Terminology » Difference between Traditional RAN vs O-RAN

Difference between Traditional RAN vs O-RAN

Introduction: Traditional RAN architectures tend to be monolithic, vendor locked and proprietary, constraining flexibility and innovation. O-RAN (Open Radio Access Network) uses standardized interfaces that enables multi-vendor ecosystems and AI-based control. This page explore the core differences betweeb traditional and open RAN architecture and more.

Traditional RAN

In this legacy RAN, components such as Radio Unit (RU or RRH), Baseband Unit (BBU) and other protocol layers are tightly integrated. These units are often provided by single vendor.
The hardware and software are proprietary.
The interfaces between components are vendor specific and closed.
Any upgradation requires working with the same vendor’s full stack.
Limited flexibility in mixing or integrating components from different vendors.

O-RAN

It is designed based on concepts of disaggregation, openness, virtualization, open interfaces etc.
It is managed and developed by O-RAN Alliance.
Disaggregation refers to separating functions into logical units such as O-RU, O-DU and O-CU.
Open or standardized interfaces to enable multi-vendor interoperability.
The components such as DU, CU run on vendor neutral hardware using virtualization, containers etc.
Architecture includes components like RAN Intelligent Controllers (RICs), both near real time (RT) and non real time, service management & orchestration frameworks (SMO), which enable optimization using telemetry, AI/ML, policy control etc.

Key differences

Aspect	Traditional RAN	O-RAN
Architectural model	Monolithic/tightly integrated ; Hardware (HW) and Software (SW) are required to be bundled from the same vendor.	Modular/loosely coupled ; Separate units can be integrated to make whole system without any interface issues.
Interfaces	Proprietary and vendor specific	Standardized open interfaces to enable multi-vendor system
Vendor lock-in	High, Operators are often stuck with one vendor for their HW/SW enhancement need.	Lower, ability to mix components from different vendors.
flaxibility & upgrades	Less flexible, HW and SW upgradation can be done from same vendor	More flexible, upgrades can be done by adding third party components or software patches.
Cost (CAPEX/OPEX)	Higher	Lower
Deployment Speed	Relatively slower	Faster deployment
Optimization	Often very optimized for specific vendor hardware	Allows dynamic optimization via RIC
Scalability	Scalability can be done by adding more hardware often from sane vendor	More scalable, can add cloud/edge resources easily.
Management & Orchestration	Mostly vendor-specific tools; less automation; monitoring and optimization more manual.	Stronger support for orchestration (SMO), monitoring, AI/ML-based optimization via RICs, dynamic resource allocation.
Challenges	Mature & Stable, security surface is smaller.	Newer and evolving, open interfaces increase attack surface

Conclusion: The shift from traditional RAN to O-RAN is a paradigm shift toward openness, agility and vendor diversity. While the traditional model offers stability and maturity, O-RAN promises flexibility, cost savings and innovation at scale.