6,575
edits
Assessment of Open Ran: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
Open Ran eliminates reliance on one vendor. This was common in single vendor deployments; hence fixing issues were prone to take a long time. With multi-vendor deployments, an issue affecting the network falls on all parties involved<ref name=":3">https://www.parallelwireless.com/wp-content/uploads/Parallel-Wireless-e-Book-Everything-You-Need-to-Know-about-Open-RAN.pdf</ref>. This protects the operator's investment and reduces adverse impact on the end-user. | Open Ran eliminates reliance on one vendor. This was common in single vendor deployments; hence fixing issues were prone to take a long time. With multi-vendor deployments, an issue affecting the network falls on all parties involved<ref name=":3">https://www.parallelwireless.com/wp-content/uploads/Parallel-Wireless-e-Book-Everything-You-Need-to-Know-about-Open-RAN.pdf</ref>. This protects the operator's investment and reduces adverse impact on the end-user. | ||
===Challenges of Open Ran=== | ===Challenges of Open Ran=== | ||
1. Interoperability issues | ===1. Integration=== | ||
Multiple vendors can only be used in the network if their hardware and software solutions are compatible. Although O-Rance Alliance provides a platform for interoperability testing, such testing is not enough to ensure compatibility between different vendor solutions. Also, interoperability is a continuous process which is time consuming and expensive. For instance, interoperability testing should be done everytime there is a software update. | As already mentioned, integration is the main issue facing Open Ran. The challenge is even bigger in bluefield deployments since the operator has to integrate the legacy Ran with Open Ran. That is why bluefield operators are transitioning into Open Ran gradually instead of going into it at full speed. Indeed, it's not surprising that greenfield operators such as Rakuten and Dish have led the way in deploying Open Ran<ref name=":02">https://senzafili.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/SenzaFili_DD_ORAN_Ecosystem.pdf</ref>. | ||
===2. Interoperability issues=== | |||
Multiple vendors can only be used in the network if their hardware and software solutions are compatible. Although O-Rance Alliance provides a platform for interoperability testing, such testing is not enough to ensure compatibility between different vendor solutions<ref name=":02" />. Also, interoperability is a continuous process which is time consuming and expensive. For instance, interoperability testing should be done everytime there is a software update. | |||
=== '''3. Commercial off-the-shelf(COTs) hardware increases opex cost''' === | |||
Although COTs hardware is cheap to acquire and enables faster deployments, it can result in higher OPEX costs. This is because, unlike proprietary solutions, COTs hardware is not optimized. As such, they end up consuming a lot of power. But the industry is now moving towards alternative solutions which use optimized silicon<ref name=":02" />. | |||
=== 4. Open Ran performance has not been fully proven === | |||
Open Ran players such as Rakuten and Dish have yet to prove whether Open Ran is better than the traditional Ran<ref name=":02" />. It's one way to forecast and another way to achieve. | |||
=== 5. Security issues === | |||
Deployment of multi-vendor solutions increases cyber attacks<ref name=":12">https://www.ifri.org/sites/default/files/atoms/files/velliet_open_ran_2022_us.pdf</ref>. This is acknowledged by a US Government Agency, which wrote, “the attack surface of the network expands considerably.” Although with more vendors come more eyes monitoring security vulnerabilities, the operator ends up incurring more security costs. | |||
==References== | ==References== | ||
<references /> | <references /> | ||