Do we need next G’s?
2nd Annual World 5G Summit, Barcelona, 10.10.2019
Marcin Dryjanski, Ph.D. Talk Outline NEXT ?
Evolution of Mobile Wireless Systems
LTE Complexity
5G Complexity
Mobile Networks Design Approaches
Unified and Hierarchical Framework
Conclusions and Summary Marcin Dryjanski, Ph.D.
Marcin Dryjanski is the co-founder, principal consultant, and a board member at Grandmetric, where he provides consulting services and training courses on LTE and 5G-related topics, as well as leads company’s wireless research on Grandmetric’s IoT platform.
Marcin has held Senior IEEE Membership since 2018 and has served as a R&D Engineer, Lead Researcher, R&D Consultant, Technical Trainer and Technical Leader. He earned a Ph.D., with honors, from Poznan University of Technology in 2019.
Marcin has co-authored several research papers targeting LTE-Advanced Pro and 5G radio interface design, and is co-author of a book ”From LTE to LTE-Advanced Pro and 5G” published by Artech House. Marcin was a Work Package leader in 5GNOW, a EU-funded research project aiming at radio interface design for 5G. Evolution of Mobile Wireless Systems Mobile Wireless Systems – Evolution
Analog Digital Basic IP mobile mobile connectivity MBB voice voice
”Simple” 1G 2G 3G 4G system design
mMTC emMTC URLLC eURLLC
eMBB feMBB
Complex system design (NR, NB-IoT, LTE, Wi-Fi, Satellite, ...) 5G Next G? Beyond 5G – Shall We? NEXT ? Will 5G evolve into an umbrella of technologies (NR + LTE + NB-IoT + …) where new features are added over time?
Or do we need next G’s…? LTE Complexity LTE-Advanced Pro – An ”Evolved” LTE
IoT: NB-IoT, LTE-M
Licensing: LTE-U, LAA, MuLTEfire, LSA, CBRS
More resources: Massive CA, DC
WiFi access: LWA, RCLWI, LWIP
Resource allocation flexibility: eIMTA, short TTI
Direct connectivity: V2X, D2D, ProSe
... LTE Evolution – Spectrum Toolbox
Spectrum Toolbox
Frequency Spectrum Spectrum licensing Duplexing schemes Spectrum refarming bands aggregation and sharing schemes
Dual Connectivity LTE Single Carrier – flexible BW LTE-A Carrier Aggregation • Suitable for non-ideal backhaul DL UL freq. DL UL • 1 carrier DL UL • Symmetric DL/UL • Multiple CC (up to 5) DL UL • Legacy carrier structure • Possible asymmetric DL/UL • Intra/inter band
LTE-A Pro ”5G” DC & Multi-RAT DC Non-backwards • NR + LTE DC compatible carrier … … • Make-before-break • Flexible numerology & lean carrier Massive CA DL UL Unlicensed spectrum • Aggregation of sub-6GHz and mmW • Up to 32 CC usage • SDL • LTE&Wi-Fi tight aggregation
2016 • Unlicensed LTE
M., M., Dryjanski M. ”Spectrum Toolbox Survey: Evolution CrownCom
Szydelko
Ref.: Ref.: Towards 5G”, LTE Evolution – Spectrum Toolbox
3GPP Release LTE: LTE-Advanced: LTE-Advanced Pro: 5G Phase I: Rel-15 Toolbox Rel-8, 9 Rel-10, 11, 12 Rel-13,14 5G Phase II: Rel-16 Element
0.7, 0.8, 1.8, 2.1, New bands below 6GHz for 5G RAT; Frequency bands 0.45 (Brazil), 5GHz ISM; 2.3-2.4, mmW: 6-100GHz; Towards 5G”, CrownCom 2016 [GHz] Digital Dividend, 1.5, 3.4-3.8GHz WRC-15 bands 2.5-2.6GHz WRC-15/19 bands
