Do we need next G’s?

2nd Annual World Summit, Barcelona, 10.10.2019

Marcin Dryjanski, Ph.D. Talk Outline NEXT ?

Evolution of Mobile 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” 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 (, 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, -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.