Service Based Architecture For 5G Core Networks
Service Based Architecture For 5G Core Networks
Service Based Architecture For 5G Core Networks
This white paper focuses the service-based architecture (SBA) under development for 5GC
and discusses why it is suitable for deployment on cloud infrastructure and can meet future
service needs. The paper compares the SBA with the more familiar point-to-point (P2P)
architectures defined for mobile core networks. It argues that the SBA is better aligned with
the new cloud-native networking models being pursued by leading operators and makes the
case for operators to adopt SBA as the preferred option for 5G core network deployment.
The point-to-point architecture has been used in 2G, 3G, 4G and now 5G. In this model,
different network functions are connected over standardized interfaces that allow for multi-
vendor networks. This is well understood conceptually and operationally and has served
mobile operators for decades.
Now, however, with the transition to cloud infrastructure, and the need for greater "service
agility," the point-to-point model is no longer the best option. For operators that view 5G as
an opportunity for transformative change – both in terms of functionality and cost-per-bit –
the SBA looks more attractive.
The challenge with the P2P architecture is that is contains a large number of unique, or
quasi-unique, interfaces between functional elements, each connected to multiple adjacent
elements. This "tangle" of connections creates dependencies between functions and makes
it difficult to change a deployed architecture. If a new function is introduced, or an existing
function expanded or upgraded, the operator needs to reconfigure multiple adjacent func-
tions, and test the new configuration, before going live. This raises the business case
threshold to experiment with, and deploy, new services.
The SBA decouples the end-user service from the underlying network and platform infra-
structure and, in doing so, enables both functional and service agility. By virtue of SBA
being designed to operate using the cloud model, in which different functions can be com-
posed into an end-to-end service over standardized application programming interfaces
(APIs), it is simpler for an operator to add, remove or modify VNFs from a network pro-
cessing path (functional agility) and create new service-specific service paths on-demand
(service agility).
5G SERVICE-BASED ARCHITECTURE
The 5G core is now under development across the industry. 3GPP standards work is cur-
rently ongoing as part of Release 15, scheduled to freeze by mid-2018. At the same time,
operators and vendors are co-developing systems and using live trials to feed back into the
standards process. This iterative development process is a notable difference between 5G
and previous generations of mobile technology. China Mobile, for example, has already
tested SBA for 5G core and will move on to multi-vendor testing in 2018.
• Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF): Manages access control and
mobility. The AMF also includes the Network Slice Selection Function (NSSF).
• Session Management Function (SMF): This sets up and manages sessions, ac-
cording to network policy.
• User Plane Function (UPF): UPFs can be deployed in various configurations and
locations, according to the service type. These are equivalent of GWs in 4G.
• Policy Control Function (PCF): This provides a policy framework incorporating
network slicing, roaming and mobility management. Equivalent to a PCRF in 4G.
The expectation, in other words, is that 5GC will be deployed on a shared, orchestrated
cloud infrastructure and should be designed accordingly. Some of the key 5GC design
principles are:
An example of how the NRF is used is for establishment of a new session. In this case, the
SMF discovery and selection request is initiated by the AMF when a request to establish a
data session is received from the UE. The NRF is used to assist the discovery and selection
of the correct SMF. In a network slice context, the same process occurs: the AMF queries
the NRF to select an SMF that is part of a Network Slice instance based on S-NSSAI, UE
subscription profile and operator policy, when the UE requests a session to be set up.
Control-plane functions communicate with one another, via the NRF, over service-based in-
terfaces (using HTTP 2.0 transport). Figure 3 shows how that a network function is itself
made up of "network function services" (top left the diagram). These are self-contained
software modules that are reusable independently of each other and could be thought of
as microservices. The network function is either a producer or consumer of services (top
right of the diagram), with two modes of interaction: either a consumer NF can request a
response from a producer NF – for example, to request subscriber policy information; or it
can subscribe to a producer and be notified if needed – for example, if a subscriber's state
changes to inactive mode.
Slices can be fine-grained, at the per-user or per-service level, or can be more coarse-
grained, at a company or industry level (e.g., a connected car slice, or meter-reading slice).
Examples include a connected car service, an MVNO, an enterprise, a utility, a financial
trading slice, and so on. Ideally, the slice should run end-to-end across the RAN, transport
and core domains, and extend as far as the UE on one side or SGi services on the other.