Dual Connectivity, Multi-Connectivity with asymmetric CA variants: DL/UL, Single Carrier (1.4- Massive CA (32CC), LAA Spectrum -up to 5CC, FDD and/or TDD SDL for CA: 20MHz), (5GHz), LWA, eLWA, SDL for CA: aggregation -intra-/ inter-band, (non)-continuous, 700MHz, symmetric DL/UL 2.3-2.4GHz -Co-located, RRH 2.5-2.6GHz, Ref.: Szydelko M., Dryjanski M. ”Spectrum Toolbox Survey: Evolution -asymmetric DL/UL NR-LTE DC
Co-existence of: LSA, exclusive Spectrum licensing Licensed spectrum Licensed, Unlicensed, DL LAA, licensed, shared license-exempt Licensed, Carrier Wi-Fi schemes only LWA, LSA, eLWA spectrum, enhanced LAA (DL+UL), CBRS
FDD and TDD (CA-based), Duplexing schemes Separate FDD, TDD FDD Flexible Duplex Flexible TDD eIMTA
Sharing schemes Static schemes Static schemes (MOCN, MORAN) RSE, LSA LSA, NHN, Slicing (network, spectrum) (MOCN, MORAN)
Dynamic, DSA, MRAT Joint Spectrum refarming Static Static Dynamic, opportunistic, ”CR” Coordination LTE Evolution – Pros & Cons (Examples)
Feature Advantages and opportunities Disadvantages and challenges
• Improves user throughput and cell capacity • Not possible to aggregate spectrum in non-ideal • Possibility to aggregate different spectrum bands Carrier Aggregation backhaul RRH deployments • Extension beyond single carrier allocation • Scheduler complexity (CA and non-CA users) • MAC layer management
• Enables to acquire multitude of bands and BWs to • Complex management Massive Carrier Aggregation increase capacity and mix licensed with • Complexity of RF chains unlicensed bands • UE support as a limiting factor Transactions on Cognitive Communications, Vol. 3, Issue 10
• Possibility to adapt aggregated capacity to the • Feature limited by the available SDL-specific bands Supplemental Downlink required DL/UL demand • CA-based operation only • Aggregation and management on MAC
Ref.: M. Szydelko, Ref.: M. Szydelko, M. Dryjanski, “Spectrum Survey: Toolbox Evolution Towards 5G”, EAI Endorsed • Adds spectrum aggregation opportunity for non- • Not possible to allocate resources on MAC level ideal backhaul inter-site • May have problems at anchor cell boundary due to Dual Connectivity • Possible to combine with CA both Macro and SC change • Enables extension to aggregate multi-RAT • Requires additional scheduler aggregation on PDCP level Technology Evolution – Not Really Successful(?)*
MBMS/eMBMS
LTE-U
Small Cells (so far)
LWA
CoMP
Relaying
* Personal opinion 5G Complexity 5G Spectrum, Services and Techniques
mmWave, MMIMO Bands Flexible numerology
Sub-6GHz Super-6GHz f (below 1GHz & (from 24GHz Data-rates & CP/UP split, Slicing, CRAN above 1GHz) up to 86GHz) capacity Unlicensed, Satellite access
Licensing D2D, V2X
Licensed Licensed- Unlicensed eMBB LTE & NR integration options Shared SON, SDN, NFV
5G
mMTC URLLC
Connection density Latency & mobility 5G Standards – Complexity of the System
Naming - Architecture Dual Connectivity options
5GC EN-DC E-UTRA-NR Dual Connectivity MR-DC Multi-RAT Dual Connectivity
NG-U/NG-C (RAN) Compared to: NE-DC NR-E-UTRA Dual Connectivity N2/N3 (SA2) EUTRAN NGEN-DC NG-RAN E-UTRA-NR Dual Connectivity EUTRA EPC EPS L1 parameters Few weeks before freezing 5G NSA, RAN1 sent RAN2 ~600 L1 parameters to cover within RRC spec. NG-RAN & NR (compared to ~80 L1 parameters for LTE Rel-8) 5G Standards – How Do We Call This One?
gNB (next generation NodeB) but also: en-gNB BS BTS NB eNB ng-eNB (Base Station) (Base Transceiver Station) (NodeB) (evolved NodeB) gNB-DU lls-gNB-DU …
1G 2G 3G 4G 5G
What we can end up with: even-further-enhanced lower-layer-split next-generation-NodeB distributed-unit (efe-lls-gNB-DU) Systems Complexity Summary
LTE complexity reasons: LTE has been equipped with a lot of ”add-ons” along seven 3GPP releases: NB-IoT, eMTC, LAA, LWA, DC, V2X, D2D, CA, CoMP, FD-MIMO, LSA, CBRS, short TTI, …
5G complexity reasons: bigger scope of use cases to be covered, set of technologies to be brought under the 5G umbrella, NR to natively bring LTE features with forward compatibility and flexibility as design principles, LTE being part of 5G. Current Landscape – RRM Complexity
FDD+TDD Dynamic CA Wi-Fi DC LWA TDD LAA D2D
Relay 2016
M., M., Dryjanski M. ”Spectrum Toolbox Survey: Evolution CrownCom
Szydelko
Ref.: Ref.: Towards 5G”,
Heterogeneous Networks
A big challenge for Radio Resource Management of Multi-RAT/HetNet!
18 Mobile Networks Design Approaches Design Approaches – Three Designs Approach 3: Hybrid and optimized set Approach 1: Fragmented solutions for Approach 2: ”One-size-fits-all” / One of tailored designs with unified individual use cases design management
5G is a set of very diverse applications / 5G is all about IP services (one „use case”) Diverse requirements jointly managed requirements
mMTC eMBB mMTC URLLC eMBB eMBB mMTC URLLC URLLC
eMBB mMTC URLLC eMBB mMTC URLLC eMBB mMTC URLLC
Design separate systems to realize different Evolve existing systems with add-on features to Natively unified and hierarchical approach to the requirements. realize particular needs. design of the system. (like in IoT landscape) (like LTE) Design Approaches – Solution vs Purpose
Short range vs. Local area vs. Wide area e.g., in IoT space: Bluetooth, BLE (smartwatch, mouse, pointer) vs. Wi-Fi, Zigbee (indoor Internet access, energy management, home monitoring) vs. LTE, NB-IoT/LoRa/Sigfox (e.g., outdoor Internet access, Smart City)
Indoor vs. outdoor e.g., Wi-Fi vs. cellular for Internet access
High ”speed” vs. low ”speed” (content vs sensing) e.g., LTE vs. NB-IoT, Wi-Fi vs. Zigbee
Adaptive vs. fixed e.g., dynamic content sharing vs. predefined periodic updates
Local vs. global e.g., handled by gateways vs. directly communicating to network Design Approaches – Observations
There are diverse requirements and diverse services
There are systems supporting different services tailored to them
There are different approaches suited for different purposes
We will never know all the services in advance
Designing a system that is suitable for everything at once is difficult, hard to manage and typically results in over-dimensioning
The way to go is to take the design approach with flexibility, forward compatibility, and easy ”pluginability”, keeping in mind that we will NOT know all the requirements in advance! Unified and Hierarchical Framework Unified & Hierarchical – Framework Design
Handling the heterogenity of: RATs, spectrum, devices, service mixes and features by a framework being a hybrid mechanism. “One-size-fits-all” is no longer true → rather coordinate multiple features and technologies optimized for specific requirements.
Hybrid management framework
Unified upper-layer handling the context independently of the underlying technology
Abstraction middle-layer enabling an “easy” add-on of the specialized techniques
Specialized lower-layer best serving a particular purpose Unified & Hierarchical – Principles
Hierarchy Specialization
Upper Layer (Unified / Coordinaton) Algorithm, method, function, Solution 1 Solution 2 Solution 3 waveform, RAT, etc.
Lower Layer (Tailored / Specialization) Traffic / service Traffic / service Traffic / service / spectrum / spectrum / spectrum
Abstraction
Generic mechanism
Exposes basic and unified properties
Abstraction layer
Encapsulates and hides the details
Specific solution Specific solution Unified & Hierarchical – Generic Framework
Hybrid management framework
Unified management
Abstraction layer
Optimized solution 1 Optimized solution 2 Optimized solution 3 Unified and Hierarchical Framework Examples Unified & Hierarchical – Unified MAC
Knows about the service Unified MAC specifics, e.g. scheduler
Unified frame structure (abstraction layer)
Supports specific needs, Resource Allocation 1 Resource Allocation 2 Resource Allocation 3 e.g. waveform, algorithm (e.g. dynamic scheduling) (e.g. SPS scheduling) (e.g. random access) Unified & Hierarchical – 5GNOW Example
5GNOW Use Cases and Requirements
Future radio access: • Flexible • Scalable • Reliable • Robust • Content aware
Source:5gnow.eu
5GNOW Solutions
5GNOW PHY 5GNOW PHY-to-MAC I/F 5GNOW MAC Non-orthogonal waveforms Mixture of synchronous and asynchronous traffic Hybrid and hierarchical
• FBMC • Unified Frame Structure • Unified MAC • GFDM • UFMC • BFDM Unified management
Abstraction layer
Unified & Hierarchical – 5GNOW Example Optimized Optimized Optimized solution 1 solution 2 solution 3
Hybrid scheduler Individually-optimized, traffic-specific resource management algorithm
Source: 5gnow.eu Unified management
Abstraction layer
Unified & Hierarchical – 5GNOW Example Optimized Optimized Optimized solution 1 solution 2 solution 3
5GNOW Unified MAC Interfacing with Unified Frame Structure
Source:5gnow.eu Unified & Hierarchical – Unified MAC v.2
Coordinates use of spectrum (dynamic scheduling between Unified MAC scheduler RATs for slot coordination or DC with a single TX)
Abstraction layer
Supports specific needs, e.g. Air interface PHY LTE PHY NR PHY NB-IoT layer
Spectrum coexistence between NR and LTE calls for hierarchical scheduler for subframe coordination Unified & Hierarchical – PDCP Scheduler
For DC/MC in NR-NR, PDCP ”Scheduler” (PDCP Flow Control) LTE-NR, LWA, LTE-DC, …
Abstraction layer
LTE-Macro Cell NR-Small Cell Wi-Fi Link Unified & Hierarchical – Unified Traffic Steering
Coordinates spectrum Unified traffic steering access (traffic steering)
Abstraction layer
Supports specific needs, e.g. Air interface, LTE RAT NR RAT Wi-Fi RAT network layer Unified & Hierarchical – UTS Example Unified Traffic Steering Framework
New aspects can be incorporated in a straigth- forward manner: • Load metrics • Available features • Available RATs/layers • Available strategies • Available procedures
© 2016 IEEE. Reprinted, with permission, from: Marcin Dryjanski, Michal Szydelko, ”Spectrum Aggregation and Management Framework for pre-5G Applications”, IEEE ISWCS 2016 Unified & Hierarchical – SON Coordination
Coordinates SON Unified network management (SON coordinator) functions
Abstraction layer
Supports specific needs, e.g. Optimization SON algorithm 1 (MRO) SON algorithm 2 (MLB) SON algorithm 3 (ESM) function Unified & Hierarchical – Radio Service Maps
Aggregates parameters Unified data storage/acquisition per location
Abstraction layer
Supports specific needs, e.g. Particular map type Traffic map RSRP map RAT accessibility map Unified management Unified & Hierarchical – RSM Example Abstraction layer Optimized Optimized Optimized solution 1 solution 2 solution 3 Architectures
, , M. Dryjanski, Networks”, Networks”, IEEE
Based Same maps could -
Qvarfordt
WCMC Organized support different -
Context Self features: Hindawi • Low level RRM based - (scheduling)
Position • Upper level RRM (TS) for for • : : Tengkvist, Koudouridis, G. C. SON (MLB) Maps • Orchestration (Network layers)
in in 5G Wireless Access Networks”, Radio Radio Service
Dimensional Orchestration -
IEEE. Reprinted, Reprinted, IEEE. with permission, from
2017
© © M. Cellier. ”Multi CAMAD 2017
