1

LTE Performance Expectations

& Challenges


Engineering Services Group
September 2011
2
Agenda
Overview of ESG LTE Experience
ESG AT&T Engagements for LTE
LTE Performance Expectations
Factors Impacting LTE Performance
Key Areas To Be Considered for LTE Launch

2
3
ESG LTE Experience Overview
ESG
EUTRA
Vendor IOTs
R&D
3GPP SA5
Participation
Chipset Lab
Testing
Technology trial participations
RFP development
LTE Protocols trainings & hands-on
optimization workshops delivered to
2600+ engineers
LTE design guidelines
LTE capacity & dimensioning
Performance assessment &
troubleshooting in commercial LTE
networks
Performance studies & evaluations
using ESG simulation platforms
Early exposure to LTE through Qualcomms leadership position in technology

3
4
ESG-AT&T LTE Partnership Highlights
Multiple engagements with NP&E and A&P teams
LTE Technology Trial (2009)
ESG SME in Dallas for 6 months
Participation in Phase I & II Trial
SME support and technical oversight of
execution by vendors
Review results and progress of the trial
with the vendors
RAN Architecture & Planning Team
Field testing in BAWA & Dallas FOA clusters, lab
testing in Redmond
RAN Design Team
LTE Design Optimization
Guidelines
LTE Design System Studies
LTE Design & ACP Tool
Studies
Antenna Solutions Group
LTE capacity
calculator for
venues
IDAS/ODAS design
& optimization
guidelines
CSFB Performance Assessment (starting next week)
LTE Realization Group

4
5
World Wireless Academy LTE Courses

5
6
Expected LTE Performance
7
Key Areas of LTE Performance
LTE Call Setup and Registration
LTE Single-user Throughput
LTE Cell Throughput
User Plane Latency
Handover Success Rates and Data Interruption

7
8
Expected LTE Performance Dependencies
LTE System Bandwidth
1.4 -> 20 MHz
FDD/TDD
Throughput expectations
LTE UE Category Current category 3 Devices
Deployment Considerations
Number of eNodeB Transmit Antennas
Backhaul Bandwidth
System Configuration
Transmission Modes used for DL (Diversity, MIMO schemes)
Control channel reservation for DL
Resource Reservation for UL
System Parameters



8
9
LTE Call Setup, Registration
UE NW
UE Power Up
Initial acquisition
PSS, SSS, PBCH, SIBs
Idle, camped
RRC Connection Setup
Attach request incl. PDN connectivity
request
Attach response (accept)
Incl. Activate Default Bearer Ctxt
Request
Attach complete
RRC connected
RRC Connection Setup
Duration, Success rates
Attach and PDN Connectivity
Duration, Success Rates
RRC Connection Request (Msg3)
RRC Conn. Setup Complete (Msg4)
Idle, not camped
RACH (Msg1, Msg2)
Authentication,
Integrity, Ciphering
Security Procedures
Number of RACH Attempt,
RACH Power, Contention
Procedure Success rates

9
10
Key LTE Call Setup Metrics

10
Metric Typical Expected
Values
Reasons for Variability
Number of RACH and RACH
Power
RACH Attempts <3
RACH Power <23dBm
Users at cell-edge, Improper Preamble
Initial target Power, Power Ramping step
RACH Contention Procedure
Success Rate
>90% Failed Msg3/Msg4, Delayed Msg4
delivery, Contention Timer
RRC Connection Setup Success
Rate
>99% Poor RF conditions, Limited number of
RRC Connected users allowed causing
RRC Rejects, large RRC inactivity timers
RRC Connection Setup
Duration (Including RACH
duration)
30-60ms Multiple RACH attempts, Msg3
retransmission, delayed contention
procedure
Attach and PDN Connectivity
Success Rates
>99% Failure of ATTACH procedure (EPC issues)
or EPS Bearer setup, poor RF conditions,
Integrity/Security failures
Attach and PDN Connectivity
Duration
250-550ms Multiple Attach Request, Authentication
or Security related failures, EPC issues,
delayed RRC Reconfiguration to setup
Default RB
11
Peak Single User DL Throughput 10 MHz

11
Ideal case
0% BLER, 100% scheduling
Near Cell field location
5% BLER, 100% scheduling
Scenario
LTE-FDD
Cat 3 UE
2x2 MIMO
Max DL MCS 28 used with 50
RBs and Spatial Multiplexing
12
Peak Single User UL Throughput 10 MHz

