Scribd
Upload
82 views4 pages

E5 Vs X2 Coordination

1) Coordination opportunities in wireless networks can occur with latencies ranging from less than 30 microseconds to 30 milliseconds. Examples include carrier aggregation, CoMP, and combined cell coordination. 2) Tight X2 coordination between base stations allows for latencies of less than 3.5 milliseconds, enabling features like inter-eNB carrier aggregation and uplink CoMP. Elastic RAN coordination supports even lower latencies of less than 5 milliseconds. 3) Elastic RAN coordination provides benefits over traditional inter-eNB coordination by enabling gains from initial transmissions in uplink CoMP rather than just retransmissions, improving coverage and throughput in a variety of RF conditions.

Uploaded by

Bayu Try Mahardika
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
82 views4 pages

E5 Vs X2 Coordination

1) Coordination opportunities in wireless networks can occur with latencies ranging from less than 30 microseconds to 30 milliseconds. Examples include carrier aggregation, CoMP, and combined cell coordination. 2) Tight X2 coordination between base stations allows for latencies of less than 3.5 milliseconds, enabling features like inter-eNB carrier aggregation and uplink CoMP. Elastic RAN coordination supports even lower latencies of less than 5 milliseconds. 3) Elastic RAN coordination provides benefits over traditional inter-eNB coordination by enabling gains from initial transmissions in uplink CoMP rather than just retransmissions, improving coverage and throughput in a variety of RF conditions.

Uploaded by

Bayu Try Mahardika
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

Coordination opportunities

Latency Feature examples


(one-way)
Carrier aggregation
Intra- DL and UL CoMP
baseband Combined Cell

≤ 30 us DL Carrier Aggregation
Elastic RAN UL CoMP

≤ 5 ms Inter-eNB Carrier aggregation


Tight X2
coordination ≤ 3.5 ms Inter-eNB Uplink CoMP

RRC re-establishment
Reduced HO oscillation
X2 coordination ≤ 30 ms
ANR
Load balancing

Confidential | © Ericsson AB 2017 | 2017-09-27 | Page 1


1) M
=> Im aximum
1) Maximum Throughput pr ov
eme
Thro
n t s i ug hpu t
Inter-eNB CA (X2) Performance i n L1 n tr od
7.Q1 uce d
› X2 latency impact HARQ throughput
– On the EScell, single user peak throughput will
be reduced as a function of X2 latency
– No impact of cell capacity as other users can fill
up the channel

Throughput improvement
introduced in L17.Q2

Confidential | © Ericsson AB 2017 | 2017-09-27 | Page 2


UL CoMP – latency sensitivity
UL Joint Reception Gains High Load
› UL CoMP via X2
– No impact of delay below 5ms, gain expected to • Single DU
disappear after 5ms eNodeB to eNodeB delay
• Or Elastic RAN
for Distributed RAN
– Gain captured for retransmission
– Benefits VoLTE coverage and MBB apps
coverage in bad RF
3.5ms delay

› Elastic RAN • Inter eNB UL


– Gain capture already for initial transmission CoMP

– Benefits in medium and bad RF


Note: Simulation assumptions different for Macro only
scenario. High gains also expected for small cells and
observed with static simulations.

Confidential | © Ericsson AB 2017 | 2017-09-27 | Page 3


Inter enb vs eran comparison
Feature Inter eNodeB Elastic RAN Applicable
for NR
Carrier aggregation Up to 90% efficiency 100% efficiency Yes
UL CoMP Retransmission (gain on cell Initial transmission Yes
edge) (gain in whole cell)
DL CoMP No plans Candidate 2019- Yes
4G-5G spectrum No plans Candidate 2019- Yes
sharing
Coordinated beam No plans Candidate 2019- Yes
forming
Distributed MIMO No plans Candidate 2019- Yes

Confidential | © Ericsson AB 2017 | 2017-09-27 | Page 4

You might also like