Ref.: Ref.: P. Kryszkiewicz, A. Kliks, Kułacz, Ł. H. Bogucka, Koudouridis, G. M. Dryjański, “ Resource Management and Unified & Hierarchical – Example IT Analogy Elastic Stack – monitoring & analytics system
Architecture: Visualization module – Kibana Search engine/big data - Elasticsearch (ES) Ingest nodes – Logstash/Beats
Abstraction layer between ingest modules and search engine, enables using ES for various monitoring applications → Provide the proper communication of an ingest module with the ES through a common API
You don’t need to rebuild the whole system when adding new features – just adapt your new plugin to the ES framework through API
Additional notes: Kibana can also run on top of different databases (e.g. Prometheus), dedicated for IoT metrics Elasticsearch is more for logs search and processing – can also work with IoT metrics, but is less efficient, thus integration can be done on a different level
Tip: Have an integration possibility on many levels, to decide where to integrate / where things fit optimally! Conclusions and Summary Future – Beyond 5G
Flexible, programmable, software-defined and cloud-enabled network…
… highly heterogeneous, using multi-connectivity and multi-RAT concepts…
… combined with various spectrum licensing and management schemes, utilizing NEXT wide range of bands (from below 1 GHz to up to/and beyond 100 GHz)…… ”should” be: … optimized and tailored to specific-services and multi-tenant enabled…
… with unified and hybrid management…
… fully automated and self-learning.
It all comes down to – where to put the abstraction How to Approach NextG?
Hybrid and modular design for easy plug-in and ”plug-out”
Use abstraction layers
Use advanced sharing schemes: CBRS, ”NHN-like”, dynamic spectrum sharing, etc.
Use open interfaces
Allow 3rd party solutions
Integrate what’s out there together with new solutions NEXT NextG Approach – Where To Start?
Legacy Monolithic RANs Open Networking in RAN
• Single network • Hybrid networks (integrated solutions) • Closed interfaces • Open interfaces • Single vendor • Different vendors and open initiatives • HW-based RAN (xRAN, vRAN, C-RAN, O-RAN, TIP, …) • Limited RAN-sharing • RAN virtualization • Neutral-host networks, SCaaS Some ”Philosophical” Quotes NEXT ?
Is 5G the ”last” generation? Two perspectives: • If we get 5G right there may not be a 6G. (BT – Andy Sutton [1]) • If it carries on like it is today, 5G will probably be the last generation of technology that rolls out because mobile operators just won’t be profitable. (Rakuten [2])
From uniformity to diversity: • In 5G, in other words, variety and diversity (of cells and their deployers) will replace uniformity. (SCF [3]) • The risk of diversity, however, is fragmentation. (SCF [3])
[1] https://www.fiercewireless.com/special-report/europe-accelerates-push-toward-a-5g-wireless-future [2] https://www.rcrwireless.com/20190911/5g/5g-lessons-reliance-jio-rakuten [3] https://www.smallcellforum.org/blog/neutral-host-moves-to-the-top-of-scfs-agenda-as-it-proves-essential-to-5g-success/ So: GO hybrid!
NEXT ?
Source: toyota Source: Let’s talk: 5G, SD-WAN, Wireless, IoT, Proptech.
Grandmetric.com [email protected] Poznan | Poland | Europe The information contained herein is the property of Grandmetric and is provided solely on condition that it will not be disclosed, directly or indirectly to a third party, nor used for any purpose other than that for which it was specifically prepared.
ETSI is the copyright holder of LTE, LTE-Advanced and LTE Advanced Pro and 5G Logos. LTE is a trade mark of ETSI. Grandmetric is authorized to use the LTE, LTE-Advanced, LTE-Advanced Pro and 5G logos and the acronym LTE.
All information that will be discussed is provided “as is” and Grandmetric gives no guarantee or warranty that the information is fit for any particular purpose. The user thereof uses the information at its sole risk and liability.
©2019 Grandmetric sp. z o.o. All Rights Reserved.