3rd carrier deployment with ran11 v2.3

8/13/2019 3rd Carrier Deployment With RAN11 v2.3

1/14

HUAWEI TECHNoLOGIES CO., LTD.

HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD.

www.huawei.com

Page 1

Multi-Carrier Deployment Scenario

For HSPA Network


2/14

Objective

To study various scenarios for multi-carrier deployment

To understand the impact on REL-99 (CS and PS)

To understand the benefits of deploying multi-carrier for HSPA capacity

enhancement

Recommendation and Conclusion


3/14

Trial Area

Total Sites = 10sites with IP backhaul

Using RAN11


4/14

Multi-Carrier Deployment Scenario

3rdCarrier

2nd Carrier

1st Carrier

Cell Reserved

R99 only

HS only

R99 + HS

R99 + HS

R99 only

HS only

HS only

R99 + HS

R99 + HS

R99 + HS

Scenario A: R+H

Maximize 3G voice coverage

Good voice performance

Segregation of traffic

Easy to optimize

Idle UE stays at 1stcarrier.Better battery life

2ndcarrier overloaded

Poor HS CSSR due to

coverage shrinkage at 2nd

carrier

Poor HS speed when many

users are connected

+

-

Balanced load

Good HS CSSR performance

(no directed retry)

More capacity for Better

HS experience

Scenario C: H+H

3G coverage shrink due to

HS traffic

3G voice traffic reduced.

Extra load to GSM

Complex optimization

Reselection between

carrier leads to shorter

battery life

Cell Reserved

Cell Reserved

Maximize 3G voice coverage

Good voice performance

Segregation of traffic

Easy to optimize

More capacity for HS. Betterexperience

Idle UE at 1stcarrier. Better

battery life

Scenario D: R+H+H

Poor HS CSSR due to DRD

coverage shrinkage at 2nd

and 3rdcarrier

Balanced load

Good HS CSSR performance

(no directed retry)

More capacity for HS.

Best HS experience

3G coverage shrink due to

HS traffic

3G voice traffic reduced.

Extra load to GSM

Complex optimization

Reselection between

carrier leads to shorter

battery life

Scenario B:H+H+H


5/14

98.00%

98.20%

98.40%

98.60%

98.80%

99.00%

99.20%

99.40%

99.60%

28/12/2009

29/12/2009

30/12/2009

04/01/2010

06/01/2010

07/01/2010

08/01/2010

11/01/2010

12/01/2010

Sum of M - Accessibility Success Rate_Speech (CSSR) (Cell)

CS Performance

AMR CSSR

Scenario B:H+H+H

3-days average 99.42%

Scenario D (R + H + H) has the best CSSR performance

Scenario C:H+H


Scenario D:R+H+H



6/14

0.44%

0.46%

0.48%

0.50%

0.52%

0.54%

0.56%

0.58%

0.60%

28/12/2009

29/12/2009

30/12/2009

04/01/2010

06/01/2010

07/01/2010

08/01/2010

11/01/2010

12/01/2010

Sum of M - AMR Call Drop Ratio (Cell)

CS Performance

AMR Drop Call Rate

Scenario D has the lowest drop call rate when one carrier is dedicated for REL-99

Scenario B:H+H+H

3-days average=0.59%

Scenario C:H+H


Scenario D:R+H+H



7/14

1700

1750

1800

1850

1900

1950

2000

2050

2100

12/28/2009 12/29/2009 12/30/2009 1/4/2010 1/6/2010 1/7/2010 1/8/2010 1/11/2010 1/12/2010

Sum of VS.CS.RB.Erlang.Sum

CS Performance

CS Erlang

R+H+H

*Traffic drop on 12 Dec due to BUFFMU was down

Scenario B has the most traffic due to clean 3rdcarrier serving bigger area. However if this scenario is

deployed in large scale, noise for 3rdcarrier will increase and traffic will eventually drop

Ultimately, Scenario D is best to ensure maximum CS traffic in 3G

Scenario B:H+H+H

3-days total = 5937

Scenario C:H+H

3-days total = 5620

Scenario D:R+H+H*

3-days total =5834


8/14

CS Performance

IRAT Ratio

35.50%

36.00%

36.50%

37.00%

37.50%

38.00%

38.50%

39.00%

39.50%

40.00%

28/12/2009

29/12/2009

30/12/2009

04/01/2010

06/01/2010

07/01/2010

08/01/2010

11/01/2010

12/01/2010

Sum of IRAT Attempt / RAB Attempt

Scenario B:H+H+H

3-days average = 37.76%

Scenario C:H+H

3-days average = 38.89%

Scenario D:R+H+H

3-days average =37.29%

With a dedicated carrier reserved for R99, Scenario D has kept the IRAT ratio at minimum

