Transport resources reservation in IMS frameworks: Terminal vs. PDF driven

  • Antonio Cuevas
  • Jose I. Moreno
  • Hans Einsiedler
Part of the IFIP — The International Federation for Information Processing book series (IFIPAICT, volume 245)


IMS is a good candidate to become the service platform for next generation networks (NGN). Among one of its key characteristics is the ability to keep the Internet paradigm of application and transport separation while designing interfaces between the two layers. In IMS there is an interaction between the CSCFs (call session control function), SIP proxies managing the application setup, and the PDF (Policy Decision Function), controlling the transport network. Still, the terminals have to perform the transport resource allocation (activating the PDP context). In future networks, a similar behavior is possible but also another approach can be followed: the PDF is in charge of allocating the transport resources between the terminals, allowing to reinforce the network control. In this paper we analyze and compare both approaches, including by resorting to simulation.


IMS PDP RSVP ns2 simulations resource reservation transport 


  1. 1.
    Braden, R. et al. RFC 1663, “Integrated Services in the Internet Architecture: an Overview”, June 1994Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Braden R. et al. RFC 2205, “Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) — Version 1 Functional Specification” September 1997Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Calhoun P. et al. RFC 3588, “Diameter Base Protocol” September 2003Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Camarillo, G. and Garcia Martin, M.A.. “The 3G IP Multimedia Subsystem (IMS): Merging the Internet and the Cellular Worlds”, Wiley, 2004.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chan, K. et al., RFC 3084 “COPS Usage for Policy Provisioning (COPS-PR)”. March 2001Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cherry, S. “Nothing but Net: Britain switches its entire phone network to the Internet Protocol.” IEEE Spectrum. January 2007.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cuevas. A. “Contribution to Design Suitable Session Setup Solutions in 4G Networks”. Ph.D. Thesis. Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. 2006Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cuevas, A. et al., “The IMS Service Platform, the Key for Next-Generation Network Operators to Be More than Bit Pipes”, IEEE Comm. Mag., vol. 44, no. 8, Aug. 2006Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dirham, D. et al., RFC 2748 “The COPS (Common Open Policy Service) Protocol” January 2000Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    García G. et al. “Soporte de QoS en Redes de 4° Generación” Revista IEEE America Latina, Volume 4, Issue 1, March 2006Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Herzog, S., RFC 2749 “COPS usage for RSVP”, January 2000 ia12. Information Sciences Institute, University of Southern California, Network Simulator 2
  12. 13.
    Jähnert, J. et al. “The pure-IP Moby Dick 4G architecture” Computer Communications Vol 28/9 pp 1014–1027Google Scholar
  13. 14.
    Marques, V. et al. “An IP-based QoS architecture for 4G operator scenarios” IEEE Wireless Communications, June 2003Google Scholar
  14. 15.
    Papalilo, D., Salsano, S., Veltri, L. “Extending SIP for QoS support”, Joint Planet-JP NEBULA workshop, Courmayeur, 2002Google Scholar
  15. 16.
    Poikselkä, M. “The IMS: IP multimedia concepts and services in the mobile domain” Wiley & Sons ISBN: 047087113X (2004)Google Scholar
  16. 17.
    Salsano, S. Veltri, L. “QoS Control by Means of COPS to Support SIP-Based Applications” IEEE Network, March/April 2002Google Scholar
  17. 18.
    Scott-Joynt, J.’ The secret of NTT’s i-mode success” BBC news available at
  18. 19.
    Wirtschafts Woche, “Google & Co. müssen zahlen” Wirtschafts Woche, 23rd february 2006, GermanyGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Federation for Information Processing 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Antonio Cuevas
    • 1
  • Jose I. Moreno
    • 1
    • 2
  • Hans Einsiedler
    • 2
  1. 1.Dpto. Ing. Telemática AvdaUniversidad Carlos III de MadridLeganésSpain
  2. 2.Deutsche Telekom LaboratoriesBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations