Design of Cost-Efficient Optical Fronthaul For 5G - 6G Networks - An Optimization Perspective - PMC

2/26/23, 12:24 PM Design of Cost-Efficient Optical Fronthaul for 5G/6G Networks: An Optimization Perspective - PMC
Sensors (Basel). 2022 Dec; 22(23): 9394. PMCID: PMC9740885

Published online 2022 Dec 1. doi: 10.3390/s22239394 PMID: 36502096
Design of Cost-Efficient Optical Fronthaul for 5G/6G Networks: An Optimization

Perspective
Abdulhalim Fayad,1,* Tibor Cinkler,1,2 Jacek Rak,2 and Manish Jha1
Wali Ullah Khan, Academic Editor, Khaled Rabie, Academic Editor, and Belal Alsinglawi, Academic Editor
Abstract
Currently, 5G and the forthcoming 6G mobile communication systems are the most promising cel‐
lular generations expected to beat the growing hunger for bandwidth and enable the fully con‐
nected world presented by the Internet of Everything (IoE). The cloud radio access network
(CRAN) has been proposed as a promising architecture for meeting the needs and goals of 5G/6G
(5G and beyond) networks. Nevertheless, the provisioning of cost-efficient connections between a
large number of remote radio heads (RRHs) in the cell sites and the baseband unit (BBU) pool in
the central location, known as the fronthaul, has emerged as a new challenge. Many wired and
wireless solutions have been proposed to address this bottleneck. Specifically, optical technologies
presented by passive optical networks (PONs) are introduced as the best suitable solution for 5G
and beyond network fronthaul due to their properties of providing high capacity and low latency
connections. We considered time and wavelength division multiplexed passive optical networks
(TWDM-PONs) as a fronthaul for 5G and beyond. Taking that into consideration, in this paper, we
propose an integer linear program (ILP) that results in the optimal optical fronthaul deployment
while minimizing the total cost of 5G and beyond instances. However, for larger network instances,
solving the ILP problem becomes unscalable and time-consuming. To address that, we developed
two heuristic-based algorithms (the K-means clustering algorithm and the one based on the ge‐
netic algorithm—GA). We evaluated the suitability of our proposed ILP and heuristic algorithms in
simulations by utilizing them to plan different network instances (dense and sparse).
Keywords: 5G, 6G, CRAN, fronthaul, TCO, cost-efficiency, ILP, genetic algorithm, K-means algorithm,
heuristics
1. Introduction
Moving toward a fully connected society, in conjunction with the rapid development of emerging
applications such as the Internet of Everything (IoE), Industry 4.0, virtual reality (VR), and 8K
video streaming, has resulted in unexpected traffic volume over telecommunication networks.Back to Top
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9740885/ 1/34
According to the ITU-R Report M.2370-0, mobile data traffic is expected to be higher than 5036 EB
per month in 2030, as shown in Figure 1, while the user mobile data usage will rise from 5 GB in
2020 to more than 250 GB per month in 2030 as in Figure 2 [1]. To handle that massive amount
of traffic, industry and academia are working day and night to develop new generations of mobile
communication systems. Recently, the fifth generation (5G) has been gradually deployed for com‐
mercial use across various markets [2]. The 5G network is eager to provide a fully connected soci‐
ety and has three main use cases: enhanced mobile broadband (eMBB), massive machine-type
communications (mMTC), and ultra-reliable low-latency communications (URLLC) [2]. eMBB aims
at providing high data rate communications and improving the performance of mobile networks
in terms of capacity and coverage, which is crucial to provide mobile broadband connectivity to
meet the massive value of data traffic. The other target is to assure a data rate of up to 20 Gbps in
high-density populated areas. mMTC aims to provide the connection to a massive number of de‐
vices, such as Internet of Things (IoT) nodes, which leads to achieving the goal of a connected
world. This requires shifting from serving traditional human clients in LTE systems to machine-to-
machine (M2M) communications to support high bandwidth applications such as
augmented/virtual reality (AR/VR) and streaming. Finally, URLLC indicates mission-critical appli‐
cations (i.e., autonomous driving, vehicle-to-everything (V2X) communications, intelligent trans‐
portation systems (ITSs), and remote surgery), which require guaranteed connection and low la‐
tency. This implies that the communication link should always be available to transfer data in a
short period and with high reliability [3]. However, as mobile network capacity and the number of
connected devices increase, along with the introduction of new traffic patterns and service diver‐
sification, there will be a significant gap between 5G capabilities and market requirements ex‐
pected after 2030. Therefore, research activities have been ongoing in order to specify require‐
ments and identify potential radio technologies and architectures for the next big evolution in the
telecommunications industry, known as 6G [3,4,5,6]. To this end, 6G is expected to provide ex‐
tremely low latency connectivity, high peak data rate, high 3D coverage, significant capacity, and
higher energy and spectral efficiency than 5G, as shown in Figure 3. Table 1 provides a compari‐
son between 5G and 6G.
Figure 1
Predicted mobile data traffic per month according to the ITU-R Report M.2370-0 from 2020 to 2030.
Figure 2
Predicted user data traffic per month according to the ITU-R Report M.2370-0 from 2020 to 2030.
Figure 3
Requirements for 5G and 6G mobile technologies.
Table 1
Comparison of 5G and 6G specifications.
Aspect 5G 6G
Year 2020 2030
Peak data rate (per

10 Gbps 1 Tbps
device)
Maximum frequency 300 GHz 10 THz
Downlink data rate 20 Gbps 1 Tbps
Uplink data rate 10 Gbps 1 Tbps
Latency 1 ms 100 μs
Jitter not specified 1 μs
Mobility 500 km/h 1000 km/h
Maximum bandwidth 1 GHz 100 GHz

6
10
Density of devices 10
7
devices/km 2
devices/km 2
Area traffic capacity 10 Mb/s/m 2

1 Gb/s/m 2
Peak spectral
30 b/s/Hz 100 b/s/Hz
efficiency
>
Reliability >99.999% 99.9999
However, a traditional architecture for any telecommunication system consists of a number of

base stations (BSs) as a medium connecting the end users to the core network. From 2G to 4G, the
main deployment scenario was based on the distributed radio access network (DRAN). In DRAN,
the baseband unit (BBU) and the remote radio head (RRH) were co-located at the cell site [7]. At
the same time, in 5G and beyond, the deployment scenario has a centralized architecture called a
cloud radio access network (CRAN). The main architecture of CRAN consists of three components:
the BBU pool including a large number of BBUs with centralized processors; the RRHs with anten‐
nas located at the cell site; and the fronthaul network that connects RRHs to BBUs via high capac‐
ity and low latency connections. The design of the fronthaul has been one of the most significant
challenges on the road to CRAN realization, where fully processed high-bandwidth signals must be
transmitted over the fronthaul from the BBU pool to the intended RRHs. For that, it must offer
low-latency and high-capacity connections in a cost-effective manner. To do that, many wired and
wireless technologies can be used to realize the fronthaul, including optical fiber, microwave, mil‐
limeter waves, and free space optics. Optical fiber technologies represented by optical access net‐
works are the best option to meet the fronthaul requirements due to their inherent characteris‐
tics, as they are capable of providing high-capacity and low-latency connections [8,9]. In this work,
we focus on planning and designing an efficient optical access system for 5G and beyond fron‐
thaul, which is a crucial and complex problem due to the high density of 5G and 6G networks,
where deploying 5G and 6G optical fronthaul networks would necessitate massive investments.
Therefore, an efficient and cost-effective solution for the optimal design would be required. Taking
that into account, the key contributions of this work can be summarized as follows:
1. Formulation of an optimization framework based on ILP to obtain the optimal solution for 5G
and beyond optical fronthaul design problems while minimizing the overall cost of the network.
2. A proposal of two sub-optimal methods based on the K-means clustering and genetic
algorithms, respectively, to overcome the ILP scalability issue.
3. Assessment of the applicability of our proposed solutions by using them to optimize the
deployment in two different scenarios (dense and sparse configurations).
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 reviews the RAN architectural develop‐
ments and the enabling technologies for 5G/6G fronthaul; the related works are discussed in
Section 3. The problem description and the cost model are provided in Section 4. Section 5 formu‐
lates the proposed ILP model and the heuristic schemes. The case study and the obtained results
are discussed in Section 6. Finally, Section 7 concludes the paper.
2. xRAN Architecture Developments and Fronthaul Enabling Technologies
To meet the growth of mobile traffic presented by the newly emerged applications, RANs have
been undergoing several designs and technological developments. As a result, in recent years, sev‐
eral RAN architectures have been proposed. CRAN is a radio access network architecture based
on cloud computing. In the CRAN architecture, BBUs are relocated from individual base stations to
a centralized location, often called a BBU pool, while the RRHs are located on the antenna side.
The BBU pool connects to the RRHs using high-bandwidth and low-latency links forming the fron‐
thaul [7]. The heterogeneous cloud RAN (HCRAN) has been proposed due to the high need to de‐
ploy 5G dense networks. Its architecture is based on heterogeneous networks (HetNets) and
cloud computing, where the macro base stations BSs provide network control, mobility manage‐
ment, and system performance enhancement, while micro BSs and RRHs improve the capacity of
the system and lower the power of transmission [10]. The RRHs enable signal processing and ra‐
dio frequency functions. In contrast, the BBU pool includes other physical baseband processing
functions associated with the upper layers. With the new virtualization development, a new RAN
architecture, the fog radio access network (FRAN), has been proposed. It is an architecture that
makes benefits from CRAN and fog computing, aiming to overcome the exponential growth of mo‐
bile traffic and improve the quality of service (QoS) for end-users. FRAN was first proposed to
fully utilize caching and AI at the network edge [11]. FRANs have several obvious advantages, in‐
cluding real-time signal processing and flexible networking at the network edge. FRANs adapt to
the changing traffic and radio environment, relieving the fronthaul and BBU pool of capacity and
transmit latency burdens.
Recently, Open RAN has been identified as a trend in mobile network architecture that typically
refers to a disaggregated radio access network with open interfaces between network compo‐
nents sourced from multiple vendors [12]. The network functions in the Open RAN architecture
are disaggregated into radio units (RU), distributed units (DU), and centralized units (CU), with
open interfaces between them. Virtualization and containerization are also options for the RU, DU,
and CU functions. This can lead to lower TCO and higher QoS levels. In consequence, all the de‐
signs mentioned above have the same goals: to provide high bandwidth and low latency connec‐
tions to a greater number of end-users while lowering the capital expenditure (Capex) and opera‐
tional expenditure (Opex). However, the main challenge for all proposed xRAN architectures is the
cost of the fronthaul, where a low-latency, high-capacity fronthaul is required to transmit base‐
band signals between the RRHs and the BBU.
This paper considers the CRAN architecture, which can be generalized to all other architectures
mentioned in this section.
2.1. CRAN Architecture and Functional Splits
In contrast to DRAN, the base station is divided into two parts in the CRAN architecture, as shown
in Figure 4. The RRH remains at the cell site with few functional responsibilities; at the same time,
the BBUs are aggregated into a centralized location. The link between the RRH and the BBU is
called the fronthaul, where the most common interface/protocol used between RRH and BBU in
fronthaul networks is the common public radio interface (CPRI) [13]. CRAN provides better net‐
work performance in almost every key performance indicator compared to traditional DRAN [14].
The main advantages of 5G CRAN are:
1. Cost and footprint efficiency as it requires less hardware.

