Aayush: weblog

Posts Tagged ‘scalability’

Scalability Planning for the IMS Charging architecture

Posted by Aayush Bhatnagar on November 4, 2009


The IP Multimedia subsystem provides a well defined and streamlined architecture for charging multimedia calls and services. The IMS network elements interface to the charging platform over the DIAMETER protocol to enable both pre-paid and post-paid charging.

Architectural Overview of IMS Charging:

The IMS charging platform is sub-divided into two major components:

1. The Charging Data Function (CDF).

2. The Online Charging System (OCS).

The CDF is responsible for receiving triggers for offline (post-paid) charging, while the OCS  is responsible for receiving pre-paid charging triggers. The CDF supports the Rf DIAMETER application, while the OCS supports the Ro DIAMETER application interface.

The Charging Detail Records (CDRs) are collected and co-related at the Charging Gateway Function (CGF). The CGF acts as a gateway to the Billing System, which performs mediation duties.

Scalability Challenges:

In the IMS architecture, the P-CSCF, S-CSCF, SIP-application servers, MRF ,MGCF,BGCF and the I-BCF all need to support the offline charging application interface (Rf interface). This means, that they all act as charging clients (CTF) in case of post-paid scenarios and send triggers to the CDF.

The S-CSCF, the MRF and SIP Application servers support the online charging interface towards the OCS. The IMS Gateway function facilitates the online charging functionality in the IMS architecture by acting as a SIP AS.

A quick look at this architectural challenge, presents us with a nearly all connected architecture for the CDF (it interfaces with almost all network elements for postpaid charging). This means, that the CDF acts as a multiplexer of incoming DIAMETER commands.


Even for a simple IMS call, the CDF will receive triggers from the P-CSCF and the S-CSCF. If there is an application server involvement (Eg: Supplementary services) in the call flow, it will receive a trigger from that AS as well. If an I-BCF is present in the network, and the call needs to be terminated in another IMS domain, the I-BCF will also send a trigger to the CDF. This is a very practical scenario, as almost all IMS customers will subscribe to at least one supplementary service and every IMS core network is expected to have border control and peering functions for security (I-BCF acting as an entry and exit point to the network).

This translates into four DIAMETER transactions for the CDF for a single IMS transaction. A single IMS call initiated by an INVITE may have multiple chargeable transactions involved (those for UPDATEs, RE-INVITEs and finally for BYE).

The OCS interfaces with only the S-CSCF, the MRFC and SIP application servers. Hence it is expected to be less loaded as compared to the CDF as shown below:


Scalability Requirements Quantified:

Let us take an example of one IMS call for the sake of calculation. A reasonable load of 100 calls per second is assumed in the calculations.

We will only consider “chargeable” transactions i.e. transactions for whom a DIAMETER trigger will be sent to the CDF. A single call can have an INVITE transaction, an UPDATE transaction, a RE-INVITE transaction (assuming there was only 1 re-invite in the call) and finally a BYE transaction. Thus, we have 4 “chargeable” transactions. For each transaction, a DIAMETER ACR/ACA exchange takes place between each network node and the CDF.

Even for a reasonable load of 100 calls per second on the IMS core, the DIAMETER transactions for the CDF will need to scale up to 1600 TPS. This provides us with a 1:16 scalability requirement for the Charging Data Function.

For the Online Charging System, only the S-CSCF (through the IMS GWF), SIP application servers (if any in the call path) and the MRFC send charging triggers.

For the sake of calculation, if we have one application server in the path of an IMS call, then a single IMS transaction will result in 2 DIAMETER transactions on the Ro interface. Taking the above assumptions, where a single call has 4 “chargeable” transactions, and a moderate load of 100 cps, the OCS requires to support 800 TPS. This provides us with a 1:8 scalability requirement for the Online Charging System.

The scalability factor requirement for both the CDF and OCS is considerable. In case of the OCS, the response time of the CCR will also affect the call setup latency, as the calls to CCR are synchronous. Unless a CCA is received, the SIP signaling is not put through.

Other considerations to plan for scalability:

In view of the above scalability requirements, we can now plan further on the nature of the deployment architecture of the CDF and the OCS.  Even though the scalability requirements for the OCS may seem to be half (800 TPS) of what is projected for the CDF (1600 TPS) , but the complexity of the OCS is much more as compared to the CDF. The online charging system has many internal modules responsible for real-time rate determination, calculation of the units to be debited and account balance management. Moreover, these modules need to be invoked for each IMS call. The OCS also needs to support time based and content based charging paradigms. This means, that the OCS node is a mission-critical and real-time charging engine. Apart from real-time traffic, non-real time traffic such as pre-paid balance inquiries, pre-paid recharging etc also need to be handled at the OCS (either through an IVR or a SMS based mechanism).

