Which option is a major concern for service providers in regard to migration to flat IP backhaul?

Question

Options

• Auser plane demands
• Bthroughput
• Cthroughput,signaling, and latency
• Ddata plane capacity

• A
  8% (5)
• B
  14% (9)
• C
  75% (49)
• D
  3% (2)

Explanation

Migration to flat IP backhaul introduces a multi-dimensional set of challenges that no single metric captures alone - throughput must scale to handle surging data volumes as traffic bypasses legacy aggregation nodes, signaling overhead increases significantly because distributed IP-based nodes generate more control-plane messaging between elements (e.g., eNodeBs communicating directly), and latency becomes a critical concern since real-time and delay-sensitive services depend on predictable end-to-end timing across the flattened architecture.

Why the distractors fall short:

• A (user plane demands) - this is a subset of throughput concerns and ignores signaling and latency entirely.
• B (throughput) - correct as far as it goes, but incomplete; a flat IP architecture stresses the control plane (signaling) and timing (latency) just as heavily.
• D (data plane capacity) - similar to A and B, it captures only one dimension and omits signaling, which is a distinct and well-documented flat-architecture concern.

Memory tip: Think of the three-legged stool - Throughput, Signaling, Latency (TSL). Pull out one leg and the stool falls; flat IP backhaul migration strains all three simultaneously, so only the answer listing all three is complete.

No community discussion yet for this question.