LTE Performance Expectations & Challenges

Engineering Services Group September 2011

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

ESG LTE Experience Overview

Early exposure to LTE through Qualcomms leadership position in technology Technology trial participations RFP development
EUTRA Vendor IOTs

LTE Protocols trainings & hands-on optimization workshops delivered to 2600+ engineers
R&D

Chipset Lab Testing

ESG
3GPP SA5 Participation

LTE design guidelines LTE capacity & dimensioning Performance assessment & troubleshooting in commercial LTE networks Performance studies & evaluations using ESG simulation platforms

ESG-AT&T LTE Partnership Highlights

Multiple engagements with NP&E and A&P teams
RAN Architecture & Planning Team 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 Design Team

LTE Design Optimization Guidelines LTE Design System Studies LTE Design & ACP Tool Studies

Field testing in BAWA & Dallas FOA clusters, lab testing in Redmond

Antenna Solutions Group

LTE capacity calculator for venues IDAS/ODAS design & optimization guidelines

LTE Realization Group

CSFB Performance Assessment (starting next week)

World Wireless Academy LTE Courses

Expected LTE Performance

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

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

8

Transmission Modes used for DL (Diversity, MIMO schemes) Control channel reservation for DL Resource Reservation for UL System Parameters
8

LTE Call Setup, Registration

UE UE Power Up Initial acquisition Idle, camped
RACH (Msg1, Msg2)

NW Idle, not camped PSS, SSS, PBCH, SIBs Number of RACH Attempt, RACH Power, Contention Procedure Success rates

RRC Connection Request (Msg3)

RRC Conn. Setup Complete (Msg4) RRC connected

RRC Connection Setup RRC Connection Setup Duration, Success rates

Attach request incl. PDN connectivity request

Authentication, Integrity, Ciphering Security Procedures

Attach complete

Attach response (accept) Incl. Activate Default Bearer Ctxt Request Attach and PDN Connectivity Duration, Success Rates

Key LTE Call Setup Metrics

Metric
Number of RACH and RACH Power RACH Contention Procedure Success Rate RRC Connection Setup Success Rate RRC Connection Setup Duration (Including RACH duration) Attach and PDN Connectivity Success Rates Attach and PDN Connectivity Duration

Typical Expected Values

RACH Attempts <3 RACH Power <23dBm >90% >99%

Reasons for Variability

Users at cell-edge, Improper Preamble Initial target Power, Power Ramping step Failed Msg3/Msg4, Delayed Msg4 delivery, Contention Timer Poor RF conditions, Limited number of RRC Connected users allowed causing RRC Rejects, large RRC inactivity timers Multiple RACH attempts, Msg3 retransmission, delayed contention procedure Failure of ATTACH procedure (EPC issues) or EPS Bearer setup, poor RF conditions, Integrity/Security failures Multiple Attach Request, Authentication or Security related failures, EPC issues, delayed RRC Reconfiguration to setup Default RB
10

30-60ms

>99%

250-550ms

10

Peak Single User DL Throughput 10 MHz

Scenario LTE-FDD Cat 3 UE 2x2 MIMO Max DL MCS 28 used with 50 RBs and Spatial Multiplexing

Ideal case 0% BLER, 100% scheduling

Near Cell field location 5% BLER, 100% scheduling

11

11

Peak Single User UL Throughput 10 MHz

Scenario LTE-FDD Cat 3 UE Max UL MCS 23/24 depending on number of UL RBs 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)

12

12

LTE DL Cell Throughput Multiple Devices

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 DeviceRUN Throughput [Mbps] Sched. Rate [%] BLER [%] MCS Num RB CQI RI RSRP [dBm] RSRQ [dB]

FTP
T2 13.90

L1
14.44

Norm. L1**
46.71

30.91

5.74

23.31

49.4

14.18

-73.85

-9.06

P2 P2
Total
(3 devices)

16.58 17.34
47.82

16.65 17.87
48.96

53.04 60.0

31.39 29.68
91.98

5.40 1.52

25.12 26.47

49.76 49.80

14.48 14.87

2 2

-71.01 -68.87

-8.98 -9.06

All 3 devices are scheduled almost equally (~30% each)

Num of DL RB are ~50 for all devices

Total L1 Cell Throughput ~49 Mbps Total Scheduling rate ~92% (<100%)

Device with highest CQI reported receives highest MCS and low BLER and consequently highest DL L1 Throughput

Above data is from a commercial LTE network with all 3 devices in Near cell conditions
13

13

User Plane Latency

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)
1 0.9

0.8
0.7 Distribution 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 30 pdf 40 cdf 50 60

Stationary, Near cell conditions Ping size = 32 Bytes Ping Server: Internal server

70

80

User Plane Latency (ms)

Ave (ms) 42.1

Min (ms) 36

Max (ms) 62

STD (ms) 4.3

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
14

LTE Intra-frequency Handover Success Rate

HO Success Rate
100.00

Some Handover failure cases:

99.37

99.80
Percentage [%] 99.60 99.40 99.20 99.00 98.80 98.60 98.40 99.05

99.69

A) RACH attempt not successful and T304 expires B) HO command not received after Measurement Report

HO Success rate Download Upload Total

HO Success Rate is high in both UL and DL

UL Test Run
Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Total

DL Test Run
Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Total

Total HO 125 108 95 328

HO Failure (case) 2 (A, B) 0 1 (A) 3

Total HO 106 118 98 320

HO Failure (case) 0 0 1 (A) 1

15

15

LTE Intra-frequency Handover/Data Interruption

1 0.9 0.8 0.7 Distribution 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 25 pdf 50 cdf 75 100 125 150 175 200

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

HO Interrupt Time (ms)

