long term average, 0 — 0.001%)Problem may be in the IP backbone .Maybe due to the continuous fluctuation in the IP back bone close
monitoring should be done.
7.14.8 M3UA
The Number of Received and Sent M3UA Payload Data Messages
MGW Sent Receive Cong
MGW11 420059165.5 381350197.8 1.67
MGW22 207794070.8 202341239.7 0
MGW33 425233858.3 413335803 0
Here Congestion is not the formula but it is calculated on average basis, so very slight congestion in MGW11 it is
ignorable as it in peak hours only, but recommendation is to increase the association. It was observed quite
often ,the disturbance in the IP backbone. Mention below is the time when disturbance was seen in MGW11 and
MGW22
MGW21(Time) Sent Receive MGW11(Time) Sent Receive
'20110317001500 0 0 '20110317001500 0 0
'20110317003000 0 0 '20110317003000 0 0'20110317004500 0 0 '20110317004500 0 0
'20110317010000 0 0 '20110317010000 0 0
'20110317011500 0 0 '20110317011500 0 0
'20110317013000 0 0 '20110317013000 0 0
'20110317014500 0 0 '20110317014500 0 0
'20110317020000 0 0 '20110317020000 0 0
'20110317021500 0 0 '20110317021500 0 0
'20110317023000 0 0 '20110317023000 0 0
'20110317024500 0 0 '20110317024500 0 0
'20110317030000 0 0 '20110317030000 0 0
'20110317031500 0 0 '20110317031500 0 0
'20110317033000 0 0 '20110317033000 0 0'20110317034500 0 0 '20110317034500 0 0
'20110317040000 0 0 '20110317040000 0 0
'20110317041500 0 0 '20110317041500 0 0
'20110317043000 0 0 '20110317043000 0 0
'20110317044500 0 0 '20110317044500 0 0
'20110317050000 0 0 '20110317050000 0 0
'20110317051500 0 0 '20110317051500 0 0
'20110317053000 0 0 '20110317053000 0 0
8/17/2019 Sample Core Technical Audit Report.pdf
68/90
Core Network Audit Report for XXXX
Aircom International 2011– Commercial & Confidence Page | 68 of 90
'20110317054500 0 0 '20110317054500 0 0
'20110317060000 0 0 '20110317060000 0 0'20110317061500 0 0 '20110317061500 0 0
'20110317063000 0 0 '20110317063000 0 0
'20110317064500 0 0 '20110317064500 0 0
'20110317070000 0 0 '20110317070000 0 0
'20110317071500 0 0 '20110317071500 0 0
'20110317073000 0 0 '20110317073000 0 0
'20110317074500 0 0 '20110317074500 0 0
'20110317080000 0 0 '20110317080000 0 0
'20110317081500 0 0 '20110317081500 0 0
'20110317083000 0 0 '20110317083000 0 0
'20110317084500 0 0 '20110317084500 0 0
'20110317090000 0 0 '20110317090000 0 0'20110317091500 0 0 '20110317091500 0 0
'20110317093000 0 0 '20110317093000 0 0
'20110317094500 0 0 '20110317094500 0 0
'20110317100000 0 0 '20110317100000 0 0
'20110317101500 0 0 '20110317101500 0 0
'20110317103000 0 0 '20110317103000 0 0
'20110317104500 0 0 '20110317104500 0 0
'20110317110000 0 0 '20110317110000 0 0
'20110317111500 0 0 '20110317111500 0 0
'20110317113000 0 0 '20110317113000 0 0
'20110317114500 0 0 '20110317114500 0 0
'20110317120000 0 0 '20110317120000 0 0'20110317121500 0 0 '20110317121500 0 0
'20110317123000 0 0 '20110317123000 0 0
'20110317124500 0 0 '20110317124500 0 0
'20110317130000 0 0 '20110317130000 0 0
'20110317131500 0 0 '20110317131500 0 0
'20110317133000 0 0 '20110317133000 0 0
'20110317134500 0 0 '20110317134500 0 0
'20110317140000 0 0 '20110317140000 0 0
'20110317141500 0 0 '20110317141500 0 0
