Whitepaper

Migration MPT to TETRA

Whitepaper Migration MPT to TETRA

Abstract
TETRA is rapidly gaining market acceptance for safety and security related
applications. For other PMR applications the acceptance of TETRA is less
visible, mainly due to the high cost of equipment and functional limitations of the
current generation of TETRA products. These PMR applications can also benefit
from existing trunked radio technologies, such as the MPT 1327 standard. But
because of the limited expected lifetime of analogue radio systems, organisations
and companies are reluctant to invest in these analogue radio systems.
Rohill has solved this dilemma by offering a multi-standard platform for trunked
radio communications. The TetraNode platform has been designed to support
TETRA, the most demanding trunked radio standard available today. But the
same platform is also capable of supporting other standards simultaneously,
including the MPT 1327 standard.
This whitepaper explains the TetraNode system architecture in terms of multi-
standard support. The benefits of this approach are explained as well. For
reference, a comparison is included to understand the interoperability of the
different functions.

Introduction
The migration from analogue to digital electronics in the eighties and nineties has
caused the most visible technological advancement in the world. We have seen
the change from vinyl disc to CD, analogue telephony to ISDN, VCR to DVD,
analogue TV to digital TV and analogue mobile telephony to GSM and CDMA.
In all cases, the migration from analogue to digital has been carefully observed
and appropriate measures were taken to ensure compatibility. For example, CD
players can still be connected to an analogue stereo set, and users of ISDN
telephones can still talk to users of analogue telephones.
Traditionally, the professional PMR and PAMR market is standards based, either
based on manufacturer specific proprietary standards or open standards. In the
US, the APCO committee has ensured smooth migration from analogue to digital
by requiring downwards compatibility between the digital APCO Project 25
standard and the analogue APCO Project 16 standard. This approach to ensure
smooth migration has not been considered by the TETRA community.
Today, this has resulted in a situation whereby the TETRA operator cannot
smoothly migrate from analogue to digital communications. Either the operator
has to deploy the whole TETRA network at a single moment of time, or faces the
risks of loosing communication between users of the different networks. Because
deployment at a single moment of time is not realistic due to need for phased
equipment delivery and subsequent training of users in a specific area, the user
will be faced with interoperability problems during a long period of time.

Issue 2.1 June 2002 2

Whitepaper Migration MPT to TETRA

Migration to TETRA should also be observed from the perspective of the user of
safety and security related professional communication. These organisations
require solid, future-proof solutions, which can be maintained for more than a
decade. Strict budget control does not allow wide scale deployment at a particular
moment of time.
It is also not acceptable for these organisations that terminals and infrastructure
components with a current lifetime of less than 3 – 5 years are made redundant
instantly. This means that re-use of existing components is an important
advantage. Continuous use should not mean, however, that interoperability is
limited. Terminal users of the existing analogue network should not notice a
degradation of functionality or performance.
A common made mistake is to consider the air interface standard as a “system”.
People talk about TETRA systems, APCO-25 systems, MPT systems, GSM
systems, etc. In fact, the standards only describe the air interface, thus how the
communication between terminals and infrastructure is realised. Because of the
limited scope of the standards, nothing about the system architecture is specified,
which is basically a network dedicated for mobile communications.

TetraNode system architecture

The TetraNode system architecture is designed from the beginning to support
multiple air interface standards. Common properties are defined for the upper
side of the protocol stacks, which allows seamless integration of multiple air
interfaces within a single system. Also a common communication layer has been
defined to connect different types of base stations to the system.

System dimensioning
TETRA is the most complex standard of the foreseeable future. Because of this,
the system dimensioning, such as the necessary CPU and Real Time Operating
System (RTOS) performance and scalability, is based on the requirements of the
TETRA standard. This involved evaluation on important criteria, including the
maximum task switch latency, RTOS overhead and message handling throughput.
The TetraNode system is based on Commercial Off The Shelve (COTS)
components, such as CompactPCI-based PC hardware. This type of COTS
hardware is available from many sources, and the performance of those boards is
ever increasing without the need to invest in board development. Local service
and support is also available around the world.
The system is also highly scalable. A single TetraNode eXchange (TNX) already
offers an impressive capacity for interconnection of base stations and telephony
interfaces. But the capacity can be increased to far higher levels by
interconnection of multiple TNXes.

