Presentation date: 19.01.2010 Jari Kiirla

1. Operator configurable traffic handling in multi layer WCDMA network based on capability, service and load Presentation date: 19.01.2010 Jari Kiirla Supervisor: Prof. Riku Jäntti Instructor: M.Sc. Tarja Hiltunen

2. Outline • Background • Objectives • Layering in multi layer WCDMA network • Capabilities, services and loads in WCDMA • Proposed alternative solutions • Analysis of alternatives • Conclusions

3. Background • Traffic amount is rapidly growing in WCDMA networks (especially packet data traffic) and operators need more spectrum. • Operators get new frequency bands for WCDMA usage (i.e. old GSM frequency band). • The amount of multi layer and multi band WCDMA networks is increasing • Simultaneously new packet data features are introduced which increase data rates, increase spectral efficiency and reduce UE battery usage. • Only new UEs support new features. • New features require new HW and SW in NodeB. • New features cannot be introduced to all frequency layers. • Traffic needs to be directed to “correct” layer to maximize the capacity. • “Correct” layer can be defined based on capability, service and load.

4. Objectives • To define operator configurable traffic handling for multi layer WCDMA networks which is based on capability, service and load. • Two main requirements are: • To have a flexible because different operators have different needs: • Number of frequency layers and frequency bands • Different features are utilized • To have a easy to use operator interface for configuring work. • Operator needs to understand easily how to configure the system to get the desired results. • Amount of configuration work should be minimized.

5. Layering in multi layer WCDMA network • UE is from Radio Resource Control (RRC) point of view in some state. • In different states the layer change mechanisms are different. • Initial camping • Cell reselection • Handover

6. Capabilities in WCDMA • There are lots of different capabilities. • UE indicates it capability to network in RRC connection request and RRC connection complete messages. • Most important capabilities are related to HSPA and its evolution features. • 7 most important capabilities were selected. • Band capability is also important due to new bands which are taken into use.

7. Service in WCDMA • There are lots of different parameter related to services that UE is using. • Here the most interesting ones: • Traffic class • RAB asymmetry indicator • Maximum bit rate (separately for UL and DL) • Guaranteed bit rate (separately for UL and DL) • Traffic handling priority (valid only for interactive traffic class) • Allocation/Retention priority • Only traffic class was chosen. It contains: • Conversational • Streaming • Interactive • Background.

8. Load in WCDMA • We have UL and DL load. • UL load is noise rise in NodeB antenna. • DL load is transmission power. • Many different methods to define load -> out of the scope of this thesis. • However, effect of load has been taken into account in decision making algorithm.

9. Proposed alternative solutions • Three different alternatives are made based on initial analysis. They basic principles: • Basic principle of alternative A: • Selected capability based HOs are activated in cell level and decision is based on actual capability • Basic principle of alternative B: • Capability based HO is activated in cell level and RNC decides the need for capability based HO based on actual capability • Basic principle of alternative C: • Capability based HO is activated in cell level and decision for capability based HO is done based on preferred layer definition and not based on actual capability.

10. Analysis of alternatives • Do they satisfy the operators needs well enough? Use case analysis is used. • How simply it is to understand the needed configuration work in use cases? • The amount of configuration work?

11. F5 (DC-HSDPA) F3 (HSPA) F1 (R99) F6 (R99) F4 (DC-HSDPA&MIMO) F2 (HSPA&CS voice over HSPA) 1.5GHz 2GHz Use cases • Example of use case: • 4 different use cases are used. • 2 are based on current plans of operators

12. Results • All alternatives fulfill the operator requirements in needed level • Configuration work in alternatives A and B is big. • Also alternatives A and B started to become complex when number of different capabilities increased. • This also increases possibility for faulty configuration . • Alternative C was chosen.

13. Conclusions • There are many different alternative ways to satisfy operators requirements. • It is good to avoid complexity. • Part of the quality comes when needed configuration work is easily understood. • Further work is needed to evaluate how the load should be defined.