Ave (ms) 78

Min (ms) 38

Max (ms) 199

STD (ms) 34

Current LTE Networks have higher HO and Data Interruption Times eNodeB buffer optimization and data forwarding support needed
16

16

Typical Factors Impacting LTE Performance

17

Factors Affecting LTE Performance

EUTRAN, EPC Implementation and Software Bugs
Unexpected RRC Connection Releases

Deployment

Mobility

Data Performance

Pilot Pollution, Interference

Intra-LTE Reselection, HO Parameters minimize Pingpongs

Backhaul Constraints

Neighbor List Issues, ANR

DL MCS and BLER, Control Channel impacts

TCP Segment losses in CN

Parameters (Access, RRC Timers)

eNodeB Scheduler limitations

Inter-RAT HO Boundaries and Parameters

MTU Size settings on devices

18

18

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

19

RF Issues Impacting Call Setup Performance - 2

Pilot Pollution can impact call-setup, causing intermediate failures impacting KPIs, reselections and higher call-setup time UE UE Power Up Initial acquisition (incl. attempt on PCI 367) Idle, not camped NW

PSS, SSS, PBCH, SIBs Idle, camped: PCI 212

RACH (Msg1, Msg2)

RRC Setup Duration: 60 ms

RRC Connection Request RRC Conn. Setup Complete 1st Attach request incl. PDN connectivity request 2nd Attach request incl. PDN connectivity request
RACH (Msg1-Msg4)

RRC Connection Setup

RRC connected No attach response (accept) Duration: 4.533 sec

UL data to send RACH not successful UE Reselects to PCI 367 3rd Attach request incl. PDN connectivity request
20

PCI 212: RSRP = -110 dBm PCI 367: RSRP = -104 dBm Attach Accept is sent
20

RF Issues Causing LTE Radio Link Failure - 1

Missing sites during initial deployment phase requires careful neighbor planning or optimal use of ANR

PCI 42 & PCI 142 PCI 376

PCIs 426, 427,428 are not detected (site is missing) Lack of dominant server => Area of Pilot pollution
21

21

RF Issues Causing LTE Radio Link Failure - 2

MRM A3

RSRP & SINR decrease to -110 dBm & -8 dB

RLF DL BLER increases to 70% UL power increases to 23 dBm

1. 2. 3. 4.

5.
22

UE is connected to PCI 411 RLF UE reports event A3 twice for PCI 142 (Reporting int. = 480 ms) UE reports event A3 for PCI 142 & 463 No Neighbor relation exists between PCI 411 and 142 (Clear need for ANR). UE does not receive handover command, RLF occurs RRC Re-establishment is not successful, UE reselects to PCI 42
22

Backhaul Limitations Reduce LTE DL Throughput

L1 Throughput vs SINR
50000
45000 40000 35000 L1 Throughput (kbps) 30000 25000 20000 15000 10000

Throughput is always lower than 50 Mbps, even at high SINR Backhaul limitation negatively Impacts the allocation of radio resources

5000
0 -10 -5 0 5 10 SINR (dB) 15

Statistics are calculated by using metrics averaged at 1 sec intervals

23

20

25

30

35

23

eNodeB Scheduler: MCS and BLER Relationship

Lower than expected Peak DL throughput as eNodeB scheduler avoids MCS 28 due to high BLER and fixed control channel symbol assignment
CQI
0.6 0.56 1

0.5 0.43 0.4

0.8

0.6

0.3 0.4 0.2 0.2

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 1st 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
1

PDF

0.1 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

0.8

CDF

0.8 0.64

PDF

CDF

0.6

0.6

PDF

0.4

0.4

MCS=28: TBS = 36696 (@49&50 PRB) MCS=27: TBS = 31704 (@49&50 PRB) 10 Mbps L1 throughput difference! (2x2 MIMO, 2 Code Words)

0.2 0.02

0.18

0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04

0.2

PDF
24

CDF

24

CDF

Unexpected RRC Connection Releases

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

UE DL Inactivity Timer has not not expired

RSRP ~ -102 dBm

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
25

PCI 465
PCI 237
RRC Releases

25

Lower eNodeB Scheduling reduces DL Throughput

eNodeB Scheduler implementation results in lower scheduling rate and lower DL throughput
P1_AvgL1Throughput P1_AvgScheduledRate P1_AvgMCS_DL P1_AvgL1BLER

50,000

L1 Tput

40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0

L1 thpt >50 Mbps Following scheduling rate and DL MCS

kbps

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 26 24 22

Scheduling

Scheduling rate ~ 85-90% (< 100%) Linked to lack of DL scheduling when SIB1 is transmitted and only 1 user/TTI support

percentage

Scheduling dip after ~78 sec

MCS

N/A

20 18 16 14 12

MCS ~26-27

6 5

BLER

Low BLER negligible impact on throughput

percentage

4 3 2 1 0 19:11:55 19:12:00 19:12:05 19:12:10 19:12:15 19:12:20 19:12:25 19:12:30 19:12:35 19:12:40 19:12:45 19:12:50 19:12:55 19:13:00 19:13:05 19:13:10 19:13:15

Internal Time Modem Time

26

26

Impact of MTU Size and TCP Segment Losses

Setting device MTU sizes correctly and minimizing CN packet losses is important to avoid negative Application layer throughput impacts 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

27

27

Key Areas to be considered LTE Initial Launch

Deployment
Optimize pilot polluted areas Verify neighbor list planning, use ANR if available Optimization study of system parameters is critical for handling increased load
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

Implementation Unexpected RRC related drops and RACH failures may need to be investigated Several RAN limitations exist Scheduler limitations must be addressed before demand increases
28

Data Performance
Insufficient backhaul can reduce DL throughput Sporadic packet discards in Core Network Correct MTU size enforcement on all devices
28

Thank you

29