Issue 2.1 June 2002 3

Whitepaper Migration MPT to TETRA

These fundamental choices make the TetraNode system architecture a future

proof and no-compromise platform for building highly complex and demanding
applications.

Functional capabilities
The comprehensive functional capabilities of the TETRA standard have been
considered fully for the design of the system architecture. This includes the
advanced capabilities of TETRA, such as the different types of cell reselection,
class 3 authentication and air interface encryption, over the air rekeying (OTAR) ,
IP based packet data and others. Either these capabilities cannot be delivered by
existing TETRA systems, or these capabilities become selectively available now
on certain TETRA systems.
It is interesting to note that because of company policies and limited system
resources of existing systems, it is expected that some functionality will never
become available in certain existing TETRA systems. Because of the independent
role of Rohill in the TETRA community, our objective is to fulfil all customer
requirements, not hindered by internal political issues such as “who invented
what part of the standard”.
Other air interface standards are considered with the set of TETRA capabilities in
mind. Virtually all functional behaviour of these other air interface standards is
already covered by the TETRA standard, and will thus be interoperable on the
highest level. If not, the lower layers of the other protocol stacks will ensure
compliance with the specific standard.

Distributed network architecture

Although not directly related to the support of multiple standards, the distributed
network architecture is an important part of the TetraNode system architecture.
Distributed systems are a fundamental requirement to achieve a high level of
reliability in case of line or equipment failures.
Also the distributed network design has been optimised to support multiple air
interface standards. The common properties of high level signalling and speech
coding for the different air interface standards are exploited to achieve the best
possible performance for call set-up period, speech delay and speech quality.

Software architecture
The TetraNode software architecture is a very important element to support
multiple air interface standards. The complexity of the different standards is
completely hidden to other parts of the system by means of carefully designed
Service Access Points (SAPs). This simplifies the ongoing development of
functionality, improves system stability and decreases the efforts for maintenance
and implementation of customer specific features.

Issue 2.1 June 2002 4

Whitepaper Migration MPT to TETRA

The TetraNode Foundation Classes (TFC) is the basis for the software
development process. TFC takes care of minimising the amount of non-functional
code, resulting in a significant reduction of the source code size. TFC also
provides an environment for simulation, testing and validation of system
behaviour.
At the protocol side, the different “enablers” are designed to support a specific air
interface standard. The “TETRA Enabler” can be regarded as a software module,
which is necessary to support the TETRA standard. Also a “MPT Enabler” has
been developed to support the MPT-1327 standard. These enablers can be
separately purchased to keep system cost low when there is no need to support
multiple air interfaces at the moment of initial deployment.

Dynamic Resource TCP/IP, HTTP

Behaviour Operational
database

System
Resource Manager
Configuration Management MS database
database (HLR, VLR)

Operational Manager Call / Transmission Manager

TETRA TETRA MPT MPT Telephony

site #1 site #2..n site #1 site #2..n site #1.. n

Circuit TETRA TETRA MPT MPT ISDN/POTS

Switch protocol protocol protocol protocol protocol
Processing stack stack stack stack stack

TetraNode Streaming Processor

TNSP streams, site #1 TNSP streams, site #2

Figure 1: TetraNode software architecture

A substantional part of the software is common to all air interface standards.
Amongst other, this common functionality includes:
• The call / transmission manager;
• Resource manager;
• Operational manager;
• Database management system (DBMS);
• Network management interface;
• Line communication protocols (TNSP, IP) and
• Interfacing to telephony (ISDN and POTS).
Because of this, the development of air-interface specific functionality is reduced
significantly. Also the modularity is improved much. Even the implementation of
entire new air interface standards, such as APCO Project 25, LTR as well as
conventional operation, will be an overseeable and well manageable task.
Implementation of new air interface standards is subject to commercial viability,
Issue 2.1 June 2002 5
Whitepaper Migration MPT to TETRA

of course.

Issue 2.1 June 2002 6

Whitepaper Migration MPT to TETRA

Benefits of multi-standard support

Support of multiple air interface standards offers many benefits for the operator
or owner of the trunked radio system. These benefits are explained in the
following section.