12
Ideal case
0% BLER, 100% UL scheduling
UL MCS 23 and 50 RBs
Near Cell field location
5% BLER, 100% scheduling
UL MCS 24 and 45 RBs (some
RBs reserved for PUCCH)
Scenario
LTE-FDD
Cat 3 UE
Max UL MCS 23/24 depending
on number of UL RBs
13
LTE DL Cell Throughput Multiple Devices
Device-
RUN
Throughput [Mbps] Sched.
Rate
[%]
BLER
[%]
MCS Num
RB
CQI RI RSRP
[dBm]
RSRQ
[dB]
FTP L1 Norm.
L1**
T2 13.90 14.44 46.71 30.91 5.74 23.31 49.4 14.18 2 -73.85 -9.06
P2 16.58 16.65 53.04 31.39 5.40 25.12 49.76 14.48 2 -71.01 -8.98
P2 17.34 17.87 60.0 29.68 1.52 26.47 49.80 14.87 2 -68.87 -9.06
Total
(3 devices)
47.82 48.96 91.98
All 3 devices are scheduled almost
equally (~30% each)
Device with highest CQI reported
receives highest MCS and low BLER
and consequently highest DL L1
Throughput
Total L1 Cell Throughput ~49 Mbps
Total Scheduling rate ~92% (<100%)
Num of DL RB are ~50 for
all devices
Above data is from a commercial LTE network with all 3 devices in Near cell conditions
Peak DL Cell Throughput in close to Ideal Conditions* should be similar to Peak Single User DL Throughput
For a 10 Mhz system, Ideal DL Cell throughput at TCP should be ~67Mbps

13
14
User Plane Latency
Ave (ms) Min (ms) Max (ms) STD (ms)
42.1 36 62 4.3
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
30 40 50 60 70 80
D
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

User Plane Latency (ms)
pdf cdf
Stationary, Near cell conditions
Ping size = 32 Bytes
Ping Server: Internal server
Ping Round-Trip-Time distribution from one commercial network above is concentrated between 40 -50 ms
Lower Ping RTT ~25 ms have been observed in some networks
Ping RTT can be dependent on CN delays, backhaul, system parameters and device
Ping Round-Trip Time (RTT) in an unloaded system should be ~20-25ms
Such Ping tests are done to an internal server one hop away from LTE PGW (avoid internet delays)
15
LTE Intra-frequency Handover Success Rate
DL Test Run Total HO HO Failure
(case)
Run 1 125 2 (A, B)
Run 2 108 0
Run 3 95 1 (A)
Total 328 3
UL Test Run Total HO HO Failure
(case)
Run 1 106 0
Run 2 118 0
Run 3 98 1 (A)
Total 320 1
Some Handover failure cases:

A) RACH attempt not successful and
T304 expires

B) HO command not received after
Measurement Report
HO Success Rate is high in both UL and DL
99.05
99.69
99.37
98.40
98.60
98.80
99.00
99.20
99.40
99.60
99.80
100.00
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e

[
%
]

HO Success rate
HO Success Rate
Download Upload Total

15
16
LTE Intra-frequency Handover/Data Interruption
Ave (ms) Min (ms) Max (ms) STD (ms)
78 38 199 34
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200
D
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

HO Interrupt Time (ms) pdf cdf
HO Interrupt Time:
Interval between
Last DATA/CONTROL
RLC PDU on source cell
and
First DATA/CONTROL
RLC PDU on target cell
Data Interruption Time:
Interval between
only DATA RLC PDUs
becomes much higher
than 199 ms
Current LTE Networks have higher HO and Data Interruption Times
eNodeB buffer optimization and data forwarding support needed

16
17
Typical Factors Impacting LTE
Performance
18
Factors Affecting LTE Performance
Deployment
Pilot Pollution,
Interference
Neighbor List
Issues, ANR
Parameters
(Access, RRC
Timers)
EUTRAN, EPC
Implementation
and Software
Bugs
Unexpected RRC
Connection
Releases
DL MCS and
BLER, Control
Channel impacts
eNodeB
Scheduler
limitations
Mobility
Intra-LTE
Reselection, HO
Parameters
minimize Ping-
pongs
Inter-RAT HO
Boundaries and
Parameters
Data
Performance
Backhaul
Constraints
TCP Segment
losses in CN
MTU Size
settings on
devices

18
19
RF Issues Impacting Call Setup Performance - 1
Sub-optimal RF optimization
delays LTE call-setup
Mall served by PCI 367
PCI 212 leaking in partly

19
20
RF Issues Impacting Call Setup Performance - 2
UE NW
UE Power Up
Initial acquisition
(incl. attempt on PCI 367)
Idle, camped: PCI 212
RRC Connection Request
RRC Connection Setup
RRC connected
RRC Setup Duration:
60 ms
RRC Conn. Setup Complete
PSS, SSS, PBCH, SIBs
Idle, not camped
1
st
Attach request incl. PDN
connectivity request
2
nd
Attach request incl. PDN
connectivity request
Duration:
4.533 sec
UL data to send
RACH not successful
RACH (Msg1, Msg2)
RACH (Msg1-Msg4)
UE Reselects to PCI 367
No attach response (accept)
PCI 212: RSRP = -110 dBm
PCI 367: RSRP = -104 dBm
3
rd
Attach request incl. PDN
connectivity request Attach Accept is sent
Pilot Pollution can impact call-setup, causing intermediate failures impacting KPIs, reselections and higher
call-setup time

20
21
RF Issues Causing LTE Radio Link Failure - 1
PCIs 426, 427,428 are not
detected (site is missing)
Lack of dominant server =>
Area of Pilot pollution
PCI 376
PCI 42 & PCI 142
Missing sites during initial deployment phase requires careful neighbor planning or optimal use of ANR