2. Low energy consumption.
3. Simple and flexible architecture.
4. Resource and infrastructure sharing.
5. Increased efficiency of network upgrades and enhancements.
6. Ease of testing and maintenance.
Figure 4
Cloud radio access network architecture.
Nevertheless, the main drawback of 5G CRAN is the cost of the fronthaul. Furthermore, the fron‐
thaul requires high-capacity and low-latency connections. For instance, a sector configured as 64
× 64 MIMO with 20 MHz bandwidth requires about 64 Gbps for fronthaul while guaranteeing a
low latency connection equal to 100 μs. For that, the 3rd generation partnership project (3GPP)
has introduced several functional split options, as shown in Figure 5, which are initially identified
as split points 1–8 between the BBU and the RRH in the CRAN architecture [15]. Option 8 repre‐
sents a fully centralized RAN in which all baseband functions are centralized in a BBU pool,
whereas option 1 denotes a traditional network architecture in which baseband functions are allo‐
cated at the cell site.
Figure 5
RAN functional split options.
The 3GPP RAN split options are classified as high layer (options 2 and 3), medium layer (options 5
and 6), and low layer (options 7 and 8) [16,17]. The capacity requirements of each split option,
presented in Table 2, are calculated using a 5G system with 200 MHz of bandwidth, 64 QAM, an
8x12 MIMO antenna array, and 96 antenna ports, as in [18].
Table 2
Fronthaul capacity requirements of various split options based on [18].
Average Required Capacity (Gbps)
Split option 1 2 3 4 5 6 7.3 7.2 7.1 8
Downlink 1 1 1 1 1 1.2 2 6 323 885
Uplink 1 1 1 1 1 1.2 3.2 2 323 885
2.2. Technologies Enabling 5G and beyond Fronthaul
One of the main obstacles for 5G and beyond deployment is designing a cost-effective fronthaul
network to transport vast amounts of data with low latency.
This section provides a brief overview of different potential solutions for 5G CRAN fronthaul net‐
works. Table 3 summarizes the main differences between these technologies.
Table 3
Potential fronthaul technologies.
Fronthaul Technology Throughput Latency Cost Distance Topology
P2P Fiber 1000 Gbps Very low High 100 km P2P
PON 40 Gbps Very low Low 40 km P2mP
xDSL 100 Mbps Very High Very low 500 m P2P
FSO 10 Gbps Very Low Low 5 km P2P, P2mP
Microwave 1 Gbps Moderate Moderate 10 km P2P, P2mP
mmWaves 10 Gbps Moderate High 1 km P2P, P2mP
Point to point fiber optic (P2P): P2P provides a direct, dedicated fiber link that connects the
BBU and the RRH to each other on a private, high-speed fiber connection of up to 100 Gbps. This
type of high-capacity connection is required for the fronthaul segment for splitting options 7.1
and 8 of 5G CRAN [19]. However, it is not a cost-effective solution as the cost of laying fiber cables
reaches up to 200 USD/m and 30 USD/m in sparse and dense areas, respectively [20].
Passive optical networks (PON): Passive optical networks (PONs) are critical to the success of
5G and beyond networks. PON is a point-to-multipoint technology that sends data from the central
office to the end user via a passive splitter, allowing for efficient use of fiber resources.
Furthermore, PON has low-latency connections and can handle a large volume of data traffic
[21,22]. ITU-T and full-service access network (FSAN) proposed next-generation passive optical
network 2 (NG-PON2) as the next evolution of PONs to meet user expectations by increasing the
transmission speed in PONs to more than 10 Gbps. The requirements of NG-PON2 have been de‐
termined in ITU-T G.989 recommendation [23]. These recommendations indicate a bandwidth ca‐
pacity of up to 40 Gbps on both downlink and uplink for transmission distances up to 40 km.
TWDM-PON, which combines the advantages of more wavelengths provided by WDM-PONs and a
large number of users per wavelength provided by TDM-PONs, is regarded as the best option for
meeting the NG-PON2 requirements. One of its primary applications is to handle mobile fronthaul
streams with low latency and high capacity [24,25] and can support functional split options rang‐
ing from 1 to 6, 7.2, and 7.3 [19].
Copper-based links (xDSL): xDSL refers to different types of digital subscriber line (DSL) tech‐
nologies [26]. In previous generations, they have been a popular solution for wireless network
backhauling and were widely deployed for fixed telecommunication infrastructure. However, xDSL
can not be considered a robust solution for 5G CRAN fronthaul due to bandwidth limitations.
Free-space optics (FSO): The use of light waves rather than radio waves to set up a link in free
space is known as free-space optics (FSO). When compared to fiber-based fronthaul, the FSO, also
known as fiber optics without fiber, offers a cost-effective alternative for fronthaul links, allowing
for a 50% reduction in fronthaul deployment costs. FSO’s main advantages are its ability to pro‐
vide low power consumption, high capacity, low price, and license-free option, and it can be used
to set up point-to-multipoint links. The performance of FSO is often affected by visibility and ad‐
verse weather conditions such as fog, snowfall, or rain, making it unsuitable for long distances or
non-line of sight (NLoS) links [27,28,29].
Microwaves: Microwave links are among the popular technologies that connect the base stations
to the core network. They can be operated in the licensed spectrum from 6 GHz to 42 GHz and im‐
plemented as a point-to-point or point-to-multipoint architecture. Although the microwave links
are less affected by bad weather conditions as FSO and can serve larger transmission distances,
they require LoS and depend on licensed frequencies, which makes them an expensive option
[30].
Millimeter waves (mmWaves): The mmWaves spectrum covers frequencies from 50 GHz to 300
GHz and includes the V-band (60 GHz), E-band (70/80 GHz), W-band (100 GHz), and D-band (150
GHz) [31]. mmWaves technology has gained attention as a promising solution to meet the fron‐
thaul of 5G CRAN. It provides high capacity and low latency connection. The drawbacks are the at‐
mospheric and rain attenuation that may become extremely high at mmWaves frequencies, mak‐
ing them sensitive to weather conditions [32].
As a consequence, optical technologies seem to be the best solution to handle the fronthaul data
traffic for 5G and 6G networks.
3. Related Work
Despite the many benefits of CRAN architecture, designing a cost-effective fronthaul remains the
main challenge for MNOs deploying 5G and beyond CRAN. For that reason, recently, designing a
cost-effective optical fronthaul for CRAN has received significant attention from researchers.
Musumeci et al. in [33] investigated a BBU placement problem in a CRAN linked by a WDM optical
network. The optimization problem was formulated as an ILP with the goal of minimizing the total
network cost, which was represented by either the number of active BBU sites or the number of
fibers used to transport traffic in the network. Chen et al. in [34] proposed a cost-efficient DRAN
architecture for deploying 5G small cells. The authors considered TWDM-PON as a backhaul con‐
nection and proposed an algorithm to find the best locations of the network equipment in order
to reduce deployment costs. Klinkowski et al. [35] proposed a cost-effective ILP model for the
placement of RRHs, BBUs, and optical fibers in 5G radio-optical communication networks (5G-
RONs). Ranaweera et al. in [19,36] proposed an ILP-based optimization framework that jointly op‐
timizes the wireless access and the optical transport network for 5G and 6G cellular networks.
Meysam et al. in [37] proposed an ILP and a genetic algorithm to minimize the TCO of CRAN for
5G small cells and assess the cost of migrating to a CRAN-based TWDM-PON architecture. Two
scenarios were considered: a complete network function centralization and a partial network
function centralization via function splitting. Marotta et al. in [38] proposed an ILP model to evalu‐
ate the optimal deployment of 5G CRAN fronthaul using point-to-point optical fiber and mi‐
crowave links under delay constraints in a brownfield scenario. Ranaweera et al. in [39,40] pro‐
posed an optimization framework for optimally planning a small cell network deployment simulta‐
neously with the backhaul network while meeting the different needs of the networks making ben‐
efits from the existing fiber infrastructure. Kolydakis et al. in [41] provided a TCO comparison of
wireless and fiber technologies for 5G fronthaul and backhaul solutions, resulting in the fiber ar‐
chitecture being more cost-effective than the wireless one in high-density areas. Jarray et al. in
[42] proposed Capex and Opex cost modeling, as well as a mixed integer linear programming
(MILP) optimization for large-scale mesh networks based on column generation techniques and
the rounding-off heuristic. Yeganeh et al. in [43] analyzed the Capex and Opex of CRANs and math‐
ematically formulated the cell-BBU pool assignment problem, taking into account fronthaul net‐
work expenditure. Tonini et al. [44] presented a hybrid fronthaul solution for CRAN based on op‐
tical fibers and free space optics (FSO) to improve fronthaul flexibility and reduce deployment
costs. Two ILP-based design strategies are proposed for both greenfield and brownfield deploy‐
ments. Arévalo et al. in [45] proposed a set of heuristic techniques to find the optimal placement
of RRHs as well as the routes of the fiber-based fronthaul at the same time. The authors assessed
the cost-effectiveness of using digital signal processing (DSP) assisted channel aggregation tech‐
niques in fronthaul links. In [25], we proposed an ILP formulation that optimizes the TCO for 5G
using the CRAN architecture at various delay thresholds. We considered TWDM-PON as a fron‐
thaul with different splitting ratios. Carapellese et al. in [46] investigated the best location of BBUs
in a WDM aggregation network. The authors compared the impact of two different fronthaul
transport options, the optical transport network (OTN) and overlay, on BBU centralization. Despite
the aforementioned contributions, a bottleneck still remains in designing and deploying a cost-ef‐
fective optical fronthaul for 5G and beyond networks. To the best of our knowledge, most of the
literature did not provide insight study about planning a cost-effective optical fronthaul for 5G and
beyond networks while considering the optimal solution for small problems along with heuristic
solutions for larger problem instances.
4. Problem Description
In this paper, we consider a scenario in which a mobile network operator (MNO) aims to plan an
optical network to provide fronthaul connectivity services to several RHHs toward a centralized
BBU pool for various areas. In essence, the problem discussed in this study is to minimize the total
cost of ownership (TCO) of 5G and beyond deployments both in terms of Capex and Opex while
finding the optimal location for network equipment. The most important is the optimal deploy‐
ment of the optical fronthaul as deploying optical fiber cables is too expensive. Any unplanned
network deployment would exponentially increase the total network setup cost. To ensure that the
network is deployed in such a way so that the setup cost of the network can be kept minimum and
covers all the planned areas efficiently, below we discuss each optimization aspect in detail. The
problem can be split into subproblems as follows:
1. Power splitter placement: Depending on the RRH location and splitter ratio capacity, we have
to determine the best possible location to assign splitters to RRHs according to their maximum
ratio capacity. The shortest distance and lowest delay are used to divide all RRHs into groups.
This is a clustering problem since each set of RRHs is assigned to one splitter and is known to
be NP-complete [47].
2. BBU pool placement: According to the splitter locations, the optimal location for the BBU pool
is near the center of the splitters group in order to keep the overall length of the link between
the splitters and the BBU pool within the group to a minimum.
3. Fronthaul deployment: To find the optimal fronthaul deployment over the network, all RRHs
must be connected to the splitter based on the shortest path possible, and all splitters must be
linked to the BBU pool according to the shortest distance.
Our optimization problem addresses the following questions:
1. How to establish RRH groups that are all linked to one power splitter?
2. How to find the optimal location for the BBU pool while resulting in the minimal cost?
3. How to find the shortest path from the RRH to its splitter and from the splitter to the BBU
pool?
Cost Model
This section provides a TCO cost model that considers the optical fronthaul based on TWDM-PON
architecture, as well as the Capex and Opex of deploying 5G and beyond. In our study, we assume
that only one operator can serve the investigated area. Furthermore, there is no infrastructure
sharing, and all the infrastructure elements are associated with that operator; there is no need to
lease fiber. Therefore, the TCO can be calculated as follows:
T CO = Capex + Nr ⋅ Opex (1)
where N is the number of years. (In our paper, only one year of operation is considered, which
r
can provide the operator with the needed Opex for one year of investments. It can be predicted
for several years as a linear increase.)
Figure 6 depicts the model used to calculate the TCO value, as well as a breakdown of the Capex
and Opex costs. This framework for cost assessment is derived from the TCO model described in
[25]. The Capex and Opex will be described in detail in the following section, with the objective
function to minimize the TCO of the network.
Figure 6
TCO breakdown.
5. ILP Formulation and Heuristic Solutions
An integer linear program (ILP) is a popular tool for finding optimal solutions to linear problems.
A proper ILP formulation can also serve as a reference. The performance of any given heuristic
can be assessed by comparing it to the optimal solution obtained for the ILP.
In this section, we propose an ILP-based optimization framework with the goal of minimizing the
TCO of CRAN and optical fronthaul deployment, where TWDM-PON is considered as the CRAN
fronthaul as illustrated in Figure 4. Each RRH and ONU are co-located together (henceforth, we
use RRH). All RRHs are assigned towards the BBU pool through two aggregation levels, at first to
the power splitter (PS) and then to the arrayed wavelength grating (AWG) that is allocated with
the optical line terminal (OLT) and the BBU pool. The formulation of the ILP is illustrated as
follows.
Input: locations of all RRHs; potential locations of BBU pool; potential locations of power splitters;
BBU capacity; splitting ratio; the maximum distance allowed between the BBU pool, power split‐
ters, and RRHs; different cost values.
Objective: the optimal placements of BBU pools and power splitters, the minimum amount of
equipment needed, and optimal fronthaul deployment.
Output: minimized TCO.
Below are the network data sets, parameters, decision variables, objective functions, and
constraints.
5.1. Network Data Sets and Input Parameters
Table 4 illustrates the considered input parameters and the network data sets.
Table 4
Network data sets and parameters.
Notation Description
B A set of potential locations where the BBU pool, the OLT, and the AWG can be located
P A set of candidate locations for splitters
N A set of RRH locations
L A set of BBUs
O A set of OLTs
κb Number of locations available for BBU pool placement
κl Number of BBUs
κo Number of OLTs
κa Number of AWGs
κp Number of splitters
κn Number of RRHs, where κ =|N| N
ϕ The maximum number of BBU pools
ω The maximum number of RRHs that can be served by one BBU
Dbp The distance between the b th

BBU pool and the p th
power splitter (the feeder fiber)
Dpn The distance between the p th

power splitter and the n th
RRH (the distributed fiber)
D1max The maximum allowed distance for the distributed fiber
Dmax The maximum allowed distance for the feeder fiber
ζ Number of splits for the power splitter (splitting ratio)
Cf The cost of fiber optic cable per meter (material and deployment cost)
Co The cost of the OLT
Cp The power splitter cost
Cl The BBU cost
Cn The RRH cost
Cb The BBU pool cost
Ca The cost of AWG
CO&M Operations and maintenance cost
CSr Site rental cost
E Energy consumption cost
El Energy consumption of the BBU
5.2. Decision Variables
All decision variables are clarified in Table 5.
Table 5
Decision variables.
Variable Description
βb Equals 1 if the bth BBU pool is used; 0 otherwise
ηn Equals 1 if the nth RRH is active; 0 otherwise.
ρp Equals 1 if the pth power splitter is active; 0 otherwise.
ybp Equals 1 f the bth BBU pool and the pth power splitter are connected; 0 otherwise
ypn Equals 1 if the pth power splitter and the nth RRH are connected; 0 otherwise.
5.3. Objective Function
The Objective Function are shown:
M inimize : ∑ (C b + E Ecool ) βb + (C l + E ⋅ El ) κl

b=1
 BBUs cost
BBU pool cost
+ (C o + E ⋅ Eo ) κo + ∑ (C n + E ⋅ En ) ηn + C a κa +
 
n=1
OLT cost  AWGs cost
RRH cost
P
(2)
∑ C n ⋅ ρp + C O&M + C Sr
 
p=1
O&M cost site rental cost

splitters cost
B P N
+ C f ∑ ∑ ∑ (ybp ⋅ D bp + ypn ⋅ D pn )
b=1 p=1 n=1

optical fronthaul deployment cost
5.4. Constraints
1. Topology constraints
(a) The RRH can be connected to one power splitter only:
∑ ypn = 1 ∀n ∈ N (3)
p=1
(b) The number of RRHs that are connected to one splitter can not exceed the splitting ratio:
∑ ypn ≤ ζ ∀p ∈ P (4)
n=1
(c) If there is an optical link from a splitter to an RRH, it should be installed at a viable splitter
location:
ypn ≤ ρp ∀p ∈ P , ∀n ∈ N (5)
(d) If a splitter is used at a possible site, it must be connected to at least one RRH:
∑ ypn ≥ ρp ∀p ∈ P (6)
n=1
(e) Each splitter can be served by only one BBU pool:
∑ ybp = 1 ∀p ∈ P (7)
b=1
(f) The number of BBU pools can not exceed the maximum number:
κb = ∑ ybp ≤ ϕ ∀p ∈ P (8)
p=1
(g) If an optical path exists between a BBU pool and a splitter, the splitter must be connected to
at least one RRH:
B P
∑ ybp ≤ ∑ ypn ∀n ∈ N (9)

b=1 p=1
(h) The number of needed splitters should be calculated as follows:
κP = ∑ ybp ∀b ∈ B (10)
p=1
(i) The number of BBUs should be calculated as follows:
N
κl = ⌈ ⌉ (11)
ω
(j) The number of OLTs and the number of AWGs in the network should be equal to the total
number of splitters:
κo = κa = ∑ ybp ∀b ∈ B (12)
p
2. Capacity constraints
(a) The capacity referring to the downlink transmission must be equal to or less than the
maximum downlink capacity of TWDM-PON:
(13)
N
∑ αypn ≤ ξD ∀p ∈ P .
n=1
(b) The capacity referring to the uplink transmission must be equal to or less than the maximum
uplink capacity of TWDM-PON:
∑ δypn ≤ ξU ∀p ∈ P . (14)
n=1
3. Distance constraints
(a) The maximum length of the distribution fiber should not surpass the maximum specific
length:
ybp d bp ≤ D1max ∀b ∈ B, ∀p ∈ P (15)
(b) The distance between each RRH and its serving BBU pool must be less than the maximum
distance allowed in PONs:
ybp D bp + ypn D pn ≤ D max ∀b ∈ B, ∀p ∈ P , ∀n ∈ N (16)
5.5. Heuristic Approach
When dealing with larger problems, the ILP-based approach becomes unscalable and time-con‐
suming. In this paper, for example, the ILP-based approach does not scale well when the number
of RRHs exceeds 34. Thus, heuristic solutions that can handle larger problem sizes are required
because real-world problems are typically larger. Although heuristic schemes do not always pro‐
vide the best solutions, they scale well. In this section, the K-means clustering algorithm and the
genetic algorithm (GA) are utilized to solve the planning problem of a cost-efficient optical fron‐
thaul for 5G and beyond.
5.5.1. K-means Clustering Algorithm
K-means clustering is a machine learning clustering algorithm, and it is a centroid-based algorithm

where each set of points has its centroid. The main goal of this algorithm is to minimize the sum of
distances between data points and their corresponding centroid. This property is used in this pa‐
per to find the best solution for our cost-effective optical fronthaul planning problem. The K-
means clustering algorithm operation is divided into three steps: initialization, squared Euclidean
distance, and centroid updating [48].
Initialization: The first step is to use the splitter ratio to determine the size of the clusters and then
randomly distribute the cluster centers across all RRH locations.
Squared Euclidean Distance: The next stage is to allocate each RRH to the power splitter in the
cluster centroid with the shortest squared Euclidean distance (SED). The Euclidean distance is
represented by:
N P
2
SED = ∑ ∑ (|Nn − Pp |) (17)
n=1 p=1
where |N − P | is the distance between the n th RRH and the p th power splitter. The same SED
n p
will be calculated between all BBU pool locations and power splitters.
Updating centroids: The algorithm will next recalculate new locations of power splitters (centers of
the clusters). Generally, new cluster centroids (power splitter locations) are obtained by taking the
mean of all cluster data points. The following equation is used to calculate the centroid (C(s)):
C(s) = ∑ (|Nn − Pp |)/N (18)

k=1
From the new power splitter locations (new centroids), each RRH is reassigned to its nearest new
centroid. The process is repeated until the replication shows no changes. The pseudocode of the
K-means algorithm is illustrated in Algorithm 1.
Algorithm 1 Cost-effective optical fronthaul design algorithm based on K-means clustering.
Input:B, P, N, κ , C , C , C , C , C , C , C
N f o p n b a O&M , C , E, E , E , E , E
Sr l o n cool , D1
max ,D max , maximum number of
replications
Output: Optimal optical fronthaul deployment, optimal TCO
1: Calculate the number of required splitters κ by dividing κ by ζ P N
2: while the constraints of Equations (3)–(6), and Equations (13)–(15) not satisfied do
3: Choose random power splitters locations
4: for maximum number of replications do
5: for all n ∈ κ do N
6: for all p ∈ P do

