Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
=
=
j
ji i
i ji
j i
ji
QoSi
Vol Vol
Vol Pipe
Vol
Vol
PipePacket
with
(2)
Simulations of various packet services with the same QoS
have been performed to validate this formula. Different data
rate combinations, with a high spectrum of traffic volume
have been considered for all QoS values. Then, the
simulated pipe is compared to the proposed multi-service
model.
Figure 4 depicts an instance of this comparison. Different
combinations of UDD 64, UDD 144 and UDD 384 services,
with traffic values of 24, 48, 72 and 96 Mbits are analyzed.
0
50
100
150
200
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
P
i
p
e
(
k
b
p
s
)
Theoritical
Simulated
We observe in this graph that the bandwidth values obtained
with the last formula are very close to the simulated ones.
The found error for all the tests does not exceed 3%.
Therefore, the weighed sum theoretical model explained
above for the multi-service mono-QoS bandwidth
calculation gives results close enough to the simulated ones
to validate this formula.
With the unchanged concern of minimizing the storage of
results for dimensioning, a similar model has been
established to address the multi-QoS case. A possible option
could be the simple addition of pipes for the different QoS
to compute the global pipe for the multi-QoS case. This
approach leads to an over dimensioning because the margin
originally applied to guarantee a given QoS is rarely used.
The basic idea is that this margin can be reused to absorb
part of lower priority traffic (with higher tolerated delay).
The treatment of packet services with different QoS
requirements then lies in the reuse of the spare capacity of a
more restrictive QoS by the next less demanding one.
We introduce the concept of Pipe Occupancy to calculate
the Spare Capacity for a given QoS value. The Pipe
Occupancy per service and per QoS is defined as the
average percentage of the Pipe used each time and it is
calculated as the ratio between the average data rate and the
Pipe size.
3600 * ) (
) (
kbps PipePacket
kbits Vol
ncy PipeOccupa
ji
ji
ji
=
(3)
To calculate the Pipe Occupancy per QoS a weighed sum is
applied as described next.
( ) i ji
j
i
ji
QoSi Vol ncy PipeOccupa
Vol
Vol
ncy PipeOccupa =
(4)
Then the spare capacity is computed as follows
( ) QoSi QoSi QoSi ncy PipeOccupa PipePacket ity SpareCapac = 1 * (5)
Supposing the mix of two QoS values , where QoS
1
is more
restrictive than QoS
2
, the next figure displays the principle
of the spare capacity reuse:
Resorting to simulations modified to process several
services and several QoS, we have observed that reusing the
total spare capacity implies under-dimensioning. Then, a
correction factor indicating the fraction of the spare capacity
to be reused is introduced. This factor is calculated for a
given pair of QoS values: it depends on both QoS involved
and ranges from 60% to 90%.
VI. COMPREHENSIVE SIMULATION TOOL
The simulation approach described in section III does not
take into account specific packet transmission mechanisms
Fig. 4: Validation of the theoretical method for the
computation of the multi-service mono-QoS
Pipe QoS
1
x
Pipe Occupancy QoS
2
Fig. 5 : Spare Capacity reuse concept
Packet Pipe
Packet Pipe QoS
1
Packet Pipe QoS
2
Spare Capacity
QoS
1
like segmentation and scheduling, such as specified in RLC
and MAC layers of UTRA-FDD radio interface protocol.
Orange Support & Consultings simulation tool follows the
approach described earlier but including packet
segmentation and scheduling and allowing the coexistence
of circuit and packet-switched services. The next figure
presents the segmentation and scheduling mechanisms
applied:
This tool allows to perform an accurate dimensioning of
radio and transport (ATM) resources, because it models
each layer of the network from the application layer to the
physical layer: traffic demand and modeling application
layer;transport block scheduling and QoS management
MAC layer with physical layer; ATM shaping ATM
layer. Scheduling can be done either according to the
bandwidth or to the BTS power. In addition, the tool
presents advanced features, such as Channel Element
number calculation.
Figure 7 presents the packet services processing: traffic flow
is generated following the ETSI model, it is segmented into
payloads and queued in the RLC buffer, next the transport
blocks are built and the packet scheduling is performed;
finally the occupied radio bandwidth is shown.
In the case of our study, the described simulation tool has
been used to validate results of the pipe model. Figure 8
shows the comparison between curves presented in section
IV and detailed simulation results for a packet service at 64
kbps and 0.5s of QoS.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
10 25 50 100 150 200 250
Volume (Mbits)
P
i
p
e
(
k
b
p
s
)
Pipe model 0,5s
Simulation tool 0,5s
As revealed in the previous graph a good agreement has
been found between detailed simulation tool bandwidth
results and those previously obtained with the simplified
pipe model.
This tool is also useful to calibrate some key parameters, as
described in the next section.
VII. MIX OF CIRCUIT AND PACKET SERVICES
We have presented a method to compute the needed
bandwidth for packet services alone with different data rates
and QoS requirements. The required bandwidth for circuit
services can be calculated using the Erlang laws [2]. Now,
we can envisage the calculation of the total bandwidth
required to handle both circuit and packet services.
As considered for packet services, we can contemplate the
reuse of the spare capacity from the circuit services to carry
packet services traffic. However, as this spare capacity is
needed to guarantee the blocking rate for circuit services,
and in order to avoid under-dimensioning, we must set an
appropriate correction factor. This correction factor (CctF)
imposes the allocation of only a fraction of the spare
capacity to packet services and takes into account the
fluctuations of circuit traffic.
ircuit SpareCapaC CctF PipePacket t PipeCircui Pipe * + = (6)
To calibrate this factor, the simulation tool described in
section VI has been used and we have obtained that the
recommended value is to reuse 80% of the circuit spare
capacity.