'20110317143000 0 0 '20110317143000 0 0
'20110317144500 0 0 '20110317144500 0 0
'20110317150000 0 0 '20110317150000 0 0'20110317151500 0 0 '20110317151500 0 0
'20110317153000 0 0 '20110317153000 0 0
'20110317154500 0 0 '20110317154500 0 0
'20110317160000 0 0 '20110317160000 0 0
'20110317161500 0 0 '20110317161500 0 0
'20110317163000 0 0 '20110317163000 0 0
'20110317164500 0 0 '20110317164500 0 0
'20110317170000 0 0 '20110317170000 0 0
8/17/2019 Sample Core Technical Audit Report.pdf
69/90
Core Network Audit Report for XXXX
Aircom International 2011– Commercial & Confidence Page | 69 of 90
'20110317171500 0 0 '20110317171500 0 0
'20110317173000 0 0 '20110317173000 0 0'20110317174500 0 0 '20110317174500 0 0
'20110317180000 0 0 '20110317180000 0 0
'20110317181500 0 0 '20110317181500 0 0
'20110317183000 0 0 '20110317183000 0 0
'20110317184500 0 0 '20110317184500 0 0
'20110317190000 0 0 '20110317190000 0 0
'20110317191500 0 0 '20110317191500 0 0
'20110317193000 0 0 '20110317193000 0 0
'20110317194500 0 0 '20110317194500 0 0
'20110317200000 0 0 '20110317200000 0 0
'20110317201500 0 0 '20110317201500 0 0
'20110317203000 0 0 '20110317203000 0 0'20110317204500 0 0 '20110317204500 0 0
'20110317210000 0 0 '20110317210000 0 0
'20110317211500 0 0 '20110317211500 0 0
'20110317213000 0 0 '20110317213000 0 0
'20110317214500 0 0 '20110317214500 0 0
'20110317220000 0 0 '20110317220000 0 0
'20110317221500 0 0 '20110317221500 0 0
'20110317223000 0 0 '20110317223000 0 0
'20110317224500 0 0 '20110317224500 0 0
'20110317230000 0 0 '20110317230000 0 0
'20110317231500 0 0 '20110317231500 0 0
'20110317233000 0 0 '20110317233000 0 0'20110317234500 0 0 '20110317234500 0 0
'20110318000000 0 0 '20110318000000 0 0
7.15 Key Performance Indicators for Traffic and Load
This category provides information about the current status of a node, mainly from resource usage point of view.We suggest the monitoring of the following KPI for Traffic and load:
KPI Traffic Healthy Processor Load 0-80%
Current Traffic Load NA
Software Licensing, Media Stream Channel Utilization Rate (M-MGW R5)0-80%
The following KPI may be monitoring in case of problems in a specific area.
8/17/2019 Sample Core Technical Audit Report.pdf
70/90
Core Network Audit Report for XXXX
Aircom International 2011– Commercial & Confidence Page | 70 of 90
PI Traffic optional HealthyM-MGW NodeSTP&SGw, SEP and SRP Signalling Traffic (MSU/s) See Ref Error!
Reference source not
found. pag 36
User Plane Services
Media Stream Resource Reservation Rate 0-80%
Number of GSM CSD Connections, Analogue (Modem) Services NA
Number of GSM Fax Connections NA
Number of Non-transparent GSM CSD Connections, Digital Services NA
Number of Non-transparent WCDMA CSD Connections, Digital
Services
NA
Number of Transparent WCDMA CSD Connections, Digital Services NA
Number of WCDMA CSD Connections, Analogue (modem) Services NA
Q.2630
AAL2 Pipe Utilization Rate 0-80%
GCP
GCP Message Statistics See Ref Error!
Reference source not
found.
SCCP
SCCP Policing 0
SCCP Relay NA
MTP3/MTP3b/M3UA
MTP3b Signalling Link Usage NA
Number of Received and Sent M3UA Payload Data Messages NA
8/17/2019 Sample Core Technical Audit Report.pdf
71/90
Core Network Aud
Top Related