On the other hand, the CDF is responsible for creating and dumping the CDR files. There is no real time rate determination or account balance management involved. The raw CDRs are transported to the billing system (BSS) over FTP, where the itemized billing and mediation takes place.

Deployment planning and possible scenarios:

In view of these architectural discrepancies and varying levels of complexities between the CDF and the OCS, it is clear that there needs to be an architectural separation between the OCS and CDF for deployment. This means, that we have to deploy both nodes independently on dedicated machines and possibly in their own independent clusters.

Let us consider a single IMS domain. A single IMS domain will consist of its own S-CSCF, P-CSCF, SIP application servers (as needed), MRF, I-BCF(or a comparable SBC) and the charging platform (consisting of the OCS and the CDF).

For greater scalability, it is proposed to have a dedicated cluster for each charging entity. The OCS application should have its own cluster and so should the CDF. Both the OCS and CDF may share the same gateway (CGF) to interface to the Billing domain. The clusters should have a DIAMETER load balancer (for the Ro and Rf applications) installed to distribute load amongst the cluster instances.

For hardware configuration, the cluster members may reside on the same machine (for smaller deployments) and on a hardware pair (active-standby) to achieve hardware redundancy. Usually, for carrier grade deployments, hardware redundancy is a necessity.

Discussed below are certain deployment configurations of the OCS and the CDF for varying load requirements. The deployment architectural choices shown below also consider hardware redundancy.

NOTE: “Servers” may vary from case to case. You may go for a T-1000, T-2000 or a higher end SUN server. You may also go for a “cheaper” option by using HP servers (8 cores and 16 GB RAM). For large-scale carrier grade deployments, an ATCA is a must (12 blades and above).

Deployment for up to 1 million BHCA (approx 270 CPS):

270 CPS is assumed to be the call rate of SIP signaling during peak load. This is the most common deployment scenario considered in telecom and usually serves as a benchmark.

For IMS deployments for up to 270 CPS, we can have multiple options. We may go for a HP server pair configured as follows:

a) Server-1 has CDF active and OCS as stand-by.

b) Server-2 has CDF stand-by and OCS as active.

This simple deployment will provide us with software and hardware redundancy, while also providing dedicated 8 core servers for each charging application (OCS and CDF).

Software redundancy can be performed by providing 2 independent processes of the CDF and OCS on each server (active) and 2 more processes of the CDF and OCS (for stand-by). A software load balancer may be used for distributing this load amongst the OCS and CDF processes.

This is called a 1+1 active-standby configuration. Each active instance of the CDF is expected to handle up to 4320 TPS at peak load. Each active instance of the OCS is expected to handle up to 2160 TPS at peak load.

This deployment scenario is shown below. The red-arrows depict change-over in case of hardware failure. Software fault tolerance is taken care of by switching between the software instances of the OCS and the CDF by using a software load balancer.


Each server may host multiple software processes for the CDF and the OCS. Each process can be a full CDF/OCS application in its own right. The load balancer may also be deployed in an active-standby configuration similar to the CDF and the OCS. The CDF and OCS active processes may be more in number, based on the scalability requirements. Each new process of the OCS or the CDF may be instantiated using a CLI or over SNMP, when the element management systems get an alarm of possible overload or traffic peaks.

This  kind of a deployment architecture is shown below:


Other interfaces for this deployment can be a command line interface (CLI) for polling the system and performing administrative tasks. Other interfaces will be over SNMP to the northbound management systems for monitoring the system health and servicing alarms.

Other possibilities:

In case of higher loads, the system can switch to a 1+1 Active-Active configuration, where all software processes of the CDF and the OCS are accepting DIAMETER requests. The load balancer will handle the distribution of the requests amongst the processes. In case the capacity is still not sufficient, new application processes of the CDF and the OCS can be started by firing the appropriate CLI command to scale horizontally.

For deployments for over 1 million BHCA, as shown earlier, the load on the charging platform will be even higher. For catering to such traffic, a time will come when the system needs to scale out. We may require a server pair for the CDF and the OCS dedicatedly.

Another interim option is to have all active CDF processes on one machine and all active OCS process on another machine and horizontally scale by increasing the number of processes.


This post was an attempt to quantify the challenges at hand for scaling the Charging platform in the conetxt of IMS. As seen, the requirements for scalability for the charging platform is more challenging than the other core network nodes. The scalability factors increase almost exponentially as the load on the IMS core increases. Hence, a robust scalability architecture needs to be devised for catering to the same.

Posted in 3gpp, DIAMETER, DIAMETER charging, I-CSCF, post-paid, pre-paid, S-CSCF | Tagged: , , , , , , | 12 Comments »