For example, let us consider a mix of two services: 3
Erlangs of speech and 200 Mbits of packet service at 64
kbps. Tolerated QoS is 2% of blocking for speech and 0.5 s
of delay for packet service. Table 1 summarizes pipes
results using the methodology proposed in this article. Table
2 recapitulates results from the simulation tool.
We can see that the single service results obtained by
simulation are very close to the theoretical ones (Erlang B
Fig. 7 : Packet services processing in the simulation tool
Application
RLC
MAC
Traffic flow generation
(traffic modeling)
Scheduling of transport blocks
(with radio QoS management
and bandwidth use policy)
Traffic data segmentation into
Payload Units (associated to the
radio bearers) and queuing
Fig. 6: Segmentation and scheduling mechanisms
Fig. 8: Pipe model and simulation results comparison
law for speech and Pipe tables stemming from simulation
for packet service). Same conclusions can be drawn for the
multi-service case: the value of 80% of reuse of the circuit
services spare capacity by packet traffic is also validated
thanks to the simulation tool.
Table 1: Bandwidth calculation example
Circuit Packet Circuit+Pack
et
Pipe (kbps) 97.6 212.85 261.65
Calculation means Erlang B Eq. (1) Eq. (6)
Spare Capacity(kbps) 61 28.08 Not required
Table 2: Bandwidth simulation results
Only Circuit Only Packet Circuit+Packet
Pipe(kbps) 98.2 216.125 252.65
QoS 1.89% 0.341 s 0%; 0.451 s
VII. IMPACT OF PACKET DEMAND MODELING ON
DIMENSIONING RESULTS
The previous dimensioning rules for packet services,
specifically the pipe model, have been implemented in
Orange Support & Consultings dimensioning tool, ndt.
For circuit services, multi-service Erlang laws are used as
described in [2].
UMTS radio dimensioning is performed in 2 steps in ndt
(see Fig. 9):
1
st
Dimensioning by coverage, to evaluate the minimum
number of sites required providing coverage over the
considered area.
2
nd
Carrier upgrade and traffic dimensioning which aims
at adjusting network resources to absorb traffic demand.
Let us consider the subscriber profiles (downlink traffic) in
Table 3.
Profile 1 represents subscribers with high circuit switched
traffic and low packet switched traffic. Profile 2 is related
with high traffic subscribers for all services. Considering
1000 subscribers, the resulting bandwidths for both profiles
are presented in next Table 4.
As the circuit traffic is similar for both profiles, the required
circuit pipe remains invariable. On the other hand, as the
packet traffic is much higher in profile 2, the required packet
pipe is considerably more elevated than in profile 1.
Table 3: Subscriber profiles
Profile 1 Profile 2
Speech (mErlang) 8.33 8.33
LCD 64 (Mbits) 0.03 0.03
LCD 144 (Mbits) 0.062 0.062
UDD 64 (Mbits) 0.00124 0.0624
UDD 144 (Mbits) 0.00305 0.0905
UDD 384 (Mbits) 0.011 0.91
Table 4: Bandwidth results example
Required Pipe (kbps) Profile 1 Profile 2
Circuit Pipe 378.2 378.2
Packet Pipe 47.49 669.23
Total Pipe 378.2 806.002
Regarding the total pipe, we observe that in profile 1 the
reuse of the circuit spare capacity is enough to carry packet
traffic. That is why the total pipe equals the circuit pipe. In
this configuration, no additional bandwidth is required to
support packet data traffic.
But for profile 2, circuit spare capacity is not large enough
to contain the packet pipe and additional pipe with respect to
circuit bandwidth is required to carry packet traffic.
However, a portion of the circuit spare capacity is reused
the total pipe is lower than the sum of circuit and packet
pipes.
VIII. CONCLUSIONS
A novel method has been presented to evaluate the
bandwidth needed to handle the packet traffic respecting the
different QoS constraints. Dimensioning tables, equivalent
to Erlang laws for circuit services, have been built as a result
of traffic generation and processing simulations for each
data rate-QoS pair.
A method to derive the needed bandwidth for different
services with the same QoS is proposed, and the way to mix
the required bandwidth for different QoS is also presented.
To finalise the dimensioning process, the mix of circuit and
packet services is addressed. The obtained results have been
validated using a sophisticated simulation tool, employing
UTRAN scheduling and segmentation mechanisms.
This simple and efficient dimensioning model has been
implemented in Orange Support & Consultings
dimensioning tool ndt
TM
, and it offers an essential
instrument to predict the impact of packet data traffic onto
the roll-out of 2.5G and 3G networks.
VIII. REFERENCES
[1] "UMTS 30.03 version 3.2.0", ETSI
[2] D. Adiego, C. Cordier "Multi-service Radio
Dimensioning for UMTS Circuit-Switched Services",
IEEE VTC Fall 2001.
Traffic vo l ume
Surface (km)
QoS Yes
Number of
carriers
Coverage
dimensio n ing
Cell
size
Traffic
vo l ume
per cell
Figure 9 : Dime n sioning flow chart
No
END
B
N
needed BW
Bo>B
N
B
O
offered BW
M ulti-service
Traffic demand
modeling