7: ∑ N P 2
∑ (|N − P |) n p
n=1 p=1
8: Based on the shortest distance, find the optimal fiber deployment between each RRH and the
nearest splitter (distribution fiber)
9: end for
10: end for
11: end for
12: end while
13: Find the optimal locations required splitters (κ P ∈ P )
14: Calculate the total cost (T CO ) 1
15: Choose random BBU pool location

16: for all κ ∈ P do
P
17: for all b ∈ B do

18:
19: ∑ P
p=1
∑ (|P
B
b=1 p
− Bb |)
2
20: if the constraints of Equations (7)–(10), and (13)–(16) are satisfied then
21: Based on the shortest distance, find the optimal fiber deployment between each p and the nearest
BBU pool (feeder fiber)
22: end if
23: end for
24: end for
25: Find the optimal locations of the required BBU pools (κ ∈ B). P
26: According to the constraints given by Equations (11) and (12), calculate the cost of the required number
of BBUs, AWGs and OLTs
27: Calculate the optimized total cost (T CO2)
28: Calculate the final optimized total cost (T CO = T CO1 + T CO2)
5.5.2. Genetic Algorithm
The genetic algorithm (GA) mimics the natural selection process, in which the fittest individuals
are chosen for reproduction to produce offspring for the next generation. The population
“evolves” toward the optimal solution over successive generations. GA has five main stages: Initial
population, fitness population, selection, crossover, and mutation [49]. The flowchart illustrated in
Figure 7 explains the GA procedure from the standpoint of network design.
Figure 7
Genetic algorithm procedure flowchart.
The following are the major steps involved in implementing the GA:
Initial Population: The initial population is generated randomly; the size of the population and the
generation of the initial population are two significant characteristics of the population. The initial
population is chosen from a large collection of solution space to reduce the computational com‐
plexity. The most common encoding method for GA is binary encoding, which is ideal for discrete
solution space.
Fitness Function: Fitness values are generated for all chromosomes based on the problem objec‐
tive function. Every time a new population is formed, the fitness function is employed to calculate
the fitness values.
Selection Process: The next step is to follow the selection process after computing the fitness val‐
ues of all starting chromosomes. The process of selecting chromosomes from a population to exe‐
cute crossover and mutation operations is known as selection. The greater the fitness score, the
more likely chromosomes will be chosen for further procedures. Variations should be balanced in
the selection process. Some frequent techniques for picking the chromosomes for the matching
pool include roulette wheel selection, tournament selection, and rank selection [49]. The circular
wheel is split into P slots in the roulette wheel technique, where P represents the number of
pop pop
chromosomes. As a result, each chromosome has a proportional share of the wheel based on its
fitness value. By hosting a tournament competition among individuals, the tournament selection
technique creates selective pressure and picks the best individuals for continued operation. The
rank selection approach employs a ranking mechanism based on fitness value. The worst fitness
gets the highest ranking, while excellent fitness has the lowest.
Crossover: Offspring are generated by the crossover using a mechanism that inherits valid charac‐
ters from two parents chosen from the population and can move to new regions of the search
space to explore new solutions. Crossover procedures include single-point crossover, two-point
crossover, multi-point crossover, and uniform crossover.
Mutation: After the crossover operation, the mutation is the next stage in introducing variety to
the algorithm. It is essentially a procedure that randomly modifies individuals’ genes and is used
to avoid the local optimum solutions. A few ways for mutation function include bit flop mutation,
swap mutation, and scramble mutation. The mutation function introduces unpredictability to the
chromosomes based on likelihood. The value of mutation probability should ideally be maintained
low. Otherwise, the GA will revert to a random search. The pseudocode of the GA algorithm is il‐
lustrated in Algorithm 2.
Algorithm 2 Cost-effective optical fronthaul design based on the GA.
Input:B, P, N,κ , C , C , C , C , C , C , C
n f o p , C , E, E , E , E , E , maximum number of replications,
p b a O&M Sr l o n cool
population size (P ), maximum number of generations (G

pop ), number of elites in each generation (G ),
max E
mutation rate (M ), D , D , D1
mut
,D
pn
. bp max max
Output: Optimal optical fronthaul deployment, optimal TCO.
1: Calculate the number of required splitters κ by dividing κ by ζ P N
2: while Maximum number of replications not reached do

3: Start GA to find the optimal power splitter locations:
4: Make initial Population size (P ) pop
5: for all n ∈ κ doN
6: for all p ∈ P do

7: Assign each RRH with the power splitter in terms of the minimum distance
8: Calculate the fitness of the map and the total distance
9: Return the sorted list of fitness
10: Determine the best chromosome index and distance
11: Record initial population data
12: for G ∈ G do max
13: Get the G E
14: Create next generation

15: Rank the routes
16: Use selection to get the next-generation parents
17: Generate matching pool
18: Produce the offspring from selected parents
19: Apply mutation
20: Return the new generation population
21: Keep the G in next generation
E
22: Apply best chromosome search

23: Store result of each generation
24: Return result of all generations
25: Apply the cost parameters and calculate the optimized total cost (T CO1).
26: end for
27: end for
28: end for
29: Start GA for P and B mapping:
30: Make initial Population size (P ) p
31: for all κ ∈ P do

P
32: for all b ∈ B do

33: Assign each power spitter with the BBU pool in terms of the minimum distance
34: Repeat steps (8) to (24)
35: Follow the constraints given by Eq. (10), and (11), and calculate the cost of the required number of
BBUs, AWGs and OLTs.
36: Apply the cost parameters and calculate the optimized total cost (T CO2)
37: end for
38: end for

39: end while
40: Calculate the final optimized total cost (T CO = T CO1 + T CO2)
6. Case Study and Numerical Results
In this section, we use our proposed ILP model, K-means, and GA solutions to design the optical
fronthaul of 5G and beyond networks in a cost-effective manner to demonstrate their applicability.
We consider two deployment scenarios: one with a size of 5 × 5 km (dense scenario), and one 2
with a size of 20 × 20 km (sparse scenario).

2
6.1. Simulation Setup
Simulations were run to evaluate the performance of our solutions. To solve the proposed ILP
presented in Section 7, we used the commercially available CPLEX solver [50] and Python pro‐
gramming for K-means and GA algorithms. All simulations were conducted using a machine with
Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-1035G1 CPU @ 1.00 GHz and 8 GB RAM. With that in mind, for solving the
ILP the number of RRHs was 34, which was the maximum number the ILP could scale with. Then
we evaluated the performance of our heuristic algorithms we considered various numbers of
RRHs, i.e. 50, 100, 150, and 200. The capacity that the RRH can support was assumed to be 2.5
Gbps. We considered three different splitting rations (1:4, 1:8, and 1:16), and the TWDM-PON had
a capacity of 40 Gbps for both the downlink and the uplink (symmetrical architecture). Although
the proposed solutions can provide the optimal number of needed BBU pools, in this paper, we
assumed that only one BBU pool location is allowed to be built. When evaluating the performance
of our solutions, we considered various parameter values, which are shown in Table 6. These val‐
ues are chosen from multiple studies [25,27,37,51]. However, the aforementioned parameters can
be easily changed based on the data set provided by the operator.
Table 6
Values of parameters.
Parameter Value
Cf USD 20 per m (USD 4 for purchase and 16 for trenching) [25]