Enable smooth migration from MPT to TETRA

TETRA offers high-end features and security, which is of interest to security and
safety related organisations. However, the higher cost of terminal equipment
could be an obstacle for other user groups of organisations to migrate fully to
TETRA within a short period of time.
A smooth migration from MPT to TETRA is a much better alternative. For
example, police officers with sensitive tasks can utilise TETRA first, while other
parts of the public safety organisation can continue the use of MPT.
If necessary, the other MPT users can also be supplied with TETRA terminals in
a later phase. This changeover can be performed step-by-step, whereby the user
training can be provided at the right time, just before deployment of new TETRA
terminals.
Migration is also an option for expansion or upgrading of existing MPT networks
with TETRA facilities. Base stations from different manufacturers can be
interconnected to TetraNode by use of the Base Station Interface (BSI), which
can be inserted in the TetraNode Expansion Platform (TEP). Only the network
elements (switches, controllers, …) have to be replaced by a TetraNode system.
Considering the fact that for a typical configuration the capital investment of
infrastructure components is just 30% of the cost of a total solution with
terminals included, and the remaining 70% can be re-used, this is a very attractive
proposition for migration.
Smooth migration from MPT to TETRA is cost effective also because of the fact
that the existing MPT terminals can still be used. This protects the investment in
terminals, which are useless otherwise.
TetraNode is also the right solution for organisations and companies looking for a
MPT network only. TetraNode is the only integrated solution offering an upgrade
path to TETRA. Considering the decreasing cost of TETRA terminal equipment,
this upgrade path may prove very attractive after 3 to 5 years. Due to the common
hardware platform, no disinvestments are caused by the upgrade to TETRA.

Cost effective deployment in both rural and urban areas

The TMDA-based TETRA technology is targeted for deployment in highly
populated urban areas. The capacity of a single TETRA carrier is in most cases
too high for rural areas, where one or two speech channels are often sufficient.

Issue 2.1 June 2002 7

Whitepaper Migration MPT to TETRA

Especially when safety and security are not important issues, coverage by MPT
sites is a far more cost effective solution. If the need for voice and / or data
capacity increases, or when the security requirements are tightened, the MPT
channels can be replaced or supplemented by TETRA carriers. TetraNode
provides a smooth migration path for site expansion with TETRA carriers:
TETRA base stations can be connected to the Switching and Management
Infrastructure (SwMI) using the same link as used previously or in addition to the
MPT base stations.
TetraNode offers two options for transport of voice and data streams. The
TetraNode Streaming Protocol (TNSP) is optimised for low bandwidth and low
delay, which is important for interfacing with low speed data circuits. TNSP can
be used for interconnection of base stations to a TNX, and between different
TNX nodes. TNSP offers the lowest possible bit rate for interconnection of base
stations: only 32 kbps is required for interconnection of a single TETRA carrier
and just 10 kbps is required for interconnection of a single MPT channel.
The Internet Protocol (IP) is offered as a second method to interconnect different
TNX nodes together. IP is a good alternative to TNSP if an IP network with
sufficient bandwith and Quality-of-Service (QoS) mechanisms is already
available. If necessary, each base station site can be equipped with a separate
TNX to realise a full IP solution.
Both TNSP and IP offer alternative routing capabilities. Although this feature is
not specifically related to multi-standard support, alternative routing is a powerful
mechanism to ensure resilience and thus increase the overall availability of the
system.

No-compromise interoperability
Interoperability between MPT and TETRA terminals is important to allow
continuous co-operation of people using different type of radios. A user of a
TETRA radio should be able to establish a connection to a MPT radio and vice-
versa. Although this may be achieved by establishing a call between different
systems through a PABX or PSTN, the integrated solution offered by TetraNode
offers, amongst others, the following powerful advantages:
• Fast call set-up. The TetraNode solution will not cause the delay to exceed
the call set-up delay specification for either the MPT or TETRA standards.
In practice, it is possible to establish a speech call within 350 ms between a
MPT and a TETRA terminal.
• Caller ID information can be presented on the called radio. The identity of a
MPT terminal is shown on the TETRA terminal and vice-versa. This is not
possible when the terminals are connected through a PABX or PSTN.
• Use of status and short data messaging is still possible. TetraNode allows
users of MPT terminals to transmit status and short data messages to

Issue 2.1 June 2002 8

Whitepaper Migration MPT to TETRA

TETRA terminal users and vice-versa.

• Seamless operation of group calls. Groups can contain both TETRA and
MPT terminals. This allows a TETRA terminal user to establish a call in
which both MPT and TETRA terminals are included.
• Translation of unit numbers between TETRA and MPT and vice-versa. The
alias numbering scheme within TetraNode allows MPT terminals to be
visible to TETRA users as if they were real TETRA terminals. Also, the
operator of a Line Dispatcher Station does not notice any difference when
contacting either TETRA or MPT terminals. This alias scheme is explained
later in this document.