21
22
RF Issues Causing LTE Radio Link Failure - 2
1. UE is connected to PCI 411
2. UE reports event A3 twice for PCI 142 (Reporting int. = 480 ms)
3. UE reports event A3 for PCI 142 & 463
4. No Neighbor relation exists between PCI 411 and 142 (Clear
need for ANR). UE does not receive handover command, RLF
occurs
5. RRC Re-establishment is not successful, UE reselects to PCI 42
RLF DL BLER increases to 70%
UL power increases to 23 dBm
RSRP & SINR decrease to -110 dBm & -8 dB
MRM A3
RLF

22
23
Backhaul Limitations Reduce LTE DL Throughput
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
50000
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
L
1

T
h
r
o
u
g
h
p
u
t

(
k
b
p
s
)

SINR (dB)
L1 Throughput vs SINR
Throughput is always
lower than 50 Mbps,
even at high SINR

Backhaul limitation
negatively
Impacts the
allocation of radio
resources
Statistics are calculated by using metrics
averaged at 1 sec intervals

23
24
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.02
0.12
0.18
0.64
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.04
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
MCS
PDF CDF
eNodeB Scheduler: MCS and BLER Relationship
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.01
0.43
0.56
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
CQI
PDF CDF
Highest CQI is 15 and highest DL MCS is 28
Although we see a significant number of
CQI=15 reported, scheduler hardly assigns
any MCS=28!
Whenever DL MCS 28 is scheduled BLER on
1
st
Tx is 100%, hence scheduler uses MCS 27
Number of symbols for PDCCH is fixed at 2
and results in higher code-rate for MCS 28
MCS=28: TBS = 36696 (@49&50 PRB)
MCS=27: TBS = 31704 (@49&50 PRB)
10 Mbps L1 throughput difference!
(2x2 MIMO, 2 Code Words)
P
D
F

C
D
F

P
D
F

C
D
F

Lower than expected Peak DL throughput as eNodeB scheduler avoids MCS 28 due to high BLER and fixed
control channel symbol assignment

24
25
RRC
Releases
UE DL
Inactivity
Timer has not
not expired
RSRP ~ -102 dBm
PCI 465
PCI 237
10 RRC
Connections
are Released by
PCI 465
Release Cause: other
UE logs do no show
high UE Tx power or
high DL BLER
DL FTP Stalls due to
continuous RRC
Releases

Unexpected RRC Connection Releases

Unexpected eNodeB RRC Connection Releases impact user experience causing FTP time-outs. EUTRAN traces
needed for investigation

25
26
Lower eNodeB Scheduling reduces DL Throughput
P1_AvgL1Throughput P1_AvgScheduledRate P1_AvgMCS_DL P1_AvgL1BLER
Time
19:13:15 19:13:10 19:13:05 19:13:00 19:12:55 19:12:50 19:12:45 19:12:40 19:12:35 19:12:30 19:12:25 19:12:20 19:12:15 19:12:10 19:12:05 19:12:00 19:11:55
k
b
p
s
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
N
/
A
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
L1 thpt >50 Mbps
Following scheduling rate and DL MCS
Scheduling rate ~ 85-90% (< 100%)
Linked to lack of DL scheduling when SIB1
is transmitted and only 1 user/TTI support
MCS ~26-27
Low BLER negligible impact on throughput
Scheduling dip after ~78 sec
L
1

T
p
u
t

S
c
h
e
d
u
l
i
n
g

M
C
S

B
L
E
R

Internal Modem Time
eNodeB Scheduler implementation results in lower scheduling rate and lower DL throughput

26
27
Impact of MTU Size and TCP Segment Losses
TCP MSS: 1460, TCP MTU:
1500
TCP packet stats:
Re-tx: 765 (0.2%)
ooOrder: 5380 (1.5%)
TCP graph shows quite some
slow starts and irregularities
MTU of 1500 can also result in
fragmentation of IP segments
on backhaul given GTP-U
headers => Negatively impacts
DL throughput
TCP graph shows quite some
slow starts and irregularities
due to TCP segment losses in
Core Network => Negatively
impacts DL Application
throughput
Setting device MTU sizes correctly and minimizing CN packet losses is important to avoid negative
Application layer throughput impacts

27
28
Key Areas to be considered LTE Initial Launch

Optimize pilot polluted areas
Verify neighbor list planning,
use ANR if available
Optimization study of system
parameters is critical for
handling increased load
Deployment
Insufficient backhaul can
reduce DL throughput
Sporadic packet discards in
Core Network
Correct MTU size enforcement
on all devices
Data Performance

Optimize HO parameters to ensure
high Handover Success rates and
reduce handover ping-pongs
Unexpected Radio Link Failures can
impact performance
Inter-RAT optimization to ensure
suitable user-experience during
Initial build-out
Mobility

Unexpected RRC related drops
and RACH failures may need to
be investigated
Several RAN limitations exist
Scheduler limitations must be
addressed before demand
increases
Implementation

28
29
Thank you