−
Co 2500√λ , where λ is the number of wavelengths (here 4)
Cb USD 75000 [25]
Cl USD 3600 [27]
Cn USD 3500 [25]
Ca 500 + 70 log 2 (number of output ports) [51]
Cp USD (30, 50, 100) for (1:4, 1:8, 1:16) splitting ratios, respectively [25]
CO&M 10% of equipment cost [37]
CSr USD 8000 per year per RRH [25]
E USD 0.15 per Watt
El 100 W [25]
Eo 155 W [25]
En 104 W [25]
Ecool 500 W [25]
ω 10 RRHs
Mutation probability 0.05
Crossover probability 0.8
Number of replications 100
6.2. Results and Discussion
Figure 8 shows the breakdown of the optimal total cost of the network in the sparse and dense
deployment areas considering PON as a fronthaul with different splitting ratios (1:4, 1:8, and
1:16). We can observe that using 1:8 PON results in the most cost-efficient architecture. In the
sparse area, using 1:8 PON can save up to 13% and 7.13% compared to 1:4 PON and 1:16 PON,
respectively, while in the dense area, it can save up to 8% and 6.6% compared to 1:4 PON and 1:16
PON. In a sparse deployment scenario, the Capex reaches up to 93% of TCO, while in a dense sce‐
nario, up to 83.3% of the TCO. The reason is that the distances in the sparse area are larger than
those in the dense area, which explains the higher costs in order to deploy longer distances of
fiber cables. Figure 9 illustrates the optimal cost breakdowns in the dense and sparse deployment
scenarios with different PONs. It is clear that the cost of the fronthaul is the most dominant one,
due to the high investments needed for fiber deployment. Detailed cost values of Figure 9 are
clarified in Table 7.
Figure 8
Optimal cost vs. deployment scenario for sparse and dense areas.
Figure 9
Total cost breakdown for sparse and dense areas for (a) 1:4 PON dense area, (b) 1:4 PON dense area, (c) 1:8 PON
dense area, (d) 1:8 PON sparse area, (e) 1:16 PON sparse area, and (f) 1:16 PON sparse area.
Table 7
Optimal cost breakdown for sparse and dense deployment scenarios.
Deployment Area Dense Sparse
PON architecture 1:4 1:8 1:16 1:4 1:8 1:16
Fronthaul cost ×10 (USD)

5
14.15 12.88 14.12 42.39 42.21 45.60
Opex ×10 (USD)

5
3.33 3.29 3.28 3.99 3.96 3.86
Other equipment cost ×10 (USD) 5

2.59 2.37 2.25 2.59 2.37 2.25
Figure 10 exemplifies optimal fronthaul deployments provided by our ILP for the tested areas,
considering TWDM-PON with different splitting ratios 1:4, 1:8, and 1:16 as a fronthaul. The blue
dots represent RRH locations, the red squares represent splitter locations, and the purple lozenge
represents the BBU pool location. Orange dashed lines represent optical fiber connections.
Figure 10
Optimal network deployment for studied areas for (a) 1:4 PON dense area, (b) 1:8 PON dense area, (c) 1:16 PON
dense area, (d) 1:4 PON sparse area, (e) 1:18 PON sparse area, and (f) 1:16 PON sparse area.
Figure 11 shows the comparison of the performance of the proposed K-means clustering and GA
with the optimal cost provided by the ILP solution for the sparse and the dense deployment areas.
We can observe that the K-means and GA perform similarly to the ILP for the number of RRHs
equal to 34, which is the maximum number that the proposed ILP scales with. GA provides perfor‐
mance approximation 3.8% compared to the ILP, while K-means offers 4.2% approximation for
the optimal solution. Figure 12 shows the exact needed costs for deploying a square area with
size 1 km either in the sparse or the dense deployment. We provide these values as cost units to
2
help MNOs to calculate the approximation costs needed for deploying larger areas.
Figure 11
Total cost vs. deployment scenario.
Figure 12
Total cost vs. deployment scenario for deploying 1 km . 2
In Figure 13 and Figure 14, the optimality gap between the K-means clustering solutions, GA solu‐
tions, and the optimal solution obtained from the IBM ILOG CPLEX is shown. Moreover, the results
in Figure 13 are obtained for the dense deployment area with different network sizes (8, 16, 24,
and 34) considering PONs with different splitting ratios (1:4, 1:18, and 1:16), while the results in
Figure 14 are presented for the sparse deployment area. It can be observed that the K-means and
GA solutions coincide with the optimal solution for small network sizes. However, the optimality
gap grows as the network size increases. This occurs because as the network size grows, so does
the search space size, making it more difficult for the K-means and the GA to find the optimal
solution.
Figure 13
Comparison of GA and K-means solutions with the ILP solution in a dense area scenario.
Figure 14
Comparison of GA and K-means solutions with the ILP solution in a sparse area scenario.
Figure 15 and Figure 16 illustrate the TCO that is needed for the sparse and dense areas, respec‐
tively, when the number of RRHs varies from 50 to 200 considering PON with different splitting
ratios (1:4, 1:8, 1:16). All results in these figures are obtained by applying K-means and GA, where
our ILP does not scale when the number of RRHs is higher than 34. We can observe that the GA is
characterized by a better performance than the K-means for a number of RRHs less than 140,
while K-means provides better results for a higher number of RRHs compared to GA (2.25% and
4.52% better performance for 200 RRHs in the dense and sparse areas, respectively).
Figure 15
Variation in TCO for various numbers of RRHs in a dense area scenario.
Figure 16
Variation in TCO for various numbers of RRHs in a sparse area scenario.
7. Conclusions
The cost of optical fronthaul is one of the main challenges to be faced when deploying 5G and be‐
yond networks. This paper investigates planning a cost-effective optical fronthaul for 5G and be‐
yond mobile networks considering TWDM-PON with three different splitting ratios (1:4, 1:8, and
1:16). In order to achieve this, we proposed an ILP-based mathematical model that ensures the
optimal solution. The objective of the optimization problem was to minimize the TCO. To do so, our
proposed ILP model provided the optimal location of power splitters, the optimal location of the
BBU pool, the minimum number of needed equipment, and the optimal fronthaul deployment. We
used ILOG CPLEX to solve the ILP problem optimally. Despite the fact that the ILP guarantees the
optimal solution, it becomes unscalable and time-consuming when solving larger-size problems.
For that, we developed heuristic solutions, i.e., K-means clustering and GA-based. We demon‐
strated the applicability of our proposed solutions by using them to plan the optical fronthaul for
5G and beyond in two deployment areas (sparse and dense). Then, we used the proposed heuris‐
tic algorithms to solve larger-size problems with a larger number of RRHs. Moreover, our solu‐
tions can provide an acceptable cost when designing the optical fronthaul for 5G and beyond for a
given territory and a set of service requirements. Another application for our solutions is as a tool
for total cost estimation, which can assist mobile network operators in effectively planning their
networks. As a future direction, other technologies such as microwave and free space optics can
be considered as they are good alternatives for fiber optics. Additionally, other possible exten‐
sions can be focused on the adaptation of our solutions to meet the future O-RAN design by divid‐
ing the BBU into two parts (DU and CU). In this case, designing the midhaul between the CU and
DU, as well as the fronthaul between the DU and the radio unit (RU) would have to be considered.
Furthermore, jointly optimizing the radio and optical transport of 5G/6G networks is an impor‐
tant issue, where the allocation of the RU or the RRH should be included in the objective function.
The RU allocation problem can be seen as a type of set-covering problem. Finally, in order to meet
the openness in the future O-RAN architecture, further work should also address wavelength and
bandwidth assignment techniques, which could allow more than one operator to use the same
network.
Acknowledgments
This research is supported by Tempus Public Foundation, Stipendium Hungaricum Scholarship