Simplified network management

Every TetraNode network includes one or more Network Management System
(NMS) stations. NMS operators can manage both TETRA and MPT fleets from a
single NMS. Also the shared resources, such as interconnection lines and
telephony interfaces, are managed from the same NMS.
A TETRA-only system, which is interconnected to a MPT system through a
PABX or PSTN, requires a separate Network Management System for both the
TETRA and MPT system. These NMS solutions will look entirely different, even
if the MPT and TETRA systems are sourced from the same supplier.
Localisation of the user interface of the entire NMS is simplified by means of a
language database included in the application. Support of other languages is a
matter of translating sentences and words only without the need to change any
dialogs or software code within the application. The language module supports
western languages as well as eastern Europe, Arabic and far-east languages.
Because of the integrated architecture and multi-language support, the TetraNode
NMS solution will result in substantional lower training and operating cost.

Shared resources
TetraNode offers a real integrated solution. System resources, such as physical
interfaces and available link bandwidth, are available for both TETRA and MPT
operation. Amongst others, the following resources are shared for all air interface
standards:
• Single-line telephony interfaces (2-wire, E&M, ISDN Basic Rate)
• Trunk line telephony interfaces (E1, ISDN Primary Rate)
• Line Dispatch Stations
• Interconnection from TNX to Base Stations
• Interconnection between TNXes
Due to the availability of shared resources, the amount of resources can be
decreased significantly in comparison with separate resources for TETRA and
MPT.
Issue 2.1 June 2002 9
Whitepaper Migration MPT to TETRA

Alias numbering for fleets containing both MPT and TETRA terminals
Interoperability is improved further by the definition of a numbering plan that
supports both TETRA and MPT. This is shown in the next diagram:

TETRA terminal
SSI 800322
MPT terminal
GSI 900215
MPT 268 MPT terminal
(no MPT alias)
SSI 800360 MPT 271
GSI 900210 (no TETRA alias)

TETRA terminal
TETRA terminal
SSI 800307 MPT terminal
SSI 800304
GSI 900210 MPT 270
GSI 900210
MPT 269 SSI 800324
MPT 266
GSI 900217

Base Base Base

Station Station Station
Site Site Site

TETRA TETRA MPT

TETRA MPT MPT
MPT MPT

TetraNode

Figure 2: alias numbering scheme

Only standard MPT and TETRA terminals are used. The user interface or
numbering plans of the terminals do not have to be modified. The alias
numbering is stored only in a database within the SwMI.
Each database entry for a terminal contains two fields: one for a TETRA number
and one for a MPT number. For example, the TETRA terminal with Subscriber
Short Identity (SSI) 800304 is assigned the MPT number 266. Other MPT
terminals can now establish a speech conversation with this terminal by calling
number 266. The terminal user cannot see any difference whether the called
terminal is a MPT or TETRA type of radio.
This numbering plan offers a very smooth migration from MPT to TETRA. For
example, if user of MPT terminal 268 is changing over to a TETRA terminal, he
or she can continue to use the same MPT identity. Also the TETRA identity,
which has been assigned previously, can be maintained.
The alias numbering scheme is not only applicable to individual calls; it can also
be applied to group calls. In the example this is shown by the TETRA Group
Short Identity (GSI) 900210, which also includes a MPT terminal.

Issue 2.1 June 2002 10

Whitepaper Migration MPT to TETRA

Functional interoperability
Functional interoperability is provided by the common call and transmission
manager as shown in figure 1. The air interface standard specific protocol stacks
are implemented in such a way that typical trunked radio functions are translated
in generic functions, which are common to all standards. Please note that this
translation does not limit the functional capabilities or performance for each of
the air interface standards in any way: the generic layer is dimensioned to support
the most demanding specification for each function.

TETRA to MPT
The following table specifies the translation of functionality from TETRA to
MPT. This table thus applies to calls from TETRA terminals to MPT terminals.