Scenario B has relatively low IRAT as 3rdcarrier is not fully loaded. If 3rdcarrier is fully loaded, then

IRAT Ratio will eventually increase


9/14

97.20%

97.40%

97.60%

97.80%

98.00%

98.20%

98.40%

98.60%

28/12/2009

29/12/2009

30/12/2009

04/01/2010

06/01/2010

07/01/2010

08/01/2010

11/01/2010

12/01/2010

Sum of M - Accessibility Success Rate_PS (Cell)

PS Performance

PS CSSR

Scenario B has the best PS CSSR mainly due to unloaded 3rdcarrier.

For Scenario D, the PS CSSR performance degraded due to high RIP failure.

Scenario B:H+H+H


Scenario C:H+H


Scenario D:R+H+H



10/14

0.00%

0.50%

1.00%

1.50%

2.00%

2.50%

12/28/2009 12/29/2009 12/30/2009 1/4/2010 1/6/2010 1/7/2010 1/8/2010 1/11/2010 1/12/2010

Average of RIP Fail/PS RAB Attempt

PS Performance

RIP Failure Ratio

Highest RIP Failure Ratio is the highest with scenario D; R + H +H due to different

coverage (loading) across the carrier.

Scenario B:H+H+H Scenario C: H+H Scenario D:R+ H+H


11/14

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

28/12/2009

29/12/2009

30/12/2009

04/01/2010

06/01/2010

07/01/2010

08/01/2010

11/01/2010

12/01/2010

Sum of VS.HSDPA.UE.Mean.Cell

HSDPA Performance

Average HSDPA UE User

Scenario B has the most HS user as 3rdcarrier is relatively clean and hence has larger

coverage. If Scenario B is deployed in large, the coverage will eventually shrink and user

number will decrease eventually

Scenario B:H+H+H

3-days average user= 256 users

Scenario C:H+H


Scenario D:R+H+H



12/14

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

CellTotalHS

Volume

Sum of VS.HSDPA.MeanChThroughput.TotalMBytes

3rd Strategic Implementation

Peak Cell Total HS Volume (30 minutes Stats)

4.62 GByte

Scenario B:H+H+H

3-days total = 434Terabyte

3.98 GByte 3.88 GByte

Scenario B could prove most data. At the busiest period, it could transfer 4.62Gbyte of data

compared to only 3.9GByte for Scenario C and D

Scenario B could provide additional16% at busiest period (maximum loaded).

On a daily basis, it has 28% more capacity

Scenario C:H+H


Scenario D:R+H+H



13/14

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

UEAverageThroug

hput

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

TotalHSOnlineU

E

Average of VS.HSDPA.MeanChThroughput Sum of VS.HSDPA.UE.Mean.Cell

Time

Data

HSDPA Performance

UE average throughput (30 minutes stats)

H+H+H H+H R+H+H

Total HS UE Count : H+H+H = 256, H+H = 215, R+H+H =210

Average HS UE Throughput (kbps): H+H+H = 970, H+H = 952, R+H+H =974


14/14

Summary

Scenario B: H+H+H Scenario C: H+H Scenario D: R+H+H

Highest drop call

CSSR is acceptable

Highest traffic

Performance might degrade

when loaded

High drop call rate

Poorest CSSR

Lowest traffic

Lowest drop

Acceptable CSSR

High CS traffic and is not

impacted by loading

Acceptable CSSR

RIP Failure is kept minimum

Acceptable CSSR

RIP Failure is kept minimum

Poor CSSR

Higher RIP Failure

Has most carrier for HSDPA.

16% for busiest period and

28% on a daily basis.

No significant gain in HS user

throughput (Counter issue?)

CS Service

PS Service

HSDPA

Performance

Scenario D is preferred as it provides best CS performance

Impact on RIP failure could be mitigated by enabling DRD fallback

Scenario D could provide better capacity if compared to current Scenario A

3rd carrier deployment with ran11 v2.3

Documents