Programme and High Speed Networks Lab, Department of Telecommunications and Media
Informatics, Budapest University of Technology and Economics.
Funding Statement
This work was supported by the CHIST-ERA grant SAMBAS (CHIST-ERA-20-SICT-003) funded by
FWO, ANR, NKFIH, and UKRI.
Author Contributions
A.F., as the principal investigator, conceived the study and was in charge of this study and has ana‐
lyzed the findings; M.J. helped in writing the manuscript draft; T.C. and J.R. were involved in plan‐
ning and supervised the study, and participated in its design and coordination and helped to draft
the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Institutional Review Board Statement
Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement
Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement
Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Footnotes
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
1. ITU-R IMT Traffic Estimates for the Years 2020 to 2030. ITU. [(accessed on 11 October 2022)]. Available online:
www.itu.int/pub/R-REP-M.2370-2015
2. Agiwal M., Roy A., Saxena N. Next generation 5G wireless networks: A comprehensive survey. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor.
2016;18:1617–1655. doi: 10.1109/COMST.2016.2532458. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
3. Jiang W., Han B., Habibi M.A., Schotten H.D. The road towards 6G: A comprehensive survey. IEEE Open J. Commun. Soc.
2021;2:334–366. doi: 10.1109/OJCOMS.2021.3057679. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
4. Khan W.U., Mahmood A., Bozorgchenani A., Jamshed M.A., Ranjha A., Lagunas E., Pervaiz H., Chatzinotas S., Ottersten B.,
Popovski P. Opportunities for Intelligent Reflecting Surfaces in 6G-Empowered V2X Communications. arXiv.
20222210.00494 [Google Scholar]
5. Hakeem S.A.A., Hussein H.H., Kim H. Vision and research directions of 6G technologies and applications. J. King Saud
Univ.-Comput. Inf. Sci. 2022;34:2419–2442. [Google Scholar]
6. Khan W.U., Javed M.A., Zeadally S., Lagunas E., Chatzinotas S. Intelligent and Secure Radio Environments for 6G Vehicular
Aided HetNets: Key Opportunities and Challenges. arXiv. 20222210.02172 [Google Scholar]
7. Alimi I.A., Teixeira A.L., Monteiro P.P. Toward an efficient C-RAN optical fronthaul for the future networks: A tutorial on
technologies, requirements, challenges, and solutions. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. 2017;20:708–769.
doi: 10.1109/COMST.2017.2773462. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
8. Katti R., Prince S. A survey on role of photonic technologies in 5G communication systems. Photonic Netw. Commun.
2019;38:185–205. doi: 10.1007/s11107-019-00856-w. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
9. Lagkas T., Klonidis D., Sarigiannidis P., Tomkos I. Optimized Joint Allocation of Radio, Optical, and MEC Resources for
the 5G and Beyond Fronthaul. IEEE Trans. Netw. Serv. Manag. 2021;18:4639–4653. doi: 10.1109/TNSM.2021.3094789.
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
10. Peng M., Li Y., Jiang J., Li J., Wang C. Heterogeneous cloud radio access networks: A new perspective for enhancing
spectral and energy efficiencies. IEEE Wirel. Commun. 2014;21:126–135. doi: 10.1109/MWC.2014.7000980. [CrossRef]
[Google Scholar]
11. Peng M., Yan S., Zhang K., Wang C. Fog-computing-based radio access networks: Issues and challenges. IEEE Netw.
2016;30:46–53. doi: 10.1109/MNET.2016.7513863. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
12. Singh S.K., Singh R., Kumbhani B. The evolution of radio access network towards open-RAN: Challenges and
opportunities; Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference Workshops (WCNCW);
Seoul, Republic of Korea. 6–9 April 2020; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
13. Transport Network Support of IMT-2020/5G—ITU Hub. ITU Hub. [(accessed on 4 October 2022)]. Available online:
www.itu.int/hub/publication/t-tut-home-2018
14. Wang X., Cavdar C., Wang L., Tornatore M., Zhao Y., Chung H.S., Lee H.H., Park S., Mukherjee B. Joint allocation of radio
and optical resources in virtualized cloud RAN with CoMP; Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE Global Communications
Conference (GLOBECOM); Washington, DC, USA. 4–8 December 2016; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
15. 3GPP TR 38.801. Study on New Radio Access Technology: Radio Access Architecture and Interfaces. StandICT.eu. Aug
19, 2019. [(accessed on 6 October 2022)]. Available online: 2020.standict.eu/standards-watch/study-new-radio-access-
technology-radio-access-architecture-and-interfaces
16. Gomes N.J., Assimakopoulos P. Optical fronthaul options for meeting 5G requirements; Proceedings of the 2018 20th
International Conference on Transparent Optical Networks (ICTON); Bucharest, Romania. 1–5 July 2018; pp. 1–4. [Google
Scholar]
17. Larsen L.M., Checko A., Christiansen H.L. A survey of the functional splits proposed for 5G mobile crosshaul networks.
IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. 2018;21:146–172. doi: 10.1109/COMST.2018.2868805. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
18. Skubic B., Fiorani M., Tombaz S., Furuskär A., Mårtensson J., Monti P. Optical transport solutions for 5G fixed wireless
access. J. Opt. Commun. Netw. 2017;9:D10–D18. doi: 10.1364/JOCN.9.000D10. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
19. Ranaweera C., Monti P., Skubic B., Wong E., Furdek M., Wosinska L., Machuca C.M., Nirmalathas A., Lim C. Optical
transport network design for 5G fixed wireless access. J. Light. Technol. 2019;37:3893–3901.
doi: 10.1109/JLT.2019.2921378. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
20. Yaacoub E., Alouini M.S. A key 6G challenge and opportunity—Connecting the base of the pyramid: A survey on rural
connectivity. Proc. IEEE. 2020;108:533–582. doi: 10.1109/JPROC.2020.2976703. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
21. Ladányi Á ., Cinkler T. Resilience–throughput–power trade-off in future 5G photonic networks. Photonic Netw. Commun.
2019;37:296–310. doi: 10.1007/s11107-019-00842-2. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
22. Fayad A., Alqhazaly Q., Cinkler T. Time and Wavelength Division Multiplexing Passive Optical Network comparative
analysis: Modulation formats and channel spacings. Int. J. Electron. Commun. Eng. 2021;15:231–237. [Google Scholar]
23. ITU-T G.989.3: 40-Gigabit-Capable Passive Optical Networks (NG-PON2): Transmission Convergence Layer
Specification. Sep 30, 2021. [(accessed on 26 November 2022)]. Available online: www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G.989.3-202105-
I/en
24. Nakayama Y., Hisano D. Wavelength and bandwidth allocation for mobile fronthaul in TWDM-PON. IEEE Trans.
Commun. 2019;67:7642–7655. doi: 10.1109/TCOMM.2019.2939319. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
25. Fayad A., Jha M., Cinkler T., Rak J. Planning a Cost-Effective Delay-Constrained Passive Optical Network for 5G
Fronthaul; Proceedings of the 2022 International Conference on Optical Network Design and Modeling (ONDM); Warsaw,
Poland. 16–19 May 2022; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
26. Mitcsenkov A., Paksy G., Cinkler T. Geography-and infrastructure-aware topology design methodology for broadband
access networks (FTTx) Photonic Netw. Commun. 2011;21:253–266. doi: 10.1007/s11107-010-0297-4. [CrossRef] [Google
Scholar]
27. Jaffer S.S., Hussain A., Qureshi M.A., Mirza J., Qureshi K.K. A low cost PON-FSO based fronthaul solution for 5G CRAN
architecture. Opt. Fiber Technol. 2021;63:102500. doi: 10.1016/j.yofte.2021.102500. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
28. Kalesnikau I., Pió ro M., Rak J., Ivanov H., Fitzgerald E., Leitgeb E. Enhancing Resilience of FSO Networks to Adverse
Weather Conditions. IEEE Access. 2021;9:123541–123565. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3107243. [CrossRef] [Google
Scholar]
29. Fayad A., Cinkler T. Cost-Effective Delay-Constrained Optical Fronthaul Design for 5G and Beyond. Infocommun. J.
2022;14:19–27. doi: 10.36244/ICJ.2022.2.2. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
30. Rony R.I., Lopez-Aguilera E., Garcia-Villegas E. Cost Analysis of 5G Fronthaul Networks Through Functional Splits at the
PHY Layer in a Capacity and Cost Limited Scenario. IEEE Access. 2021;9:8733–8750. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3049636.
31. TEAM, ETSI COMS “ETSI—ETSI Publishes Report on 5G Wireless Backhaul/X-Haul.” ETSI—ETSI Publishes. Report on
5G Wireless Backhaul/X-Haul. [(accessed on 11 November 2022)]. Available online: www.etsi.org/committee?id=1465
32. Hilt A. Microwave hop-length and availability targets for the 5G mobile backhaul; Proceedings of the 2019 42nd
International Conference on Telecommunications and Signal Processing (TSP); Budapest, Hungary. 1–3 July 2019; pp. 187–
190. [Google Scholar]
33. Musumeci F., Bellanzon C., Carapellese N., Tornatore M., Pattavina A., Gosselin S. Optimal BBU placement for 5G C-RAN
deployment over WDM aggregation networks. J. Light. Technol. 2016;34:1963–1970. doi: 10.1109/JLT.2015.2513101.
34. Chen H., Li Y., Bose S.K., Shao W., Xiang L., Ma Y., Shen G. Cost-minimized design for TWDM-PON-based 5G mobile
backhaul networks. J. Opt. Commun. Netw. 2016;8:B1–B11. doi: 10.1364/JOCN.8.0000B1. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
35. Klinkowski M. Planning of 5G C-RAN with optical fronthaul: A scalability analysis of an ILP model; Proceedings of the
2018 20th International Conference on Transparent Optical Networks (ICTON); Bucharest, Romania. 1–5 July 2018; pp. 1–4.
[Google Scholar]
36. Ranaweera C., Nirmalathas A., Wong E., Lim C., Monti P., Furdek M., Wosinska L., Skubic B., Machuca C.M. Rethinking of
Optical Transport Network Design for 5G/6G Mobile Communication. [(accessed on 11 November 2022)];IEEE Future
Netw. 2021 12 Available online: https://futurenetworks.ieee.org/tech-focus/april-2021/rethinking-ofoptical-transport-
network-design-for-5g-6g-mobile-communication [Google Scholar]
37. Masoudi M., Lisi S.S., Cavdar C. Cost-effective migration toward virtualized C-RAN with scalable fronthaul design. IEEE
Syst. J. 2020;14:5100–5110. doi: 10.1109/JSYST.2020.2982428. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
38. Marotta A., Correia L.M. Cost-effective joint optimisation of BBU placement and fronthaul deployment in brown-field
scenarios. EURASIP J. Wirel. Commun. Netw. 2020;2020:1–26. doi: 10.1186/s13638-020-01844-9. [CrossRef] [Google
Scholar]
39. Ranaweera C., Lim C., Nirmalathas A., Jayasundara C., Wong E. Cost-optimal placement and backhauling of small-cell
networks. J. Light. Technol. 2015;33:3850–3857. doi: 10.1109/JLT.2015.2443066. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
40. Ranaweera C., Resende M.G., Reichmann K., Iannone P., Henry P., Kim B.J., Magill P., Oikonomou K.N., Sinha R.K.,
Woodward S. Design and optimization of fiber optic small-cell backhaul based on an existing fiber-to-the-node residential
access network. IEEE Commun. Mag. 2013;51:62–69. doi: 10.1109/MCOM.2013.6588652. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
41. Kolydakis N., Tomkos I. A techno-economic evaluation of different strategies for front-/back-hauling of mobile traffic:
Wireless versus fiber based solutions; Proceedings of the 2014 16th International Conference on Transparent Optical
Networks (ICTON); Graz, Austria. 6–10 July 2014; pp. 1–4. [Google Scholar]
42. Jarray A., Jaumard B., Houle A.C. Reducing the CAPEX and OPEX costs of optical backbone networks; Proceedings of the
2010 IEEE International Conference on Communications; Cape Town, South Africa. 23–27 May 2010; pp. 1–5. [Google
Scholar]
43. Yeganeh H., Vaezpour E. Fronthaul network design for radio access network virtualization from a CAPEX/OPEX
perspective. Ann. Telecommun. 2016;71:665–676. doi: 10.1007/s12243-016-0538-3. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
44. Tonini F., Raffaelli C., Wosinska L., Monti P. Cost-optimal deployment of a C-RAN with hybrid fiber/FSO fronthaul. J. Opt.
Commun. Netw. 2019;11:397–408. doi: 10.1364/JOCN.11.000397. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
45. Arévalo G.V., Tipán M., Gaudino R. Techno-economics for optimal deployment of optical fronthauling for 5G in large
urban areas; Proceedings of the 2018 20th International Conference on Transparent Optical Networks (ICTON); Bucharest,
Romania. 1–5 July 2018; pp. 1–4. [Google Scholar]
46. Carapellese N., Tornatore M., Pattavina A., Gosselin S. BBU placement over a WDM aggregation network considering
OTN and overlay fronthaul transport; Proceedings of the 2015 European Conference on Optical Communication (ECOC);
Valencia, Spain. 27 September–1 October 2015; pp. 1–3. [Google Scholar]
47. Corneil D.G., Perl Y. Clustering and domination in perfect graphs. Discret. Appl. Math. 1984;9:27–39. doi: 10.1016/0166-
218X(84)90088-X. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
48. Qi J., Yu Y., Wang L., Liu J. K-means: An effective and efficient K-means clustering algorithm; Proceedings of the 2016
IEEE International Conferences on Big Data and Cloud Computing (BDCloud), Social Computing and Networking
(SocialCom), Sustainable Computing and Communications (SustainCom) (BDCloud-SocialCom-SustainCom); Atlanta, GA,
USA. 8–10 October 2016; pp. 242–249. [Google Scholar]
49. Mirjalili S. Evolutionary Algorithms and Neural Networks. Springer; Cham, Switzerland: 2019. Genetic algorithm; pp. 43–
55. [Google Scholar]
50. IBM Documentation. [(accessed on 11 November 2022)]. Available online: www.ibm.com/docs/en/icos/12.10.0
51. De Andrade M., Buttaboni A., Tornatore M., Boffi P., Martelli P., Pattavina A. Optimization of long-reach TDM/WDM
passive optical networks. Opt. Switch. Netw. 2015;16:36–45. doi: 10.1016/j.osn.2014.11.001. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Design of Cost-Efficient Optical Fronthaul For 5G - 6G Networks - An Optimization Perspective - PMC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Design of Cost-Efficient Optical Fronthaul For 5G - 6G Networks - An Optimization Perspective - PMC