TETRA function MPT function Notes

Speech Call Speech Call Same behaviour

Group Call Group Call Same behaviour

Broadcast Call Broadcast Call Same behaviour

Status Message Status Message Only status numbers 0 to 31 are used

Circuit Switched Data n.a. Not supported by MPT standard

Short Data Service, type 1 Short Data Message Translated to 7-bit ASCII, not truncated

Short Data Service, type 2 Short Data Message Translated to 7-bit ASCII, not truncated

Short Data Service, type 3 Short Data Message Translated to 7-bit ASCII, not truncated

Short Data Service, type 4 Short Data Message Translated to 7-bit ASCII, truncated to 88 characters

Priority Call Priority Call Only two priority levels available in MPT

Pre-emptive Priority Call Emergency Call Same behaviour

Include Call / Call Transfer Include Call Similar behaviour

Call Forwarding Call Diversion Similar behaviour

Issue 2.1 June 2002 11

Whitepaper Migration MPT to TETRA

MPT to TETRA
The following table specifies the translation of functionality from MPT to TETRA.
This table thus applies to calls from MPT terminals to TETRA terminals.

MPT function TETRA function Notes

Speech Call Speech Call Same behaviour

Group Call Group Call Same behaviour

Broadcast Call Broadcast Call Same behaviour

Status Message Status Message Only status numbers 0 to 31 are used

Short Data Message Short Data Service, type 4 All SDM types are translated to ASCII

Priority Call Priority Call Only two priority levels available in MPT

Emergency Call Pre-emptive Priority Call Same behaviour

Include Call Include Call / Call Transfer Similar behaviour

Call Diversion Call Forwarding Similar behaviour

Other functionality
The following functionality does not require translation due to the fact that it does
not involve two or more terminals supporting different air interface standards:
• Access Priority (TETRA)
• Advice of Charge (TETRA)
• Ambience Listening (TETRA)
• Area Selection (TETRA)
• Barring of Incoming Calls (TETRA and MPT)
• Barring of Outgoing Calls (TETRA and MPT)
• Call Authorised by Dispatcher (TETRA)
• Call Completion to Busy Subscriber (TETRA and MPT)
• Call Completion on No Reply (TETRA)
• Call Duration (TETRA and MPT)
• Call Hold (TETRA)
• Call Retention (TETRA)
• Call Waiting (TETRA)
• Call Identification (TETRA and MPT)
• Call Report (TETRA)
• Discreet Listening (TETRA)
• List Search Call (TETRA)
• Short Number Addressing (TETRA and MPT)
• Talking Party Identification (TETRA)
• Authentication (TETRA), Security check (MPT)
• Remote kill / revive (TETRA)
Issue 2.1 June 2002 12
Whitepaper Migration MPT to TETRA

Conclusions
Multi-standard support is a very attractive solution for many private and public
trunked radio network operators. TetraNode offers a fully integrated solution,
which offers additional benefits in comparison with PABX/PSTN interconnected
systems.
Obvious advantages of multi-standard support include the ability for smooth
migration, lower initial capital investment and long-term protection of
investment.
TetraNode specific advantages include no-compromise functionality and
performance, an integrated Network Management solution, fully shared common
resources and improved interoperability due the alias numbering plan and
transparent operation of functionality between terminals using different air
interfaces. This results in more customer satisfaction and substantional lower
operating cost.
If multi-standard support proves to be so attractive for many customers, why are
other manufacturers not offering a similar solution? Although not entirely clear, it
could be a result of too much focus on TETRA. The system architecture of those
network solutions have been established in an early phase during the TETRA
standards development process, without keeping MPT to TETRA migration in
mind. Also, many solutions of other suppliers are simply too costly to compete
with the very diverse and competitive MPT landscape. This makes the
implementation of MPT compatibility not worthwhile for these suppliers. Instead,
the large TETRA suppliers are keen to recover the high development cost of
TETRA system development by offering expensive TETRA solutions only. It is
amazing to see that in the US market, where proprietary solutions are widespread,
this issue is well addressed by the APCO standards committees by demanding
backward compatibility and interoperability between terminal users with different
air interface standards.
Rohill recognises the need for multi-standard support. As a specialist supplier of
professional trunked radio solutions, Rohill also recognises the need for open
standards, commercial off-the shelve (COTS) solutions and a competitive multi-
vendor market environment.
Proprietary, manufacturer-specific solutions are no longer acceptable. This
includes the remaining manufacturer specific TETRA solutions for authentication
and encryption. Customer demands will result in a real competitive environment,
resulting in the development of innovative and cost-effective TETRA solutions
and products, not causing the customer to be tied to a single supplier for the rest
of the system lifetime after the initial investment.

Issue 2.1 June 2002 13