A useful way to define a network slice is using an adapted version of the Next Generation
Mobile Network Initiative (NGMN) definition, as follows: "A set of network functions instanti-
ated to form a complete logical network that meet the performance requirements of a ser-
vice type(s)." A network slice consists of three layers: 1) Service Instance Layer, 2) Net-
work Slice Instance Layer, and 3) Resource layer.
In Figure 4, for example, the AMF is deployed into different slice types. The AMF in the
eMBB slice is incorporates functionality of three different NF services (AMF service 1, 2, and
3) needed to meet the demands of this high-mobility slice. In contrast, the AMF in the mIoT
slice incorporates only AMF service 1 and 3 because it is relatively simpler from a mobility
perspective. In this way, slices can be created using only the functional components
needed to support the specific requirements of the service or customer.
In the packet core, control- and user-plane separation (CUPS) is currently being introduced
to 4G core networks ahead of 5G. This upgrade enables the EPC to meet increasing traffic
demands at lower cost-per-bit, and to serve low-latency applications hosted in edge locations.
It also provides an important migration path from 4G to 5G. Figure 5 shows the conceptual
similarities between 4G and 5G core.
This logical mapping between the 4G and 5G architectures can also be applied, in practice,
to core network migration. Figure 6 shows how the network can be configured to serve both
network types, using internal or external interfaces according to the deployment. In the user
plane, converged "gateways" supporting S/PGW-U and UPF can be used for subscriber termi-
nation and traffic forwarding. These may be physical appliances or virtual instances. In the
control plane, PGW-C can be combined with the 5G session management function, the PCRF
with the 5G policy control function, and the HSS with UDM function. Because there is no MME
in 5G (the AMF and SMF now serve these functions), this remains a 4G-specific function.
This hybrid 4G/5G core is a way for operators to migrate investment in the EPC to the new
core network as 5G subscribers and traffic grow. It allows them to continue to invest in
This will be simpler and faster to deploy than standalone 5G, and the first commercial services
using commercial devices are expected to launch using this architecture in 2019. Over time,
however, operators will need to migrate to a new 5G core using the SBA, in order to meet
the performance requirements of advanced services and reduce their overall system cost.
To support the data traffic generated by 5G radio, non-standalone mode will require invest-
ment in the host 4G core, perhaps linked to the introduction of a CUPS architecture and edge
cloud deployment. Operators do not want this investment to be stranded when they move
to 5GC and, in many cases, will also want to move their evolved LTE access networks to this
new 5G core. This migration strategy, therefore, has both functional and economic benefits.
5G CORE DEPLOYMENT
The timing of 5G aligns with the adoption of cloud and SDN technologies in telecom net-
works. Therefore, to ensure that 5G is future-proof and evolvable, it should be designed for
deployment on this next-generation infrastructure. Progressive operators are now deploying
the distributed data centers, cloud platforms, SDN connectivity and control and manage-
ment software on which they wish to deploy 5G. In this context, the 5G core can be thought
of as an application on an SDN infrastructure.
Software-Defined 5G Core
This new environment is forcing companies to design "cloud-native" 5GC functions. As
shown in Figure 8, cloud-native VNFs are designed using disaggregated software compo-
nents (a.k.a. microservices), and deployed on cloud infrastructure as workloads that can
be scheduled on demand by an orchestrator, and can scale in/out on demand.
Operators have a physical footprint in the form of base station controller sites, and transport
aggregation sites, that they can convert into micro, distributed data centers. Depending on
the service requirements, these data centers can be used to terminate access connections
from the 5G RAN and become the obvious place to deploy 5G core functions, especially
user-plane functions, and to host latency-sensitive content and applications. Converged
This in turn drives a need for a high-performance wide-area IP services fabric. This fabric
connects distributed data centers in a meshed architecture that provides resiliency and
scalability, and should be programmable such that it can support dynamic, service-specific
network slices. In effect, the IP services fabric makes distributed centers act in a unified
manner – i.e., behave as one integrated data center. The concept is shown in Figure 9,
with 5GC functions overlaid in blue.
This paper has discussed how the architecture is well aligned with key operator requirements
and how the ability to easily update the production network by quickly adding and removing
functions from a service path enables both functional agility and service agility. As operators
deploy 5G in standalone mode from 2020 onward, we expect the services architecture to be
adopted in the 5GC control plane.