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Design of Cost-Efficient Optical Fronthaul For 5G - 6G Networks - An Optimization Perspective - PMC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2/26/23, 12:24 PM Design of Cost-Efficient Optical Fronthaul for 5G/6G Networks: An Optimization Perspective - PMC

Sensors (Basel). 2022 Dec; 22(23): 9394. PMCID: PMC9740885

Design of Cost-Efficient Optical Fronthaul for 5G/6G Networks: An Optimization

Requirements for 5G and 6G mobile technologies.

Comparison of 5G and 6G specifications.

Year 2020 2030

Peak data rate (per

Maximum frequency 300 GHz 10 THz

Downlink data rate 20 Gbps 1 Tbps

Uplink data rate 10 Gbps 1 Tbps

Jitter not specified 1 μs

Mobility 500 km/h 1000 km/h

Maximum bandwidth 1 GHz 100 GHz

Area traffic capacity 10 Mb/s/m 2

However, a traditional architecture for any telecommunication system consists of a number of

2. xRAN Architecture Developments and Fronthaul Enabling Technologies

2.1. CRAN Architecture and Functional Splits

1. Cost and footprint efficiency as it requires less hardware.

Cloud radio access network architecture.

RAN functional split options.

Fronthaul capacity requirements of various split options based on [18].

Average Required Capacity (Gbps)

Split option 1 2 3 4 5 6 7.3 7.2 7.1 8

Downlink 1 1 1 1 1 1.2 2 6 323 885

Uplink 1 1 1 1 1 1.2 3.2 2 323 885

2.2. Technologies Enabling 5G and beyond Fronthaul

Potential fronthaul technologies.

Fronthaul Technology Throughput Latency Cost Distance Topology

P2P Fiber 1000 Gbps Very low High 100 km P2P

PON 40 Gbps Very low Low 40 km P2mP

xDSL 100 Mbps Very High Very low 500 m P2P

FSO 10 Gbps Very Low Low 5 km P2P, P2mP

Microwave 1 Gbps Moderate Moderate 10 km P2P, P2mP

mmWaves 10 Gbps Moderate High 1 km P2P, P2mP

Our optimization problem addresses the following questions:

T CO = Capex + Nr ⋅ Opex (1)

5. ILP Formulation and Heuristic Solutions

Output: minimized TCO.

5.1. Network Data Sets and Input Parameters

Network data sets and parameters.

P A set of candidate locations for splitters

N A set of RRH locations

κb Number of locations available for BBU pool placement

κn Number of RRHs, where κ =|N| N

ϕ The maximum number of BBU pools

ω The maximum number of RRHs that can be served by one BBU

Dbp The distance between the b th

Dpn The distance between the p th

D1max The maximum allowed distance for the distributed fiber

Dmax The maximum allowed distance for the feeder fiber

ζ Number of splits for the power splitter (splitting ratio)

Co The cost of the OLT

Cp The power splitter cost

Cl The BBU cost

Cn The RRH cost

Cb The BBU pool cost

Ca The cost of AWG

CO&M Operations and maintenance cost

CSr Site rental cost